Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 July 26 July >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge/Redirect to Continuing medical education (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional education[edit]

Promotional education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Reasoning was that while there are some sources that use this term, there doesn't seem to be anything written about this term. Article is therefore original research on a non-notable neologism, and does not cite any reliable sources. Article's creator apparently thought peppering the article with {{fact}} tags would make up for the lack of sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE - Beeblebrox. I see you have recommended the entire article for deletion on the basis that it is a non-notable neologism. Having reviewed the criteria for notability and neologisms, I see that this article more fully falls under the auspices of the article on continuing medical education and does not merit its own article. With your consensus, I will move the content for promotional education, defined as "non-CME" education activity, to the CME page. I would like to add additional insight to the CME page about non-accredited medical education and cover additional information regarding the public debate over industry sponsorship of educational activities[1]. Let me know if this is an amenable solution. I apologize if I have created a controversial thread as I have not been trying to create debate or contention. Thanks, Pnautilus (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

|}

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. I note that mentions in notable media are not the same as making a subject notable; sometimes, as in this case, they merely confirm the existence of the subject.  Frank  |  talk  04:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sixteen Cities[edit]

Sixteen Cities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. It comes very close on multiple points, but that just isn't good enough.

The band has released multiple albums, but these don't help with the clause on albums, number five, which requires multiple albums on a major or important independent label. Of the three albums two have been self-released and one is on an unimportant indie label.

The band has also been on several radio stations, which might seem to fulfill clause 11, "Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network.". The band hasn't been placed on rotation however - simply played. The radio stations in question hardly qualify as "major".

The band has played on notable tours, but doesn't seem to have gained major coverage from this (when major is defined, per WP:N, as multiple detailed sources). They have mentions, yes, but that is exactly what you'd expect and not good enough.

The band appears to fulfill the most important bit of WP:MUSIC ("Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable") at first glance, but look again. Although the article is referenced multiple times they're all references to blogs, other non-notable sites such as minor internet radio stations, the record label and self-submitting sources such as garageband and youtube. In conclusion: fails WP:MUSIC, smack with hammer. Ironholds (talk) 23:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Bravo for a well-researched and clearly expressed nom (though I don't see how the hammer reference is helpful). Anyway -- the first radio station listed appears to be Internet-only, and it's hard to imagine it reaches a lot of people (it looks like it's maintained by only a couple people as a hobby or very small business venture, hence it's likely there isn't much marketing going on there). The 105.9 station lists 3 references, none of which appear to meet WP:RS -- and more importantly, none of which appear to even mention the 105.9 station! Also, that station does not have a Wikipedia article, it's hard to assess whether it's a major one (but Spokane is not a big city, so it can't reach a ton of people.) There is not a single reference in the story that clearly meets WP:RS. Seems a clear delete. -Pete (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "smack with hammer" is just a jokey reference to describing the admin tools as the "banhammer" (I know it's a deletion, but wth). Thanks for the nompliment :P. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with Peteforsyth: great research in the nom. However, my view is that the extent of the information you've dug up is an indicator of the band's notability. Most importantly, much of this information comes from third-party sources, many of which are notable. While obviously not a platinum act, their inclusion in notable tours and mentions from non-internet radio play on several stations are verified by several notable sources. To me, their "mentions" in multiple articles on the tours and the radio play are sufficient--being placed on "rotation" is ill-defined and biased towards top40 commercial radio as many stations do not really maintain such rotations. Zachlipton (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many stations don't, no, but it requires rotation on radio networks, not just individual non-internet stations. The plays may simply be that - single plays, once on each station. I can't see any information "from third-party sources, many of which are notable" - references are divided between non-notable third-party sources (fails WP:RS), first-party sources (fails WP:RS) and user-submitted info like Garageband (fails WP:RS). Even if there are references that are third-party and reliable which attest to them being played on a radio station/whatever, the references are not going to cover them in detail. "We're here on X festival tour, and Sixteen Cities are playing, and oh look over there another band!" is third-party, covers the subject matter and is reliable, but it doesn't cover the subject matter in the detail needed to be considered under WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking Google News archives, and searching in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, I was unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - kudos to the nominator for the work put in before making the nomination. There just isnt enough here to establish notability. That may very well change in the future, and an article at that point would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Byrne[edit]

Sam Byrne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable teen actor. Only one role. Created by a known hoaxer, although this is apparently not a hoax, though the original edit with several totally unsourced and unsourceable credits was a bit of a hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @162  ·  02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosli Mansor[edit]

Rosli Mansor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I deprodded as it had previously been prodded and deprodded, but I can't find more than one passing mention to this guitarist in a reliable source. Bearing in mind that the Singapore media might have some hard to find coverage, perhaps someone will find sources I didn't - but I doubt it. Fences&Windows 22:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no evidence of notability. Yworo (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nominator withdrew. MS (Talk|Contributions) 19:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakira's third English studio album[edit]

Shakira's third English studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. The title and complete track listing haven't even been confirmed; a violation of WP:NALBUM. Speedy Keep - see below. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 21:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.114.217 (talk) 02:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @162  ·  02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joevannie Peart[edit]

Joevannie Peart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no real claim to notability. football player who has not played for his country or at professional level, fails WP:ATHLETE no significant independant coverage, only club bio pages and the like. ClubOranjeT 20:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalism Magazine[edit]

Capitalism Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've converted the prod for this into AfD, mainly on the grounds that the article has been on Wikipedia for so long - since April 2003 - and has been edited by so many editors that deletion can't be totally uncontroversial. I have looked for reliable sources myself, and while it has been cited in news media and discussed in passing once or twice, nothing has been written about it in depth - at least, nothing I can find.

Prod reasoning was "Does not appear to meet notability standards, and does not appear to meaningfully assert notability. They run syndicated pieces from a few notable authors--that's nowhere near the same as having Thomas Sowell as a direct contributor" and "No indication that subject meets the notability criteria for web content." Fences&Windows 20:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I prodded it, and I stand by the reasoning in my PROD, which F&W has been kind enough to repost. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm the one who seconded the prod. The site does not meet any of the notability criteria for web content. It has not been the subject of other works, it has not won any awards, and it is not distributed by an independent source. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - The website doesn't seem to meet the web notability criteria. Having said that, it has been quoted by numerous notable news organisations (like FOX) and the contributors seem to be notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I got about 70 gnews hits. About 60 of them were for the actual magazine. Mainly references to articles in it by other news publications or to writers for the magazine. Has several notable writers, including Walter E. Williams, Thomas Sowell, Edwin A. Locke, Edward Cline, Michael J. Hurd and others. Certainly no fly-by-night start up. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sowell and Williams have syndicated columns that are published there--that's not nearly the same thing as writing FOR them. Furthermore, notability is not inherited. TallNapoleon (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's not inherited, nor did I make that assertion. I said they have a number of notable writers, indicating that they are legitimate. And syndicated or not, I found several news mentions of Williams and Sowell being referenced as saying "XYX in Capitalism magazine". Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an informative well-written article on a web-magazine with numerous citations by notable media sources. Indeed, the fact that so many editors have had cause to edit this article over the years does speak to notability to the extent that the subject doesn't veer into fandom, which this topic certainly does not. Zachlipton (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not a notable site. I don't see anything notable about it. Kingturtle (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't know what value an article has. What more would a user want to know about them that isn't explicit on the website itself? --Karbinski (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Karbinski here. -RLCampbell (talk) 01:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie Benz[edit]

Melanie Benz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An Unreferenced BLP and even if it were to be referenced I doubt that this person would meet the notability guidelines. Polly (Parrot) 19:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted as a hoax. ➲ REDVERS Buy war bonds 07:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne (novel)[edit]

Joanne (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book lacking GNEWS and GHits of substance. ttonyb1 (talk) 19:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 23:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A likely hoax. The author was deleted in February as a hoax in the Simple English WP: [1]. So was a movie supposedly starring her on this WP: [2]. Amazon doesn't show the book or anything from the author. Claims that is will be turned into a movie are dubious considering that nobody can even prove the book is selling. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — this person has been trying to propagate hoax article relating to Alis Peña Payan for a while now. ... discospinster talk 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator; article rewrite renders deletion rationale invalid (non-admin closure). I42 (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of the Southern Cross[edit]

Flag of the Southern Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Quoting WP:FICTION: "The single most important rule about coverage of fiction on Wikipedia is that fiction is covered as a cultural artifact in the real world. We are primarily interested not in things that happened to imaginary people, but rather in the social impact that given works of fiction have - whether that impact be direct, cultural, or artistic. All aspects of an article on fiction must work to establish real-world importance, or to provide appropriate context for understanding real-world importance. Those that do not should be removed." This article clearly fails because it is only the poem. I42 (talk) 19:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment started a rewrite. For the information of others, the article looked like this when it was nominated. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @162  ·  02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica characters[edit]

List of Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unreferenced list of non notable anime characters Magioladitis (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I dont see any real reason why to delete this, information other than cast actors for characters are hard to find and Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica looks like a notable visual novel. Have references been looked for here and has there been a discussion on deleting this article other than here? Knowledgekid87 19:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you confirm that this information is accurate? -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like a fairly typical spinout list for a fairly large multimedia franchise. For verification, the external links on the main article can verify much of the basic information, such as cast/credits. Deletion is not the way to go -- arguments over whether to merge back into Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica can be made, but frankly that'd make it a bit bloated. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate list-- the default way to handle these articles. But as no argument given why a merge at the least would not be ok, not a reasonable nomination in the first place If we don't accept compromise on articles such as this, we're not being realistic. DGG (talk) 03:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well that's the standard treat for spread franchise. Two anime seasons + 2 videos games + 4-5 lights novels series within a shared universe, it is bound to a have non marginal numbers of characters with intricate relationships. So the list is the proper way to handle it. --KrebMarkt 08:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So can you people prove that these characters exist and the information is accurate? Can you give me a source, not the novel series nor the video games themselves, so I can check myself that most of the information is not a hoax or fan-made? I have a feeling that when the article says that Corticarte Apa Lagranges "has a selfish character and dislikes it when Phoron is being kind to other girls." is WP:OR. And later I can see "Her sole purpose for coming to the Tsuge Divine Music Player Office seems to be meeting with Phoron." Seems? Isn't written somewhere? Check for sentences with "seems". They are plenty there. This article is not based in any trusted third party sources. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I cant read japanese http://www.polyphonica.tv/character/index.html, http://www.tbs.co.jp/anime/polyphonica/03chara/chara.html here are two orginal sources. I think this article needs some fixing up and not a delete. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 9:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Article clearly needs improvement, but that is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This Afd is on whatever it is relevant for Wikipedia to have a separate characters list for the Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica not on the list content quality and verifiability which i agree are not good. --KrebMarkt 15:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Shinkyoku Sōkai Polyphonica is a notable series with both video game, manga, novel, and two seperate anime adaptations. The list has a clearly defined selection criteria and passes the other requirements at WP:STAND, which is the only thing we have resembling an inclusion guideline for lists. The list forces on the main characters for the series and avoids trivial information, such as incidental characters. Merging this back into the main article will result in an unbalanced article, so having a WP:SPINOUT article is warranted. --Farix (Talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see nothing wrong with the character list article. There are no convincing reasons to delete it. Dream Focus 02:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @162  ·  02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridget Show(TV series)[edit]

The Bridget Show(TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The only refs I could find for this supposed tv show were blogs and "gossip" pages, and the most recent of those suggests it's not even going to be shown: [3]. Unverified and non-notable; delete. I42 (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence that this show is actually going to be aired on television. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sadly, a Lauren Graham pilot from this spring that wasn't picked up by ABC for the new TV season. Not many sources and not on the level of a Heat Vision and Jack. Nate • (chatter) 22:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 23:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Nate. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another editor inserted a sentence into the middle of Nate's recommendation. This has been removed. If the editor wants that comment restored, they need to post it as a separate comment/recommendation and sign their own name, not put it in the middle of someone else's statements. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The keep "votes" far outnumber the deletes, but are often laden with weak arguments. On the other hand, the nominator and subsequent participants pushing for deletion mainly cite notability issues, which is a valid concern, but overall I see no strong consensus either way. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Paper Mario series characters[edit]

List of Paper Mario series characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List-cruft, describes a whole bunch of *minor* characters. The game's protagonists each have their own articles, and all other pertinent characters could be discussed in the plot summaries of each article. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree with delete. If they were recurring minor characters throughout the series, then yes, but these are safe to contain in their respective articles. --MASEM (t) 01:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep appropriate list-- the default way to handle these articles. These are minor characters, and clearer presented here than in the plot summary. If we don't accept compromise on articles such as this, we're not being realistic. DGG (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if you are saying there is a default way to many list characters from a game or a default way to combine mostly one-off characters from various games in a series into one list. Either way, can you please link to the guideline to explain your position? —Ost (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Jclemens (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, in the past information from this page was merged elsewhere and this was turned into a redirect. Then the relevant information was removed from other pages, thus giving this page a purpose once again. Still, either way, whatever happens do not redirect., I know that this has alot of page history and that there are complex copyright issues, but there is nowhere suitable to redirect to. If the result is to delete, but the page cannot be deleted, please move it to project space rather than turning it back into a redirect. --Taelus (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking keep, as it is not really clear on my stance. My point is, whether the result is keep or delete, please do not turn this back into a redirect. There is no list on the wiki. So why trick users into thinking there is one by having them redirected when they type into the search box? If copyright issues are a problem to stop deletion, why not just move this into project space? WP:IAR, even if moving an article to project space is rare, in this case it could be a good solution. I mean, without a disclaimer on the redirect target, (which I suspect many would disapprove of), users could end up following links for quite some time trying to work out where this list is buried, before realising there is no list. If redirecting is the favoured path, perhaps we could at least make this page disambiguate between games of the series to allow users to navigate to find details on the characters they are looking for? --Taelus (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • NoteI would encourage someone with GFDL experience to read the previous deletion discussions (AfD1,RfD1, RfD2) and determine if there is indeed an attribution issue at hand. —Ost (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 08:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Mario role-playing games#Paper Mario series. There is no need for a list where less than ten characters actually appear in more than one title. If anyone feels like digging it up, I initially took the six recurring characters from the list, and merged them to the original Paper Mario series article before it was merged. It could probably be placed in that article. TTN (talk) 13:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 15:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. I have to wonder why so much energy is concentrated on cleaning up material relating to characters who don't exist and so little (relatively speaking) to much more damaging BLP content. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the material here could easily be covered in their respective articles (all three game articles are well-under 30KB in size). I am also aware of the copyright issues present (and brought up at the two recent RFDs). I'll have to research this better before I make a decision about anything, but I should at least point that out. MuZemike 23:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - From the Wikipedia guideline at WP:GAMECRUFT

Excessive fictional details: A concise plot summary is appropriate to cover a notable game, character, or setting. Information beyond that is unnecessary and should be removed, as articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic, such as creation and reception.

