Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 27

< 26 July	28 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Cadet squadrons in Canada

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 all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Cadet squadrons in Canada[edit]

This list echos the information at the cadet unit directory maintained by the organization itself. None of the individual units are notable themselves (or at least none that have had articles created and have been deleted through the AfD process for being non-notable sub-units of a national organization), so these will likely never be links to articles in Wikipedia. The previous AfD was not informed by the presence of this external link. Sancho 23:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason (see the equivalent for sea cadets and for army cadets):

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory, etc, etc. Ray^Talk 23:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#DIR Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:NOT#DIR Niteshift36 (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Royal Canadian Air Cadets, Royal Canadian Sea Cadets, Royal Canadian Army Cadets, respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTYELLOW, criteria 1. Cheers, I'^mperator 21:03, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

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 to delete, default to keep. From the discussion below, it is clear that the community is divided over this, and that there is not consensus on whether or not to delete the article. Proponents of both sides make valid arguments, and both the "delete" and "don't delete" opinions enjoy wide support. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 23:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts[edit]

Discussion resumed per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 August 1. Please add 14 hours to the discussion length. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable nor could it be established as notable based on searches for confirmation. Only one source provided discusses it, and it has very little reliability and is unprofessional (see: "bitchslap" in title). Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a collection of random poorly sourced information that speculates on possible legal events, especially from non-experts to provide reliable sources for said speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this also falls under BLP provisions since this deals with a living individual who is being sued, so any sourcing needs to be completely reliable and not contain speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary note - during the creation of the page, the creator also placed it in multiple projects and ranked it mid importance. This is highly inappropriate and is part of the generalized misunderstanding of guidelines and policies surrounding the creation of this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third note - Article now contains heavy use of original research. This can be found in the sections "Background" and "Conflict of international copyright law". Uses of Wikipedia as a source also goes against Wikipedia standards which state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, plus uses of it violate our original research standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not news, as the nominator said. Furthermore, the Wikinews article is vastly more informative, this really has nothing to add. Ray^Talk 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please before deciding, see this, many reliable sources have covered it, including the BBC. I however initially used the Register source since it was the first one I picked that mentioned Wikimedia Commons rather than just Wikipedia. It's a stub, what'd you expect, full article? ViperSnake151 Talk 23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "reliable sources" contain the same information, which is that the NPG sued Wikipedia. That would cover one or two sentences. Thus, this falls under Content Fork regulations. The type of sources you are using would violate the POV Fork standards. A sentence or two at most could be added to either the Wikipedia or the NPG page. Anything else would be undue. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have not sued Wikipedia. However, this can be expanded. Why can't we just hold off until the article is more...filled? ViperSnake151 Talk 23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for anyone who is taken in by the claim that there are tons of sources - most are blogs and fail reliable sourcing. Even many of the ones hosted by legitimate presses are blogs. They also regurgitate the same information with the occasional addition of original speculation. Since there is a living person involved, BLP would apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is belly button gazing for the moment. At the moment all the coverage is rather transient. If this come to something it might be worth a few sentences in the history of wikipedia page. It has the potential to have a large impact but that impact is yet to materialise. Recommend creator contributes it to WikiNews. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a long Wikinews article on this. And this page was never a fork of another. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - wikipedial notability is not transient. It is not required that something show continued notability, merely that it show notability at some time. While the article may be a little premature, it most certainly is notable, as the vast number of news stories show. Yes some are blogs, but you've also got several major newspapers, the BBC, el reg, EFF, etc. BLP does in some ways apply, but nothing is being violated here - sourcing is fine, and the guy is happy for it to be common knowledge because he told us about it to begin with. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is rather clear on the matter. BLP also states that blogs -cannot- be used in discussing matters that involve living individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting we do use blogs as sources, I'm just saying that they're an example of the notability - it's the very definition of notability: someone has made a note about it. The sources are the newspapers and other "real" journalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And also, the general notability guideline is pretty much "if many reliable sources report the same thing, its notable". Even though right now its only boiling around a number of facts, the fact that according to the "accused" that someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation has become his pro bono lawyer means that people are wanting to stand up for free culture. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is -not- what the notability guidelines say. If they report the same thing then they count only as -one- reference. That is what the guidelines state. Non reliable sources according to BLP cannot count towards notability in any form. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any reference to that in the policies. Also, why must this article specifically comply with WP:BLP? It is not a biography. And WP:N says "Multiple sources are generally preferred" ViperSnake151 Talk 02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator's claim there are no sources of a reliable sort is not an accurate claim, and the argument fails. Indeed, a minute or two's use of a search engine reveals there are a several sources on the topic that may be considered usable. The primary content of the notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As such the article may stand, pending improvement using those additional sources.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed that there are "no sources". Please read the nomination. It deals with notability and this being under BLP invalidates most of those "sources" that you find in a search engine. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the nominator indicated that the one source that referred to the topic that was originally provided was not reliable or professional, and that the nominator's search failed to find reliable sources. The claim, that there are no such sources fails. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "nominator", you can refer to me directly. Saying notability cannot be established is different than saying there are no other sources. Notability requires direct and unique coverage in multiple reliable sources. BLP requires reliable sources to have the utmost reliability. Combined together, having only a dozen articles saying the same four facts over and over does not prove notability. It would only allow two or three sentences of text. This would not be even close to enough to warrant its own page, let alone meet BLP's strict requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, there are now sufficient references from sources that are considered reliable that it's fair to say the original claim is moot. Biography of Living Persons requirements are met, as only information sourced from media such as the BBC, the New York Times, or Reuters are relied upon for statements about the individual in question The article is supplemented by additional journals at this moment. Further, additional sources are able to describe links to the legal questions involved, if not actually state the doctrines advanced. By the way, no article that I encountered mentioned a law suit. At this time the article is merely in need of improvement, and not in danger of being an article amounting to zero-reliable-reference scribbling. The nominator, Ottava Rima and the "delete" commenters are invited to state the specific aspects of the article that need improving over on the article's talk page.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By "sufficient references" you mean 70% of the page doesn't even discuss the matter and fails WP:Original Research? Not only are you abusing BLP and referencing standards, you are now coatracking. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This reference falls BLP standards. The "funny" should have tipped you off that it is a column stating opinion with the purpose of humor. Not a highly reliable source. It must be removed immediately. Artnet is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. Amatuer photographer.com is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. This is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. Also, Wikipedia is not reliable per Wikipedia policy, and it cannot be used in a BLP. The uses of it also constitutes original research. This must be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times article, entitled Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos describes the odd (some would say "funny" ) circumstance wherein qualifying licensed images of quality are less common than desirable. You're invited to describe persuasively with several reasons about how the article and the journal fails to satisfy as a source. You have failed to do so. Equally well, the Amateur Photographer is reporting on a press release or announcement of the National Portrait Gallery. Nothing especially remarkable or unreliable about that. Artnet merely confirms the information found in the BBC, NYTimes, and Reuters articles, and describes how the subject of the article--remember that?--could arise,namely how a dispute over copyright and public domain works is possible, given the differing copyright laws in the United Kingdom and the United States. It is not relied upon for biographical information, and after all, the article is about a topic, not a person.
At this point the complaint of Ottava Rima is about the quality of the article, rather a distance from the topic of the deletion of the article. I am most interested to see Ottava Rima describe how Reuters, the New York Times and the BBC fail to be adequate sources for information about an individual, and how they should not be relied upon. More generally, the issues that the article is about has been hardly developed, and those issues are not subject to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons concerns in the least, apparently an area of some confusion for Ottava Rima .
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times article fails highly reliable source as it is opinion, provided to have a humorist take, and does not provide information not found elsewhere. This was already stated. The rest of your arguments fail to have any real basis in reliable source guidelines. A source is not reliable simply because it regurgitates facts found in reliable sources, otherwise we would allow blogs in all forms as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statements described in that New York Times article are affirmed in the other cited sources, and indeed, the sole instance where the citation stands alone in support of a sentence is where a Gallery spokesperson is reported to confirm that the Gallery has succeeded in communicating with with the Encyclopedia staff. I'll see if an additional confirming citaton may be found in that instance.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"are affirmed in the other cited sources" Then they do not provide original information and are there for the mere appearance of more sources. It is redundant and not reliable. It is best to remove it as it is inappropriate. Furthermore, notability is on sources not simply repeating the same information over and over. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I observe that the claim fails for Ottava Rima about an "unreliable" source when that source is affirmed and corroborated by other reliable sources.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability is not determined by statements being used in other sources too. The fact that you would suggest it does shows a severe misunderstanding of what reliability is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thoughtful explanation and reasoning is noted and remembered. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html. But look at a physical issue of the NYT. It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists. It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section. The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent - if anyone honestly believes Slrubenstein above, then you are gullible. The NYT isn't under some conspiracy and there are no people mysteriously and evilly relabeling things as "funny" when they are meant to be taken seriously. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself is about how our licensing requirements are the cause of rather amateur and funny-looking photographs of celebrities at times. They got some sort of clean URL thing going on there. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the word "funny" isn't included in the article, so it would not be eligible for such a "clean up". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yellowdesk the Gullible." It has a princely feel to it. Perhaps I can live my life with a certain kind of guile-less wonder now.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep (but possibly move out of the (article) namespace until notability is established). If Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is allowed, then this is. Could seriously affect thousands of our image uploads. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been a court case, so it would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Remember, this is currently a content POV fork off of the Wikipedia page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep saying this is a fork? I didn't fork it from ANYWHERE. ViperSnake151 Talk 15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article on Wikipedia. This would be a fork off of that. We even have History of Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia, which would be equally appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In my opinion this violates WP:NOTNEWS. The part that says "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own" sums it up pretty well. The information in this article can serve its purpose in the History of Wikipedia article or some other place. Just because something has a lot of news coverage doesn't mean it should get its own article. This is an encyclopedia; we want encyclopedic content. The AfD for Michelle Obama's arms showed that abundant sources do not prove something is encyclopedic. Killiondude (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Killion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per RHaworth (except that in my opinion, it meets notability already). Question for Ottava Rima (or anyone): Can you explain the claim that "Non reliable sources according to BLP cannot count towards notability in any form"? I have never thought of notability as needing to be reliably sourced -- reliable sourcing, I thought, is for claims Wikipedia makes within articles ("about" things). But notability is not a claim we make within articles, it's a prerequisite for having the article in the first place. Thus, I assumed that notability need not be established from reliable sources. Alternative position: for establishing notability, even redundant gossip blogs would be "reliable", as they are indicative of the attitudes towards "notability" taken by their editors. Thoughts? Agradman ^talk/_contribs 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:BLP. It comes up quite often. The very spirit is rather blatant in this clause: "In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." As you can see, we are only -allowed- to use highly reliable sources. Not "reliable" sources. Blogs don't even match "reliable" sources, let alone "highly reliable" sources. Notability must be established -within- the article. This is done through reliable sourcing. BLP states exactly what kind of sourcing can be used in this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Markedly non-neutral. Examples follow. See also other policy issues, below.:
- "[B] claims [its IP] rights ... were infringed by ... uploading the ... prints of ... works that have already fallen into the public domain." Contains definite POV-pushing. It really repeats the preceding sentence...just to make sure Ms. Reader gets the point.
- "[B] had demanded a response by ... and also had demanded that ..." The 'defendant', C, "reports", B "states" and "demands".
- "[B's] threat is in conflict with U.S. copyright law, where both C and F are based." Again with the POV-language "threat". This statement, is cited to BBC News article and a Computerworld magazine article. Neither are respected law academics or qualified legal commentators.
- "The threat also claimed that" And again...
- "[B] had contacted [D] a few months before ... over this issue, but did not receive an immediate response" Phrasing of the dependent clause comes across as B petulantly leaping into doing something just because someone hadn't answered them within a single day.
- "In July 2009, lawyers representing [B] threatened legal action to an editor-user of the free content multimedia repository [E] (which is owned and operated by [D], also operator the free [F])" First, they took legal action—pre-court action, though stressing desire to resolve things amicably. Second, the deliberate goodguy-badguy painting of "the free content x also operator [sic] the free" is see-through.
- Wikipedia, is not a soapbox, a news aggregator, nor is it a crystal ball. There's no court trial to cover in a Background-Arguments-Judgment format. The root of this topic is a single letter sent by one party to an individual. A single event on which not much can be written that isn't covered in the articles on cases that actually became court cases, and what was written here is far from neutral. –Whitehorse1 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perceived non-neutrality is an argument for editing it, not deleting it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that on its own lack of neutrality invites editing not article deletion. If you re-read the opening line of my comment "See also other policy issues, below", you'll see the POV problems illustrate other underlying issues: soapbox content in form and in style right from the beginning, plus extrapolatory speculating on what might happen in a case if one arose, contrary to Policy on what Wikipedia is not. –Whitehorse1 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy with NOINDEX. My instinct is to userfy per RHaworth, as there is useful material and >50% chance we'll need to recreate this article in a hurry depending on what happens next. At the moment keep isn't an ideal option: the context and content don't look ready for prime-time yet—as often happens with legal situations, things have gone quiet for a while and we don't want the article to attract speculative comment. - Pointillist (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, userfying means we can put notability questions on hold for the time being. Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The news coverage at this point has made it notable. Neutrality can be dealt with by editing. AFD is not cleanup. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As posted on his talk page: Notable as what? The only "reference" information we have is that NPG sent a letter saying to remove something or they would pursue actions. The rest is impossible to determine as fact as there hasn't even been a trial. BLP makes it very clear that we cannot have innuendo or rumor. Anything not determined as fact by a court is simply not permissible. They can claim he broke whatever law they want, but that is the definition of libel. We are not to reproduce libel. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the NPG said they sent it? Also, the article says alleged copyright infringement - it's not "Wikipedia says he broke the law", it's "Wikipiedia says the NPG says he broke the law", and that's the sort of thing we have in articles everywhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We report -facts- and only facts. We are not allowed to report allegations according to BLP. We are an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything, nor have any actual threat been made--not even by the shortsighted administrators at the NPG. And the article does not say that anyone has been. Copyright violation is normally a civil matter, and even NPG suggested a civil settlement. Rereading it, claims of BLP violation there with respect to C. are an absurd red herring. A really absurd red herring. DGG (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything" Then there is no grounds for the article. There isn't even a case. There is a threat to take someone to court. You just destroyed any claims to notability according to BLP standards of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They did not make such a threat.It may be implicit, but they did not explicitly make the threat. The person talking here about a threat is mainly you. To do so without evidence is a violation on your part of BLP. That's the relevant BLP problem here. DGG (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, if there is no threat why is there a page about a potential court case? Your understanding of the matter right now is just as faulty as your understanding of the matter as a whole. Now, for your generalized ignorance, read this. And please, DGG, you have already lost any respect you could possibly have from me. Now you are just digging your whole deeper as you continue to speak to what you clearly don't know. Your statements suggest a complete disconnect from reality or an utter abuse of the human language to read what is not there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Jeni ^(talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly notable and needs covering in depth. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further to the above, I don't favour merging, as the NPG article already has a small section of appropriate length. Putting all the detail there would seriously unbalance it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly "needs covering in depth"? Nothing has yet happened. A letter was merely sent. Do we now contain full entries on a letter being sent with a page that should be a stubbed except for 70% of the page being devoted to original research? Did you even bother to read the page by chance? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How civil. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see how the NPG article already having such makes this redundant? You just provided an argument to delete, not keep. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've argued exactly what I wrote: that the topic needs covering in detail but not in the NPG page. It's quite clear to anyone with a life. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do not make content forks simply to give something that only has a few sources its own page. Please read WP:UNDUE. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete: Navel-gazing at its worst. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but consider merging the main points into National Portrait Gallery (with WP:Undue in mind) until we see what the long-range notability of this is. The core of notability is significant coverage in reliable sources; in other words, whether a matter is "worthy of notice." This seems to meet that. As a sample, I see:

Eric Felten of Wall Street Journal covered it.
Rory Cellan-Jones of BBC News covered it
Maev Kennedy covered it for The Guardian.
Noam Cohen in The New York Times gave it a column.

The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html. But look at a physical issue of the NYT. It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists. It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section. The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See above for the dismissal of the conspiracy theory that Slrubenstein is promoting - the NYT doesn't mysteriously add the word "funny" to its online resources because they are meant to be taken seriously. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Blackenhorn covered it for ZDNet.
It's in Metro & London Standard A search of google news shows that people are talking about this around the world. (I don't know if all of them are reliable, but some of them—such as this—certainly look official.)
Artinfo picked it up
(As an aside, since this is not reliable, it's even entered advertisements, which I mention here only because I was fairly gobsmacked to find it there.)

Even if much of the coverage is in op-ed or blog, it's in op-eds or blogs by reliable sources contributed by professional journalists, and hence reliable (there are rules in WP:RS for handling op-eds, but nothing I see that excludes them as sources to establish notability). In terms of WP:BLP1E, this is not, strictly speaking, a "biography of a living person." There is a living person involved in it (as with many current incidents of interest to human beings), but the article could stand and be almost as informative if the individual's name were omitted altogether. He is a participant in the subject, but not the subject. Information regarding the specific individual needs to be impeccably sourced, but currently the article seems BLP-vio free. The individual in question has expressed that he has no concern about his real name being used, here, when queried by the nominator of this AfD. The main question for me is WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think we can predict whether this is going to be a flash in the pan or develop into something of sustained notability; I suspect it will depend on what the NPG does next. Given that, I would support merging relevant major points into the NPG article, though I think we should be careful not to give it more attention in that context than it merits. Naturally, it is of great interest to Wikipedians, but it may not loom that large to our general readership. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The allegation covered by mostly British newspapers is that the individual broke into the BNG and stole images. Even if the name was omitted and lessened the damage, it is still rather damaging to take allegations and post them. During court cases, lawyers normally ask how much knowledge people have of a case before they are taken as jurymembers. The reason why is that allegations and unfounded claims -can- taint people and make them thing that the claims are fact. That is why it is unethical to reproduce them and why Wikipedia's BLP states that we have to be "right" and that we have to have unquestionably reliable sources and to treat them appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the NYT is labeled "funny" and not to be taken as a news article. The WSJ is an opinion article and cannot be taken as a news article. The Dana Blackenhorn is a blog and fails RS and BLP RS standards. Artinfo is not a reliable news source. Etc. Once you remove the unreliable fluff, there are very, very few actual sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion pieces such as that in WSJ and NYT are acceptable; I see nothing excluding them from establishing notability (which, again, is whether or not people are talking notice). BLP is meant to protect individuals from libel and to protect Wikipedia from accusations of libel. Are there other individuals about whom you are concerned? Unless I misread his response to you, here, User:Dcoetzee is not bothered. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get that crazy idea? No opinion piece is acceptable as fact. this is very clear - "but not for statements of fact". Please read these guidelines before making such statements, as they would mislead others who also failed to read the guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can try to remain civil? The entire sentence (et seq) from which you quote may clarify: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." If Op-ed pieces are being used irresponsibly to source statements of fact, that should be addressed. However, they are expressly not inherently unreliable, and I see nothing that indicates that they are excluded from establishing notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your undestanding of civil is as faulty as your understanding of the other guidelines. I have not attacked your person in any way, nor have I made anything except to point out that you are completely mistaken. "not for statements of fact" is very, very blatant. BLP demands that we only carry facts, or, if we do have opinions, we attribute them directly to the source and other important restrictions. That does not mean that we simply tack them as a reference to another article in order to fluff up how many sources there are. Regardless, opinion pieces cannot be used for notability, they can only be used to attribute an opinion when that opinion is pertinent, i.e. an expert on an issue dealing with the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard it as civil (as characterized by "consideration and respect") to imply that people's ideas are crazy and that they haven't done the homework. Likewise, if you think "Your understanding of civil is as faulty as your understanding of the other guidelines" is courteous, then we are coming from a wide divide. In any event, I am uninterested in bickering with you about it. The full sentence from which you selected seems pretty clear. Too, I'll note that WP:BLP policy does not forbid the use of op-eds. On the contrary, it accepts them ("Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed....") and even online blogs "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Of the ones I linked above, the op ed writers are all professionals with clearly established journalist credibility, and they are all published in reliable sources. Do you have a source to substantiate that opinion pieces cannot be used for notability? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then your understanding of civil is completely disconnected from WP:CIVIL. Now, incorrectly throwing out accusations of incivility as you are doing is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I suggest you stop now before your bury yourself even deeper. Now, you can say whatever you want, but WP:Notability is clear that only reliable sources count to notability and WP:RS makes it very clear that opinions cannot be construed as fact, and therefore, are not reliable sources. They can be included, as non-reliable sources can be included when notability is established elsewhere. But your argument fails regardless. Ottava Rima (talk)

WP:N says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It does not say "fact-based." And, in fact, opinion pieces are specifically included under some subject-specific guidelines, such as reviews for films or books. I suspect that my understanding of "civil" is quite fine. And I also suspect that any further conversation I might have with you will prove unproductive, so I will keep any further conversation I have about this subject to individuals who understand "courteous" and "respectful" more in the sense that I do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Doesn't say fact based? Are you serious? It is really clear that fact based is the only way to establish notability. Blogs don't cut it. Further conversations with me would prove unproductive because your statements about Wikipedia are far beyond absurd that you can't even admit you are wrong when direct citations were provided that blatantly proved you as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html. But look at a physical issue of the NYT. It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists. It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section. The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is about an issue covered in the news, but so are lots of our articles. And it is an important issue. Let's keep it. OR or NPOV concerns? What article doesn't have those? I am sure we can work on them, there, like we do with other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles have already been debunked as reliable or constituting notability per saying the same material over and over without anything new or original. Your conspiracy theory above reproduced enmasse is troubling also. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - well sourced; no basis for deletion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, many of the sources are unreliable or sources for original research. Thus, just "looking" at the list of sources isn't enough to declare that it is well sourced. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so obsessed with this that you feel the need to challenge every one of the "keeps"? Do you have some personal stake in this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I challenge are those that show a false understanding of BLP or RS, especially when people claim there are many reliable sources when most of the ones in the article have been debunked as reliable or usable per our policies. There is even a source from 2007, 2 years before this incident happened. My stake in this is that if this page is kept, its horrible use of sourcing plus casting of potentially libelous material as fact would make the whole encyclopedia look bad. It would affect all of our integrity, and as a content contributor that deals with high end referencing, I cannot afford to have pages I work on cast in the same light as something that breaches all encyclopedic and ethical sensibility. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What BLP issues do you allege? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page amounts to the publishing of an accusation of impropriety against a non-notable individual. They claim he broke into their servers, and they claim that he violated copyright on 3,000 images. This is a serious offense. The presentation lacks any trial, and there is no way for him to be deemed innocent. Thus, the presentation of an accusation in such an expanded state gives credence to the accusation itself. It is the equivalent of saying "we have read the accusation and have deemed it factual", thus supplainting a trial and jury with Wikipedia editors. That could open us up to reprinting libel and other major BLP related problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources make that claim? Or is it based on interpretation of the sources?

Keep—seems like a perfectly notable topic, not just "news" but an important case of Internet dispute. Some sources back this up; others can doubtless be found. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 10:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Ample sourcing establish notability.--Pink Bull (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break 1[edit]

I am starting to get confused by his applications of policy here, but his attempt to use WP:BLP here as an excuse, is fundamentally flawed. It only says in the lead "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." It does not say "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages, and any other material on such pages." I am starting to think about potential crystalballery with this article even with the sourcing. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lawsuit against a living individual. There is no way to separate any of the facts or statements away from this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am most interested to have Ottava Rima provide a citation to aforesaid lawsuit. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, if there isn't a lawsuit what is the page about? A simple letter that made a threat? And that is acceptable how? Don't be absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate (Yes I made that one up). This article meets notability guidelines for its core subject matter, so nominially qualifies for its own article. NOTNEWS certainly speaks to the recentism argument, but my sense is a dispute of this nature, involving a respected institution asserting copyright action against a previously anonymous person who helped to make the media publically is likely to have lasting notability. The real problem here, is that Wikipedia simply isn't ready to write a proper article on this topic yet. You are taking three of the things Wikipedia does poorly - writing about recent events with an eye to lasting significance, writing about unnotable people who have been thrust into the spotlight unwillingly, and writing about itself (or at least a sister project) and combining them into one article. So, while I on balance I think this article meets inclusion policies, as an editorial matter I think it should be removed from mainspace and {{noindex}} added until a couple of high quality sources - not blogs, not opinion pieces, but genuine technology beat writers or the equivalent - treat the matter comprehensively. I rather suspect that such will appear soon, and will alleviate much of the synthesis that currently appears in the article. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. - Pointillist (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although the result of a court case would be notable, all that has been reported so far is that a letter has been sent warning that there may be legal action, and people have commented on this and its possible consequences. The content may be verifiable, but it shouldn't exist as a separate article as it appears to be based on a prediction of future notability. Deletion would be a possible solution although there is useful information that could be merged to other articles. snigbrook (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. This isn't notable, we're not news. Wikinews covers it. Let it stand there. And this is a BLP issue, as the editor is named. Lara 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Recentism, WP:News articles and WP:NOT#NEWS. -- œ ^™ 02:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that the three arguments for deleting the article are a failure of the general Notability guideline, the policy on Biographies of living persons, and the policy on What Wikipedia is not with relation to being News reports.
(a) The article seems to handily meet the nutshell description of the GNG ("[having] received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"), currently citing BBC News, Reuters UK, and The New York Times among nine others. (b) While this is not strictly a biographical article, the information that does pertain to a living person ("Derrick Coetzee") is all cited to the reliable sources referred to above (to the extent of every sentence mentioning the LP). (c) Lastly, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't offer any hard and fast criteria, but the section pertaining to this article appears to exclude "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism"; reading the article, I find it neither meets those criteria nor is of 'transient notability' by judgment and as evidenced by those commenting here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 05:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated before, articles must have unique information and not simply regurgitate the same few details to count under notability. Furthermore, BLP has stricter notability requirements. You state the NYT as a reliable source, although it is clearly marked in the humor section. This shows a lack of appropriately analyzing the source per our requirements, which disqualifies your vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your requirement that the independent reliable sources all provide unique information is not supported or born out by the general Notability guideline, as such, this seems to be your own personal special requirement for this article and has no bearing on this discussion. Furthermore, this is not a Biography of a living person, it only references one, and duly cites each line of reference to said LP.

Whether The New York Times finds this situation humorous or not does not invalidate their standing as a reliable source, and arguing that it does has—again—no corroboration in the English Wikipedia's sundry guidelines, policies, and precedences. If you can find that the NYT article has been labeled or categorized by the newspaper as "something we just made up to sell papers without any of our usual fact-checking and editorial processes", then that would be a viable argument for striking its use as a reliable source.

Lastly, you have no standing whatsoever to make any determination that my input (this is not a vote) is "disqualified". I am not a single-purpose account, not have I violated any longstanding rules or practices in voicing my opinion here. You may feel that my arguments do not have merit with regards to your aforementioned special undocumented requirements for this article's allowance, but this is is a discussion between equals and you are very far from your place in judging my input or contribution here. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Notability guideline before pontificating about what it says. Here is a strong statement: "Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works" or more to the point "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works,". The reason why is from it regurgitating the same few bits of information. If 100 sources all say "black is good", that does not justify having an article on it with a sentence stating "black is good" and having 100 references all linked to the same statement. Your statement is disqualified because you show an ignorance of our guidelines. Your post is insulting to anyone who bothered to read the guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, these are plainly not republications of the same source or news wire service. Secondly, I'm sorry I failed to realize that multiple reliable sources from London, New York City, Framingham, Massachusetts, Tarrytown, New York, Denver, Colorado, Oxford, England, and San Francisco, California fit your criteria of "the same geographic region". Furthermore, where in "does not always" do you draw forth the equation of "do not ever"?

My statement is not "disqualified" because you have neither a right to do so, nor the weight of consensus; if the administrator who closes this discussion chooses to disregard my input, they are welcome to do so, as that is the prerogative we have empowered them with by our consensus of their station. I'm providing my interpretation of the article, the sources, and the relevant policies and guidelines; calling me ignorant and my input insulting is far from civil, and I would ask you find some other avenue of expressing your opinions herein than shooting down the opinions and input of your equals. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"these are plainly not republications" This suggests that you failed to read the whole statement. The "and" is highly important. Also, you can list those areas but you failed to prove that the sources used are also reliable. The New York is the NYT, which is marked "funny" because it is a humor opinion column and not a reliable news source. As proven above, the guideline makes it clear that opinion pieces cannot be used as "fact". And if you think my comments saying you are ignorant of the matter are incivil, then you clearly do not understand the word "ignorant" nor have you read WP:CIVIL. Ignorant means "unknowing". It means that you are wrong. Civil makes it very clear that I have the ability to state that your comments are wrong. Your inability to understand multiple guidelines and policies even now when it was proven that they say what I am saying is disturbing, and just verifies my original claim that your "vote" is invalid. My "equals" bother to read guidelines and policies before making claims about them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to continue to have a wikifight with an incivil contributer. My input stands. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how your understanding of WP:CIVIL is wrong and that I have not actually committed any incivility, your constant statements to the contrary are an actual breach of WP:CIVIL. The only thing that stands is that your comments show a lack of actual reading of our guidelines and policies along with you making it obvious that you deserve to be blocked for your false accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html. But look at a physical issue of the NYT. It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists. It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section. The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered by multiple reliable sources in more than one country; sources include The New York Times. No reason to delete. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times source is marked as being humorous so it cannot be taken as a source of news. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at the HTML. Now why don't you look at how the article is actually identified? It is in the "arts" section of a newspaper that has many sections. I guess you must come from a small town where the newspaper has only one section, Ottava, but in New York the paper has many sections divided by area of coverage. Section A covers national and international news, section B covers City news, section C covers the Arts, and that is where this article is, as it addresses our use of photographs to illustrate articles on artists and performing artists. By the way, there is a whole other section just for opinion. But this article is not in it. When interpreting sources like newspapers, Ottava, you need to understand their own classification systems. Now I have taught you, so you know. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if this case makes legal history in copyright law or otherwise achieves historic notability, then keep. Until then it's a legal dispute between two organizations and there are a thousand of those a year. We do not keep articles on every dispute, every death, or every other item that gets news coverage while it's ongoing. Any future potential is far from certain as well. Categorical WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:CRYSTAL - this is just routine news, in encyclopedia terms. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, else merge to appropriate location. I think this is more a NOTNEWS issue than anything else. Covering the group, not the event is the smart choice here. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or userfy. Wikipedia has a tendency of writing articles about itself at any given opportunity, even when it should not. This is where an article is not warranted. —harej (talk) (cool!) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State of play at 31 July/1 August[edit]

The current situation is a bit confusing so here is a summary as I understand it. To comment on the situation please use this section. To add further !votes, please use the next section titled "Further !votes". Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I've removed the tally of !votes I created earlier—it was only to assess whether SNOW was valid, and is no longer relevant, if it ever was. - Pointillist (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Current situation (is this correct?)[edit]

NPG has made an allegation alleging that an upload to commons has caused damage (see letter).
Dcoetzee and the Wikimedia Foundation have not admitted any facts about the alleged upload to commons (which is not admitted either).
NPG and Dcoetzee have not mentioned Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
Commentators have mentioned Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
The EFF claims to be represnting Dcoetzee. Dcoetzee hasn't confirmed this.
The Wikipedia Foundation has historically claimed that as their content is stored on and served from servers based in the USA, US law should apply to use of non-US :sourced content.

Is this summary correct and complete? If so, shouldn't the article be structured around it?

Yeah, but actually the letter DOES reference Bridgeman v. Corel ("There is a common misconception that, as a result of the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, copyright can never subsist in a photograph of a painting. That conclusion is erroneous because [blah blah blah]. And also, the nominator in good faith RE-OPENED this AFD after it was closed by an administrator because by his rule, 3 days isn't enough. Also, vote tallies are not allowed since AFD is not a vote, its a discussion. ViperSnake151 Talk 00:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, Dcoetzee said he was being represented by the EFF. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viper - Why would it matter what the original letter did or did not do? It is not a reliable source per BLP. It is an accusation, and we are not supposed to take accusations as fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, usual WP:NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not news, not encyclopedic. Wikipedia's fascination with itself should not be in article space. Resolute 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just wanted to note that it already is, in the article on National Portrait Gallery (London). This is one of the reasons why I propose considering a merge of major points to that article pending establishment of long-term notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the notability is not the NPG alone, the notability is the NPG vs Wikipedia. Merge is inappropriate. I continue to see denying the likely long term importance of the confrontation as imperceptive.DGG (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just make that idea up? Are you certain that you can't spread information on two different subjects in two different areas, and that you instead need a POV fork for them? Did you not bother to read WP:FORK? So, if two people with pages get married, they have to have its own page for the marriage? Or anything else? Not only is that not how Wikipedia works, it is so absurd that it is strange for you to even think it would be how Wikipedia works. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying it. I suspect it will develop into long-term importance. Meanwhile, coverage at the NPG seems appropriate to me. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient reliable sources. The idea that the filename chosen on the NYT web server classifies what is clearly a news story as humor and impeaches its reliability is remarkable. Genuine BLP, forking, neutrality, paucity of sources, etc. issues are equally absent. (The NotNews, recentism etc deletes are much better founded.) John Z (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, lets see, a source that is clearly marked "funny" mentioning the case in all of 5 sentences with one sentence making a direct insertion that cannot be known (i.e. it is claiming he stole works from a website) before a case is even heard is now what you are going to say is enough to see it as notable? And BLP is absent? Have you even read WP:BLP? This is about a court case against a living individual. Your comments are so absurd that your vote is disqualified. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely to be as accurate as any other story on a newspaper website, at least for the quotes that it is being used as a source for. Maybe it doesn't have the same neutrality standards and doesn't represent the views of the New York Times, but the fact that one of the URLs that can be used for accessing the page contains the word "funny" doesn't mean it was written as a joke. snigbrook (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. ~~WP:SNOW.~~ Legal disputes are plainly an encyclopedic subject. The sourcing for ths one clearly establishes the formal baseline criteria notability. WP:NOT#NEWS is about trivial news of the day. WP:NAVEL is, likely, something to keep us from covering trivial issues simply because they affect Wikipedia. This is a significant issue involving two of the more prominent players on opposite sides of the issue - WIkipedia and the NPG. It is pretty important to people interested in artwork and copyright. Nevertheless, after a small spate of significant coverage the matter grew quiet as a news item, and has received relatively little attention in the days that followed, which may in fact suggest it is just the news of the day. If the dispute gains ongoing coverage that would argue for keeping - an actual lawsuit would probably get a lot of coverage; if it diminishes into obscurity via uneventful resolution or lack of coverage I might change it to a weak delete. I don't see much fuss either way.~~So what's the fuss?~~ Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) refactored and !vote modified after further review and consideration - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that legal disputes are an encyclopedic subject, and this one may be become important (and there is already some notability because of the amount of coverage), but if the dispute doesn't result in any legal action being taken, or if it is settled out of court, then it is unlikely to have any lasting importance (other than any effect it may have on Wikipedia) and a few lines in the relevant articles should be enough. snigbrook (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More than a majority of the statements are for deletion, so your statement of "snow" makes it seem like you might not understand how AfD works. The sources have already been stated as having many problems, with over 50% of them not reliable blatantly and only one is being defended. Others contribute only to original research, such as a 2007 source that can't possibly discuss events in 2009. As such, your statement shows a lack of anything more than just a "vote" and is discounted. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In plain point of fact, you can not discount, disqualify or render invalid a single comment on this page. You're free to disagree, although I think everyone would appreciate it if you could be a bit more gentle about it and forgo offering your opinions about those with whom you disagree. Nathan^T 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. Consensus is a discussion. Proving someone's premise as wrong and flawed is part of that. If you look at the original attempt to close, the closer stated that the deletes were wrong because they didn't know a certain set of information. This would be appropriate except that he was wrong (the other sources were discussed by the second statement). AfD works by balancing and judging statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. I appealed to WP:SNOW because there is, indeed, a "snowball's chance in hell" that this article will be deleted after discussion. I am rather familiar with the process. The point is, the article satisfies all of the technical and normative standards for why it should exist It passes WP:N, blindingly obviously so. Thus, if anyone wishes to argue that despite being a technically notable subject we should not cover it here, they have the burden of explaining why. People aren't buying it; hence, this article is unlikely to be deleted. The "sources have many problems" argument is quite bizarre. We're talking Guardian, Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. These are the most sterling mainstream sites in the world, and their coverage of the incidents is substantial, and dead center on why we listen to any news sources for any reason - per WP:V and WP:RS we cover what the sources cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)