This article is a detailed plot summary of non-notable characters. There is still no legitimate reason presented about why the article does not violate this guideline.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ITSCRUFT never being a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I am not just pointing at the guideline as the sole reason for deletion. The truth is that the content is not notable either, nor are there any reliable sources or any real world information to justify its inclusion. All the characters are already described in the parent games' articles. DGG said himself that the article contained "minor characters", and the guidelines state that minor characters shouldn't merit an article without notablility. I don't see how it's based solely on my opinion that "it's cruft".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" is a subjective term, perhaps not as nonsensical as the made-up "cruft," but again, not a really valid reason for deletion. If the content is verifiable and appears in a familiar game series, then that is good enough for our purposes. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cruft" is a valid term on Wikipedia and is not something I just made up one day. Also, with no real world information the entire article is still plot summary, which is not enough for form an encyclopedia article from.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Cruft" is not a word any serious academic would ever use. Its use is the kind of thing that makes us look like a joke rather than a valid encyclopedia. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there is a Paper Mario (series) page that redirects to Mario role-playing games currently. If we could turn the redirect into a short series article covering the three games in brief, which would leave us with a logical place to redirect and keep the history intact; combine with my recommendation above, the content, properly GFDL-attributed, could be placed in the three game articles. MuZemike 05:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be a good alternative solution if we cannot move this page elsewhere to preserve history. --Taelus (talk) 08:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The important characters are duplicated elsewhere and most of the information is WP:GAMEGUIDE information written in a WP:INUNIVERSE style. Player characters, main adversaries, and some minor characters—all of which are largely non-recurring—are already on in the main articles. I would be much more inclined to see a List of recurring characters in Paper Mario series or to redirect to List of the Mario series characters than to maintain this list that throws together various wikt:one-off characters from different games into a common list. If kept, this article should be trimmed to characters with their accompanying descriptions that have established WP:N from third party sources. —Ost (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per communication above and at least a very minimal support of it. I recommend to split content back into their respective game articles and, when done, redirect page to a newly-created Paper Mario (series) page, which I think can be done and still be GFDL-compliant. This will leave character descriptions/plot coverage upon editorial discretion wrt the game articles as well as provide more complete articles for those games. Otherwise, I don't see why different content about the same game has to be in several different spots rather than one spot. MuZemike 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    • This looks like, WP:SNOW here. I'm going to make a proposal to split via the talk page. MuZemike 21:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A list of recurring characters would be basically the same as a list of Mario characters, since the characters are usually the same in all the games. As for the splitting, the content would probably be removed anyway because it's in general disarray and needs a rewrite. If it comes to making a series page, I think it should be located at Paper Mario and the game moved to Paper Mario (video game).--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't matter. The article rescue squadron has effectively hijacked the article and this AFD (as with many others), and they get to determine what goes on here as opposed to what WP:VG does because the members of WP:VG are apparently inferior Wikipedians who don't know crap but to delete stuff (which is not true). I've tried to make WP a more reliable encyclopedia with good content which included trying to keep what I thought was good content or removing what I thought was unverifiable, unnecessary content; but apparently that's not what some users are going for, and some still insist on slapping others for trying to make content better. I was completely wrong. All content is good content. On that token, all articles are good articles, so leave them alone, because you didn't create it. Hooray for mediocrity! Let's all go home! MuZemike 06:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as DGG has mentioned. This is standard. --Kaleb.G (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, the argument that it's "standard" holds no merit.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with this list that warrants any piece of it to be destroyed. All significant characters in the popular game should be listed. Dream Focus 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As said before, they are minor characters not significant enough for their own article.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've looked over this list and this debate and I don't have a magic solution for this case, so I assume that would default to keep for now, since further discussion is needed. Although this is the way we usually handle these lists, I don't find this particular collection of characters "appropriate", to use DGG's word, at all. Looking over this list, I don't see a need for a good 90% of the material on here, as it is just way too detailed, or "crufty" as some say, for a general encyclopedia article. Also I'm not sure that most of this can be cited from reliable sources without having to use original research. The content and scope of this list are out of whack: read over entries like "Jolene" and you'll see what I mean when I say this article has major OR and plot issues. I imagine a possible solution would be to merge this to the main article and there we can create an encyclopedic understanding of the characters. Perhaps an article on this topic would be appropriate if we tightened up the standards of inclusion (such as only writing about major characters). Anyway, I highly recommend some further course of action be taken with this article after the conclusion of the AfD, and as MuZemike was getting at, I think this should be taken to the talk page as it is apparant that there is no consensus here to delete the article. ThemFromSpace 07:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep standard list that is verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's very notable.Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Literally no assertion of notability. 100% unsourced. Is there a magic guideline that protects this article from basic quality guidelines as those? Also, to Richard - verifiable? I see no verification of ANYTHING in the entire article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you need to verify any of it, you just check the manual of the game. I'm sure someone would notice if the information wasn't valid. Dream Focus 04:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So your answer to an incredibly big problem is a solution that's not okay in any sense? "Look it up for yourself" is the worst way to show that you even care about this article reaching the most basic standards of quality. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't need a reference for every single sentence in a plot summary of a television show or movie. Same thing here. The original media can verify anything listed there. You don't have to list exactly what hour, minute, and second into the show something happened. Think about how the characters in a film are listed. And the article's quality level is based on content, not pointless citations for every little thing. Would you feel better if they told you what cut screen, or dialogue in the game, or other event, each character had their information revealed in? Looking over the article, I'm sure most of that just comes from the manual. You don't need to be told what page number each bit is from, since that section of the manual is short, and easy to navigate through. Dream Focus 10:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • CommentUm, you're plain wrong there. You need a reference FROM the original media for the plot summaries. Just check some featured vg articles to see examples. You can't just claim "look it up yourself" and expect your article to be verifiable.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did a Google book search and did find some information on development and reception that I added to the article. There appears to be oodles more on Google News. So, perhaps expanding the development and reception information would be a good start to build off of my additions. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 04:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the news articles appear to be about the 2-D-ness of the characters, but this all falls under "reception" rather than "development information". I still doubt that this would distinguish the article for its own page, since the reception information could easily be added to the articles' character sections.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am not opposed to a merge and redirect as a compromise, but per WP:PRESERVE, see no pressing need to redlink what is neither a hoax nor libelous. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see absolutely no reason that this is notable. There are 3 sources that are totally unreferenceable online, which while I understand is not a reason to delete, makes the fact that online resources are apparently unavailable a bit suggestive. Besides, even if these are totally intact as the references suggest, why is this separate article really relevant and not just plain and simple List Cruft? I think this list section is as long or maybe longer than the actual original article at Paper Mario (correct me otherwise). Shadowjams (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as subjects are clearly notable as demonstrated by the improvements made to the article since nomination, that they come from a recognizable franchise, and the fact that the items on this list can be verified by reliable sources as linked within this discussion to Google News and Books. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are definite improvements being made, and most of the content can be referenced from the instruction manuals (I can't find one for the original Paper Mario:
  • PM2: [[4]] SPM:[[5]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by FMasic (talk • contribs) 13:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will Wagstaff[edit]

Will Wagstaff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having visited the Isles of Scilly on 3 occasions, it became apparent that Will Wagstaff has had an important impact on the islands and has carried out a lot of successful work regarding wildlife. I believe that he does have 'celebrity' status on the islands. edwardchelski 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. (I'm the one that tagged this for speedy.) The author has given no credible evidence - indeed, no evidence at all other than the subject's web site - to back up his assertion of notability. The assertion itself is paper thin at best, and frankly I think the decline of a speedy delete is in error. But at least the editor who declined speedy had the courtesy to start this AfD discussion, so props for that. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Island Wildlife Tours' is a big thing on the Isles of Scilly, and Wagstaff not only leads it, but he owns the company. He has a number of notable positions. He is also an author - his guidebook is on Amazon.co.uk. He appears on various media. I have added more to the page in the hope that this might make the claim more than 'paper thin'. I still say keep. edwardchelski 11:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The additional references are of little use. They are mere listings of guides for particular companies and are promotional, much life the original reference. Another references another Wikipedia article, which is not allowed. The last one does not even mention Wagstaff at all, and is therefore useless. A regular appearance on a single radio station is not sufficient for notability — if it were, I myself would be notable. Still clearly fails to meet our notability standards. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, i surrender. This was a genuine attempt that turned into a desperate attempt. You're probably right, I apologise for wasting your time. Delete. edwardchelski 15:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He's president of the area's bird group, he's a writer, he's a leading naturalist...what more do you want? If that's not enough, even the laziest editor can find dozens more reliable sources on Google. Please do at least the barest research before nominating (or voting) for a deletion. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 01:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. I found little of relevance that wasn't something that simply promoted him. If "president of the area's bird group" was enough to meet notability standards, there would be about 100,000 people that met that standard. Why don't you post links to some of these "dozens" of references that you found on Google to prove what you say? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a straw man--you know that his status vis-à-vis the bird club is not his sole claim to notability. As for sources... Since there is no policy saying "you must have more than X number of sources to establish notability", I maintain that one or two would suffice, as long as they're reliable. There are currently seven sources, and that's only from looking through the first couple pages of search results. I'd be happy to dig through the remaining 19 pages of results, but why should I waste my time--if the existing seven aren't enough, then why should I think others will satisfy you? What, in your mind, is a sufficient number of sources? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you enclose "Will Wagstaff" in quotes, you get nowhere near the number of Google hits you claim for this particular Will Wagstaff, so you either don't know how to do a proper Google search for someone's name, or you're just making up numbers. I already picked apart the refs presented in my comments earlier in this thread. The majority of the Google hits I found are mere listings of radio programs, or of tours or some such. All but one or two are trivial mentions or promotional material. There's no straw man here - I merely did not address the entirety of your argument. Mr. Wagstaff is a minor personality in a small area, and does not meet notability standards, nor would he pass WP:SNOW. (By the way, Mr. McKnight, please refrain from snarky remarks such as "laziest editor" and the like. It is not welcome here.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, as I said, a search for "Will Wagstaff"--in quotes--yields 19 pages of results (that's over 2000 hits), as you can see for yourself, here. You are correct that some of cited sources are promotional, and I'll add that some of the cited sources are broken links, which should be removed. Still, there are a couple informational pages cited and likely more in the Google results, which will take some time for myself (or you, if you're so inclined) to properly inspect. Yes, Wagstaff is a regional personality, but he happens to be a notable regional personality. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! -edwardchelski 13:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He seems notable enough, albeit locally, as a naturalist and broadcaster, as well as being a travel writer. Maias (talk) 04:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There are now a dozen or so references, though the article still requires the attention of a Scilly Islands devotee who's willing to put some work into fleshing it out. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I still can't help but notice that all but two of the references now listed are not suitable either because they mention Wagstaff only in passing, or they are profiles listed on the sites of companies for which he works, or both. Morover, some of the refs are duplicates, or nearly so. I still sum up Wagstaff thusly: He is noted only within a very small field and small geographic areas, and is a local radio personality. He's a tour guide and has authired one book which Amazon sees fit to list. But there is very little non-promotional, independent material given that really tells anything of consequence about him. It's not a cut-and-dried situation where X number of references is enough. It's just that there is very little there there, to borrow a phrase. Is a local figure of limited notability even within the very small area such as the Isles notable enough for inclusion here? I just don't think so. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quip I think there's enough there there, and if you look here and there, you'll find more there there than you thing there is. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @162  ·  02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John de Nugent[edit]

AfDs for this article:
John de Nugent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

AFD closed three days ago and article deleted as advertising. This still seems like a biography that is so overly filled with personal detail as to constitute advocacy for the subject. Furthermore, I checked one reference (to the New York Times) and it didn't seem to actually discuss the subject. Finally, I doubt the notability of someone whose biggest claim to fame is finishing third in a Congressional primary in 1990. In any case, I think this would benefit from a full 7 day discussion. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material. Nothing's really changed in 3 days. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I posted in the article's talk page...

I read the logs and entries objecting to my article. On "notability," the man campaigned and nearly won for US Congress in 1990 on an openly racist ticket, and has vowed to run again. CBS, NBC, ABC, the Washington Post, the London Times, BBC-TV, and other major media gave him important coverage recently. De Nugent is very prominent among white nationalists, and may run for president in 2012. Race and racism is still notable today.

Google has de Nugent at 1.5 million hits -- off and on, bizarrely -- and Bing, the new Microsoft search engine, has "John de Nugent" at 2.3 million hits.

So he is notable.

Is the article unambiguous advertising? I find it hard to imagine that an article detailing a man's encounter with child molesters, suicide attempt, divorces, expulsion from the most prominent website in his racist movement, and financial travails is "advertising," unless it is negative advertising against him. Still, I have attempted to make this article as neutral as possible, and welcome any attempts to further this goal.

I personally contacted De Nugent about the photo copyright issue and he has informed me that he sent photo copyright permissions to Wikipedia, on July 17, 2009, and Wikipedia has failed to acknowledge that email and send him a ticket number. He has agreed to release his photos under the Creative Commons Share-Alike License. The man obviously has the copyright on his own childhood picture, on photos of his television coverage that he purchased from a Nashville TV video service for $500, and for the logo of his own "Solutrean" organization.

I am sure that the new version of my article meets any good-faith objections.BobKostro (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The television coverage that he purchased from a Nashville TV video service for $500 is meaningless, the copyright is still owned by the television station and therefore can not be used. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 21:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Thanks to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's machete-wielding skills G4 no longer applies but I'm still not convinced that the subject is sufficiently notable to pass WP:BIO — Rankiri (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4, no better than the previous version. Probably salt as well. DGG (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. G4. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakest possible keep. I've taken a machete to the article and removed everything that wasn't appropriate for a BLP, which was about 99% of the article. Most of the text regarding his political opinions and positions was self-sourced, and self-serving in that it presented his advocacy rather than simply identifying his positions; much of it was entangled with BLP violations concerning other individuals. The referencing style in the article was beyond bizarre; if the opening paragraph had identified the subject as the love child of Eddie Stanky and Eleanor Roosevelt, born on Neptune, it might well have been referenced to a boxscore of a game in which Stanky played, a photo of Eleanor Roosevelt, and an astronomical site discussing Neptune. Many sections were either unsourced or referenced in this idiosyncratic manner. Nugent may not deserve the press coverage he receives (weirdly, the most reliable coverage he received is in multiple articles regarding the Rhode Island accent silliness), but there appears to be just enough coverage linking him to another violent incident at the Holocaust Museum to potentially make him notable enough for Wikipedia. That said, he is generally not notable for his political opinions, and they shouldn't be presented in the article except as related to those incidents. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - being the penpal of a murderer is not sufficient for notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim / evidence of notability. -shirulashem(talk) 01:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Allstar (first nom), DGG and Bigdaddy. -->David Shankbone 20:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but this AfD needs to run the full length. G4 doesn't apply as the other AfD was closed after 3 days when the article was speedy deleted. The problem here is the lack of independent reliable sources showing notability, as most of what's out there is fails on one count or the other. I basically agree with HW about the article; I just disagree that what's left is enough for a standalone article. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @162  ·  02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Hamilton[edit]

Rex Hamilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Rex Hamilton only has a minor role in a TV series. All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Joe Chill (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 23:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ENT in amazing style. I can't believe it, but the article itself sounds like a nomination for deletion! Niteshift36 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article clearly asserts the non-notability of its subject. Edward321 (talk) 15:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for failing WP:ENT, and IMO, although I do feel that it makes a very weak assertion of notability (before explaining why it isn't), I've seen admins accept a Speedy A7 on articles more notable than that before --Saalstin (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why there are articles that get deleted even though the topic is notable because there are careless admins. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Bettay[edit]

Sam Bettay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. A non-notable Reality TV "star" who has gained no or little press coverage outside of his/her capacity on the programme. The article contradicts itself at various points - such as claiming that his/her school teachers refered to Sam as a female before she was a cross-dresser - and this makes me feel that this article is one big joke. See also: List of Big Brother 2006 housemates (UK)#Sam. DJ 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep based on clear consensus that the nominator's deletion argument is invalid -- Samir 21:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie (elephant)[edit]

Hattie (elephant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find established notability beyond two brief mentions on old copies of the New York Times. Google search turns up nothing relevant. GraYoshi2x►talk 17:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You seriously need to brush up on your Google skills. I have suggested this before, and some have found it snarky. But I am assuming good faith, and suggesting taking an inexpensive course on Internet searching, they are offered at your local Community college, or at University of Phoenix Online. While I have only added two references, there are dozens including an obituary in the New York Times. I stopped writing the article when it was threatened with "speedy deletion" as not containing any claim to notability. Please, please, please, perform the minimal due diligence before you nominate, and type the name in Google, don't just look at the references I have added for the stub. The profile in the New York Times Magazine already listed is a full half page article on Hattie. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to remind you to avoid blatant personal attacks. Inferring that I am stupid is not how you settle a dispute. In any case I've removed the copyvio text from this AfD as it serves no other purpose but to clog up this page. Occasional bi-yearly mentions of a zoo animal notability does not make. GraYoshi2x►talk 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you are certifying that you searched and found nothing, there are only two conclusions: you didn't actually perform a search, or you did perform one and didn't find any of the ones that I found that establish notability. If it is the latter, an inexpensive course would help hone your skills, it wasn't meant to be derogatory at all, so please don't take it that way. You may also want to take a seminar on copyright law, you have deleted what is below three times. Anything published in 1922 or before is in the public domain. Any of these abstracts would fall under fair use, it is the same amount text Google uses under fair use. And please stop deleting the information I am adding to the page. You are never supposed to be deleting information written by others in AFDs. You are also in violation of 3RR. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the site still exists and it has a copyright policy with no exceptions, then it is NOT in the public domain. GraYoshi2x►talk 18:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fair use - small snippets useful only for citation. Also, please stop with the arguing about each other's wikiquette and research skills here. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to the article or the AfD? Because if you look back on the history of this page, you'll see that he copied pages worth of text straight from the NY Times site. GraYoshi2x►talk 18:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Material published 1922 or prior is in the public domain under US copyright law. You can read about it in Wikipedia. A copyright notice on the New York Times website does not reclaim an expired copyright. The New York Times recognizes this and publishes the full pdf file for those articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough press coverage to establish notability. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Please don't argue here, unless you want to argue about deletion! But, in my opinion, the page needs to be nursed to health - in other words, it needs more content. I didn't know anything about the elephant before reading the article. Now that I've read the article, I know that she was described as quite intelligent. Why is that? Could she communicate with humans more than regular elephants? Any tricks? Mathematical skills? Please provide more good content if you can! Kotiwalo (talk)
  • Keep The added links confirm significant third party media coverage. Dream Focus 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An obit in the NYT is often used as a clear indication of notability for AfDs of articles on humans. I think that should hold equally well, or maybe even more so, for animals, since full obituaries for them are so much rarer. As for who is winning the wiki-ability talent contest, the nominator for not knowing how to perform Google news searches or Norton for copying and pasting the contents of a search into this AfD rather than just posting a link, I take no position. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. I could have done that, and will next time. Maybe I need a refresher course too. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure what terms the nominator used in the Google search, although I can see where a news search would have turned up mostly New York Times articles. My search of "central+park"&as_brr=0| Google books] indicates to me that, like the pandas in the Washington zoo now, this was a favorite of children a century ago. Part of the notoriety was that Hattie the Elephant was trained by teenager Hattie Snyder, whose father was the zookeeper. Anyway, a newspaper archive search shows that between 1904 and 1922, there were stories about Hattie the Elephant in newspapers nationwide. Notable then, notable now. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete a1, insufficient context. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elemnon[edit]

Elemnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article gives no indication of notability - or what it is supposed to be about. google does nothing to enlighten me. noq (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - Page has no meaningful content other than some bizarre alphabet table that doesn't even make any sense. GraYoshi2x►talk 18:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A1/A3. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @162  ·  02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nélio Roldon Júnior[edit]

Nélio Roldon Júnior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nélio was under contract with a notable club but no source he made any debut on Brazilian nationwide level Matthew_hk tc 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; two of the links on the article are dead, and the remaining one doesn't confirm he has actually played in a game; he looks to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The 1st link indicates he has won titles with Botafogo Eldumpo (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the first reference doesn't indicate he actually played in any games for them during those seasons and may have just been a squad member. --Jimbo[online] 15:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the site says he's won those honours (Rio cup 2007 & 08) so unless there's counter-references it would seem reasonable that he did Eldumpo (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. PeterSymonds (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Andrzejewski[edit]

Adam Andrzejewski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:POLITICIAN. No references to secondary sources. Article has been speedied twice and the same content keeps getting reposted. Dismas|(talk) 17:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Wouldn't that indicate that this person is noteworthy?--Loudes13 (talk) 18:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 17:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Doing a quick Google news search does seem to bring up a lot of significant third-party coverage of this person, especially with regards to his fund-raising ability. Seems to meet the third criteria mentioned in WP:POLITICIAN. The article could do with using these as references though PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more or less per Panyd above. Here's the Google News results for 'Adam Andrzejewski': [6]. Many of those are trivial references, but there's several that seem acceptable sources, such as [7], [8] and [9]. It looks to me like there are enough references to pass WP:BIO. Robofish (talk) 01:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, poorly written does not make the person irrelevant. It is hard to not read a political blog in IL and not see his name. He is also a regular on Chicago talk radio. --Loudes13 (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, I would politely suggest that the nominator read the guidelines at WP:BEFORE... looking for sources is something that should be done before nominating an article for deletion, rather than being left to the participants of the AFD. Robofish (talk) 01:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion noted, thank you. Dismas|(talk) 02:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references provide above don't accomplish much. Ref #2 tells he put his tax returns online. Is that really notable? Ref. #3 is a blog piece about how to pronounce his name. Ref. #4 is basoc coverage of his campaign. Basic coverage that he is running for an election next year really don't make him notable. If he wins the party nomination, then perhaps. Until then, he is 1 of 5 (so far) declared candidate and I'm sure there will be more. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too soon, if at all. Person with no political office and no evidence that he will make the primary. Article is substantially like a campaign press release, complete with wikipuffery like "entrepreneur", the implication that he could have retired at 37 without any financial records in evidence, claims of "national attention" from a magazine that itself is non-notable, crowing about "measurable accomplishments" because some county put its check register online, etc. Even if subject were notable by now, this article would need to be reduced to WP:STUB or totally rewritten to meet WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And it seems reasonable to conclude that "significant coverage" in criteria means sources from which coverage is a sign of notability. Merely being able to fill space is a different story: making one's own media availability a full-time job is not notable (unless one leaks a sex tape and gets a TV show, but that has only worked for females so far). And Wikipedia is for people who are already notable (see specifically WP:POLITICIAN), not those who someone thinks ought to be or are destined to be notable. --Closeapple (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per closeapple and the fact that news coverage (from google news) seems to be almost all local. Sure Chicago is huge the coverage seems trivial too. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Don't see any in depth coverage above of this person. Blogs in the Chicago tribune on the unpronouncability of his name and others relating to his candidature aren't sufficient. Per WP:POLITICIAN just being a candidate for office isn't enough. Valenciano (talk) 05:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roca Skolia[edit]

Roca Skolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unsourced. non-notable fictional character bio that is inappropriate for inclusion. delete. Jack Merridew 08:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep as per Edward321 in previous discussion. While the article needs work this character is very important to the series. RP459 (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create an article about the book series and merge. I have little knowledge of the subject but the series seems to be fairly notable, so giving them an article of their own would be reasonable. The character can be added there. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about *you* create an article about the book series and merge? The work onus is on those who want coverage. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.That the series is notable that doesn't imply the character is as well. No sign of significance outside the book series. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainty no sign in that article ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Edward321. Significant character in major series by award-winning writer. Given the extent to which Asaro's fiction has been written about and reviewed, particularly offline, the issue is not whether sufficient sources exist, but whether the fact that such sources don't turn up easily in Google searches justifies deletion of the article. The New York Review of Science Fiction isn't online, nor is Locus, nor Foundation, nor Extrapolation, nor many of the other sources where the needed sourcing can be expected, including even the review columns from the popular sf/f magazines. The fact that coverage isn't online doesn't make it insignificant. And, the last time I looked, WP:DELETEBECAUSETOOHARDTOLOOKUPBECAUSEITSNOTINDEXEDBYGOOGLE wasn't policy. (Maybe that's too sarcastic. But too many of these fiction discussions simply ignore the fact that there's a significant universe of sources that aren't Google-accessible. Book review indexes, for example, which are usually proprietary databases sold to libraries and colleges, for example.)Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the book series that deserves an article in my opinion, this character can be merged there. Kotiwalo (talk) 19:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Covering all the books in a series article would be an improvement over the mess this stuff is now. Go for it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The so-called article does not even say that this is a fictional character; that's only in the tags at the top. The "keeps" are empty obstructionism. This fictional universe warrants no more than articles on the author and the books; the rest is just fancruft. Delete ;) — Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply comment. Actually the article describes its subject as a fictional character rather plainly in the opening sentence. And your characterization of other editors' opinions borders on the uncivil, and implies a lack of good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ya, um, no. You are assuming that readers know that the "Skolian Empire" is fictional — for all one knows from that sentence, it's like the "Roman Empire" and she could be like an Historian. Good luck with that wiki-lawyering ;) Jack Merridew 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could point out a Wikipedia article where an established actual person, living or dead, is introduced as originating in the books of author X, just as this character is introduced as being in "the Saga of the Skolian Empire books by Catherine Asaro." The import of the sentence is clear, as is the unfortunately and unnecessarily derisive tone of your comments. Mocking other Wikipedia editors and gratuitously challenging their good faith does far more damage to Wikipedia than the presence of the supposedly inappropriate articles you decry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The "import" of this character, *is* clear: zip. You have Good Faith?™ ;) Oh, nb: it doesn't say "originating". Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously, what is your problem with simple civility? If you're going to wikilawyer over the clear meaning of every word in the comments of people who don't agree with you, you're just contributing to the incivility problems here. Nobody here accuses you of mindless behavior or challenges your good faith, but somehow you act like sticking metaphorical pins into people is more important than discussing substance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm being perfectly civil in my view that there is nothing of substance in yon worthless article; Delete as Nominator. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character played a notable role in a bestselling series. Dream Focus 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @163  ·  02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Game Show[edit]

Mr. Game Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced non-notable toy. I wasn't able to locate any significant coverage, in fact there was practically nothing on it whatsoever beyond the mere fact that the product existed - the only thing I could find for this is it's commercial on youtube. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing tells me that this toy is notable. Looks like something you would find on a 99-cent store shelf. GraYoshi2x►talk 17:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find for reliable sources is a trivial mention. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I remember this from 1987, and it was more than a 99 cent store thing-- it was closer to $59.95, which is why I'm not surprised that it didn't sell very well, and it could hardly be called the surprise hit of '87. Going strictly by my own original research, I can say that it was real, but it was not notable. Mandsford (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing that it was a fake or unreleased product. Someone submitted it as a suggestion for Once upon a win (from the makers of I Can Has Cheezburger and Failblog). Most comments so far have been along the lines of "I don't remember that" likely alluding to its non-notability. - 2 ... says you, says me 22:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No significant coverage in third party sources, and while the article rescue squadron and many others are keen to vote keep, they offer no new convincing arguments. Finding nothing to assert notability on LexisNexis is pretty damning, and I would expect a gentleman from this field to have several interviews or articles appearing on it. As it stands, I recommend waiting a year or two until he's advanced his career. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Petrick[edit]