I do not think this is a snowball keep, this will either be keep or no consensus at the rate we're going. ViperSnake151 Talk 14:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that people "bought" that this page is pointless, lacks sources, and is a BLP violation based on the majority of people who are not voting keep. Your vote for keep based on the above is an admittance that you didn't read this page and probably didn't even bother to read the page on AfD. As such, it is merely a "vote" and not acceptable per consensus. The fact that you say things like the WSJ is a source when it is an -opinion- column only verifies that you haven't a clue what you are even taking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In lieu of a civility warning on your talk page I'll reply here. Unless somebody died and appointed you closing administrator, it is none of your business whether my !vote should be discounted or not, nor is it your concern whether or not I read the materials or understand WP:RS. For the record, though, you are all wet on all accounts. I know WP:RS extremely well, I know that the WSJ piece is an opinion column, and it is my considered opinion that the careful and serious treatment of the issue via an entire column entirely about that issue in the Wall Street Journal, when taken with the many other major press articles on this subject, weighs very heavily in favor of finding the event notable. My opinion is my opinion. It is clear that you don't like it, and that's tough luck. You have argued yours extensively here, and in the process insulted, accused, and tried to browbeat a score of well respected Wikipedians with whom you disagree, to the point of making a mess of this page. I will say this once only before taking this to a notice board, please stop. Do not insult me further. You have had your say. A closing administrator will review it all and decide. Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your admittance right there that WSJ is an opinion column is proof that your post is completely invalid. Policy is very certain on the matter. Just because you disagree with it does not make it any different. This is not a discussion to change policy. This is not a !vote either. You either put proper arguments based on policy to delete, or you don't make a comment. Your comment proves that you are voting against what policy states. I have not insulted you, but your claims to such are as nonsensicle as your understanding of the AfD process or what Wikipedia is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I rest on existing policy and guidelines to find this subject notable, no changes necessary. Regarding civility, you can't say you weren't warned. I've filed a Wikiquette alert, here. This part of the discussion is done. Take any further concerns there. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, OR, it's spelled "nonsensical". If you're going to level insults, at least try to spell them correctly. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My spell checker didn't have a problem with it, so I don't really care. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the NPG article, per Moonriddengirl (whose comments are, as usual, completely correct and well stated in every respect.) Nathan^T 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is solidly established by multiple reliable sources. Dreadstar † 02:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Fundamentally distinct from the Wikinews article which is a well-researched report about what was going on in the matter at a single time (and includes OR). This in contrast is an article about the ongoing dispute which easily meets notability requirements. As a long-term, ongoing matter, claims of NOTNEWS are not persuasive. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which notability requirements? You do realize that there has to be a justification for a content fork, right? For something that doesn't even have a court case or a submitted legal complaint for a court case, your statement is laughable. Since when is "sending a letter" a notable event let alone something that "easily meets notability requirements", especially when most of the sources have to come from art websites, blogs, and opinion columns? Or how about that one source that is from 2007 on an event about 2009? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to point to sources already in the article. The fact is that this matter has received large-scale coverage in international news sources and continues to do so. That easily meets WP:N and makes it not a single event of the WP:NOTNEWS sort. Any other issues are irrelevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Is that what you are going to go with? Joshua, explain why instead of having it printed in the WSJ news section that it was kept only to opinion? That instead of World news, it was kept to an art column in the NYT with "funny" as part of the heading? Furthermore, the Notability standards are clear - there must be something substantial in them and not just the same reporting of "facts". They all state the allegation by the NPG. They add nothing. Why? Because there IS nothing. All we have is one allegation. That is the end of the story. There is nothing here. This is an encyclopedia. We deal with facts. We don't accept major BLP violations that are basically just pages that are 50% OR, and of the 50% not OR are just copied and paste of what the NPG alleged -without proof-. That page is nothing more than libel, and if it was cut down appropriately it would amount to, at most, 3 sentences! There is no way to think that a page of three sentences would be acceptable when we already have pages on that topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ottava, give it a rest. You are just repeating yoursself here and have had these claims dealt with quite well above. Incidentally, the notion that there is a "major BLP violation" here is laughable as you would know if you read the reply that the individual in question actually made to you. There's nothing even resembling a BLP issue. I also think you may need to look up the definition of libel. Now, if you have something to say that you haven't already repeated above multiple times then say it. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughable? So you think that Wikipedia is supposed to have allegations of criminal activity without any kind of proof or even a criminal case? Are you serious? Have you even read WP:BLP? Because if you did, then you are just making things up. By the way, Washington Post disagrees with your claim that the matter was news worthy. As does the Washington Times. I can go on, as I checked dozens of important news organizations before I even listed this. The simple fact that the Google search on the matter produces primarily blogs talking about it and nothing else should have tipped you off. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save you some effort as you scramble to look - Reuters and The Associated Press didn't feel it was news worthy for even a mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that certain news sources didn't report on something isn't an argument that it isn't notable. Since you've got the NYT, the BBC, the Guardian and many others disccusing this the fact that others don't simply isn't relevant. I'm a bit puzzled by this chain of logic since if it followed through almost no event would ever be notable since one could always point to some sources not discussing something. The fact that you are reduced to trying to find newspapers which did not report on the matter about summarizes things. Your claims about BLP are about as far off since no one except you seems to think that anyone has made any allegation of criminal behavior. Moreover, notable allegations of criminal behavior can go in BLPs even when they don't lead to legal trials (if you think otherwise, please point to a specific sentence in BLP that supports your claim). a fortiori, that's the all the more the case when no one is making any accusation of criminal behavior except you (which incidentally might be a real BLP violation). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that other news sources not reporting on it made it not notable. I put those links to show that your claims about it receiving wide coverage were fake. I investigated. I checked. I looked in. And if you honestly think that it is within BLP to put up allegations against a person without even a court case, I would like to see you ask Jimbo on his talk page and see if he agrees that Wikipedia is supposed to do that, and that we are legally okay even though we could be reproducing libel. By the way, 1 Event would apply, and you cannot hide from the fact that 1 Event applies by trying to claim it is Wikipedia as the center of this, as the letter was sent to him and about his actions. We have 1 Event for a reason. The fact that you would try to claim that this is a notable instance of an allegation is almost disgusting. Even Ben Rothelsberger's allegation, receiving actual news coverage across the world, does not have its own content fork page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E applies to articles that are specifically about an individual, not an event. Nathan^T 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:COATRACK. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should reread what I wrote. BLP1E doesn't apply. Nor does NOTNEWS since this is an ongoing controversy handled by international media. Not being covered by every single major news source doesn't make coverage not international (I don't know where you got the term "wide" from since I never used that term). (Incidentally, I don't understand at all why you think this has anything to do with Wikipedia involvement or what I ever said that makes you think that I've tried to argue that's at all relevant. It really would help if you read what people have to say and tried to have a discussion rather than just repeat the same things again and again). And you have again made claims about their being a possibility of libel which shows that you really don't understand what constitutes libel at all. I'll interpret your failure to give a specific point in the BLP policy supporting your position as a consequence of the fact that you can't. You have a general history of not understanding legal matters and this seems to be yet another example. Your mention of the Ben Roethlisberger shows once again that you seem to be unable to understand the distinction between civil and criminal issues and also to not know about basic Wikipedia issues like WP:OTHERSTUFF. So I will try to be as blunt as possible: a mention of a claim of a possible civil problem is not the same as a criminal accusation. That's aside from the fact that discussion of notable criminal accusations are acceptable even if they never went to court. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COATRACK. What is the page discussing? A court case? No. Wikipedia? No. A user's actions? Yes. A user's actions is biographical. Thus, the page under the title is a coatrack for a page on a non-notable individual that was claimed to have done something. However, this would have been obvious, so your blustering above is more of a ruse than anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, what is this nonsense about? "civil and criminal issues"? Ben Roethlisberger didn't have a criminal complaint filed. He had a civil complaint. There isn't even a filed complaint against this user! You just shot yourself in the foot and verified that you don't understand what you are even talking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So one point is wrong. I don't see how that shoots myself in the foot since I haven't claimed that a separate article would be inherently a problem solely for a civil matter, merely that that would be one of a variety of possible issues. As has already been pointed out to you, repeatedly, most of this article doesn't deal with or focus on the individual in question so it isn't a major issue anyways. Now, if you would like to actually respond to the points various users have stated rather than focus on a single error of fact in an OTHERSTUFF article then go ahead. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to shrug off notable examples as "otherstuff", then your statement shows contempt for evidence. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the NPG page already has statements about the case, so there is a redundancy with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. I didn't write it. The presence or absence of other articles is not an argument for the creation or deletion of other material. And people have already explained to you why they prefer a separate article from the main page. I don't see a need to belabor that point. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to say "please read", at least get the right link, as the redirect no longer goes to the -essay-. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists Clearly marked as an "essay". That essay then says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." Then, when you are done, read the next section: 'When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."' It is refering to people like you who are abusing the statement in order to hide from a valid statement. Thus, your citation of WP:OTHERSTUFF undermines your claims and makes your statements completely bogus. "Preference" is not a valid use of forking. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy you got along to actually reading the linked essay. The point which you seem to be missing is that this is precisely the sort of comparison that OTHERSTUFF was written for: the primary reason we don't have such separate articles is that no one has bothered to write one. Thus, pointing to the absence of an article which was never created really doesn't help matters much. Meanwhile, for someone so fond of accusing others of using rhetoric (and I presume next will be sarcasm and all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire), you seem to have trouble quoting other people accurately. Your use of the word "preference" in quotation marks is an attempt to dismiss the arguments that have been made: so let's be clear: Others have given explanations to you why a separate article in this context makes the most sense. You have not responded to such arguments. If you got some weaker notion than that by my saying "preference" then you are welcome to blame me. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent - As I pointed out from the quotes, the Otherstuff essay verifies my use of an example to -demonstrate- how other pages incorporate material without forking in order to show what consensus is on a policy. The policy was BLP and it was how to deal with material about an allegation. The individual used shows that many sources are used, the allegation is trimmed to nothing, and deals with a matter with heavy coverage. Just about every major newspaper ran a news article on -that- allegation plus it is a notable individual. However this has little news coverage as proven by links to many papers not mentioning it at all and others keeping it to opinion columns. This also deals with an individual not notable enough for his own page. Thus, if it was comparable in all aspects, there still wouldn't be an individual page. So, it would be impossible to claim we need a page on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by the above, so you may need to expand upon your logic. As I explained earlier, one major there's no separate article on the Rothelsberger allegations are that no one has bothered to do so. Now, if there had been an attempt followed by an AfD you might have an argument. Moreover, as has already been explained to you, this article is not primarily about the individual in question. Indeed, the articles on the NPG matter often mentioned his name simply in passing. So comparing this to a full on serious set of allegations is simply not a helpful comparison. Overall, this seems like almost a textbook case of OTHERSTUFF. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bit confused by a comparative example? What is confusing about it? I already laid out above what to draw from the example. Do I need to simplify my langauge even more? And it has to be primarily about the individual because the allegation states that he broke in and then posted the pictures. Thus, this falls under WP:COATRACK. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused because it seems like a bad comparison. So yes, use simpler words and explain in detail why it is a good comparison. In regards to the individual in question, as I've already explained, the majority of focus has been not on the editor on question but on the NPG and Wikipedia. That's one obvious contrast to an article where you already have a notable individual and the individual in question is the center of the controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, true, it is sourced, but the fact that there is no actual legal action yet started seems to justify a deletion (unlike the LICRA vs Yahoo! article, for example). Diti (talk to the penguin) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC

Delete As said before, nothing but navel-gazing. If this comes to anything we can put up an article at that time. But as of now, its somebody threatening to sue somebody else, happens millions of times a day and is demonstrably not notable. --M^ask? 20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; serious neutrality issues aside, Wikipedia is neither a news source nor a news aggregator, nor has this event even been in the news long enough to establish notability. Show me one other cease and desist letter that has garnered enough notability to warrant an article. - Chardish (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of articles in which a cease and desist letter figures significantly. Here's an arbitrary several. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding those, but I'm talking about articles where the topic of the article is a cease and desist letter, not articles which include discussion of cease and desist letters. In other words, I'm looking for articles about cease and desist letters, such as the one in question. - Chardish (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. That would take some sorting effort. The search, for anyone who cares, via Google, -> site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki "cease and desist" - or "cease and desist letter" -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Don't censor just because it puts egg on wikipedia's face. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of the article satisfis both the Verifiability and Notability policies. It has numerous, non-trivial, reliable third-party references. That is all that matters. It is currently factual and appears to be neutral. Even if it weren't, it could be improved. Threshold for including is WP:V and WP:N. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Multiple RS and a clear pass for WP:N. The claim that the NY Times article is a humor piece is absurd, "funny" is used here as synonymous with "odd". BLP concerns are misplaced. And oh, all the drama. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"used here as synonymous with 'odd'" - Proof? And what multiple RS? The RS guideline is very clear on the matter and most of the sources used and could be used are already not-reliable. Furthermore, all of the major groups like WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Washington Times, AP, Reuters, etc, refuse to cover this as news in their news section. RS makes it clear that only news can be treated as fact, not opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a blatant POV fork. This legal action, which hasn't even reached trial, does not even warrant a separate section in the main museum article yet, (but is does deserve a mention, per the recent poll). The current version of this fork article is just a badly written self important navel gazing essay/blogroll about copyright law and free content, coatracked on a small piece of noteworthy news, the only decent content herein just duplicates the Wikinews article which presents it as what it actaully is, a news item. It is not yet by any standard, not even NOT#PAPER, a plausible topic for an encyclopoedia article. MickMacNee (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to National Portrait Gallery (London), per Moonriddengirl. MLauba (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NPG article and trim. I'm objecting to "news-style" fork articles like this, but the matter could, and should, be discussed in the main NPG article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to NPG. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of reliable sources establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's plenty of reliable sources about a lot of things that do not meet notability requirements. Per Ottava, per MickMacNee. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Tan | 39 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Tan said, the existence of reliable sources does not confer notability. Navel-gazing at its worst. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tan hit on the head. Also, I am beginning to wonder why we need all these articles on Wikipedia-related stuff, as it sounds more like we're self-advocating. Don't have to agree with me, but it doesn't seem like a good idea.Mitch/HC32 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. This is a news story involving Wikipedia, so shouldn't we handle it like a news story not involving Wikipedia, or is that too much to ask? Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone objected to me wanting me to call this National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts with the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia Commons copyright conflicts with the National Portrait Gallery. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn letter/navel gazing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consider merging into NPG article. Plenty of reliable sources, the only question is whether will end up being a mountain or a molehill in the long run. Right now, I suspect molehill. However a "merge" is not a "delete", it's a "keep". --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, a merge in this situation would be a delete, as the redirect name would most likely not be kept. It is not a technical name, so it wouldn't be a viable redirect title. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG, Rlendog and John Z. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikinews covers this. There are BLP concerns. Merge anything useful to the main NPG article, and delete the rest, leaving a redirect. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I abstain as an involved party, but will say: I've reviewed the article and I don't believe it to contain any factual errors, and I am not at all concerned about the BLP impact of this article on myself. I am, after all, a Wikipedian. I've also recommended an additional source on the talk page. If it is deleted, I recommend moving it to the project namespace, as it's a good reference. Dcoetzee 23:46, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armen Vartanian