Robert Petrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unable to find any significant coverage in unrelated reliable sources. There is a Robert Petrick who appears to be notable, but that is a convicted North Carolina murderer, not a graphic artist. Bongomatic 00:44, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - one of the seminal ambigrammists, along with Scott Kim and John Langdon. Featured prominently in three books on the subject of ambigrams. If that's not enough, no article on Wikipedia is safe from deletion. RoyLeban (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence provided to support that either (a) the works are "reliable sources" for notability purposes; or (b) that the coverage is significant. If the subject is intended to satisfy WP:BIO generally, the coverage should be about the artist, not simply a sampling of work. If the subject is intended to meet WP:CREATIVE, then his works being reproduced in a niche books will not suffice. Bongomatic 01:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Petrick fits under the following, from WP:BIO:
  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
You can see this in the cited works, which are not niche books. They are a good chunk of the books on ambigrams. Hofstadter's book is the only completely scholarly work on the subject. That book does not contain any of Petrick's artwork, but discusses his work (i.e., the coverage is about him). Polster's book devotes at least two pages to Petrick, maybe more, with text which is about him, plus some samples. I would not be surprised if Langdon's book discusses Petrick, since they worked together, but I haven't looked through my copy to see. I do know that Petrick's history of ambigrams discusses Langdon. Petrick's work has also been cited elsewhere (e.g., U&lc, ref'd on the Ambigram page).
As to the murderer with the same name, he doesn't seem notable in the least. Murdering your wife doesn't make you notable and his case got very little non-local coverage.
RoyLeban (talk) 04:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it received a lot of non-local coverage due to the search histories used in his prosecution. Bongomatic 04:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe so -- I just did a quick Google search and saw mostly NC coverage. I'd never heard of him and I've heard of search histories in other cases. But, forget the murderer. This discussion is about the ambigramist/artist/graphic artist/font designer. RoyLeban (talk) 05:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few issues at hand here, and I'm currently on the fence:
Most importantly, of course, is the notability and verifiability of the subject underdiscussion. Secondly, I would say is the interest of User:RoyLeban who, as you can see from the revision history on the Ambigram page, is an enthusiast and ardent defender of these pages, for some reason. Is there COI going on? Deadchildstar (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interest, not a conflict of interest. The interest is in completeness and accuracy. RoyLeban (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regarding "completeness" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#INFO Deadchildstar (talk) 19:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean "Wikipedia completeness". Petrick is one of three people who are responsible for the popularization of ambigrams. Even though Peter Jones was apparently the first to recognize the generality (that's according to Hofstadter), I'm not suggesting we have a page for him (though he does deserve mention on the Ambigram page). Inappropriate completeness would be a list of every one of Petrick's ambigrams or of everybody who's ever created an ambigram. And certainly there are oodles of such complete lists on Wikipedia I'd like to kill. RoyLeban (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Petrick, I'm inclined to support his *minor* notability as an American graphic designer. He had his day in the 70s and a bit into the 80s. In depth and too-long interview here: [10] -- Print is the perhaps the best known graphic design magazine in the US. Interestingly, skip to about 11:30 in the video, he talks about his Wikipedia page and how many hits he gets to his own homepage.Deadchildstar (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That interview predates this page. I assume he is talking about the link from the Ambigram page. RoyLeban (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, he seems to be working on *non-notable* independent projects. If one were to strip the article to its verifiable 3rd party sources, it would be quite short. If all of his notability was in the 70s and 80s, it becomes difficult to verify without a trip to the reference library. Or, apparently, User:RoyLeban's bookshelf.
As for the other stuff, I'm actually more concerned that there's an *entire page* on ambigrams! If you read it, it says: "The earliest known non-natural ambigram dates to 1893... [timeline deleted for brevity]... According to John Langdon, ambigrams were independently invented by himself and by Scott Kim in the 1970s.[7] Langdon and Kim are probably the two artists who have been most responsible for their popularization, but other artists, notably Robert Petrick, who designed the Angel logo, claim to be independent inventors." So Petrick claims to have invented something that was invented 80 years previous. Deadchildstar (talk) 18:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever wrote the original text in the article was unaware of earlier ambigrams, as were Kim, Langdon and Petrick, so it was quite reasonable for them to call themselves inventors. For many years, I thought they were the inventors. However, I came across a reference to Borgman's book, which I own, and found the ambigrams in there. Then I went looking for the originals in The Strand. And I also found the ones in the Topsy & Turvy's books, which I also own (reprint books are available on Amazon, feel free to buy them). And it wasn't until I was reading through Hofstadter's Ambigrammi that I was reminded of the story about Peter Jones in 1963 (I'd heard the story before but had forgotten about it). So, Jones, Kim, Langdon, Petrick, and lots of others (yes, including myself) independently invented the general concept even though actual specific ambigrams had been created earlier. The Ambigram article should be changed to reflect this acurately and I'll do that when I have time (remember: there is no deadline). And, no, I shouldn't be in the article as another "independent inventor" -- I did a few, then stopped until I saw Kim's work in OMNI in 1979. RoyLeban (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, if you live in a hole, you can say you invented anything? Anyway, there is no source cited here and the way this is all phrased puts words in the artists mouths, basically making them sound stupid ("Hey! I invented typography!"). This should cite a source that says they think they invented it, or be rephrased. Deadchildstar (talk) 18:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are independent sources that say these people invented them. But the sources are wrong, as can be proven from the earlier ambigrams. The assertions that each of them lay some claim to inventorship is also well-sourced, in their books and web sites. But a more accurate statement is to say that Jones was the first person to generalize them and that Petrick, Langdon, and Kim (that's the chronological order) popularized them. I've been meaning to rewrite the first section of the Ambigram article, but keep wasting time on stuff like this. RoyLeban (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I'm inclined to say keep, but poor justifications such as the above claim make me want to sway towards delete. Deadchildstar (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- I've looked for reliable sources on the designer, and, although he's mentioned briefly here and there, there's not the required multiple instances of third party/independent non-trivial reliable sources demonstrating info that would make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article of his own. I've looked through regular Google, Google news and Google books. The most promising was an interview with Print magazine (it's unclear what issue/how long it was/whether it was one of those paid PR things these kinds of mags do sometimes, etc.), but that's about it. He gets lots of credit where some of his work is mentioned in a credit for those books that just collects tons of design projects for other people to see photos of and ooh and ah it, but none focus on him specifically over the hundreds of others in those books. Short mentions in some other books (Eye Twisters by Burkard Polster is an example of a trivial mention: just named, no detail). The font work is extremely trivial, as a handful of designs doesn't make him any more notable than thousands of other font designers (and his fonts are kind of amateurish, really... I've seen students in college give equal or better work). I am only giving this a weak delte, though, as it's possible more sources could be turned up, as it's conceivable more substantial ones like the Print magazine one could be out there. And I'm pleased to see Deadchildstar also caught onto Roy's obvious COI here, as Roy has been making similar COI edits to related articles. The murderer clearly has a lot more reliable and notable coverage (Dateline NBC, tons of newspaper coverage, etc. -- funny how Roy pooh-pahs that but can't come up with anything like that for his favored Robert Petrick), so at the very least if the designer does stay the article should be moved to Robert Petrick (designer) with a disambiguation page at the main namespace. DreamGuy (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Polster devotes two full pages to Petrick and discusses him in the "Who invented ambigrams?" section (though inaccurately, he gets the dates wrong, as we can see from other sources). Maybe elsewhere too, but there's no index. RoyLeban (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Print Magazine is one of the most reliable, popular sources on American graphic design you'll find. It's not inclined to massive advertorial. As well, portfolio style coverage is common in graphic design (e.g. awards manuals, but also "Who's Who" style books) - because it is a visual medium, coverage is also sometimes correspondingly visual. You can't discount these types of sources if there are many. Also - your assessment of his amateur vs. professional status doesn't hold water for me. It's clear from looking at his work that he was trained as a designer in the late 60s and is thusly influenced. He may be derivative, but he is not amateur. Still doesn't mean he is automatically notable. Anyway, the other major article seems to be from the 70s, in U&lc, which is now defunct - also, though, a very notable and reliable source (U&lc should have an article over any of these contested subjects!) It's clear just from looking at Petrick's work that he was heavily influenced by Herb Lubalin, and U&lc was Lubalin's journal of typography, so it's no surprise he was covered. I maintain he was notable-eough in his time (and this is why a google search may not yield enough - someone will need to search periodicals in an academic or reference library). As to whether that makes him eligible and notable under WP:BLP, I'm not sure - I'm new here and still learning! Deadchildstar (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding me, right? I never said Print magazine wasn't reliable, but it's the only such source of its kind I turned up, and the portfolio work is trivial compared to real coverage, and I am unsure of what exactly the coverage in Print entailed. As far as defending his design skills, I only pointed out that his font work is amateurish, an assessment which I stand behind, but it was just an aside anyway -- there are no sources calling his font design notable, just proof that he did some fonts, which, again, goes for thousands of people. Obviously his print work is going to be what makes or breaks his notability. DreamGuy (talk) 21:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got no problem with Robert Petrick (designer), but there is at least one other Robert Petrick who is a fairly well-known designer in Chicago (apparently unrelated), so a more specific designation might be warranted. I only did one quick Google search on the murderer. It looked like all NC coverage. He may well be notable, though I'll admit I hope not. RoyLeban (talk) 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would seem that many of the sources on this artist and on Ambigrams are *unreliable* if so many are incorrect. Deadchildstar (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (smile) When Borgman wrote his book, he didn't know about the Newell ambigrams, nor did he call them ambigrams (he named them vertical palindromes, of all things). When Kim wrote his book, he didn't know anybody had done them before. When Langdon wrote his book, etc.... Polster knew about Borgman and thus The Strand ambigrams, and found the Newell ambigram (personally, I'd owned both the Borgman book and the Newell books for years, but had never recognized the significance of the ambigrams). Polster did his research, but missed some things. This is the way the world works, and is certainly the way Wikipedia works -- when new information comes to light, we update. Would you rather that things were never corrected? RoyLeban (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like this should be relisted to get more feedback. RoyLeban (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think "more" is what's needed (you alone have contributed 6,473 characters). It's broader feedback from more people that would be helpful. However, it's only been listed for three days, so really no need to "relist" yet. Bongomatic 09:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that arguing just to argue? AGF! Clearly, I meant feedback from more people. RoyLeban (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep asking for good faith, Maybe you should show more yourself. You asked for a relisting three days into a seven day listing. No need. It was reasonable to wonder why you made such a request. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? It had turned into a conversation between a few people and no new contributors. I wasn't looking at the clock. RoyLeban (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - badly needs additional refs to establish notability, confirmation that some of the existing non in-line refs are actually applicable and integration into the article if this is the case. I've added the Rescue tag in the hope that it helps with this. Artw (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Odd that you should magically wander onto this article AFD considering the personalities involved. Seems like you have personal reasons for these votes instead of ones per Wikipedia standards, because your arguments are not consistent from AFD to AFD. Here you say it's lacking sources and should be kept anyway, elsewhere you say articles with sources should be deleted. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please respond to the comments, not the commenter. RoyLeban (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain that the article can't be rescued via online sources. I'm searched it to death - and I am still on the 'weak keep' side of things. We need a user with fine-arts related academic database access to tell us what they find. Deadchildstar (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, how about physical books? Aren't they prefered over online anyway? All three of the references are on my bookshelf. Polster spends 2 pages on Petrick and mentions him elsewhere. Block & Yuker feature some of his work (I think this book is up on Google Books). Hofstader, whose book is about ambigrams and nothing else, discusses him and calls him a pioneer. RoyLeban (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roy: yes, that was my suggestion, thanks for reiterating it. However, 3 books may not be convincing enough for notability, and often more information comes up in a periodical search through a specialized database, especially with non-current sources (as it seems our designer-at-hand was most notable in the 70s and 80s.) Also, Roy, your insistence alone won't help the case. Everyone on this discussion currently has said all they can on the topic. Deadchildstar (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to go into "other stuff exists", but I come across articles all the time that have zero sources, zero citations, zero references. And they're fine articles. Why isn't 3 books enough, especially given the fact that he's a pioneer in a field? RoyLeban (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 16:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment - Normally I don't relist discussions with ample participation, but I feel it's justified here. I'd feel a bit uncomfortable closing this as "no consensus" at the moment. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Reading through the arguments above most of them seem to be focused on who invented ambigrams, whether or not Robert Petrick is good as an artist, and whether the murderer of the same name is more important. This doesn't have any relevance to the article's worth and makes the AFD discussion much more complicated than it should be!

There's a bit of a problem with this because unless you own the books which are used as references you can't really comment on their relevance or importance. However, Eye Twisters especially seems to be a collection of artwork, instead of coverage of the artist. Maybe the person who created this article would like to post what is written in the books so that the rest of us can judge more accurately?
Looking at Googlenews, Google and LexisNexis I can't find anything about this artist except for the aforementioned Print interview and one article in Adweek (April 2, 1984) which isn't about the artist on a wider scale but is instead a 92 word description of one of his pieces. The two main claims to notability this artist seems to have are A) He invented ambigrams, this obviously isn't true and that was an honest mistake on the point of the article's author and the artist himself. The second one is that he made an album cover for the band Angel. This in and of itself does not seem to be enough to establish notability and as I've pointed out, there are no other reliable sources available. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI, Eye Twisters is not just a collection of artwork. I would guess it's about 50% text. It's still in stores, so it's easy to see it without having to buy it. RoyLeban (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you own it? Because as I said above it would be very useful for this debate for everyone to be able to see what was written in the book. Seeing as we can't all find a bookstore which has the book, and we can't all buy it, if someone could post the text it would be helpful. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Encyclopedic interesting designer. The article is short, but has potential...Modernist (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cumulative mentions and achievements merit inclusion. The article needs inline citations. See WP:REFB for a guide. Ty 06:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting minor artist/graphic designer Mick gold (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I contacted the subject and asked if he had a bibliography - he sent one along that would allow the article to be improved with incline citations. I volunteer to clean up the artice if it stands once AfD decides its fate. Deadchildstar (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can put the updates in now and they show notability I'll happily change my vote! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Read through some of the arguments, and I agree, this person does seem notable in this field. Dream Focus 06:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @163  ·  02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramblin' Guy[edit]

Ramblin' Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable dead horse, not speediable, prod removed WuhWuzDat 16:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Looks like a hoax or some family pet to me. GraYoshi2x►talk 17:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This is a terribly written article but it is about a real race horse who has more than one article written about him in major news sources. Definitely notable. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly not a hoax or a family pet. Sources obviously exist. Edward321 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – make it a stub. Otherwise, looks like it's notable, and other sources (probably print in this case) can be easily found. MuZemike 17:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – the article's creator is repeatedly removing the AFD tag from the page. User already has been given a {{uw-afd4}}. Regards, MuZemike 17:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, any renaming discussion can take place on the talk page. (non-admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chronology of events of the 2009 Honduran coup d'état (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

POV fork, having argued successfully to remove coup from the title of the main article a certain editor created this POV fork in order to reinsert the coup POV. Wikipedia has no place for POV forks. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 15:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This article was never intended as a POV fork, but simply as a sub-article for 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis, which was otherwise becoming too long (was tagged with Template:Long). This is common practice. If you have an issue with the title (as hinted by the fact you moved it a couple of times), that's a different issue not warranting deletion. When this article was created, the main article had the "coup d'état" title and in the text, not "constitutional crisis", so it simply cannot have been a "POV fork in order to reinsert the coup POV". --LjL (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Actually, speedy keep per WP:SK#2.4 --LjL (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge with the parent article- the subject is notable and encyclopedic, so the question isn't whether the information be deleted, but where it should be presented. Given the amount of detail put into it, I'm thinking keeping it separate would probably be best, but if it can be trimmed down and merged, thats fine too. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename - This seems to be an encyclopedic article covering notable events. Coup d'état to Constitutional Crisis would mean it was in line with the main article on the event. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:24, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the main article has been renamed as "constitutional crisis" only as a compromise, with part of the compromise being that it should have a "coup d'état section". It also says it's called a coup d'état in the first line. Part of the reasoning was basically that "constitutional crisis" would encompass more than just the "coup d'état" events; on the other hand, I think this article (and also the one about International reaction to the 2009 Honduran military coup, which keeps getting renamed, too) really is about the coup d'état. --LjL (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but may require cleanup - it is getting long also. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My understanding of what happened is that "crisis" was adopted because there was so much going on in Honduras beyond the seizure of power itself by the Micheletti faction (what has been termed the "coup"), but that the prevailing international view that there had been a "coup" had not been rejected. This is why the first line of the main article reads "The 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis or the 2009 Honduran coup d'état..." In any case, I don't want to see what's been put on this page deleted. If the page must be deleted, the information contained on the page should be transferred back to the main article. Zachary Klaas (talk) 02:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to have detail about the coup. This was the first Latin American military coup in a long time.
    This is disingenuous: "having argued successfully to remove coup from the title of the main article a certain editor created this".
    A certain editor created this article[11] before coup was removed from the title of the other article.[12]
    This is not a "POV fork." There is a section in that other article entitled, "Coup d'état." Same "POV". -- Rico 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page personally helped me to better understand the events of the coup. Its not a POV fork (although there may be POV in the article, I don't know), its a helpful page that better details the events of the first coup in Latin America in decades. Onopearls (t/c) 04:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept, this must be renamed. Since the removal of the president appears to be constitutional and legal, it's not a coup. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. This is a disruptive and misleading nomination by an editor who keeps renaming the article against consensus. The article is not a POV fork but a subarticle; it was spun off from 2009 Honduran coup d'etat, which a highly vocal group of editors subsequently succeeding forcing a rename of, despite a lack of clear consensus. The nominator's insistence that the same disputed renaming arguments apply to this page has not met with support on the talk page, and this deletion nomination is the result. Rd232 talk 09:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Unless the nominator explains why he considers the article a "POV fork". Disagreement on the article's title is no reason for deletion. JRSP (talk) 13:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @163  ·  02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haven Back Packer Resort[edit]