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. While only two people contributed to the discussion, a search on Yahoo turned up a grand total of 10 hits for this particular person, none of which are very good. Blueboy 96 17:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armen Vartanian[edit]

Non-notable athlete. Per WP:V / WP:RS, I am unable to confirm the "professional triathlete" claim or any of the other claims for that matter. Per WP:N / WP:NSPORT, the claims made do not necessarily equate to notability. It is entirely possible that the companies listed may have at one time or another provided something in the form of equipment or travel expenses but there is nothing on their websites claiming he is a sponsored athlete. The results listed are simply a rehash of what Athlinks has on file. These indicate that he has placed well only in what are generally local events. Best results from notable events appear to be a 33rd in Boston and a 3rd in his age group at Ironman California way back in 2001. Location (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to fall on the short side of WP:ATHLETE, which is easily the loosest notability criterion we have. Certainly fails the general notability criterion. Ray^Talk 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found a couple of passing mentions in some newspapers, but nothing beyond trvial. Nothing to evidence that he is competing as a professional. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:04, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Live Edge Furniture

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Edge Furniture[edit]

Subject is very unclear, an undefined style of furniture. "References" are to makers of furniture. An internet search did not suggest this is a viable topic. Delete. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Moderate number of Ghits, but none of them define what live edge furniture actually is. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 00:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak delete~~(I am changing my !vote below, but will allow my original comments to remain without striking through for convenience) - no question at all this was a good faith contribution, and the initial author made every attempt to follow policy and guidelines. However, as written the piece is little more than a dictionary definition, and at that it appears to be an alternate term for "wood slab furniture". I'd be very happy to see the information included in another article, but there isn't enough for it to stand alone. This is the weakest Delete I have ever given in an RfA, but I think it's the right call. Doc Tropics 15:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Doc, that was pretty much my conclusion also--and I want to assure the editor who contributed the article that I attempted to find some evidence for notability and bolster the article, but I was unable to. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep ~~or merge.~~ This is a legitimate and well established area of woodworking. Losing it from the encyclopedia would be harmful. It is included in several reliable sources here [1]. Those preferring the cheap mass produced Ikea brand should have their deletion votes severly discounted. I'm looking at you Dutch Doc ~~1 & 2~~. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've suggested this on the author's talkpage and I'll restate it here for clarity: the useful content could and should be moved into an existing article, the most obvious possibility being Furniture. Also, CoM your personal remark about other editors (including me) might have been intended as humorous, but if so it was just a bit too subtle for me, sorry. I'm sure you don't really mean to weight contributors' comments based on their inferred shopping habits : ) Doc Tropics 17:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some sourced bits. I'm sure there's a lot more, but I just used what was readily availabe on Google News. I refer to Drmies as Doc, so you have complicated matters for me. He is a known supporter of mass produced wares built in sweat shops by child laborers in hazardous conditions. But I suppose you have a point that his disdain for fair wages, craftsmanship, and environmental sustainability is not directly relevant to this AfD. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - changed from "weak delete" above, due to significant improvements in scope, content, quality, and sourcing. This articles now merits inclusion. I'd compliment CoM, but worry about the difficulty he'll have finding hats to fit, if his head gets too big. Doc Tropics 04:42, 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, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing is still a bit thin, and I don't like the results of the usual searches at google, but what is there seems to be good and suggest that this is a reasonably broadly known style of furniture. Ray^Talk 23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I rote this article because I was watching HGTV's Top Ten. In the show called Delectable Dining Rooms Episode HHTTN-110L, Three of the ten dining rooms featured tables they referred to as "Live Edge". After the show I wanted to know more about this style of furniture but could not find that much info. So I gathered as much as I could find, and hoped others would add to it. That's why wiki is here right? I will keep looking for more references. I did contact HGTV and ask them if there was somewhere I could view the Top Ten episode. Thanks for your input. MJChadwick (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:35, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canbourne University (2nd nomination)

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. Notability is not inherited so the notability for this institution has to come from reliable detailed third party sources. In weiging the discussion I need to measure the consensus against policy and the notability policy does not appear to be met here. Therefore the delete side have the better policy based arguments Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canbourne University[edit]

Based on some web research, it seems very clear this is a diploma mill. The question is, is it a notable diploma mill. I haven't found any reliable sources that say it is, except for the reference in the article that shows a US Congressman claims to have "graduated" from here. I don't think that alone makes it notable, but I'm open to convincing on this point. All other references are to the Canbourne website iteself, or to websites that we're using because the lack of a mention shows it isn't a real University; fine, if the article is kept, but not anything we can base notability on. We aren't the Better Business Bureau; if this is truly a non-notable diploma mill (there are lots of them out there), we shouldn't keep it just to protect potential victims of a scam. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's notable, although weakly so. First, there's that Congressman (that's not sufficient by itself to make this outfit notable, but it's a contributing factor). Along the same lines, ghits don't indicate notability, but I get a surprisingly large number of ghits on people who list Canbourne degrees on their CVs (more than for the average diploma mill). More importantly, a 3rd party reference that used to be cited in this article got deleted because the URL died. Specifically, the article formerly included a citation to a public statement by a British Trading Standards department (London Borough of Tower Hamlets) calling it a "bogus university" and quoting an official as saying "Although the site appeared to offer UK degrees, Canbourne was not authorised to do so. The postal address given did not exist and the details on the website, including the biography of the Chancellor, were copied from an existing, registered university." Unfortunately, the link to the press statement has been dead since sometime in 2007, and the passage got deleted. My websearch found still another source: Canbourne is apparently one of the schools discussed in this journal article about higher education marketing -- but I don't have access to the article. --Orlady (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A copy of the journal article is available here. Canbourne University is simply listed as one of the many unaccredited schools whose web pages the authors looked at. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added four references to Canbourne University from four different state government websites and slightly more information from those sites. I think that the place is marginally notable. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (assuming it's kosher for me to do a bolded "delete" comment on my own nomination; feel free to change to a Comment if this is taboo). We've got lots of primary sources (and TallMagic added more good ones, which are useful if the article is ultimately kept), which as I understand it are OK to verify facts in an otherwise notable article. But notability is based on significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Those, I don't see. Even if the PDF of the press release from Tower Hamlets which Orlady mentions was still available, I'm not 100% sure that would be a reliable secondary source, but it doesn't matter, as I cannot find a trace of it now, even in the Wayback Machine, in any case. There are currently zero verifiable secondary sources with anything close to significant coverage of this place, and I cannot find any new ones. While it irks me that deletion would make the scammers running the place happy, I can't support keeping the article based on that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the links provided above certainly can be used for verifying information, but don't establish this particular "university" as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Um. The sources are overwhelming links to lists of degree mills. I'm not seeing the significant coverage in secondary sources here. It's a degree mill, nothing to see here, move along. The Congresscritter thing is interesting, but notability is not inherited. Ray^Talk 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep Has notable alumni which has often been seen as a claim of notability for schools and colleges. Whether the sourcing is enough to meet WP:N isn't completely clear to me but I'm inclined to be cautious for such things. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep N per Floquenbeam; content needs improvement but meets N —Preceding unsigned comment added by 龗 (talk • contribs) 05:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Needs more inline citations but shows promising notability. --TitanOne (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one gnews hit and it's a mention in someone's bio. It doesn't matter that some former congressman bought a degree from there. The school is a diploma mill, which really makes it a mild form of a hoax. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Diploma mills are not generally called "hoaxes", but rather are "scams" or "frauds". Regardless, can't hoaxes and scams be notable hoaxes and scams? --Orlady (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Why did I just know someone was going to try to make that argument? According to my dictionary (Random House) a hoax is a synonym for fraud or fake. And it defines a hoax as "something intended to deceive or defraud.". A fake degree from an unaccredited university that carries no actual weight is either a) a fraud to the buyer or b) a hoax on the unaware who are led to believe someone has academic credentials that they do not. In either case, hoax is an acceptable word to use. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly hoaxes, and scams can be notable; and diploma mills. For an example, there is Columbia State University I'm not convinced that this particular diploma mill is notable though. -- Whpq (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems notable and is an educational facility. Str8cash (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For the record, here are a few ghits on additional people who claim Canbourne degrees: (1) a former US government employee and law lecturer (one of the "principle [sic] architects of the Iraq Rule of Law program"), (2) the entrepreneur who founded Foot Solutions,[2][3] (3) a minister (apparently a televangelist), (4) a business consultant, (5) a martial arts and Chinese medicine specialist, and (6) a freelance specialist in ecological restoration. I did not list people who look like they might actually have degrees from the Camborne School of Mines. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem very notable. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:12, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Music from The 3D Concert Experience

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. Or, more precisely, no consensus on what to do with the article. There is a clear consensus not to delete. Whether or not to redirect can be dealt with in the ordinary editorial way. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music from The 3D Concert Experience[edit]

Does not meet the general notability guideline. Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience#Soundtrack, so a delete or a redirect is most likely the best solution. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the article mentioned above by Pokerdance. it's an important part of the band's history, but not enough for outsiders to get an article.--camr ^nag 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This soundtrack should have its own page i can find the info just u wait —Preceding unsigned comment added by King007ofrock (talk • contribs) 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment directed to King007ofrock: no, it really shouldn't. The album may meet notability requirements per WP:NALBUMS, but it does not meet the general notability guideline, as I have already stated. There might be reliable information independent of the source that I have somehow missed, but if you weren't willing to cite the references from the start, then you were pretty much asking for this article to be nominated for deletion. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. King007ofrock, maybe you are confused. the reason the article needs to deleted is notability, not lack of information.--camr ^nag 19:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does it not meet notability? Rlendog (talk) 15:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Camr. Ray^Talk 23:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was originally inclined to 1vote redirect. But the subject meets WP:NSONGS, since it charted, making top 10 in at least two countries, and was #1 on the US soundtrack chart.[4]. Allmusic even has a article about the soundtrack,[5] which I am surprised wasn't uncovered during WP:BEFORE and which could be used as one source to expand the article. And if I found that source in a few seconds, it seems likely that there are even more. So I don't see any valid deletion reason here. Rlendog (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And here is a review in Entertainment Weekly,[6] so there are now multiple sources with significant coverage, meeting WP:N. Rlendog (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And another review:[7]. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not another review - it's just a copy of the allmusic.com review. --Zundark (talk) 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry, I did not notice that. But that still leaves two independent reviews and several top 10 charts to demonstrate notability. Rlendog (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the article. Does not meet the general notability guideline. Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience. Dennissell (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not meet the general notability guideline when there is significant coverage in several independent reliable sources? Not to mention its chart position. Rlendog (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you mean by "Enough information already present at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience", and what does that have to do with the notability of this article? The only information about the soundtrack at Jonas Brothers: The 3D Concert Experience is an inforbox (that better belongs in the soundtrack article), a track listing, release date and a partial chart listing. How does that qualify as "enough", when there are multiple reliabile sources that provide additional information? Rlendog (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like this !vote was just copied from the original nom, without regard for the intervening discussion. Rlendog (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album was clearly notable so it deserves its own Wikipedia article.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to passing WP:NSONGS, there are multiple reliable sources (provided by Rlendog) that discuss this album. WP:GNG and WP:V are easily met. Cunard (talk) 05:28, 4 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calder Walton END

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. JForget 23:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calder Walton END[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I don't think this individual passes WP:PROF. Most of the information in this article seems to be from here, and there are barely any other Google hits that do more than simply mention his name in passing. Moreover, almost all his supposed published works violate WP:CRYSTAL (and if they haven't even been released yet, how are they published works?). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing: the creator (User:Intelligence history) appears to have a conflict of interest, given that the person appears to be in the intelligence history field. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I speedy deleted Calder Walton END per G7, moved Calder walton to Calder Walton, and redirected Dr Calder Walton to Calder Walton as it was a duplicate of Calder walton. Hopfully this doesn't cause too much confusion. Plastikspork (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But I still stand by my nomination. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. My edits were just housekeeping and in no way a comment on notability or lack-there-of. As far as I can tell the AFD should still run as planned. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This individual does definitely pass WP:PROF. There is a full list of his published works, and forthcoming works, in the peer reviewed internationally renowed journal 'Intelligence and National Security', vol. 23 no. 4 (August 2008), pp. 435-462 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligence history (talk • contribs) 07:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is true that most of the citations come from here here, but seeing that this is an official website of Cambridge Univerity, one of the world's most renowned universities, they are reliable. Moreover, I have checked in the journal journal 'Intelligence and National Security', vol. 23 no. 4 (August 2008), pp. 435-462 and this does indeed give a full printed description of the individual's career and publications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymalchio (talk • contribs) 07:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC) — Trymalchio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Information: I have checked the journal 'Intelligence and National Security', vol. 23 no. 4 (August 2008), pp. 435-462 [8] and (contrary to Trymalchio's assertions above), it does not give a full printed description of the individual's career and publications. The only other work of his mentioned is his PhD dissertation. However, there is one paragraph about him in the section "About the Contributors" at the front of the issue [9], which I quote below in its entirety:
"Dr Calder Walton completed his PhD in 2007 at Trinity College, Cambridge, with a dissertation studying British intelligence in the early Cold War. Dr Walton is a Research Fellow at Darwin College, Cambridge; his current research explores the involvement of the British intelligence community in British decolonization movements after 1945. Dr Walton lectures and supervises at Cambridge University, and also helps to coordinate the Cambridge University intelligence seminar."

--Qwfp (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Notability is not sufficiently established by independent secondary sources. Plastikspork (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Unless there was a quick change of usernames, Intelligence history and Trymalchio are the same user. Click on IH's "talk" wikilink earlier in the thread and see for yourself. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS shows no cites. Notability not yet achieved for that and other reasons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recently graduated PhD, scholarly work so far not terribly significant. Ray^Talk 23:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some published papers and a forthcoming book aren't enough to pass WP:PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Re-Turn of Tippy Tinkletrousers[edit]

Nonexistent book, unsourced article. Prior AfD in 2006 was keep, but the announced publication date (contained at the end of the 8th Captain Underpants book) has come and gone, and there is no evidence from either author or publisher's website that this book is under development, let alone scheduled for publication anytime soon. EngineerScotty (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More info For the record... this book is the proposed ninth book in the Captain Underpants series; and is referenced (including the aforementioned title) on the final (teaser) page of the series' 8th book. However, apart from this mention, there is no evidence that this book is under development, let alone nearing print. It is mentioned nowhere on the publisher's website or the author's. The original AFD three years ago appears to have been withdrawn because the user was unaware of the teaser in the 8th book; but at this point, three years later, there is still no sign of this book, and WP:BALL starts to apply. Certainly, there is no justification for the (unsourced) elaborate plot outline given in the article.--EngineerScotty (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. There's a good chance this book will be coming out, but all the Google hits I found are just people asking when that will be. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice against re-creation if it should come out, but any statement that it was supposed to come out in May of 2009 is now suspect and no longer reliable, causing it to fail WP:V. Ray^Talk 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article may be recreated if publication actually occurs. Ladyof Shalott 04:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pos. vaporware, let's wait for it's release then maybe we can have an editor write it. --TitanOne (talk) 05:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Norwaystudent (talk) 22:54, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People TV (Atlanta)

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People TV (Atlanta)[edit]

Contested Prod. Non-notable local television station. No reliable sources support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 23:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Gnews search shows plenty of hits and substantial coverage in local newspapers. Granted, that coverage seems mostly to talk about how little it's doing, but even a sinkhole of public funds is notable as a sinkhole. Ray^Talk 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Cleanup -- article was started by someone with an apparent axe to grind in relation to the management of the channel; I've tried to clean the article up a bit, but there is still more that can be done. --mhking (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- PeopleTV is Atlanta's only non-profit public access station. The station broadcasted Brainstorms (show) with Jack Jersawitz as seen in this clip of Brainstorms with Jack Jersawitz --bonkeykong —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resignation of Sarah Palin

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. I think the only issue that is clear here is that nonone wants to delete the content from wikipedia. whether it should be s astandlone article or merged is an editing decision thatd oes not require an admin to enforce and I'm not seeing any clear outcome from this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation of Sarah Palin[edit]

The useful content of this article can be easily merged into the main article. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not "A complete exposition of all possible details." and not for News reports - saying who else was at a press conference and quoting everyone's opinions (Iowa Congressman Steve King?) is unencyclopedic. The coverage is not in proportion - she announced her resignation, gave her reasons and did it. That can be summarized well in the main article. Hekerui (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The event should of course be in WP, but in her article, not its own. Para 4 of WP:NOTNEWS applies --Saalstin (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect to Sarah Palin Doesn't merit an article of its own. Ray^Talk 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sarah Palin, selectively. TerriersFan (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't need an article of its own. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Her resignation is a significant political moment with an extraordinary amount of coverage. The content has also become too large to fit into the Sarah Palin resignation section.--The lorax (talk) 01:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's the latest chapter in her life. Even "Resignation of Richard Nixon" doesn't have its own article on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's because it's explained in Watergate scandal.--The lorax (talk) 02:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which demonstrates that it's preferable to describe events within the context of an existing article, rather than to spin them out. Wikipedia is not the news, although I'll concede that trying to find Wikinews is like trying to spot a newspaper machine on the side of a highway. Part of the problem is the design of the site. Wikinews, like Wiktionary, is not directly accessible from the side bar; to get to it from this page, one clicks on "Main Page", then scrolls down to "sister projects", then clicks on there and logs in. As such, there is a tendency to add days worth of news into an encyclopedia article and then to create a new encyclopedia article because the existing one is now "too long". But that's an editing problem, not an excuse for making a separate article. Six weeks from now, the resignation will rate nothing more than a few sentences in the article about Sarah Palin. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would agree if this was some other mundane resignation, however, this is a highly scrutinized, unusual maybe even unprecedented event.--The lorax (talk) 13:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not too relevant to AfD, but it's not unprecedented. Palin is the second sitting Governor in Alaska's short history as a state to resign while in office. A lot of our politicians up here like to pull slippery moves where they quit to move on to something else, and get to had-pick who fills their job, so that in the next election they run as an incumbent. (i.e. Palin's predecessor Frank Murkowski appointed his daughter to his vacant seat in the Senate when he became governor) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Remerging would defeat the purpose of splitting it out of the main article: the latter is already too long. Having a separate article allows us to avoid the morton's fork between overburdening the main article and throwing out worthwhile content. I'm baffled as to which policy user:Hekerui has in mind as prohibiting a standalone article. His content issues (which includes the WP:UNDUE concern) can be resolved through WP:SOFIXIT. If we're talking notability, WP:GNG seems capacious enough to include a standalone article for Palin's resignation, and WP:EVENT failed to attract support. So what's the problem here?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (what exactly does the merger do, every day?)with Sarah Palin per nom and Mandsford. Main article is appropriately sized, and about 1/3 references, which is really good, and the resignation information fits into the article as a biography of the person. side articles should be about things like her list of elected positions, or maybe media appearences (lists). im not sure what events in her life would qualify for their own article, but this doesnt. if she wrote a book, yes. starting a new political party, yes. running for president, maybe, if she got selected as the nominee of her party. election to presidency, then the party starts. articles galore. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge isn't really an option here. The main article covers the resignation already, and none of the additional content in the subarticle really belongs in the main article. Quite frankly, I put a lot of this material into the subarticle; I wouldn't have added it to the main article, and if it's put into the article, I will propose its removal. Merge just isn't a good fit. The choice is really between deletion or not.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong forum, move for speedy close Nominator clearly states that their desired outcome is a merger, which should be discussed at the article talk page, not at AFD. This isn't mergers for discussion. Suggest nominator withdraw and tag article with {{mergeto|Sarah Palin}}. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, maybe it's too late for that Even though I still think this is not an appropriate forum, we've got several users now saying "delete" so I guess it has become an AfD, even if it didn't begin as one. I scanned the archives of Talk:Sarah Palin, and it seems this article was spun off without seeking consensus for such a move there. As the resignation has taken place, and the world didn't end as a result, there is little that more to say, the event is over. Therefore, I'm going with merge back where it came from, with a reminder to the "splitter" that Palin related articles are on probation and such a large split should have been thoroughly discussed before the new page was created. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content on her quitting, and the events surrounding her quitting (ie the ethical challenges) can be split up and moved into the main Sarah Palin article and to the governorship article. No need for a separate article on just the motivation for the quitting, the quitting speeches, and the reaction to the quitting. TharsHammar^Bits and^Pieces 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Merge with ~~Para Salin' or Sexy Sorceress of Evil~~ Sarah Palin. --TitanOne (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and bung into Sarah Palin one way or another per nom and other distinguished eds above, namely Saalstin, Ray, TerriersFan, NeutralHomer, Mandsford, Mercurywoodrose, Beeblebrox, TharsHammer, TitanOne (who means delete (the separate article) and merge, no?). Writegeist (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain I abstain -68.185.89.209 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Simon Dodd's reasoning, although Simon should have cited Wikipedia:Summary style, which calls for the use of such daughter articles to present more detail than is appropriate for the main article. JamesMLane t c 08:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has good information but inadequate as an encyclopedic entry. With very little exception, it is her reasons for resignation and not the context of the resignation. I, for one, believe that the article can be rescued; I shall offer what I can.--Dstern1 (talk) 14:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Sarah Palin. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The soap opera continues. Not worthy of a separate article. Radiopathy •talk• 18:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not really sure what there is even to say about the resignation. She resigned. Aprock (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The delete arguments make much more sense to me than the keeps. News of the resignation of a local politician whose greatest moment was losing out on being Vice-President of her nation would not receive an article in any other country in the world and what actually happened belongs in Sarah Palin. Please approach this logically in the context of what has happened. --can dle •wicke 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that we're heading to "no consensus", and I won't lose sleep if this is kept up for another month or two. Logically, people who want to keep up with the latest about this story will check this article. Once its no longer news, once Rush stops talking about it, the interest will fade. Will support fade for this newsy article the next time its nominated? You betcha! Mandsford (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yebbut WP:NOTNEWS. Either way, I'm all for comedy in encyclopedias. Writegeist (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the decision to be made here is not whether to delete or keep the page but whether it is more appropriate to present the information it contains in a stand alone article or as part of a parent article. This is a purely editorial decision that should not be made at AfD. Guest9999 (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the main page per WP:NOT#NEWS. This is not an individually notable subject. If it's too long to fit into the parent page, it should be trimmed down, not given a standalone article. The Reaction section, for example, is largely trivial and non-encyclopedic. — Rankiri (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too much valid content to fit in the main article, so best to have a side article here. Dream Focus 00:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As an Alaskan, I think this is inherently notable and too large an issue to be merged into the Sarah Palin article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't an Alaskan edition of WP. Writegeist (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you can feel free to add this article there, so long as you attribute Wikipedia! KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's a more accessible place for it than the one I had in mind. ;~) Writegeist (talk) 00:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, deleting much of the content as speculative and/or triva. This isn't Palinopedia, where every single step in her life gets a seperate article.
Delete/merge per Radiopathy and shorten "material" to 3 sentences :). --Tom (talk) 23:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to her article and make it short. --L I C 04:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely one of the most unusual events of her career, and one of the most unusual moments in American gubernatorial history. Шизомби (talk) 04:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and summarize in main Palin article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we shouldn't be echoing a whole bunch of commentators or the most obscure, "who cares" details of Palin's speech. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not Fox News. MickMacNee (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Sarah Palin TomCat4680 (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination wants a merger and so has come to the wrong place. The topic has great notability and so should not be deleted per our deletion policy, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Colonel Warden (talk) 09:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge per WP:ONEEVENT. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI- per the GFDL, we can't merge and delete, if we merge, we can't delete, because we have to keep the history.Umbralcorax (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of use to the appropriate Sarah Palin article. Umbralcorax (talk)
Delete Frankly, this article goes into needless detail that would be culled out of the main article if a merger occurred. The resignation of a governor is not that big of a deal, especially when the article doesn't have much of anything to say about it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is of a piece with Early political career of Sarah Palin, Electoral history of Sarah Palin, Governorship of Sarah Palin, Political positions of Sarah Palin, etc. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would argue that most of those articles are excessive and ought to be merged into the main article where appropriate. Talk about recentism and the culture of celebrity. We do not need articles detailing every phase of Sarah Palin's life; in particular, the article on her career in city politics and the redundant article on her electoral history are unnecessary. Let's take a step back here and look at the bigger picture. Sarah Palin is not a very important figure in United States history. If she gets elected President or Vice President someday, maybe some of these articles would be appropriate. But for God's sake, she lost. And not only that, but the guy she lost to for the Vice Presidency (Joe Biden) doesn't have these types of sub-articles about him. And neither do the other 49 governors in the United States (I should say fifty, since Sean Parnell has now succeeded Palin). I encourage those of you voting "keep" to re-examine this article through a broader lens. (And don't forget WP:NOTNEWS.) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:Electoral history of American politicians has many articles, some going back half a century, and Category:Political positions of American politicians has many too (and both exist for Biden). Including either of these reference-y kinds of subarticles in main BLPs tends to drive up article size without illuminating the subject much. The straight biographical subarticles ("Early life of ...", "Some officeship of ...") I tend to avoid (that's why you don't see them for Biden) because of very low readership and duplicate content maintenance problems. But the Palin editors have already made the decision to go down that road. As for recentism, sure, yes. But WP is rife with recentism everywhere in every subject domain; like it or not, it comes with the territory and it ain't gonna go away. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know Wikipedia had been around for half a century... Anyway, as I mentioned above, there was not any consensus to split this particular content off the main article in the first place. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that far too much emphasis is being placed on Sarah Palin. Just because recentism is rampant doesn't make it correct. At the very least Early political career of Sarah Palin and Resignation of Sarah Palin ought to be deleted. Let's not overinflate Sarah Palin's importance in U.S. history. That said, I respect your arguments in favor of keeping the political positions and electoral history articles. But for the others, I still point to WP:NOTNEWS. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Sarah Palin: the WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS arguments say it all. This is just a passing news event of temporary interest, but of little long-term significance, and should rightly be covered as a subsection of the Sarah Palin article rather than having this kind of in-depth coverage. We're not exactly talking Death of Michael Jackson here. Robofish (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having seen the Early political career of Sarah Palin, I'd say that one is even worse than this one in terms of containing truly excessive amounts of detail, and think it should be brought to AFD as well. Robofish (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, that is pretty bad, and it sets a terrible precedent. Before Palin became McCain's running mate, there weren't any in-depth articles on mayors of Wasilla, and that was not a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Event is important enough to merit it's own article. A merge would delete much, if not all, pertinent information.Tlatseg (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The abundance of media coverage satisfies the notability requirements for a separate article.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Sarah Palin. Encyclopedias are supposed to summarize, not serve as a dumping ground for every detail. 96.10.153.29 (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This encyclopedia is unlike any encyclopedia you could possibly imagine. This encyclopedia has a featured article on a fictional character that appeared in a few episodes of one season of a TV series. Given that, in-depth coverage of the surprising and inscrutable resignation of a major current American political figure seems quite worthy. 04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainstorms (show)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brainstorms (show)[edit]

Contested Prod. Non-notable local television program. No reliable sources support notability. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --mhking (talk) 23:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Borderline -- Gnews produces some hits from RS, but the coverage isn't what would strike me as substantial. Ray^Talk 00:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Add External Links --- This article needs external links to clips of the show's host, Jack Jersawitz being bombarded with prank phone calls as this is notable in the show's history on PeopleTV. Brainstorms -- bonkeykong —Preceding undated comment added 21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- This article needs first hand references to back it up--perhaps video footage of the program? Otherwise the show seems to be noteworthy in the Atlanta community as a free speech forum and for it's notable host who is a mainstay in the local revolutionary movement. --Freezeraypenguin (talk) 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The burden is on those saying keep to provide sources; however, this has not been done in this discussion. I have searched for sources and have been unable to find anything substantial to prove this show's notability. Cunard (talk) 04:24, 4 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates (2nd nomination)

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. JForget 00:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heights of United States Presidents and presidential candidates[edit]

Delete. I am in pure shock. How on earth did such a trivial article get to grow on Wikipedia for so long? It's hard to pinpoint exactly what is wrong with the article, simply because nothing is right with it. I see there are a few reliable sources with non-trivial mentions of the issue, but I seriously doubt that if a few journalists wrote some articles on the Heights of Blue Peter presenters that it would be included. It's clear that we need to apply some WP:COMMONSENSE. DJ 22:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge part of it to Heightism#Heightism in politics. Definitely a notable issue that people have written about. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, if only because it does seem to come up every presidential cycle. I agree it's a silly topic, but it's one that keeps getting mentioned by lots of people. That makes it notable, trivial, and silly. Ray^Talk 00:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. I strongly deny that this article is trivia. Firstly, it is part of the general category on lists relating to the United States presidency, which includes many aspects of the Presidents' lives, including their nicknames, pets and whether they're left-handed or right-handed. If their height is trivial, then so are these other aspects. United States Presidents occupy a significant part of US history and society, so it is reasonable to document more aspects of their lives than other people. Secondly, as this article highlights, the height of US presidential candidates is a particularly topical issue in presidential politics, as it has been suggested on a number of occasions that it plays a role in which candidate voters prefer. That this is a particularly noteworthy phenomenon is verified by seven different sources in the article. Furthermore, it fits in well with the topic of Heightism in general, which is linked at the bottom of the article and which also notes the issue of whether height plays a role in US politics. This article has been nominated twice before for deletion - on 2007-02-08 [10] and on 2008-11-27 [11] - and each time it failed. Wcp07 (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I smell WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. DJ 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible keep. This is an enormously notably aspect of every election cycle with 7 different sources and four pieces of additional reading attesting to its recurrence as a staple in American politics. Not WP:TRIVIA ("Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information.") because the information is not "miscellaneous". Meets WP:N because (1) it has had significant coverage as mentioned above in (2) reliable secondary sources, (3) independent of the subject--Loodog (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Long before there was a Wikipedia, there were political observers who believed that height provided an edge in a presidential election (i.e., that the taller candidate was more likely to win). Like the "Curse of Tecumseh" or "zero year curse", it's one of those oddities that people would turn to an encyclopedia to find out whether it was true, or at least what the origin was. Were it not for that context, then there would be nothing upon which to build an article. As such, if someone wanted to compare which candidate had the bigger waistline, or the lighter hair color, or the darker eye color, there's not a popular belief that goes with that. Mandsford (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepHeights_of_United_States_Presidents_and_presidential_candidates has been viewed 11920 times in 200907. Looks needed!93.96.148.42 (talk) 03:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POPULARPAGE tells us that that is no reason to keep the page. DJ 07:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is a real aspect to how the electorate views presidential candidates, that I've been reading about for decades. Completely deserving of an article. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThis is actually VERY informative and factual on an issue of widespread general interest (if not earth shattering importance). Bdrasin (talk) 18:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. from the 'Blue Peter' reference, I'm guessing that DJ is British and may be unaware at how frequently this topic comes up each presidential cycle.12.177.23.62 (talk) 23:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This is actually the third nomination for this subject and it was speedy kept last time. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I think this is of interest to people from time to time. I wanted to know Thomas Jefferson's height which led me to see this "delete" suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.195.225.142 (talk) 12:04, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Apprentice (UK series six)

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 The Apprentice (UK TV series). There are two possible outcomes here: delete or redirect. Seeing as it's likely to happen in another year, this page will be a likely search target, and can be recreated once it's confirmed. (X! · talk) · @922 · 21:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Apprentice (UK series six)[edit]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This programme won't be airing, if at all, for another year and no infomation will come out about the programme until just before transmission. The article is based upon pure speculation and this is unlikely to change. Precedent has been that such articles are not created until a start date is announced. A simple sentence or 2 in The Apprentice (UK) will suffice until then. DJ 22:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given in the nomination, with which I concur (aka "delete per nom"). Ray^Talk 00:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the parent series article, although it was announced by its television channel. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect If it was announced that it would happen by the BBC then its worth keeping as an upcoming event rather than go through the whole kerfuffle of creating it all over again. The C of E (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. When a full schedule is announced and participants known that will be time enough. As a new series may breach broadcasting guidelines before a General Election, it may not happen until late in 2010. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Apprentice (UK TV series) - this will become notable, and can be resurrected next year. Bazonka (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is happening, the BBC have annouced it's delay, which implies it has something to delay.--aliw136 21:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Godfather Of The Ghetto

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) · @923 · 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather Of The Ghetto[edit]

Article does not cite any source, the Tony Yayo article claims it is yet untitled, there is no confirmed release date or a track listing. To my mind, there is to less information available, so it's best to delete the article. Fails WP:NAlbum DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Write about albums after they come out, not before. Especially if there's no significant coverage in secondary sources. Ray^Talk 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NALBUM, WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons listed (and others, which are a secret). JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ediff

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 Emacs. (X! · talk) · @923 · 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ediff[edit]

All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emacs. Fails WP:N, as the nominator says, but it is an extension of a quite notable program. Ray^Talk 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. --Gwern (contribs) 14:31 2 August 2009 (GMT)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia Open Meeting Act

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. JForget 23:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia Open Meeting Act[edit]

This is not an accurate description of the state title; it appears that the writer is using this to advance his own agenda in violation of WP:POINT mhking (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Speedy A3 Article consists entirely of "chat-like comments," used to push an agenda and disrupt Wikipedia, to boot. It is probably possible to write a real article on the law, but this definitely isn't it. Ray^Talk 00:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No matter how neutral you write this story, it's still a non-notable act and probably falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:11, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desktop bot

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) · @923 · 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop bot[edit]

Delete. Neologism. All of the described technologies exist but they are not referred to collectively as "Desktop Bots". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Usual searches turned up basically squat. Ray^Talk 00:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this title could possibly be a redirect to Desktop search. Nobody refers to a desktop search engine as a desktop bot. --B (talk) 19:50, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom and Jerry (2011 film)

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 Tom and Jerry. JForget 23:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom and Jerry (2011 film)[edit]