Haven Back Packer Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

coatrack for news event. All independent sources are about the news event, not the "resort". Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers[edit]

Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was proposed for merger a month ago, to no result. In practice it is being used as a content fork of the main article, Apollo Moon landing hoax conspiracy theories, which also has a list of accusers. The same material is largely repeated in both articles, so what's happening in practice is that this article gets the version where the hoax has been proven to be real. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I am tired of asking for reliable sources. A page should show its own notability by having sources to support its notability, and this page showed none about the accusers being notable as a whole. Each individual accuser are quoted by their own primary sources and not secondary sources claiming them to be anything notable, most are actually liars(like Kaysing faking his own position as an Engineer when he got no such qualification) MythSearchertalk 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete A pure WP:FRINGE WP:POVFORK being used to push poorly sourced (and obviously false) conspiracy theory "proofs". The sources used for each proponent fail WP:RS, and these people individually and as a group fail WP:GNG. It's being used as a WP:COATRACK for these proofs, which a user is trying to push links to from the parent article. Verbal chat 15:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or Split - Delete as per above comments or split into a thousand articles each one breaking Wikipedia Policy in new and creative ways with multiple active/owner editors that complete ignore WP:N, WP:RS and WP:Fringe.--LexCorp (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back into main hoax article. This article appears to have been started 2 1/2 years ago by a well-meaning user (and not a hoax believer at all) who probably figured the info in the main article was getting too large. Since the hoax story is largely demolished thanks to the LRO, we should begin to pare back the excess about this now-obsolete theory. The editor who created it has not edited since 2007, so we can't ask his opinion on the matter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMPORTANT REMINDER If you delete this information, you will likely restart an edit war. I went through this twice already with this set of articles. I'm not going through it again. If you all want to foment and participate in that edit war, that's up to you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it does, then that should be reviewed. We should not keep this kind of trash just because it "will...restart an edit war". Irbisgreif (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree completely. No appeasement of the edit warmongers! Favonian (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That poll was from 1999 and US-only. More recent polls worldwide show between 20 and 40% support of the hoax hypothesis. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No point in keeping this as a separate article. Favonian (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. POV fork that simply lists a bunch of WP:FRINGE proponents. The sourcing is atrocious. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete - lacks secondary sources, most of the people are probably not notable individually. Merge anything useful. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. --07:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC) Merge back into the main hoax article by substituting the scarcer information there with the mode detailed information here. Of course there are problems with this article but these people are notable simply because they were bold to think with their own brains and dared to oppose the mainstream view. There are also scientists among them. Deleting the article would prove to the unbiased reader that there is censorship in Wikipedia (trying to silence inconvenient opinions), despite that it claims that it's not censored. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Verbal. It doesn't matter what nobodies think about the best achievement of the 60's, or Wikipedia. Nevard (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main conspiracy theory article. This is all pretty much repetitive and unnecessary. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:HOAX, which states that notable hoaxes could be part of an article in Wikipedia. The hoaxes are clearly notable because of the mass amounts of information about them. And not having the neutral point of view is no concern. All it needs is a small rewrite. I've flagged this article for rescue. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 21:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forking is still acceptable if there's one very large topic and it would be better and easier to read and understand if it's divided into a few smaller topics. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The information is not the same. There is far more here. A brief mention of things in the main article, and far more detail here. For those who say merge, what information would be copied over there, that isn't already there? Is it the same as delete, or is there something that you believe should be added to the other page? Dream Focus 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:COATRACK. The article doesn't just list and discuss all notable Apollo Moon landing hoax accusers but tries to give their fringe and factually incorrect ideas undue weight. It appears to contain clear violations of NPOV. — Rankiri (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no WP:COATRACK here, i.e. no hidden agenda. The weight is due because the size of the article is 31836 bytes vs. 101207 bytes of the main hoax article, which is 100% anti-hoax. Thus the weight is 31836 / (31836 + 101207) = 24%. And this is just the average percentage of the hoax proponents worldwide (see recent polls - U.S. 20%, UK 25%, Russia 28%, Sweden 40%). So the weight is exactly what it's due and is not undue. --Лъчезар (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, there is an unmistakable coatrack issue here: see COATRACK#. Secondly, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. From WP:UNDUE: In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. The article contains clear violations of this policy as it mostly describes the subject from the view of the accusers. Thirdly, do you have any actual evidence of these polls? According to ABC, the 1999 poll reflects the most recent data available[15]. Not that it matters under WP:FRINGE and CFORK#, which specifically prohibit unwarranted promotion of fringe theories and creation of consensus-dodging content. — Rankiri (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The polls are documented here, with sources. As to the "coatrack", if the article is about the accusers, it can't avoid talking about the accusations. And I disagree that the point of view here is non-neutral. But all right, it's all clear already that you're all trying to silence the heresy, Monsignori. --Лъчезар (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should be anti-hoax, because that's the real-world consensus. That's really all there is to it. Mangoe (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specifically which part seems to be undue weight? It seems to me they list exactly what the person says, their background, and then pokes holes in their accusations. That's how it should do it. These people are all notable, some having articles of their own even. Its good to keep them all here. Dream Focus 16:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some extremely rough figures:
Bill Kaysing: 2.5KB of accusations, 0.6KB of rebuttals
Bart Sibrel: 1.5KB of accusations, 0.7KB of rebuttals
Stanislav Pokrovsky: 2KB of accusations, 0KB of rebuttals
Alexander Popov: 1.2KB of accusations, 0KB of rebuttals
William Brian: 0.5KB of accusations, 0KB of rebuttals
David Percy: 0.3KB of accusations, 0KB of rebuttals
Self-published books, self-proclaimed doctors of physical-mathematical sciences, criticized Fox News documentaries, Swedish tabloids... Did I really have to do your homework for you? — Rankiri (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its the content that matters, not the size. If it takes longer to list the ridiculous claims and who the person is and the name of the books they've published, than it does to point out errors in their arguments, then so be it. That is not a reason to claim undue weight. And yes, you do need to do some work to explain why you believe something is undue weight, when you claim that in an argument. Those who don't have a rebuttal, have their accusations disproved by previous rebuttals, or the article just has room to improve, new things added. Tag that section with undue weight. When their only claim of a hoax is that the rocket couldn't possible work, and the previous rebuttal was that those same rockets were used to put satellites into orbit just fine so obviously they did, then you don't really need to repeat the same thing. Perhaps a summary after it listing all those who had the same arguments, and the most obvious way to debunk them. Dream Focus 18:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please tell me how it is possible for a number of sections not to list any rebuttals to the severely misguided and unscientific views on the authors and still not be in direct violation of the following WP:UNDUE statement: each Wikipedia article and other content must be written from a neutral point of view, by representing all significant views on each topic fairly, proportionately, and without bias. I would also like to know how an article that's supposed to cover biographies of all major proponents of the Moon landing conspiracy theories can devote less than a third of its space to discussing its nominal subject, leave the rest on discussing the theory itself, and still not be seen as a clear-cut transgression of WP:Fringe, WP:CFORK and WP:Coatrack. — Rankiri (talk) 19:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @163  ·  02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armor Battle (Mattel/INTV)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Armor Battle (Mattel/INTV) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is proposed that this article be redirected to List of Intellivision games. The same editor has contributed loads of similar "articles". If I knew how, I would nominate them collectively for similar action, or something more drastic. Favonian (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. No need for merge as there is nothing to merge! None of the articles say anything more than the list. The JPStalk to me 11:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has extremely little content. I'll change my vote if notability is asserted and the article is expanded as is fit for an article about a notable game. This is nearly worthless as it is right now. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In view of the fact that the "siblings" of the above-mentioned article have meanwhile been speedily deleted, I alter my own nomination. Favonian (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject matter appears non-notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. A legitimate article could be written at Armor Battle, but it wouldn't be at this title, and the subsubstub and nonreference here won't help with it. No lack of sources, despite the game's age. —Korath (Talk) 21:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZeiraCorp[edit]

ZeiraCorp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - no reliable sources establish any notability for this fictional company. Otto4711 (talk) 10:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. By DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | Talk 15:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psycho Street[edit]

Psycho Street (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

seems to qualify for Speedy Deletion under criteria A9: no indication of notability, and the band's page does not exist. However, I'm being conservative rather than bold by going through the AfD process. No links to the page from other articles. Petershank (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG & WP:NSONG, no significant coverage in reliable sources. Harlem675 12:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @163  ·  02:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stand up and be counted[edit]

Stand up and be counted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about unremarkable song where the lyrics are present in their entirety. [mad pierrot][t c] 08:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-Wikipedia is not the place to host lyrics, also article may have been created for the sole purpose of promoting a view point. [mad pierrot][t c] 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I agree with what you said about the lyrics, but if this song is notable, the article could be cleaned and kept, provided that it is done without POV or original research. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If reliable sources can be found to indicate notability I would say keep, but I couldn't find anything. If sources were found it would still need some major cleanup though. Jujutacular talkcontribs 11:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete unsourced pov article on song with no indication of notability. Where is the speedy for this stuff rubbish? Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After this rubbish is deleted this would be a good redirect to an article on the Warumpi Band song Blackfella/Whitefella (a clearly notable song that deserves it's own article). Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that the article should be deleted please be civil, as the article has been created in good faith (at least I suppose so) calling it rubbish may insult and hurt the original contributor. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Appears to be blatant copyright infringement of the song's lyrics. ~ mazca talk 11:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where I Belong Lyrics[edit]

Where I Belong Lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to host lyrics, and it appears to be a copy of lyricwiki.org, which is not affiliated with the Wikimedia foundation. [mad pierrot][t c] 08:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - Deleted due to inclement weather - Peripitus (Talk) 12:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rimo Haq[edit]

Rimo Haq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Puff piece for a 17-year-old author. Claims various extremely unlikely forms of notability. rspεεr (talk) 08:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As mentioned above, the article does not qualify under A7 (it claims importance and signifigance), and WP:HOAX is not speedy deletion criterion. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is a Template:Db-hoax. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for blatant hoaxes (which classify as vandalism). However, this is not a blatant hoax, because it is believable. An example of a blatant hoax is, "John Doe is a 594,053 year old man who is the oldest living person in the world", because no sensible person could believe that. However, the claims made in this article are not so outrageous that they couldn't be believed. There are people who have written books as children. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 23:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: WP:SNOW. An apparent hoax [16]. — Rankiri (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. The fact that there's no ghits for the "author" or any of "his" "books" is pretty good evidence that this is a hoax made by someone who was bored. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Author name not found on AbeBooks, Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, nor Amazon.ca. No interesting hits in Google. Not notable much less being anywhere close to the claims in the article. There is a facebook page for a Rimo Haq which says she's at St George Girls High School '09. Two of the three people editing the Rimo Haq article are also editing the St. George Girls' High School page indicating this is likely a hoax page pretending that Rimo is both a guy, and world famous. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The West Wing presidential election, 1998[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The West Wing presidential election, 1998 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

The West Wing presidential election, 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The West Wing presidential election, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

information is completely in-universe and doesn't conform to WP:PLOT and In-universe policies. This is better served in a small episode summary on a list of episodes page. Notability is also questioned where this warrants its own article - its merely one section of a fictional television show. Ejfetters (talk) 07:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all together into fictional elections from "The West Wing" (TV series) or somesuch. Note that the election with Matt Santos has real world currency, since it was frequently noted in comparison to the election of Obama. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Okay, you are telling me that we have an article about a fake election on wikipedia. What next, an article about all the times films have said Arnold Schwarzenegger became president, or better yet an article about the future election of him, because we all know it is possible. We've had a black man, a dumb redneck, a film star, etc. Why not amend the constitution and allow The Governator in the White House. All I see in the article are primary sources, weak content, the lack thereof as well, etc. I could see this being mentionable because The West Wing was a popular TV show, and if third party sources became available then the content of all the elections could be merged into one article about all the elections on the show. Until that time comes, I remain firm on deleting.--WillC 10:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1998 and 2002; no real-world connections, entirely original research about in-universe details. The 2006 article contains one paragraph that appears to show some real-world notability, but is in urgent need of cleanup (read: a reduction in size and level of detail by at least 80%). Kusma (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, one paragraph hardly is enough to base an entire article on, and removing everything except that paragraph will leave little information, and better suited to be placed in the episode summary perhaps, or a link for the episode itself. I'm not saying merge these to the episode articles, then they would still not conform to WP:PLOT. Ejfetters (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Why are we treating this topic like it's real? These are basically just articles about the plot arc for some episodes, nothing more. I don't know how this withstood 2 AfDs in the first place. It violates WP:NOTE, WP:WAF, WP:NOR, and WP:PLOT.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both of these could have, and should have been entitled "West Wing Season 1" and "West Wing Season 4", etc., and if someone elects to move them to that, I would change my !vote. But I think it's disgusting to see these mentioned in Category: United States presidential elections (and I'm going to remove the tag). Since these fictional campaigns and elections took place in the course of a TV season, the minutiae and trivia can be taken care of there. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete: Non-notable fictional elections. Joe Chill (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1998 & 2002 I'm very sad to see the article go, but it does not conform to standards: it has no assertion of notability or relevance. Moreover due to the limited information there is about the election most of the article is guess work and specularion. C mon (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is a West Wing wiki, i don't know if there is, someone could take these articles and the informatino there where they are better suited. Ejfetters (talk) 08:15, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary regurgitation of plot. --EEMIV (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 2006 if it can be reworked to focus more on the "parallels to to 2008" as that was significantly hyped up by the media in the run up to the '08 election. Bigvinu (talk) 19:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tend to agree that 2006 is a special case. Here links are provided to external sources which support the notability of this fictional event. C mon (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would be better merged into the articke for the 2008 election. It is based upon a fictional election here and would be better made available in that article and a section in the West Wing article. Ejfetters (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. —Sean Whitton / 13:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shona Holmes[edit]