Non-sourced; violates WP:CRYSTAL mhking (talk) 21:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 22:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom and Jerry and protect. DJ 22:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and allow seperate article if/when is is actually filmed. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Michael. Though lacking WP:NFF. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to skip the redirect. It's clearly a case of WP:NFF and lacking reliable sources, shouldn't be in the Tom and Jerry article. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tom and Jerry. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nevermind, SummerPhD is right so yeah delete it. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources whatsoever. A redirect essentially says the film exists, we can't even prove that. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; redirecting from an unlikely search term is pointless. Consider Salting if the article is recreated without sufficient sources. Powers ^T 15:09, 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 Speedy delete g11, advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft escrow[edit]

blatant spam, speedy removed by obvious sockpuppet of author WuhWuzDat 21:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete- per nom. I also recommend reporting the author as a sockpuppeteer Tarheel95 (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nomination. --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:37, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integration Point

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Integration Point[edit]

Article does not appear to meet WP:CORP. I and other editors have tagged this article multiple times, but Jmiles1107 (talk · contribs) keeps removing the tags without addressing the issues, so I'm bringing it to a much larger audience. You can see a review I did of the sources used in the article here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that if the article is deleted, the logo must be deleted as well, so I'm listing it here to be thorough. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, article about a non-consumer internet related business, referenced to trade papers you've never heard of, a Global Trade Management and Compliance Software Provider. The capital letters also give away that this is obvious advertising, amd the rest of the text bears this out: Integration Point develops modular trade compliance applications on a single core platform, allowing customers to start with any one of the trade management solutions and continue to add solutions as their needs grow. The integrated solutions allow customers to simultaneously address numerous compliance issues, regardless of the customer's individual internal system. ... In the current global economy there are two main concerns facing importers, exporters, and the vendors who support them. As noted in the Journal of Commerce, Tom Barnes, CEO of Integration Point, explains: "The first is managing cost. The second is remaining competitive." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The nature of the business is such that it's unlikely to get much coverage in mainstream press, but that does not remove the requirement that there be third party references to establish notability. The references provided are weak - there's a passing mention, articles by members of the company or sponsored by the company and one substantial article - which appears to be a blog. The fact that the article is written from with an obvious WP:POV raises further questions about notability. I42 (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant external coverage from notable sources, no proof of notability. Furthermore, reads suspiciously like company propaganda. LK (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: No work has been done to improve the article at this point, so I'm still thinking it should be deleted. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Cardwell

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. JForget 23:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Cardwell[edit]

Insufficiently notable subject. City council member that does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO#Basic criteria or WP:BIO#Politicians. PROD contested, so comes here for deletion. — Satori Son 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Fails WP:Notability. Artemis84 (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply not notable Tarheel95 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nowhere near WP:POLITICIAN --Saalstin (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being on the Indianapolis city council alone is not enough to merit inclusion. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN Niteshift36 (talk) 15:17, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Dish (application)

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) · @923 · 21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Dish (application)[edit]

detele nn application Amocool (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete INsufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Facebook app with only primary sources. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 15:42, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/José Antonio Gali

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

José Antonio Gali[edit]

Contested prod. Footballer who has yet to make a professional debut, fails WP:ATHLETE Jezhotwells (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Giant Snowman 08:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE due to him not competing at a fully professional level, fails WP:N due to a lack of substantial third-party sources available for him (searching on Google.es brings up very little). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be made when he makes his debut. Spiderone (talk) 15:46, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbat clock

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 Electricity on Shabbat. Once we strip away the original research its clear that there are not the sources for a substantial article and a section elsewhere would be better Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat clock[edit]

A Shabbat Clock is nothing more than a timer that's plugged into an outlet. (See these images) It just so happens that these timers are used for the purposes described in the article, and in fact may be colloquially referred to as "Shabbat Clocks," but there is no evidence that such a product exists per se. Neologism perhaps? -shirulashem^(talk) 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Electricity on Shabbat. I get the concept, that a timer can be set in advance of the Jewish Sabbath, since electricity is not to be turned on or off in some observations of the Sabbath. That doesn't mean the timer is unique, only that a person can set it to fit their preference. It's not much different from someone setting an alarm on one's watch to alert him to a scheduled prayer time, or to wake someone up in time to get ready to go to a worship service. ~~I recommend merging this and Shabbat lamp to the parent article as well~~ . Mandsford (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but such clocks do exist: they're built into every modern electronic range, and aren't simple timers: they can only be used to switch off a range and keep it from switching on for 24 hours once a week. (Mine does this, and can't be gamed to work any other day than Friday/Saturday, unless you want to constantly change the date and mess up your daylight savings time.) I do think that information would be better placed in Electricity on Shabbat, however. --NellieBly (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NellieBly, I think you are talking about the Sabbath mode feature on some ovens. The Shabbat clock article is about timing devices that plug into an outlet and then you can plug something like a lamp into the device. See these images for what the article is discussing. -shirulashem^(talk) 11:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- My old range had a sabbath mode so I think you're right and I apologize for the confusion, but this new range I've just bought seems to have a separate little processor - you put in your location and time zone and it automatically shuts off ten minutes before Shabbat begins. It is different than the clock mentioned in the article, though, so maybe I am talking apples and oranges. (My kitchen range has a more powerful processor than my first personal computer. How strange is that?) --NellieBly (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and do not merge This article is long enough that it warrants a separate article. The use of Shabbat clocks under that name and phenomenon has been discussed in several books dating back several decades, even discussing whether or not the practice of their use has been allowed or not. These devices are often marketed as Shabbat clocks rather than timers. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xyz7890, do you have any reliable sources showing there is such a thing as a Shabbat clock? -shirulashem^(talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any of the books in front of me right now. But I think I can recall reading about it in the book To Be a Jew, A Guide to Jewish Observance in Contemporary Life by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin, 1972, 1991 Basic Books, ISBN 0-465-0863-2, among others. I do not remember the specific page numbers, otherwise I would provide them here. Xyz7890 (talk) 04:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herein lies the problem. If content on Wikipedia does not have reliable sources, the burden of proof lies on the editor who wants to keep the content to produce the sources. -shirulashem^(talk) 13:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of Google Books references to this. Jclemens (talk) 00:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty? There are only 9, and 3 of them can't even be viewed. -shirulashem^(talk) 01:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge without prejudice At this time it seem that Electricity on Shabbat in Jewish law or Time switch may be better suited to deal this this information, but it is possible that this could be expanded to warrant a full article. The fact that there is a Hebrew version of the article is a strong indication that is is notable (The hebrew wikipedia is exceptionally deletionist). Jon513 (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As pointed out by user:jclemens, the concept is notable.--Pink Bull (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Electricity on Shabbat. 96.10.153.29 (talk) 04:03, 4 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Gear media and materials

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 Air Gear. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Gear media and materials[edit]

This just contains two track listings, which are not generally kept or merged into anime articles, so it doesn't need to exist. TTN (talk) 19:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Completeness requires soundtracks to be mentioned in the media section of the main article not in this too detailed form but in real proses. --KrebMarkt 13:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although they should be mentioned in prose in the main article, theres nothing against a separate discography/album list that leads out from the main article. For two releases, it's probably not worth it though, you would really need 5 or more items. The article name is certainly wrong for the information there though. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge done see Air_Gear#Anime last paragraph.
@Dandy Sephy Here 3 experimentations on how to cover anime soundtracks/discography properly: One Piece discography | List of Aria (manga) soundtracks | List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle albums. --KrebMarkt 15:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Category:Anime soundtracks - obviously, we need to talk about how soundtrack/album lists should be named, and most of the stuff in there needs lots of work (and the category itself needs to be renamed as well). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - soundtracks actually are noted, but they're almost never an integral part of a franchise. Since there don't seem to be very many soundtracks for Air Gear, though, a separate list isn't needed for them. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Given that there are only two soundtrack albums, this can be easily incorporated into the main article. --Farix (Talk) 20:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the already performed merge to Air_Gear#Anime. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:54, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardy Memorial Tower

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 Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardy Memorial Tower[edit]

~~Contested prod. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. All but 1 reference is a primary source (published by the university).~~ RadioFan (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There are no copyright violations nor any nonsense or gibberish, and all of the content has been attributed to reliable sources, some of which is university based, but most of which is not. I find it to be suitable for an encyclopedia article. Streltzer (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hardy Memorial Tower is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a contributing property to the San Diego State College Historic District; see this reference. Being listed on the National Register should be more than enough for notability in Wikipedia. In addition, the preservation awards for preserving the murals should count as secondary coverage. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn we have a well referenced, notable article now. Thanks for establishing the notability of this topic. A National Register of Historic Places listed building is certainly notable.--RadioFan (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job to Elkman for discovering the National Register reference, and for RadioFan keeping us all legitimate. :-) Streltzer (talk) 02:16, 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.

Footballer fails WP:ATH as he hasn't played at a fully-professional level yet. Also fails WP:N and specifically WP:GNG due to a lack of significant independent coverage in the media. Only a secondary source about a possible move and a name check in about a call up to an international youth squad. --Jimbo^[online] 18:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:N (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Giant Snowman 18:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GiantSnowman and nominator - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. --Angelo (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spiderone (talk) 16:36, 30 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. — Aitias // discussion 23:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taunia Soderquist[edit]

Subject of article does not meet a single criteria of WP:BAND. SPA created vanity article. Chuthya (talk) 11:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bar singer and classified-ads 'vocal coach' - doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. No WP:RS evidence found to provide any WP:N. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:53, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Players Who Shook the Kop

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 List of Liverpool F.C. players. Black Kite 22:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

100 Players Who Shook the Kop[edit]

Procedural. I recreated the article which had previously been deleted by AfD.

The AfD concerns, as I understand them, were:

The list of names is copyright
Lack of notability

I have hopefully addressed those issues - the list has been removed, is warned against with a hidden comment and can be removed if replaced. And I've added five references. I thought doing this would be easier than going through DRV to discuss a notional improved article, but if I've got it wrong, my apologies and I'll speedy it, close this AfD and head there. Dweller (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The old AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/100_Players_Who_Shook_The_Kop. Having reviewed it, I now believe there may be an error in the assumption that the list is copyright - the selection was not based on "editorial opinion", but was a poll of ordinary fans, as the article makes clear. Nonetheless, let's discuss the article as is - I can investigate the copyright issue further with the result of this AfD already clear. --Dweller (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OK then, ignoring any potential copyright issues for now, I still don't believe this information is worthy of a seperate article. If it is mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia, then mention it on the Liverpool F.C. page. Giant Snowman 13:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that on the basis of lack of notability? I fairly effortlessly found a bunch of major media outlets referring to the poll when discussing former players. I'd concur that the mentions are mostly fairly trivial (I can't for the moment find the coverage it presumably gained when it was announced) but they are widespread and in sources with excellent credentials. --Dweller (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's mainly because the idea of having a list of players, but without an actual list of players (due to the copyright issues), is nonsensical. Hence why it should be mentioned on the Liverpool main article, and not here. Or maybe on the List of Liverpool F.C. players page. Giant Snowman 13:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for returning to discuss. In response, I'd say that we have articles on many notable songs and films without including the copyright material the article discusses. (And in any case, the list may indeed be included in future... but I digress!) But mainly, if the concept is notable, it's notable, regardless of the inclusion of the list. Surely? --Dweller (talk) 14:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we break it down to its simplest form, this is simply a list of players who played for Liverpool. While I am coing round to its inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, I'm still against it being a seperate article, and it should therefore be merged into either Liverpool F.C. or List of Liverpool F.C. players. Giant Snowman 09:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge content to List of Liverpool F.C. players, perhaps as another column in the main table? It should also be mentioned in the main Liverpool F.C. article (ie as a useful source). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close AfD and Relist if necessary - nomination is invalid - 6 days in, and no one has ever tagged the article! Nfitz (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange... Twinkle must be playing up again. --Dweller (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz is right, we'll have to close this AfD and nominate again to allow for fair discussion. Giant Snowman 13:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted as deletion subpage was not previously included in logs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Warofdreams talk 11:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see the substantial coverage of this list in multiple sources that would meet the general inclusion criterion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Malcolmxl5. There's no reason that this subject would be covered in any source outside the club, i.e. no third party reliable source coverage. – Pee Jay 21:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled - there's already 4 references included that are "outside the club" and "third party". --Dweller (talk) 07:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet none of them mention the list in anything more than passing. They all just say "so and so came Xth in the list". Not good references, IMO. – Pee Jay 07:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of Liverpool F.C. players.--EchetusXe (talk) 21:11, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anabuki Kosan

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anabuki Kosan[edit]

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I started the article mainly to replace a mistaken redirect to Anabuki Construction, I think Anabuki Kosan also has enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article. The Japanese Wikipedia has a more extensive article, though that doesn't necessarily prove notability. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep any company listed on Tokyo Stock Exchange Fg2 (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CORP, being publicly traded doesn't automatically confer notability, but frankly it's a damn good bet that a publicly traded company will have coverage. Keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Tokyo Stock Exchange is a higher bar than publicly traded. But that's a matter for discussing somewhere else since you and I agree on keeping the article. Fg2 (talk) 10:50, 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 Speedy Delete per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craftsmanship Network[edit]

Blatant advertising; not notable Airplaneman ^talk 17:24, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bollier

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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bollier[edit]

Hoax. Lots of Google hits for this name, but all of them are from wikis or sites with user-generated content, and they all repeat pretty much the same biography. No listing for a physician with this name. No publications. No media coverage of brain surgery on a boat, which seems incredibly unlikely. Private clinics are very rare in Nova Scotia; he doesn't turn up at any of those, either. Hairhorn (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:BIO, WP:BLP. The article was speedily deleted under A7 in May. Basicallymadness (contribs) (presumably the creator of the original article) requested a copy and then reposted it word for word two months later. User_talk:Lcarscad#Unhelpful_Edits_and_Harassment shows obvious obvious conflict of interest from the main contributor. Zero results on Google Scholar. No actual coverage for Google News. Google Web shows no WP:RS results for "Thomas Bollier" "nova scotia" OR "Harvard Medical School" OR "Keith Olbermann" OR 1947 -wiki — Rankiri (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above as unreferenced BLP/hoax. Unable to locate any references to substantiate this article's contents. --Muchness (talk) 05:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons given above -- no sources can be found. Looie496 (talk) 15:37, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/78violet (album)

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 78violet. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

78violet (album)[edit]

Track listing and release date haven't been confirmed, a violation of WP:NALBUM. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is better referenced than most -- would it not be counter-productive to delete a well-referenced article on a confirmed album, for it to be later replaced by a basic directory-type entry? The JPS ^{talk to me} 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an alternate solution, we could redirect the page to 78violet, and then dig up the history once more information is released. Pokerdance ^{(talk/contribs)} 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Everything that's here (in the article in question) right now is at the artist's article already. Cliff smith ^talk 17:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Future album, already delayed, without sufficient details. Not yet notable. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 78violet, per Pokerdance. Not yet notable. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 18:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - there's nothing here that warrants a seperate article... almost all the given info is already on their main artist page, too. CloversMallRat (talk) 07:15, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabbat lamp

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} 07:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shabbat lamp[edit]

Product with no claim or evidence of notability. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Book search shows many hits for lamps and Shabbat. This article explains clearly (at least, it did to this editor who has little clue about Jewish custom) what a lamp for Shabbat is and why it's needed. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NotAnIP, I think part of the problem is that the article makes it seem that there are a whole range of products called Shabbat lamp. That's not true. In fact, "Kosher Lamp" is the brand name of the product. Is the product a neat invention? Yes. Notable? I don't think so. It has not been the subject of any publications. When I Googled both kosher lamp and shabbat lamp, all I could find were links to sites where you can buy this product. -shirulashem^(talk) 19:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're persuading me. Maybe merge with some other article that explains about (and I really hope I don't sound offensive here, I'll admit I'm ignorant) "other Jewish customs". NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NotAnIP. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 18:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources exist. Most of them can be found by googling "kosher lamp." Googling "Shabbat lamp" actually brings up lots of sources about Shabbat candles. This article should make clear that it is about the innovative lamp. I plan to add some sources before this AfD is up. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The NYT article, the biggest source I found so far, is very sufficient in establishing notability. It describes who invented the device, what year it was invented, and gives an idea of how many have been sold. Xyz7890 (talk) 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although I !voted merge on the Shabbat clock, and suggested that in that discussion that the shabbat lamp was probably similar and should be merged as well, I can see that they aren't at all similar. My first impression was that the lamp's electrical source turned itself "on" and "off" with a light sensor so that someone observing the Sabbath would not break the rules about electrical use. Instead, the light remains on and is either covered or uncovered, which does not involve any change in electrical usage. It's the modern day candle and bushel. Mandsford (talk) 02:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the limited verified material into an article about Jewish customs. JBsupreme (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but change name of article. The article seems so be about the specific brand name, which as pointed out above, is the Kosher Lamp. --Pink Bull (talk) 03:52, 4 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 speedy keep: withdrawal of the nomination with no other editors favoring deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Porfiry Ivanov[edit]