Shona Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person doesn't deserve to have her own page. She isn't notably in any way and should either be deleted or merged into the Health care reform in the United States. I feel we should just delete this article Fire 55 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Health care reform in the United States. Don't think it deserves its own article but should be mentioned. Jujutacular talkcontribs 11:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Here is a reference I found today, to an article about Palmira Holmes, a fellow resident of the town were Shona Holmes lived, who has been inundated with calls from other Canadians outraged over Shona's apparent betrayal of Canada. A wikipedia article about Palmira Holmes would be a BLP1E. But Shona Holmes has multiple claims to notability, beyond her appearance in the ad: (1) there is the discussion over the credibility of her claim; (2) there is the strength of the feeling of betrayal from ordinary Canadians; (3) there are the comments in reaction from senior Canadian political leaders; (4) there is the Democrats Abroad counter-reaction. Geo Swan (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Carmela Fragomeni (2009-07-23). "You have the wrong S. Holmes". Hamilton Spectator. Retrieved 2009-07-25. Palmira Holmes has been inundated with phone calls from people trying to express their fury over Shona Holmes' decision to become the face of an aggressive American TV ad that slams Canadian-style health care.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If, for the sake of argument, there was a strong argument for merging this article into another article, why would we merge it into Health care reform in the United States, as opposed to:
It seems to me that when there are multiple potential targets for a merge and redirection that is a very strong counter-argument to merging, it is a very strong argument that the topic of the article is of sufficient notability that it should remain a stand-alone article, and should not be merged. Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rememeber someone isn't notable because shes in the news as this link explans. The only reason why see is getting this coverage is because of the health care reform in the US and therefore either deserves to be deleted or linked to their. She is a part of the debate on health card reform and that's where the info belongs.--Fire 55 (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because what she's "notable" for is an advertisement which aired in the United States pertaining to a debate about American health care reform. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per WP:BIO1E PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable and the ad she was in has more to do with Patients United Now's efforts to block/direct U.S. health care reform than her specifically. --Ctbwiki (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly worth mentioning somewhere, but essentially a WP:BLP1E. The debate she's a part of is notable, but that doesn't mean that she is — which is proven by the fact that this article is almost entirely about the advertisement she filmed, and contains almost no biographical information whatsoever. Perhaps an article about the advertising campaign itself might be in order — but absent other proof of notability, we don't particularly need an article about her. Merge to an appropriate target or delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me, you refer to just a single debate. But surely there are multiple debates?
  • Comment May I remind everyone that the wikipedia is not solely an American project? There is a separate, different debate triggered by Holmes claims up here in Canada. Geo Swan (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her

  • Keep -- What makes wikipedia useful is that when, in a debate with some fox news viewers, this woman I've never heard of before is mentioned, I can get a quick summary of the facts from a source that I can trust. Keep, keep, keep. --69.134.163.9 (talk) 01:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' The ip users comment is very fishy since not only was it the persons first edit, but only seconds after Geo Swans. Second if you are getting facts from wikipedia and you trust it you need to really look at wikipedia again because no university will accept facts from wikipedia. Nevertheless the fact that you are in the news DOES NOT mean you get an article. Which you can't seem to get Geo Swan. Please read this again WP:BLP1E. Holmes is only getting coverage because of the fact there is a health care reform in US. --Fire 55 (talk) 02:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you accusing me of being a sockpuppet master? In my five years of contributing to the wikipedia I have faced three or four irresponsible and unsubstantiated accusations that I am a sockpuppet or sockpuppet master. But I declare this is the the one with slimmest justification. Geo Swan (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the fact that the comment by the person is just stupid. I said it was fishy I didn't accuse you. First, it's really fishy that a persons first edit is on a deletion debate. Which more ip user don't even do let alone the first edit they make. Either way this page is going to get deleted because the people that know wikipedia guidelines agree with me.--Fire 55 (talk) 04:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever heard of reverse DNS? In the interests of your credibility you might consider using it before you accuse anyone else of sockpuppetry. Geo Swan (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of proxy servers. I bet you have. I'll come back with a message that says I'm from Japan then from one in France.--Fire 55 (talk) 06:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) Please don't call other contributors stupid. Doing so never helps cultivates reasoned civil discussion. 2 You called the IP post "fishy" because it came "seconds" after mine. It came eight minutes after mine. That is 480 seconds. Geo Swan (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never called anyone stupid. You purposely are putting words in my mouth (this is the second time). I said the comment was stupid and I have every right to say that a comment someone made is stupid.--Fire 55 (talk) 12:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TY Geo Swan (next time sign your posts) you still don't get it. YOU DON'T get an article if you are in the news. These stories are middle in the newspaper articles not the front page stuff she's getting because of her ad. If see is so important why did you create the article years after these stories. BECAUSE OF HER AD.--Fire 55 (talk) 06:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fire 55, here on the wikipedia we are supposed to reach decisions through cool, meaningful, collegial, civil discussion. This means that those who comply with the wikipedia's civility policies do their best to actually read what the other person wrote. They do their best to confine their comments to editorial matters. I read what you wrote, blp1e, blp1e, blp1e. Could you please show me the courtesy of trying to actually read what I wrote before you respond? The four references I cited above date to 2007 and 2008 -- over a year before she appeared in the US ad. As I pointed out above those references were to her lawsuit against the government of Ontario. I suggest this is a separate event from the US ad, by any reasonable measure. Geo Swan (talk) 13:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since you still don't get it I'll quote the page "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them."--Fire 55 (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is not notable; the events are: WP:BLP1E. Either merge to an appropriate article or delete. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious BLP1E. Besides, the article doesn't even make any effort to assert her (nonexistent) notability. 195.14.197.53 (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The case is now sufficiently notable that the public has a right to a balanced account. That being said, this is only a small part of this woman's life and an article under her name would be problematic for all the reasons mentioned above. I suggest renaming the article something like "The Holmes-Advertisement Controversy". (Perhaps someone can find a better title, ideally one that doesn't use her name, though the fact that Holmes is not this woman's professional name may mitigate that problem.) Bucketsofg 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but rename, per Buck's reasoning. If she has a nasty divorce, it doesn't belong in here...make the article more clearly about the advertisement and her medical context. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 04:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-or-Rename: She appears on Fox TV, Mayo has edited her Patient Story, she's been mentioned in the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail, the Vancouver Sun, the Canadian Press, the Halifax Chronicle Herald, Bloomberg, the Calgary Herald, the Ottawa Citizen, Fox Business, The Guardian (.co.uk). It might be "one event" but the clear response to "one event" is rename, not delete. - BalthCat (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to potential closing administrator -- since those who voiced a delete opinion, based on BLP1E, mainly did so before the article was expanded, and generally haven't returned here, to meaningfully address the counter-arguments, I'd like to request their opinions be discounted, because this is supposed to be a discussion -- not a vote. These {{afd}} are supposed to be discussions where there is a meaningful exchange of views. I am going to suggest this article be relisted, to get the opinions of individuals who have read the article in its current state. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have seen the changes and as can only be expected it is still only about the event not her. DoubleBlue (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact the article doesn't even mention where she was born, her birthdate, or even her age. Even if you google them you get nothing. No one knows or cares because she's not notable.--Fire 55 (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to somewhere appropriate. This woman is a pawn in the healthcare debate, she is not personally notable. Sueing over medical treatment does not make someone worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Fences&Windows 02:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @163  ·  02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitriy Berkovich[edit]

Dmitriy Berkovich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. The article claims the person is a grandmaster (which would make him almost notable) but that is not supported by his FIDE card. In fact he seems to be only an International Master, which is not notable enough to be in Wikipedia SyG (talk) 07:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article surely cant be kept on Wikipedia, I can see how it passes WP:N. Harlem675 07:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would agree. The available evidence suggests he is not a grand master. Crafty (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable: I Prodded the article but was told that Grandmasters are considered notable, but if he isn't a Grandmaster then he doesn't appear to be notable by any definition. PamD (talk) 07:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While we do have several articles on people who hold the International Master title (and I have written a few of them myself), the title alone has generally not been sufficient grounds to deem the person notable. In most cases International Masters, while obviously very strong players, are not at the kind of level where they can make a living out of it. (Indeed most Grandmasters are unable to be fully professional chess players, but they do represent the top echelon of chess mastery so I would nearly always think an article on a GM is worth rescuing.) If the player in addition to the IM title is a reasonably well known chess author, or holds a national championship or another similar achievement, the person is likely to be notable anyway. But in this case, the article has no content which shows evidence of that kind of achievement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes, indeed--when I deprodded I thought he was a grandmaster. I should have tried to verify at the time. DGG (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone above. PasswordUsername (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sjakkalle. Krakatoa (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. --MrsHudson (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough. Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 07:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @163  ·  02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

51Give[edit]

51Give (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by a WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related 51give.com.

I am also nominating the following related pages apart of the same non notable spam campaign:

51SIM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -speedied previously as spam under 51SIM Social Innovation Movement
Daniel Foa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hiu Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Riddled with press releases and SEO "self-links to their site and blogs, Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I'm concerned, This does not meet WP:GNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harlem675 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete, WP:SNOW, WP:NFT, WP:NAD, WP:NEO. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prududed[edit]

Prududed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per the article: "A word that was created in 2009". WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:V. Author contested the PROD. I42 (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No reliable sources to verify it, fails WP:V & WP:N. Out with the trash I say! Harlem675 07:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Levy[edit]

Philip Levy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Lots of people show up in the Venona papers, including President Franklin D. Roosevelt. [17] The papers themselves do not prove the guilt of anyone involved, as attested to by the relevant article (Venona papers) and the presence of an American president. They contain only decryptions and code names by which the Soviets referred to various people, including Democratic administration officials and the commander-in-chief himself (although his entry was deleted from the List of Americans in the Venona papers, the entry of little-known-people who figure there does not get equivalent favor). A great lot of the Category:American spies for the Soviet Union consists of similar articles based on material by conservative historians Haynes & Klehr, who identify these people as spies based on their reading of the Venona papers. Even if their conclusions are stellar, the majority of the entries are stubs based on passing mention on the material of Haynes & Kler. In fact, as it is written right now, this article is devoid of any scholarly information, other than transmitting the accusation of spying and including its subject in the American spies for the Soviet Union category, populated by many similar nonnotables included on the basis of Haynes & Klehr's conclusions. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Normally I would say that anyone involved or thought to be involved in something as important as Venona was noteworthy but I can't find anything about this gentleman to suggest this is a accusation has any weight behind it whatsoever. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The mention in Venona doesn't merit notability. Even if it did, since that is his sole path to notability, it could be called WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Three references are listed in the article. Edward321 (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A substantial biography might well suffice, but the subject's existence in the FBI files and a passing reference in the controversial work of one historian does not establish notability, as said above. Possible BLP violation as well. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. nobs (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:1E. Also doesn;t have enough references for a biography.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to A Little More Personal (Raw). –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fastlane (Lindsay Lohan song)[edit]

Fastlane (Lindsay Lohan song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NSONG as it has not charted, received awards, or been covered. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 04:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One-dollar salary[edit]

One-dollar salary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails to establish notability - a couple of dated news articles reporting on the then-latest buzz word is hardly sufficient. Article attempts to coin a term - fails per WP:SYNTH Ronnotel (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 1. The articles aren't dated. 2. They're only a subset of the coverage this phenomenon has received. 3. It isn't a "buzzword", it is an actual occurrence - top executives get a nominal income of $1, for whatever reason, and that fact is noteworthy enough to get media commentary about it. Fences&Windows 16:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This search that finds hundreds of news articles will be useful in building the article:[18]. Fences&Windows 17:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Another more focussed search: [19]. Fences&Windows 17:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categorify/rename to List of people with one-dollar salaries. As an article it just isn't very encyclopedic. GraYoshi2x►talk 18:00, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. There's more to this article than just listing the execs. The concept has been discussed in depth in umpteen news articles, there's a lot of scope for expanding this article. Fences&Windows 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unless a suitable merge target can be found. The phenomenon is notable enough to justify an article, and citations are plentiful. More work is indeed required to turn this into a better article. Owen× ☎ 01:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with OwenX that the topic needs an article and this is a difficult subject to Google for to some extent. To the delete voters, I can't imagine how many more sources from notable publications you would need as there are a large number of multiple countries already. Article certainly needs editing and improvement, not deletion. Also agree with Fences and windows that when this article is properly done, and it certainly can be improved to this extent, it is more than just a list of execs. Zachlipton (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Appropriate list, as a significant distinctive group--and can be expanded into a more informative article DGG (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. One-dollar salaries with stock options are one example, as given in the article. There are also other examples and reasons for a one-dollar salary, such as Richard Riordan taking one as the mayor of Los Angeles. Eauhomme (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well-known phrase since at least 1933 onwards to this day. Bearian (talk) 18:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamic swords[edit]

List of Islamic swords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list offers nothing over the associated categories. There is no sorting or contextual information, and I do not see any that would be particularly applicable. Mintrick (talk) 03:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 05:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a misapplied list on the face of it; there is nothing about any of these swords that is "Islamic," and some - the tulwar and the kilij, for example - predate Muslim influence in the associated cultures.  RGTraynor  06:05, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, what do Islam and sword designs have to do with each other? The fact that Muslims were the primary users of certain swords is irrelevant to the swords themselves. Nyttend (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with caveat - Islam and swords don't seem to have anything to do with each other but if the article was changed to 'swords mentioned in the Qur'an' or something similar that could be worth keeping. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Borderline OR. Note: The term "islamic swords" is actually two words (Islamic and swords) and not an article on WP. Sole reference listed is a site that sells replicas (and will be removed momentarily under WP:EL). Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @163  ·  02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teflon Don (album)[edit]

Teflon Don (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Deprodded without reason. No confirmed tracks, singles, release date or sufficient background. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Taylor Karras (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @164  ·  02:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fire (product)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cold Fire (product) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page is essentially an advertisement for a product. I do not think there is enough information from independent sources to rewrite this article with a NPOV since most available information is from the manufacturer. It also has notability problems and my research could not find any information from reliable sources that distinguish this product from other water/surfactant-based fire extinguishers. Sophitessa (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain Soul II[edit]

Mountain Soul II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL, redirect contested by Bwmoll3, who doesn't believe in redirects and is constantly rude at me for no reason at all when I harm "his" articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No justification for deletion, as the album will be released by a notable artist in a few weeks, and would just be recreated. Information for article is coming from a reliable source as well, not rumor mills. Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. God forbid we should delete speculative information. We've just become one big crystal ball now. I think I'll write articles about her next three albums too. Do you think she'll stay on Saguaro Road until 2013, or will some other label pick her up? I'd like to put her next album on Big Machine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now you're acting like a child stamping their feet because someone objected to your deletion. Stop the hyperbole and state a reason that that is reasonable and justifiable and not "because I want to"... Bwmoll3 (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not enough info yet, the album release is still 2 months away, just wait on more info to come out CloversMallRat (talk) 06:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While TPH has made many good contributions to the AfD process over the years, man, that's a pretty dern uncivil nomination, and the straw man argument doesn't help. We're not talking about the artist's next three albums or about what label she might be with years from now. We're talking about an album with an announced release date, a sourced tracklist and an announced name. As the Brits say, that's good enough to be going on with.  RGTraynor  06:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's wait for the album to be released. It may prove to be notable. Stormbay (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - With the main article on the artist. There isn't enough here to justify having a stand-alone article but she appears to be a notable artist and this is a confirmed release. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and make it stick until the release. The "source" for the album is the label, not a reliable 3rd party source. This one [33] would probably be better or this one [34]. Other possibles: [35], [36]. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:RGTraynor. As well as, by implication, WP:HAMMER. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This clearly can't stand as a standalone article and the option of merge is only valid if there is a clear target. The keep side essentially go for notability by assertion or inheritance or simple disagreement with the GNG and the delete side cite guildelines and policy so by measuring consensus against policy this turns into a delete. Should a consensus on a merge target emerge, im more then willing to review this with a view to merging, Spartaz Humbug! 05:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radiance War[edit]

Radiance War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Radiant Seas is a marginally notable book; its current article is nothing but an ample plot summary. Someone decided that even more plot summary was needed and created this article about a plot element in that book. This "war" has no notability outside of the book, and this much plot summary is not needed on Wikipedia. The relevant policies are WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:WAF. Attempts to simply redirect were contested by the main contributor. Savidan 18:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the relevant section of Catherine Asaro, trimming most of what's here in the process. Jclemens (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The major driving point in a series of notable(they have their own wikipedia articles don't they?) novels. Dream Focus 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — utterly non-notable ;) Jack Merridew 08:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since I disagree with the proposed wp:fiction guidelines and hold by inherited notability. And this is definitely a central article to the whole Saga of the Skolian Empire series. BTW, if the result will be a merge, it should be into Saga of the Skolian Empire, and not Catherine Asaro. 18:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)Debresser (talk)
  • merge I think we have to accept the work as firmly, not marginally, notable on the basis of the awards listed in its article. In that case major olot elements should have a discussion, but generally not a separate article. I do not hold by the general concept of inherited notability, if only because there's no place where it would stop. What we need is a compromise on what is and is not worth an article/section/redirect/deletion. Putting in every plot element of every novel in this much detail is nonsense, if this is an encyclopedia. Eliminating them entirely & not having even redirects is equal nonsense. AfDs by their nature make it a choice between the two equally unsuitable extremes. A compromise would avoid them. DGG (talk) 01:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, they don't. AFD only determines whether an administrator pushes the delete button. Ordinary editorial actions, such as redirection, merger, rewriting, or indeed expansion, are within the remits of all editors, even those without accounts. Deciding to not have an administrator push a delete button does not preclude deciding elsewhere, in the normal way, on some ordinary editorial action to be taken. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no evidence of independent notability. Mintrick (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi Sharks (or why Top Gear haven't done their arithmetic)[edit]

Nazi Sharks (or why Top Gear haven't done their arithmetic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article seems to be about a satiric memorandum prepared for an organization, but the paper would appear to be either non-notable or an unencyclopedic topic, or possibly even a hoax. Ssilvers (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a hoax. It is a paper with a stupid name. I don't think it is notable, yet. Greglocock (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable (I've not even heard of it until today when looking at the article). Bidgee (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable paper. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If I may, I wrote Nazi Sharks, and though it was a nice thought to try to include it, it certainly isn't notable. While the humour and title were for the audience, the figures are sound. theluckyman1976 —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:N PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe speedy? - It's cute, but in my mind the sources don't quite cut it. And, um,someone claiming to be the the author saying it shouln't be here really isn't a good sign. Artw (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.. speedy? Clearly not notable. Nevard (talk) 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speedy if you wish. It's popular by the standards of the Claverton Group but so far as I know hasn't appeared or been sourced anywhere else - even using the bracketed version of the name Theluckyman1976 (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was userfied. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chapstick lesbian[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chapstick lesbian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nomination: article re-creation and contested prod. The article seems to have little salvageable content, and is written in a manifestly unencyclopedic fashion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/Redirect protection. This is a lesser known variant on Lipstick lesbian and after removing all the un-reliable sourcing and original research we have one sourced sentence which can be sent off to that article we have nothing. Protection may or may not be needed for the redirect but the consensus, IMHO, got it right several years ago and little has changed to show this term has become into widespread usage - likely because lipstick lesbian has fallen in use as being too ill-defined and Chapstick being tied to a brand that has limited appeal across cultures. Move the one sentence Redirect to Lipstick lesbian and get rid of the rest. -- Banjeboi 01:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 01:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lipstick lesbian; not enough evidence that this variation is notable. JJL (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full-protect and redirect to Lipstick lesbian. Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 04:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect This reads as more of an attack page to me on the subject than an anywhere near serious discussion of the subject, and the term is hardly as notable as the original lipstick term. Nate • (chatter) 05:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and protect Agree with Nate. It's tone is way too close to an attack page. Jujutacular talkcontribs 06:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lipstick lesbian and protect Unverifiable. What can be verified (that the term exists and its origin) fits better in the context of a larger article.Sjö (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect protection. I took time to go through every source, and apart from the first these were all blogs, wikis, dating sites, etc. The only exception was of dubious reliability, and amounted to one short sentence - which was more appropriate for Wictionary than an encyclopedia article. I tagged then deleted all the unreliable materail, then placed a speedy deletion tag on the grounds of WP:NOTDIC - which was reverted by the sole creating editor back to the earlier unsourced, unreliable, inaccurate, synthetic entry that apart from one mention of the term was all WP:OR. The opprtunity to retain the minimal reference as a Wictionary entry is now in the past, and this needs to go, serve as a redirect to Lipstick lesbian as per the AfD three years ago, and protection to prevent this happening again. Mish (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect protection. The term is just a slightly witty extension of Lipstick lesbian, and best treated there.YobMod 09:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's cool it with all this sockpuppetry, fancy single-purpose user pages, and foreign politics. And yes, I am responsible for most of the article, lest there be any doubt as to the propriety of my vote here. Deepmath (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Were there any accusations of all that within this discussion? Please, keep your comments confined to why this article is notable. And you didn't answer at all why you felt this should be kept beyond contributing content for it. As far as I see it though if you did contribute the majority of the content of this article, it certainly needs to be in a much more serious tone than in it's current offensive and attack-ridden form. Nate • (chatter) 22:28, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The article in not attacking anyone. It is describing the identity of a certain non-negative stereotype of lesbian. Deepmath (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original neologism Cynical (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I believe Ellen DeGeneres is credited with this "original neologism", if only because she happened to be the first one to say it on TV. The broad use of this term, as slang, is well referenced in the article. Perhaps mention should be made in the article of DeGeneres, despite the fact that she better fits into the soft butch category. (Notwithstanding her short hair, we must commend her for her practicality.) Slang terms often have different definitions that vary widely over time and place. We also have articles for stone femme as well as lipstick lesbian. There is a whole Category:LGBT slang on Wikipedia. There is no valid reason to single out chapstick lesbian for butchery and deletion. Deepmath (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only is this remarkably unsourced, it is just... bad encyclopaedic content. How to recognise a Chapstick lesbian? "I'm a big girl. I can work on my car if I want to or need to without losing my femininity. I just have to put my hair up first. And yes, I know how to bake bread, too."? I'm not overly familiar with all the LGBT lingo, but this article is beyond hope and has nothing that would be merged into Lipstick lesbian. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CasaBlanca Resort[edit]

CasaBlanca Resort (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. I do not believe this resort to be notable. Does not pass a notability check. camr nag 01:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why it is not notable? Coverage in multiple newspapers and other sources would seem to meet the notability requirements. Also most significant casinos are inherently notable. So exactly what makes this one not notable? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"most significant casinos are inherently notable" says who? why? "most" are not "all"... then why this one in particular fits those which are inherently notable?
coverage in multiple newspapers: 1.coverage in multiple newspapers might be payed for publicity. 2.serious coverage was restricted to one event (i think WP:ONEEVENT fits this article, even though this is not a biography).
"So exactly what makes this one not notable?". nothing makes something not notable. i'm not just another citizen in my country because i did something, but because i didn't. the thing is, i don't have to prove something is not notable (it's impossible), but what has to be proven is that the subject of the article is, in fact, notable.--camr nag 13:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nearly any resort property will have some non-trivial coverage, particularly by local papers. The LA Times will no doubt carry numerous mentions of establishments, but if a restaurant gets reviewed by the local rag does it become notable; if the local rag mentions the opening, closing, remodelling, ownership change, etc., of a property does the property thereby become notable? I don't think so, despite meeting WP:GNG technically. GNG is a guideline and is carefully worded to say "substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion." I have no opinion on whether this property makes the grade, but it does seem to satisfy the GNG - as do lots of things that we wouldn't want to include articles on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:GNG, plus: its the largest employer in Mesquite, Nevada and scene of a notable murder. Article seems thin at present - should have more notes on its older name - but that is no reason for deletion. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. not necessarily passes WP:GNG, Carlossuarez46 already clarified that. "it's the largest employer (...)": 1.that is on a town of 9k people 2.they actually employ 900+ people... that makes it notable? 3.the numbers are 2 years old. and yes, it may have been the scene of a notable murder, but not everything having to do with a notable murder must be notable. that's why one event is not grounds for notability.--camr nag 18:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I also agree that it passes WP:GNG, in my opinion. If this article is going to be deleted, then that would set a precedent for other users to vote to delete other articles about casinos. Articles about casinos are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Gambling. The Wikipedia website has LOTS of disk space, and still functions efficiently when searching for whatever topic the average user is interested in. I'm a firm believer of the more the merrier. In a way this also is the making (and retention) of the history of casinos. If you take that away, then were is a good repository for that? Please - lets continue to encourage users to create new articles, and lets not get trigger-happy about deleting them. It has lots of references too.Zul32 (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. an encyclopedia is about quality, not quantity. the fact that this articles are part of a project does not make the notable. this would only set a precedent regarding non-notable casinos.--camr nag 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Plenty of references added since nomination. 2005 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. the problem was not lack of references, but relevance.--camr nag 14:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's move on please. There is significant coverage in reliable sources that are referenced. They are directly relevant to the subject of the article. Please read WP:N and if you have a problem with the guideline, take a discussion to that page. 2005 (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep-there are many articles of this kind on wikipedia. I don't see why it isn't notable. If only it were to be expanded and include a picture, it will be well off. But as for "not notable" I disagree. There is lots of stuff on wikipedia that I think is not notable and this article is just as good.SchnitzelMannGreek. 18:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. would you people stop saying that other similar articles exist? it's clearly not an argument (WP:OTHERSTUFF) and it makes me suspect forum shopping.--camr nag 19:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forum shopping??? The nomination reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT but using WP:AGF I avoided that comment till now. While WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep something, it is clear from the keep comments that a consensus appears to be there that notability has been adequately established. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • how is saying something is not notable constitutes WP:IDONTLIKEIT? nobody utters a valid reason as to why this is notable. they keep saying that there's other stuff and that they are part of a category, neither of which are grounds for notability. that's what made me stop AGF: the surprising amount of keeps that offer no reason for keeping.--camr nag 23:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I strongly believe that there are ample references provided to establish notability. While google results are not an indicator of notability, trying to sift through 357,000 google results is an impossible task that makes locating better online references extremely difficult. The sheer number of hits is clearly an indication that there is some notability associated with the resort. To imply that the only casino constructed and owned by Players International is not notable for that fact alone is surprising. I believe that the article clearly establishes notability with the citations provided. New articles take time to develop and improve. I'll again state for the record that the nomination is of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT type. This article is referenced from several sources that meet WP:RS and WP:V and I'm sure more will be added overtime. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @164  ·  02:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald James[edit]

Reginald James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined a speedy because I see a good faith attempt to show importance here. However, I'm not finding notability. The two references given are short pieces (just a few paragraphs) about the restaurant, with nothing particular about Reginald James. Search for "Reginald James" + "Sweet Mango" turns up only 11 non-wiki ghits, none of which show notabilty. Search without "Sweet Mango" turns up too many false positives to find this person. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not appear notable at the present time. I expect that the future may hold notability. Stormbay (talk) 01:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Editorial actions such as moves can be discussed elsewhere. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic views on Falun Gong[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Academic views on Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page really has no purpose. It is covered sufficiently by Falun Gong articles elsewhere. Even the authors of this article agree with deletion. Edward130603 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See below.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - meta-article. Bearian (talk) 21:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back or Keep per Power.corrupts in the previous discussion. This certainly needs a lot of rewriting and restoration - I find it disquieting that the person who first nominated the article for deletion removed almost 80% of the material within one week after the nomination failed with vague comments like "no good", and now the page is about 10% of its previous length, thanks to the same person. However, having reviewed the version the previous AfD discussion addressed, [37], I don't think it's AfD material. Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Criticism of Falun Gong. That was originally the title but a group of FLG POV-pushing editors insisted on renaming it "Academic Views". Same happened with "Supression of Falun Gong", which was renamed "Persecution of Falun Gong". In any case there is a strong sensitivity within the FLG community whenever words like "Criticism" and "controversy" are used and there are quite a few documented sections on the talk pages about the use of those words. Note its archives Talk:Criticism_and_controversies_about_Falun_Gong/Archive_1 for more info. BEAR IN MIND that the history of that very page has once contained a very good range of critical analysis on Falun Gong. If we delete it, it would be impossible to access that history for the average user. So please, if it's deleted, we have to archive some of the history on that page. Remember originally the article was titled "Criticism of Falun Gong" and users had an issue with this, and only after it moved did the blanking of criticism continue. Colipon+(T) 02:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unfortunately unable to give User:asdfg12345 the benefit of the doubt here that he wants the article deleted in good faith, as Tim Song pointed out. I think it is more likely that a group of editors want to hide revisions like this one to remove evidence of well-sourced critiques of Falun Gong. Colipon+(T)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteMove to Criticism of Falun Gong-I was the one who nominated the article for deletion this time. However, after listening to the arguments of Tim Song and Colipon, I think we should keep the article and review the edits that have been made to it in the past.--Edward130603 (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely do not move to "Criticism of Falun Gong" as it reduces the amount of POVs that can be used. No other opinion. Sceptre (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you think that Views on Falun Gong or Reception of Falun Gong would be a better alternative? You can check out the archive that Colipon has posted and see the original content of this page.--Edward130603 (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe we should await the resolution at Talk:Falun Gong before doing anything to this article? Colipon+(T) 16:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not a rename request. Otherwise I'm neutral to deleting or keeping. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; absolutely do not move to "Criticism of Falun Gong". I agree with Sceptre. We don't want a POV fork that would only invite WP:UNDUE. All Falun Gong related articles should be based on academic views to begin with. ✔ Olaf Stephanos ✍ 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move In general, I support the renaming although there is considerable redundancy. It is about time we stopped FG activists using euphemisms (academic views) and strongly emotional terms (persecution) when it suits. Academics are on the whole neutral or are FG apologists, so having this title imparts an obvious bias, and avoids addressing the real criticisms of FG. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Echo (2008 film)[edit]

Echo (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

All that I can find is trivial mentions. I read a sentence about it that said that the film won an award, but it didn't say what award. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability for this 8 min. film JJL (talk) 03:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nonnotable short film. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Saunders[edit]

Lucy Saunders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR. Reads like a promotional CV. SilkTork *YES! 12:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per Whpq's reasons, she appears to have a good number of citations in third-party articles on the subject from relatively notable sources (primary newspapers of major US metro areas). Zachlipton (talk) 00:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I post here the contents of WP:AUTHOR for those not familiar with the guideline:
Creative professionals
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics
The guideline was developed to help us differentiate between those writers who are genuinely notable from the many thousands who simply make their living from writing (and, as such, get published and promoted). The less notable writers tend to create their own entries on Wikipedia as that helps promote them. This is the second time that an entry on this writer has been created by a short term account. From looking at the article, at the refs, and at this person's work, it is clear they are simply a jobbing writer, and an article on Wikipedia is more worthwhile to the writer than it is to the general public. SilkTork *YES! 23:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Unionhawk Talk E-mail 05:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Turner[edit]

Toni Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

STRONG DELETE This article should be deleted because the person does not meet the notability standards of wikipedia nor is there any sourcing. The author fails to identify who published the books, how many were printed, and if the sales were national. In addition the author fails to say whether these books have been relied on or subsequently referred to by other publications to give the books notability. This article lacks any sourcing or any verifiable accounts that the books were even published. Anyone can write a book and pay to have it published and even produce a DVD in this day and age. But without any sourcing or elaboration as to what makes this person notable or if they added anything to the field of fianace with his/her book that other financiers/scholars have not already made, makes me highly doubt the notability of this person. Unless the author wants to clean it up and add some more biographical information this article should be deleted. Notable people should easily be able to have a full biography not a stub listing books they supposedly published.Quidproquo1980 (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Google looks to return a decent bit, but nothing I see that looks immediately to be a reliable source. However, she sounds notable, and I'd probably revise my position if someone pointed to one or two reliable sources. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, appears to fail WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE and WP:N; possible notability later, but for now, does not appear that notable and we don't try to predict future notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - works published by Adams Media, and at least one book has gone to a second edition. I could not find any reviews, and I don't know what vetting process Adams Media has regarding its publications. At least these books are listed on Amazon.com. We have had some vanity press autobiographies submitted by vanity press authors who are excluded from Amazon.com Racepacket (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In looking at the sales rankings from Amazon, the books sell pretty well. A Beginner's Guide to Day Trading Online (2nd edition) is ranked #2,197 overall and in the top 10 in both e-commerce and investing futures books. Considering that their rankings go into the 4 million title range, being in the 25K range is pretty decent. "A Beginner's Guide to Short Term Trading: Maximize Your Profits in 3 Days to 3 Weeks" is currently ranked #25,384. "A Beginner's Guide to Short Selling with Toni Turner" DVD is #46 in business related DVD's. Book reviews from large papers, including this one: [38] which not only talks about her book, but her background as well. An appearence On Fox Business News as an expert: [39]. I found others, but that should suffice. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Weak Keep. Those sources look pretty good, but I'd prefer more, thus the weak keep. However, they do assert some notability, and most definitely point to the strong possibility of more sources. Thanks, Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 05:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never heard of the woman before this AfD and I'll be honest, I have no intention of working on the article, so please don't interpret my post as a promise to do so. I'm just ponting out that it only took a couple of minutes to find some pretty good indicators of notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: And in thirty seconds' worth of searching, I find links to the Palm Beach Post, Salon, Hindu Business Line, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Daily News, Publishers Weekly, Business Wire, FOXBusiness ... Now this is where I would suggest that the nom review deletion policy and realize that it is not the lack of sources that defeat a stub, but unsourceability ... and in further poking see that nom is a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity was within a one hour stretch last Saturday, nominating three articles for deletion on identical grounds, two of which closed with overwhelming Keeps. IMHO, this is a bad faith nomination and should be Speedy Kept as such.  RGTraynor  06:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think calling it bad faith (especially in bold print), is a little harsh. The author should bear a certain amount of responsibility to adequately source the article and satisfy notability. Yes, I know about WP:BEFORE, but putting the blame totally on the nominator isn't really right. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person seems to have a lot of coverage in independent sources regarding her work, I can't see why this was put up for AfD PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - what more do you want from her? A knighthood? That's an awful lot of sources from many international publications. I see no reason why anyone can legitimately argue that her books are vanity autobiographies. (What kind of vanity autobiography gets a 2nd edition?) And the books aren't even autobiography to boot. I'm not convinced this was necessarily "bad faith" as RGTraynor argues, but I think the SPA issues are significant enough to raise questions about the nom's motives/intentions. Seems to me RGTraynor was justified in calling it out. Zachlipton (talk) 07:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You know, I'm trying to AGF, but it seems like I'm the only one. This "SPA" also !voted other AfD totally unrelated to the 3 he nominated, 2 of those votes being to "move". He did nominate 3 article, and 2 have been closed. But one was closed after 2 votes, so I'd be disinclined to call that "overwhelming". The other had 5. A definate consensus, but not as overwhelming as it sounds. Has anyone considered that the "SPA" has edited before as an IP editor and simply registered since IP's can't complete AfD's on their own? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. I'm willing to AGF here and realize that the nom's motives, if any, shouldn't really be the discussion here in any case. I guess I was just trying to AGF on the part of RGTraynor by pointing out that his callout wasn't really unreasonable. It seems like we have/will soon have a consensus towards keeping the article, so there's no need for a speedy keep and I don't see much reason to argue the point now. Zachlipton (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it looks like Ms. Turner is safe on Wikipedia. It's all good. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm quite happy with characterizing two AfDs that collectively had unanimous Keeps other than the nom's POV as "overwhelming." That being said, the wording of WP:AGF is not "Never say anything disparaging about another editor." The wording is "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Of course you may disagree with my assertion, but I rather believe the strong evidence stares us in the face; WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.  RGTraynor  02:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't get me wrong, I strongly believe that AGF has it's limitations and I've said things similar to yours in the past. I just don't think the evidence is all that strong, nor do I feel that a 2 vote AfD is "overwhelming". I said my piece. I'm not going to beat this dead horse any longer. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Apparently already exists at another appropriate Wiki, not a useful search term for a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 06:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ankle Slicer[edit]

Ankle Slicer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fictional creatures not even mentioned in the article of the sole film in which they appear. This DVD review states that it "might consider 90 seconds [of featurette] on the barely-seen ankle slicers, for instance, a bit much." Clarityfiend (talk) 05:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So we're talking creatures unnamed in the movie that had a few seconds of screen time? For my part, I don't find "only thing made for the film that wasn't in the book" anywhere in the list of notability criteria, and the toy tie-in merits a sentence, at best, in the movie article. Quite aside from that, this copy is largely stolen from the Chronicles of Narnia wiki [40], which predates this article by a few months.  Ravenswing  06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable minor characters that weren't named in the film. Joe Chill (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Shenin)[edit]

Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Shenin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable group. Site does not work.--MathFacts (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Merging can be dealt with elsewhere \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DW-link[edit]

DW-link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is highly inaccurate. It should be deleted until revised. Edmundhall (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like your sense of humor "It should be deleted until revised." You can't fix it once it's deleted Antonio López (desu) 01:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have talked to the engineer who designed this system, and we mutually agree that this page should not be kept public, unless it is corrected. Please delete this as I am responsible for the article, and I am unable to remove the article myself. Issues could arise involving patents and intellectual theft regarding this system, so it is a rather serious matter. Your cooperation would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Edmundhall is not "responsible for the article", but he is responsible for the text he wrote. How can he now think that everything he wrote is "highly inaccurate"? If he wants it deleted because its publication might prejudice someone's Intellectual Property Rights, he should say so explicitly. Is he saying that his text should be removed as a copyright violation (he should go to WP:COPYVIO)? Or does he mean that Wikipedia might be committing "intellectual theft" (which would violate WP:NLT)? Groomtech (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No intellectual theft or copyright violation has occurred as I had permission from the patent holder to write this article. However, after having read this article, the patent holder is not satisfied with it, and would prefer that at the very minimum the Squat & Anti-squat and Consistent Anti-Squat & Virtual Pivot Points paragraphs be removed. On top of that, other details need to be corrected. If I am responsible for the text I wrote, why am I not allowed to remove it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every contributor is responsible for the text they add, in the sense of vouching for it. They are not responsible for it in the sense of owning it. If you no longer wish some of the text to appear, then you can edit it out. Of course another contributor might choose to restore it, in which case they are now "responsible" in the sense of vouching for it. If there's disagreement over what text to include, the article talk page should be used to form a consensus.
However, Wikipedia does not in general remove articles just because someone out there, even if connected with the topic, "isn't satisfied with it". (There are certain exceptions.)
I'm disturbed to read that you got "permission from the patent holder" to write this article. Why would you need that? Is the text copyright of the patent holder? If so, Wikipedia cannot accept it at all without a release. Groomtech (talk) 08:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting a bit ridiculous. I was talking to the engineer who has patented this system, discussing the physics behind it with him, I asked him if he would be fine with me writing a wikipedia article about it. He was fine with it. None of the text I wrote is copied out of the patent, but the owner did suggest that as a remedy, which as you said, cannot be done. I think the engineer who invented, designed, and patented the suspension system is fairly qualified to determine whether this article is a "useful" addition to wikipedia. In it's current state it is incorrect, and will be misinforming people, there can be no argument about that. If I attempt to edit the article to remove in incorrect parts, It seems that any change will be reverted. So that won't work. Even if someone else is currently vouching for this article, it is still incorrect. Basically, I do not want to annoy the owner of the patent by ignoring the advice they give me regarding this article.
As a general comment about wikipedia, I am unimpressed with my first (and what will be last) experience. At a glance it would appear that the moderators, are intent on keeping a good page growth rate, rather than ensuring concise, accurate information is presented in the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article is incorrect, make the corrections you think necessary and explain them at the article talk page. Ideally produce reliable sources to support your version. Blanking the whole page does not count as "correcting" it. The inventor's opinion as to whether Wikipedia should carry an article on his invention is not decisive: that decision belongs to the Wikipedia community. Groomtech (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quote: "The inventor's opinion as to whether Wikipedia should carry an article on his invention is not decisive: that decision belongs to the Wikipedia community." If the inventor does not give permission for an article to be produced about his invention and patent, then his opinion "IS DECISIVE", If I am not corrected. Anyhow, disregarding petty arguments, I will edit the article as I see necessary to remove incorrect information. hopefully this article is not reverted to its original state, yet again.

As a side note, it is absolutely preposterous that you wikipedia moderators feel that you have more authority over this article than the inventor/patent holder. Surely this is a corruption of your policies if you believe the owner of the intellectual property has less authority over his invention than you, the wikipedia moderators. I can produce evidence of my statements about the inventor's statements, if necessary. You moderators are a joke. I don't care what your wikipedia policies state, the logic surrounding my argument is sound and clear, you are only ignoring my opinions with your authority to prolong the life of an completely inaccurate article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edmundhall (talk • contribs) 06:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean community members, lots of people worked on this article (as stated above) and it's not owned by an individual. Patent holders should not even be editing the article due to conflict of interest. You say you don't care about policy, we say we do care about policy. Antonio López (desu) 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Potential COI issue aside, unless we can ensure there is no WP:COPYVIO and there is no licensing question, it needs to go. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (see below) And start from scratch if anyone unaffiliated wants the article. Seems to be way to much conflict of interest and original research going on. Jujutacular talkcontribs 06:31, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The innate fallacy in Mr. Hall's comment is obvious; one wonders if he likewise believes that the inventor can prevent the US Patent Office from commenting upon it, or technical or peer-review journals from mentioning it ... especially given a product that has been manufactured and sold for four years now. In any event, it is regrettable that he did not notice the sentences surrounding the "Save Page" link stating "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL" and "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" during multiple edits. Quite aside from that we cannot - as I'm sure he understands - act in credence with his unsupported assertion that he is in contact with the inventor, as with peer review and the US patent system, Wikipedia operates under certain policies and guidelines. These are not petty, they are time-tested and arrived upon through consensus and daily application, and we cannot ignore them or set them aside for no reason beyond that an editor finds them inconvenient. If Mr. Hall feels he cannot respect them or abide by them, I quite understand if he wishes nothing more to do with Wikipedia.  Ravenswing  06:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously there are COI problems but there is significant coverage of this system and as far as I'm concerned that makes it notable. If there are inaccuracies in the article, fix them! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge - All the valid material is already covered by a section in the Bicycle suspension article. If that section ever gets too big, it can easily be broken out into a new article. That is not yet the case. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Probably AFD is not for merging either, but I was planning to suggest a merger if the delete didn't happen. Fences&Windows's post below gives me hope that we can just go straight to the merger. -AndrewDressel (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AFD is not cleanup. There is enough valid information here to justify its own article. If you see a problem with something, tag it, and discuss it on the talk page. Dream Focus 18:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Wood for the trees - is this thingy even notable?!? Well, apparently, yes: "The Sunday's development was a close collaboration between the then-Mad Catz/Iron Horse team, suspension designer Dave Weagle, and Seplavy. Weagle's contribution was the now-legendary dw-link suspension system, which has seen global success and has since been patented and installed on bikes by several manufacturers."[41] But AndrewDressel wisely points out that there is a nice section in Bicycle suspension on this already, and it is better sourced than this article. Any useful info lacking there can be merged in. p.s. Edmundhall, we don't remove articles just because people associated with their subjects don't like them. DW-link is hardly a secret, and Dave Weagle has no rights over how it is written about by anyone, barring libel. Fences&Windows 01:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixable[edit]

Pixable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

delete as nn website ZagZagg (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Copyvio has sorted, as OTRS received permission. Doesn't speak to notability, of course. Just noting for the record. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 23:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FledgeWing[edit]

FledgeWing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as nn website ZagZagg (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is a brand new web site (February 2009 according to the article,) which is far too short of reaching any level of notability, user base, or anything else for that matter. It is basically a start-up, and is using Wikipedia as a way of getting the word out. Groink (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: They have no mention of user numbers (Facebook amassed over 1m users in five months), but I added two more sources which I think are pertinent towards their notoriety. Nre207 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rose (Two and a Half men)[edit]

Rose (Two and a Half men) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

no indication of why this character needs a separate article to what is already in the main article. noq (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a character that has appered a lot in the sitcom and those have a good story.Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 21:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back to Two and a Half Men. not a lead in the series. not notable on her own. already enough information in the original article.--camr nag 01:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - She's totally notable.[42] I added a couple refs to get it started. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. she has almost an appearance every 2 episodes, maybe more. but she is still a secondary character, whose story and personality can be easily covered in the original article. also "totally notable" is kind of weird. making a search for "rose" "two and a half men" will probably give you many results, but she is still a secondary character. "judith" "two and a half men" would too, but there's no way judith should have her own article.--camr nag 13:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability is determined by sources, not by how large a role the character plays in the series. The main characters for a lot of less famous series can't pass WP:NOTE, and sometimes characters who appear just once can. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    but like i said, looking for sources (on google, for example) could, in this case, be very confusing.--camr nag 18:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and please, compare the info on the main article and the one on this one... it makes no sense to have this article. the Two and a Half Men article makes it very obvious that all the information for the character can be contained within the original article.--camr nag 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has sufficient sourcing for an independent article. Merger is an editorial decision, and would probably make sense in this case, but there's no policy-based reason to delete this article rather than merging. Jclemens (talk) 04:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yea, Jclemens pretty much nails it. Enough WP:RS to show that character is WP:N - and really that's the bottom line here. Although it's frowned upon, I could also mention some cartoon characters that have their own articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Add to that the direction that WP:FICT has been headed over the last half-year, and I'd say there's a fair chance if it did get deleted, it would simply be recreated within a couple months. The article could use more sourcing, but what's there establishes the key "keep" reasons. On a closing note, I'll say that I do "like" being able to keep an eye on Rose. (those familiar with the character might see a touch of irony in that ;)) — Ched :  ?  18:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 50 episodes it says in the information box. That makes the character notable, having been featured in 50 episodes, of a notable show. Dream Focus 23:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep standard fictional character entry that is verifiable and notable, too big t be merged. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this actually seems to be a main character rather than just a recurring character. -- Banjeboi 19:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/301/13/1367
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_25&oldid=1142644708"