No sources seem to be available except things published by this person. This appears to be an advert for a cult and about a non-notable topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbisgreif (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced page about a cult figure. Possibly, an alternative might be to make an NPOV bio page as a cult figure, but it is unclear that reliable sources to support notability exist. I've done a Google Scholar search on the source, and (excluding hits on other people with the same first or last name) there were only 3 hits, all of them in what seem to me to be fairly obscure Russian sources that may be sympathetic to the subject. That makes me doubt very much that reliable sources exist that would establish notability. A similar search on Google News yielded 6 hits, mostly about people who go swimming in ice-cold water based on the subject's teachings -- would there be a basis for a page based on that? Or a redirect/merge into Ice swimming#Russia? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but revise. Although I'm not really changing my views on the comments I made above, I'm changing my !vote to Keep. What flipped me is (1) the source found by Aidan on the talk page of the article, which encyclopedically documents that the subject has a significant following, (2) some evidence of the subject's relevance to ice-swimming, for whatever that's worth, and (3) the possibility raised by comments below that there will be more reliable sources in Russian. That said, some reasonable caveats. As I think we all agree, the page needs to be rolled-back to the pre-POV shorter form, and made strictly NPOV. Also there may be a need to prevent future hijacking of the page (permanent semi-protection, perhaps, as uncomfortable a proposal as that may be?). --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I strongly oppose protection unless we see more POV pushing from that IP. I am a big fan of anonymous users, and protection seems drastic. Irbisgreif (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, as that's largely an issue for after closing the AfD. I'm just reacting to the page's edit history: a large number of disruptive IP edits, and every IP's user contributions showing edits only on this one page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration, Google Scholar only has this guy mentioned in passing in a couple of papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irbisgreif (talk • contribs) 01:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC) (That's what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Weak Keep. I think there is some indication the figure is notable. I think the page should to be cut down to a stub and re-built and semi-protected to keep the IP editor from hi-jacking. That being said, deletion is preferable to the current state of the article. --Aidan (talk) 21:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was Delete . There seems to be some evidence that information may be gained about this guy if we get a Russian-speaking editor (it's beyond my abilities) in here. (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The guy is definitely notable. Just take a glance at the corresponding article in ru_wiki—it should give you an idea of how many sources are available out there. The sources are, of course, Russian, but so was Ivanov. A typical case of systemic bias in action, me thinks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:17, July 28, 2009 (UTC)

Is it really reliable? The biggest section is 'Legends' and looks to be pretty uncredible. Did this guy really live for nearly 100 years? Irbisgreif (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was a religious cook, and a very notable one at that. His "health system", while not exactly scientific, does have many merits, which Ivanov seems to have arrived to empirically (and yes, he did live for almost 100 years). In Russia, this person is a subject of numerous publications, and while many of those emphasize the mystical, religious, and "legendary" aspects, as well as other crap of that nature, there are academic publications as well. Ivanov was a subject of several documentaries, and his "system" still has a wide (and wild) following. All in all, this article is not easy to improve without having a background in the subject or doing a thorough research, if only because one would have to wade through oodles of "mystical" diarrhea, which is bound to pop up most often in searches and even in libraries. In the end, however, the topic is most definitely encyclopedic.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:05, July 28, 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that on good faith, then, and switch to keep with the caveat that the material needs to be translated. Делаите это? Я говорит по-русский очень медленно. Irbisgreif (talk) 14:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I can list this on requests for translations and/or ask around :) I guess I don't do very well with translations of articles the subject of which doesn't interest me one bit, but I couldn't just pass by a valid encyclopedic topic being slated for deletion either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:21, July 28, 2009 (UTC)

Keep, revising based on old version. It seems like the hijacked version of the page is what triggered the AfD. It sounds like there was a better version beforehand. I say revert to that and improve the article. If it's in an unsourced/lack of notability situation after a month or two, renominate. —C.Fred (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All parties concerned, including the nominator, have !voted as keep. Based on that, the AfD is eligible to be closed as a speedy keep. —C.Fred (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good! As soon as it's closed, I'll self-revert my return of the page to its objectionable version, and turn it back to the pre-POV stub. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 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. Last AfD closed merely 12 days ago. If you disagreed with that decision, WP:DRV is the venue. Re-nominating is pointy and disruptive. Smashville^talk 19:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summit School (Queens, New York)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I re-nominated for deletion because I felt the previous AfD was judged based on the number of “keep”. It did not express the views of people who said “delete”. Once again, schools are notable only if secondary sources are available. I did research on google but I found no secondary sources. The only one I found was the school's website which is a primary source. First see WP:CRYSTAL which rejects claims that it will be important in the future as a reason to keep the article. Second, are there any schools which are not "notable in the school community?????" My point is not all schools in the school community meet the Wikipedia's notability guidelines to have an article. Hagadol (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't modify your nomination without making it clear an edit has been made. It confuses conversation. Diff of change is here.[12]--Cube lurker (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here also[13]. If you want to reply to someone elses comment you can do so indented beneath their comment.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Last AfD was closed as Keep on July 15, 2009. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SpacemanSpiff. Too soon for a re-nomination.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a SPA tag to the nomination which was removed by the nominator - here. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per common deletion outcomes (high schools are usually kept). If the argument by the SPA nominator is that no third-party sources are given, here's one I found in about 3 minutes. tedder (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is like saying that just because a school is listed on RateMyTeachers, then it is notable. It is not an appropriate secondary source to prove that it is notable. Something that was mentioned in The New York Times would be notable. Hagadol (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A government source is not reliable? Huh. That's an interesting opinion. tedder (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no independent coverage about this school. Wikipedia's notability guidelines want significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic. Hagadol (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Per too soon for new AfD and common deletion outcomes that secondary schools are usually kept. Curtis (talk) 17:40, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristin Prim

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kristin Prim[edit]

Non-notable blog editor; cited links are from blogs, social networking sites and message boards; Conflict of interest. If anything, this violates WP:SPAM as well. mhking (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:NOTE. It's basically (as far as I can see) self written SPAM, that would constitute a COI. If it's as notable as they claim, someone else would come along and delete the article. Sk8er5000 (talk) 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally non-notable. Having a non-notable blog and calling it a magazine doesn't fly. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:19, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Cohen

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. BLP1E applies. will redirecty to american idol when deleted Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Cohen[edit]

I think this is a case of recent news-itis. Alexis' death got some coverage from major news sources, but is that really enough for an entire article? The general rule has always been that auditioners do not get articles unless they attain sourcable notability. William Hung is the best example of this. In this case, all of the sources are regarding Alexis' death. The article describes the "viral" nature of her first video but there is no source stating that. And really, most "bad" Idol auditions gets lots of YouTube views. That doesn't mean they deserve articles. Also, I have a problem with having this article when actual finalists like Alexis Grace do not (per AfD). We need a high standard with Idol and I don't think this reaches it. User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Nuetral~~: The article mentions several tv appearances. If those can be identified and they meet the criteria for WP:MUSICBIO 12 or if the video has more news attention other than the death articles and it meets WP:WEB or if she has been mentioned in a news article about her Animal rights activism, then I am for keeping. If not, I am for deleting.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: per CrazyC83. I think an article for noteworthy auditioneers not deserving seperate articles is a good idea, such as Noteworthy American Idol auditions.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being killed in an accident does not generally increase notability, and article subject fell below notability cutoff before death. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Neutral'. Put her on the list as a red link. 209.2.60.97 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep'. Her death has been reported by the BBC ([14]), establishes notability for me. Draggleduck (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC maintains a thriving, worldwide news service, of course it's going to report deaths. I hate to break WP:WAX, but does that mean that these people deserve articles[15]? DJ 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She only barely qualifies for notability, as a viral Internet star as well as a well known participant in multiple seasons of American Idol. If there was a list page of American Idol contestants and/or well-known applicants, I'd say it should be merged there. As it stands right now, though, there are many contestants with their own pages, some of whom I think are actually less notable than Cohen (even though they made it further in the show)... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Her death wouldn't contribute to her notability even if she were otherwise notable, which she isn't, per WP:BLP1E. She may be "famous", right now and for a month or so, but in no way is she "notable", per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Ask anyone in a year's time who she is, and nobody will care. Sad, but true. We are not here to report transient issues, or people. Rodhull andemu 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:BIO and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. DJ 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Try googling her, you would get 49 million hits. Sometimes a person only becomes famous after his/her demise and that isn't WP:NOTMEMORIAL...--Warpath (talk) 01:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good indicator. For one thing, "Alexis Cohen" isn't that uncommon of a name. For another, many are those are mirrors. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 14:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basic google search isn't a good indicator, but google trends shows the frequency of google searches over time. The only spikes on her here are for her auditions, and her death. The rest is flat line. And she's undetectable when you add in some other people,... Dr. Cash (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete though the person doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO, in violation of WP:BLP1E. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet the threshold of notability. The BBC has also reported on deaths like people who die windsurfing in a hurricane because they are shocking. Deaths reported by the BBC do not necessarily mean notability, as WP:NOTE requires multiple sources that deal with the subject in a non-trivial way. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I remember her after all this time whereas I have completely forgotten about many contestant finalists. When she came out after confronting the judges, they had to put all these "American Idol" blockers on her mouth and her fingers and her buttocks countless times, sometimes 3-4 at the same time. It was classic comedy, better than Eddie Murphy and Cosby. I think Letterman should have hired her to shout whatever came to her mind. This girl had really the guts to express her mind, and you know what, she was right about what she said. Keep the page. She is as significant as can be. werldwayd (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please see WP:ILIKEIT; just because she made you laugh or you admired her tenacity does not mean that she was notable. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two television appearences does not make one notable. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable.--TitanOne (talk) 06:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Er....how? DJ 07:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to American Idol (season 7) - not notable enough for her own article, but people seeing news about her death will probably search for her. Therefore redirect to American Idol (season 7), where she first became 'famous'. GiantSnowman 09:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Makes perfect sense. Not worthy an article of her own as she falls below the notability threshold (albeit by not much), but it is worth creating the redirect because people might still search for her name. McMarcoP (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. She was something of a notable internet meme after her melt-down and there has been extensive media coverage. That said, my support is pretty weak and I wouldn't be hurt if this ended up as a redirect to American Idol (season 7). youngamerican (wtf?) 13:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep her death was even reported on in my country on the other side of the world. that tells it all. atleast for me. Keep.--Judo112 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - She is really in the news now, but will she stay there long after her death? That is the question. Current news mentions warrant an article for sure, but that will likely change in the short term, so it is hard to take a position. Redirecting to the season article is probably not the best course of action as there is no mention of her on the target page (that is typically for semi-finalists and finalists who have disappeared from the scene). Maybe a new article could be created, something like Noteworthy American Idol auditions? CrazyC83 (talk) 14:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would open up a big ball of wax I'm not sure we want to open up. It'd be ripe for vandalism and spurious additions. Look at how hard it is to maintain the main AI articles during the season. I suspect one like that would be worse.

- I just have a hard time having an article on someone mostly because they died. I say that because there is damn little on her from her audition or this "viral" thing the article talks about. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 14:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It should be noted there is legitimacy to the viral claims. It might need better sourcing, but just a very quick search reveals a few sources that address it, like here. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 21:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With all due respect to her family, she's not a celebrity. She only appeared on one of the audition shows of season 7 of American Idol, for less than 2 minutes, of which she failed to qualify. The only reason that her death was even reported, was because someone in the MSM recognized her name out of obscurity and thought that their website might get some more ad clicks or impressions from reporting on the death of ***someone*** that was even somewhat remotely connected with the popular American Idol show. Other than that, she hasn't really accomplished anything worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment While individually, Google trends shows three reasonable-sized spikes -- one each for her appearances on Idol, and one small one coming up for her death (plus to unexplained really small ones) -- she's mostly a flat-line with nothing else coming up. Add Kris Allen and David Cook to the google trends report, and she disappears entirely,... Dr. Cash (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You may well be right in your general summary, but one small point: her death was reported by the BBC, a public-funded service in Britain, and therefore their site carries no adverts. So that cannot have been the reason for reporting for at least one outlet. EJBH (talk) 23:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question we really have to ask is, is anything going to be able to be added to this article besides where she lived, what she was in school for, the fact that she was an animal rights "activist", two failed American Idol auditions of which she failed to qualify, and her death? While there are more reports in the media about her death, most of these only have the information we have that's already there. They're not reporting anything else because there simply isn't anything else interesting to report. In one month or one year's time, she'll be forgotten and nothing new will come out about her, and this article, if it even exists, will just go off into the vagueness of forgotten wikipedia articles,... Sad, but true. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect Probably should go without saying, but when I said "delete" above, I intended to imply that a redirect be placed there pointing to the season 7 page. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She is well known enough due to her imfamous appearance on American Idol, and the manner of her death is reason enough to keep the article. Lou72JG 15:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manner of death? Is Wikipedia covering all deaths by hit and run these days? Dr. Cash (talk) 15:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can bend this in anyway we want to it doesnt change the fact that here is enough sourcing and notability for Alexis Cohen to let her have a Wikipedia article.--Judo112 (talk) 19:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:MUSICBIO and WP:BLP1E regarding the established criteria for notability of musicians. She doesn't meet any of those criteria. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and the rest is WP:BLP1E. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article and keep listed on Deaths in 2009 article. Not notable enough for an article, but does maintain some notability for a mention on the previously mentioned article. — ℳℴℯ ε 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: We're not debating what to do with Deaths in 2009, so it's irrelevant. This page is for voting on keeping or deleting Alexis Cohen. Dr. Cash (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that AFD is not a vote, it is a discussion. And as you seem more involved in the debate and on the Deaths in 2009 article talk page, and who has a vendetta against the entry of this individuals death on the article that resulted in you edit warring with multiple editors, I would advise against starting an argument for your point of view on the matter here. However, the entry on that article is relevant considering this is the same person whose death is noted on the Deaths of 2009 article. My comment merely stated that while Alexis Cohen isn't notable for their own article, they should just be remain as an entry on the Deaths of 2009 article (given the notable publicity of her death), where this argument began. Also, don't keep replying to every comment on this AFD, lest you look like a dick. — ℳℴℯ ε 16:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it seems like you're being a bigger dick. I was merely pointing out that this AFD is discussing the merits of whether Alexis Cohen should have a wikipedia article or not. The debate over whether she should be listed on the Deaths in 2009 page is irrelevant to this discussion, and is to be determined later. While I may have briefly reverted her yesterday a few times with another editor, I am no longer propogating that edit war. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean propagating. And again, the discussion there is relevant to the Deaths in 2009 article, because that is where it began and because this is the same person, and you cannot change that. I said delete the biography but to keep the mention on the article. Usually, a link will be unlinked or deleted all together from other articles that it was on prior to the AFD, so I am adding my opinion on the things it links to, as this person has, I believe, maintained some notability to be mentioned elsewhere. Do we call others comments irrelevant on AFDs who suggest a merge to the American Idol page too, because it isn't directly involved with the AFD at hand? *rolls eyes* — ℳℴℯ ε 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. It seems like we both agree that the article should be deleted/redirected to season 7, so let's just leave it at that. I still think that listing her on Deaths in 2009 is just feeding the media circus, which seems silly, but I really don't care about whether she has a listing over there or not anymore,... Dr. Cash (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think the consensus has been that people who appear multiple times on Idol are marginally notable, but this person has also gained independent news coverage. Bearian (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top 11 AI contestant Alexis Grace also has attained independent media coverage, but her article has already been deleted. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't pertain to this AFD discussion. That being said, I'm confused on this. The very AFD discussion you link to has a result of "Keep", and yet her page has been redirected to Season 8. Was this page deleted improperly?? — Hunter Kahn _(c) 18:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I know there was another AFD for that article which resulted in its deletion. I am not sure where that is archived? Dr. Cash (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You meant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexis Grace (2nd nomination). Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect title to American Idol page. The only reason her death is even mentioned in newspapers is because she was briefly on television. If her original audition was not enough to get her a Wikipedia article, then unfortunately her death is not either. ... discospinster _talk 16:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Redirect (and keep on Recent Deaths). The arguments presented here for deletion make sense. I originally thought that notability was met from appearing on two seasons of Idol, combined with various internet and other show appearances, but I have to bow to logic on this one. Even if kept right now, I believe this (AfD) discussion would probably crop up at some point in the future when current media attention subsides. I strongly feel that information on this person should exist somewhere due to the media/internet coverage, but am unsure as to where (the Idol season articles seem to generally list semi-finalists and above). Other failed-but-notorious contestants have been mentioned on the season summary sections of the main Idol page itself, so maybe that's an option. I realize this makes my opinion rather flaky, but I can't seem to express it any other way. ~~Hopefully regular editors of Idol pages will have a better idea of where to put the information if it does get redirected.~~ *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 05:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I see above someone has already suggested a new "Noteworthy Auditions" article; I think that's a great idea. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 05:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - creation of previously deleted material with the addition of her death, which does not in itself make her notable. - fchd (talk) 07:10, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Molloy (footballer)

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) · @924 · 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Molloy (footballer)[edit]

Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at fully-professional level of football. Lack of non-trivial significant third-party sources means he also fails the general notability guidelines at WP:GNG. Only independent source is a stats page which doesn't confirm he passes WP:ATH or give us any significant coverage of this person. --Jimbo^[online] 15:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this stupid campaign is getting close to being considered disruptive editing in my opinion. Players in the top division in Ireland are notable - here is a list of recent AfD's which have discussed the issue. If the sources are poor then improve them - that is not a reason to delete.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your list of AfDs about Irish soccer player is biased as it doesn't include the many numerous players who have been deleted via PROD or AfD - a number which far outweighs those that have been kept. Giant Snowman 15:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've shown you mine - you show me yours! Look at all the recent AfD's - FOOTY Project members clubing together and making absolute dicks of themselves.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:FOOTY deletion archive can be found here. Alas, I can't tell which players are Irish. And as for your accusations of us being dicks, I point you in the way of WP:MOBY. Giant Snowman 15:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So in response you give me a list of ever single footballer that has ever been to AfD - good retort! What am I dealing with here?--Vintagekits (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said, there's no way I can see what articles deleted were of Irish players! Giant Snowman 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT? Show me your list of players that have played in the Premier Division in Ireland that have been deleted or else stop flappin yer gums because providing a list of every player under the sun that has gone to AfD is about a relevant as quotin the price of cabbage.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you incapable of understanding that it is impossible for me to see what Irish players have been deleted - precisely because the articles have been deleted, and therefore I cannot look on said article to check their nationality..? Anyways a couple of Irish players recently deleted include Aaron Stewart, Eamon Kavanagh, Eoghan Carew, David Nicholl...Giant Snowman 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be incapable of telling the difference between the IFA and the FAI and the first division and the premier division - jog on!--Vintagekits (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to "jog on" at all - it is near-impossible to tell what league a player has or hasn't played in IF THEIR ARTICLE HAS BEEN DELETED!!! Giant Snowman 15:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the AfD then - shouldnt be hard for a man of your undoubted intelligence!--Vintagekits (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did look for additional sources to try to meet the GNG criteria, as I did for Ger Hanley (footballer). However, I couldn't find anything substantial thus this AfD. --Jimbo^[online] 15:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:N (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Giant Snowman 15:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm opposed to this deletionism in general - as Vinatagekits says, it almost looks like disruptive editing, but this player unfortuanately does not meet the criteria here. I'd suggest the article history be kept however, to facilitate its reappearance should notable sources appear. Jhealy (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can you explain the difference between this player and his team-mate Niall Walsh who you !voted to Keep especially as Molloy has played a significant amount more game for Galway and scored in the Premier Division - unlike Walsh.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plays at the top level of Irish soccer, of course he's notable. Derry Boi (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that playing at the top level of football in San Marino or Monserrat is notable? Giant Snowman 16:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the same way that it is in England, USA, Italy, Belgium and other notable footballing countries.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're fully-professional though. --Jimbo^[online] 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get over this obsession with having every player in the league to be professional before you consider a league notable. Take the blinkers off child.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kee, plays for a professional team in the highest league in Ireland, passes WP:N.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Give Jimbo the boot instead. Dahamsta (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is uncalled for. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with the several other players who are up for deletion, they all meet the requisite criterium. Centre mid (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plays at a professional level, therefore passes WP:ATHLETE. -Falcon8765 (talk) 17:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but not a fully-professional level as the criteria states. --Jimbo^[online] 18:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If he is a member of the FAI Premier Division then he appears to be a member of a top level professional league to me. -Falcon8765 (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The FAI Premier Division isn't fully-professional though. Shamrock Rovers website says they're part-time. --Jimbo^[online] 19:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Whats yer point? The league slips in and out of full professionalism to predominantly full professionalism. The fact remains that it is the top league in a major footballing nation - therefore notable as far as I, and the community concensus, are concerned.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe he meets wikipedias criteria, he plays for a notable team in a notable league and has plenty of reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80SRFC80 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What non-trivial sources do you believe meet WP:GNG? The reliability was never in doubt. --Jimbo^[online] 22:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont consider the sources provided to be of a trivial nature.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name checks in match reports and stats sites? I do. What would you consider trivial if those aren't? There's nothing about his exploits as a player personally. --Jimbo^[online] 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed decription of his goal in the premier division my child. Keep the AfD's coming - and gettin yer arse kicked! ;) --Vintagekits (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's as trivial as they come. I could find details descriptions of goals for players all over non-League in match reports. --Jimbo^[online] 23:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well when that is the top league in a major footballing nation then I will consider them good enough to pass WP:N.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N as the sources provided in the article only consist of stats and brief mentions in match reports (this guideline requires more than a trivial mention, even if the subject isn't the main topic of the source), fails WP:BIO as he has not acheived anything of note, and fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully professional level (many of the teams in the Irish league are part-timers). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 06:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Vintagekits. BigDunc 16:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Player is professional, plays in a professional team and a league where eight out of ten teams are professional. Now how he can fail WP:N is beyond me. I'll put in reliable references to show he is notable.--Leagueofireland (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per User:Leagueofireland, the article I mean, not the flames on this talk page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sioraf (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional footballer playing in the League of Ireland.89.168.146.91 (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above.Belacqua Shuah (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I am feeling that the "fully professional" requirement at WP:ATHLETE does not accurately reflect consensus and should be modified. Comparing this to San Marino is pretty much a straw man. Ireland is not some silly little country on a small isle in the Atlantic. It is comparable to my country of Norway in size, and the interest in football is almost surely of the same level. Players at the top national level in a country like that get covered in the press. The idea is to ensure that the athletes we cover are playing at a high enough level where there is widespread public interest for what they are doing, not that everyone gets paid for what they are doing. Given that the exploits of clubs like Galway United, and the players who play for them are well-covered in Irish press (e.g. [16]), and that the basics of the article are verifiable [17], the article should pass notability criteria. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a notable footballer playing in a notable (top-level) league Eldumpo (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, he probably doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline, but there is a fair quantity (if not quality) of sources which definitely verifies his status and arguably satisfies WP:N. I don't see any real benefit in deleting. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I very much share the sentiment of Jmorrison. He appears to fail WP:BIO, although the independent sources help the article pass WP:N and so establish some degree of notability. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:39, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long Z. Liu

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) · @924 · 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long Z. Liu[edit]

A prod tag was removed without apparent improvement. See also the tangentially-related AfD for FOB (movie). No reliable sources denoting notability, which is asserted but apparently not present, strong conflict of interest problems (see creator's username), significant possibility of advertising. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 16:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough notable Rirunmot (talk) 17:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 18:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only source that I can find is the reference in the article. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bring me the Head of Boba Fett

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 Welcome to Eltingville. (X! · talk) · @924 · 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bring me the Head of Boba Fett[edit]

per WP:PLOT. Page is a plot summary for the sole episode of the series. Could be made into a redirect to main series where a brief synopsis is already presented. Bringing to AfD because merge tag was deleted with a note that began "there is not really a need for the pilot to have its own page...". Ost (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Welcome to Eltingville. Episode is non-notable. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 19:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Welcome to Eltingville artical. --Pedro thy master (talk) 01:12, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hans Beckert

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 - nominator has withdrawn the AfD. Pastor Theo (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Beckert[edit]

~~All the information is in the main article -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Having read the arguments below, I am changing my vote to Keep provided some work is put into the article. I don't know enough about the subject to do it. As the nominator for the deletion, can I cancel the process, or do I need to wait for an admin to do that? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The deletion history for this article is as follows: two requests for Speedy Deletion were placed on this page (21:57, 26 April and 07:45, 27 April), but the creator of the article User:Haroldcoxly994 (User talk:Haroldcoxly994) just deleted the tags with no explanation. A merger with the main article was suggested, but this tag was also deleted by the creator. A PROD was issued, but again the creator just deleted the tag. Now this is being AfD'd, as I see no other way to deal with this, as the creator will just delete any tags. Postscript: The creator's alternative ID User:Haroldcoxly has removed the AfD tag. I have undone his edit. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to parent article. Original editor now has block-evading sock at User:Haroldcoxly. Hairhorn (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been reported to WP:ANI. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is notable enough for its own article. -- 科学高爾夫迷 21:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sound keep A pity about the socks. However, this particular notable characer has been the subject of study for decades[18]. I have begun cleanup and required sourcing of the article. Per precedent, there is enough for this article on this character to further grow and improve the encyclopdia away from the film article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly notable, lead character from seminal movie ukexpat (talk) 17:11, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logan Waller Clements

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Waller Clements[edit]

Page history makes it clear that this is an autobiography; if it is speedied, it will just keep coming back, so let's go through the full discussion process. Looks like a non-notable individual, despite having a few published articles; no indication of any coverage by independent sources. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This guy may be a "world renowned scientist", but the article makes no note of it. There should be awards, fellowships, etc. Instead, we hear about a project he was part of when he was a junior and senior in college. eaolson (talk) 14:53, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 plot threads

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 1632 (novel). Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1632 plot threads[edit]

non-notable, unsourced heap of plot from an alternate universe. Delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a main article, where different books are listed as parts of the plot threads. No need for a subarticle. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge main article already has a smaller section containing this info. Transfer anything that is useful and delete the rest. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Although fan-created fiction is new and interesting, this conflicts with WP:PLOT by placing too much weight on the plot and isn't notable enough to deserve a Wikipedia article of it's own. Salvage the important bits in he main article. There is a 1632 Wiki, the rest can go there. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the title "plot threads" is not consistent with the values of Wikipedia. Abductive (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article 1632 series is already tagged as "too long," so I do not see merging as an option. The series is notable and includes at least one best-selling science fiction novel per the New York Times [19]. Per WP:PRESERVE, our goal is not to eliminate verifiable information about notable subjects from Wikipedia. If it cannot be shoehorned into 1632 series then leave it here. Edison (talk) 21:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In other words, because self-indulgent editors have written a bloated article elsewhere, this bloated article which violates WP:N, WP:PLOT, and WP:OR gets to survive? Abductive (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can vilify the editors who created the article as long as you choose to continue violating WP:NPA with labels such as "self-indulgent," but the the basic information of what happens in a work of fiction is obviously an essential part of any encyclopedic coverage of it. If it needs editing, then edit it into compliance with applicable policies and guidelines. I do not claim that every event in each of the thousands of pages in the dozens of books needs to be covered. Plot summaries of appropriate length are essential. Note that WP:PLOT is currently "Disputed." Still, it calls for real world context, and Europe in the 1630's is, well, the real world, aside from the effects of the future people who arrive there. The disputed guideline does not say there cannot be any mention of the plot of a book or series of books. This series has had reviews which could serve as independent and reliable sources for some of the plot thread information. Edison (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Real world means secondary sources, not the setting of a novel. I didn't mean my self-indulgent comment to be taken personally by anyone here, but rather to be a stylist reference. Abductive (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reliable and independent sources are needed to satisfy the notability of the series of books. That is not at issue here, since there are references which show it includes a "science fiction best seller" and many of the books have good coverage in secondary sources[20]. I am concerned with how best to cover the series. Either in a main article or spin-off article there needs to be adequate coverage of the setting, the plot, and the characters. I strongly prefer lists to a plethora of individual articles about each thing featured in a fictional universe. Each chapter or each plot thread does not have to meet the notability criterion individually, since they would be naturally be covered in the main article about a notable book series, but for there being too much to fit there. There are thousands of pages of text, including much real life historical and technical data, and that pushes me toward endorsing some spinoff articles, where adequate coverage would make the main article too long. I do not feel that a secondary source is needed to verify what an original work of fiction says, since we can read the work of fiction to verify what is in it. Original research would be conjecture about things that are not explicitly stated in the fictional work. Edison (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, the plot sections of articles on fictional works should never be spun out into subarticles. Massive violation of NOTPLOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (merge) and fix. The preferred course of action in WP:PLOT is not deletion, but improvement -- PLOT does not provide a delete rationale, but a merge one. Those concerned "with the values of Wikipedia" should read WP:PRESERVE without which there simply would not be such a thing as a Wikipedia. The sprawling 1632 articles sure do seem to lack an overhaul, and some pruning, but this is a more nuanced response than hitting the delete button. AfD is not for cleanup Power.corrupts (talk) 11:33, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 institutions

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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1632 institutions[edit]

non-notable, unsourced heap of plot from an alternate universe; fictional committees, high schools, leagues, nations, and newspapers (do see them;). Delete. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 13:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete very much per nom. Fictional universes really don't belong in Wikipedia, unless they are very notable. This goes too much into plot details, and while fan-developed fiction is something new and interesting, this conflicts against WP:PLOT by being very little more than description of the work's factions and events. Vital content not already there can be merged in the main article. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thanks; see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 plot threads and others @ Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Fictional elements; there are also about 50+ related templates at WP:TFD over the last week. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check a couple of them, but you are free to quote my arguments if you like and agree with them and if they are applicable in the other cases as well. Kotiwalo (talk) 08:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Seems like a useful fictional background article. Were else would we put the contents? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This stuff belongs at Eric Flint Wiki and/or 1632 wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Transfer to Wikia. - Josette (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on them; “come and get it” ;) Teh spam is on the table. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean you; if they don't move it, delete the crap ;) are you offering me spam? - Josette (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the appropriate word would then be “flush”. Teh “spam” would be all this material from an alternate universe, and Wikia et al is welcome to it. That editors of wikis succumb to the allure of fandom is a testament to the skill of brand managers at sinking their marketing hooks into people's minds. It is all so self-indulgent; a leisure afforded to cossetted members of affluent hegemonic societies. I took a photo the other day of an element of the real world in a part of the world not quite so affluent where life is tough for many people. Consider the circumstances of stray dogs, for example, in a poor country. I'll grab that pic out of my phone in a minute. Jack Merridew 07:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, in-universe description of fictional universe, apparently completely original research. Kusma (talk) 03:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ++Lar: t/c 08:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-indulgent and unencyclopedic. Abductive (talk) 19:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is like having an article which describes every real world institution mentioned in some modern work of fiction (consider the silliness of Around the World in Eighty Days (Verne novel) having a paragraph describing every real world place mentioned), a little encyclopedia within an article, besides the fictional institutions. I grant that in a fiction franchise as vast as this, it would be useful to the reader to have a place to look up something mentioned in one story which is better explained in another story, so I hope it finds a home on Wikia. Edison (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, not notable, NOTPLOT. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for preference or (possibly) merge back to 1632 series. If kept, it should be renamed to reflect the refernece to the novel series not the year 1632. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wall ball

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. notabilty requires detailed sources that discuss the subject in depth,. Consensus is measured against polciy not headcolunt and the delete arguments are policy based Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wall ball[edit]

Contested prod of a non-notable game. Removing user claims the article is "notible [sic] enough to deserve the debate" of AfD, but both a Google and Google News search mostly point to a baseball term of the same name. Xenon54 (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article does need improvement, but anecdotally I remember the game being quite popular when I was younger. -Falcon8765 (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really nothing more than an article about a number of WP:MADEUP games. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or Merge to Fives. I remember this and played at least 5 of the 100+ variations, it is related to Fives ([21] [22]) hence the suggested merge. As with many playground games it will be tricky to source as no two will list the same set of (as I remember different groups played different rules @ the same school) but the core idea of bouncing a ball off a wall and being out if you miss is common, and a report of . The reason for a weak keep is I worry that such an article will attract everyone to add their own variations. --Nate 14 81 07:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep - I found a reference to an Australian schoolyard variant known as 'handball', it is included in a government promotion for physical activity. However the article is still prone to people adding their own made up stuff, but that isn't a reason to delete. Wongm (talk) 12:16, 30 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 G3 - Vandalism/Blatant hoax. Reso lute 14:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Robert-Godfrey[edit]

WP:HOAX Player never existed and is not listed in any of the major hockey databases. It claims he played for NHL teams, yet the NHL has no list of him as ever having played in their league. Djsasso (talk) 12:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 12:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same guy? : [23] Powers ^T 13:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's definitely a hoax...for one thing, the last game of the Red Wings' 1984-85 regular season was a 6-5 loss against the Blues. The 8-2 game against the Blackhawks would have been the deciding game of the Norris Division semis. This article calls it "regular season" and includes it in his regular season stats. Also, speaking not in terms of Wikipedia policy, but real life, why would any team ever sign a guy who was never able to play more than half of an OHL season, yet racked up close to 150 PIM? At least make your hoax believable... --Smashville^talk 14:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every player to ever play an NHL game is listed at the Hockey Hall of Fame. That they've never heard of a supposed NHL player makes this an obvious hoax. Speedy deleted. Reso lute 14:38, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katie Kerwin McCrimmon

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Kerwin McCrimmon[edit]

Only claims to fame are winning national spelling bee and yearly role providing commentary on the spelling bee Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 12:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Winning National Spelling Bee demonstrates notability; winner typically receives substantial TV/print media coverage, if only briefly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then WP:BLP1E comes into play. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that, by consensus, winning a notable award or event "trumps" BLP1E. Besides, this nomination was broken out because the winner had other claims to notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai R. Gunturi. Note for closing admin: If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai R. Gunturi is closed as keep, this probably should be as well as it was split out because McCrimmon is more notable than the ones listed there. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:50, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody-Anne Maxwell

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jody-Anne Maxwell[edit]

Only claims to fame are winning national spelling bee and hosting a local quiz show. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 12:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Winning National Spelling Bee demonstrates notability; winner typically receives substantial TV/print media coverage, if only briefly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if the spelling bee is the only significant claim of notability, this impresses me as an example of WP:BIO1E.--RadioFan (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Then where's the article on the year's spelling bee, to merge this into? More important, my impression is that, by consensus, winning a notable award of honor "trumps" BLP1E.

keep Notable champion. Meets WP:BIO. No different than an athlete who won a national championship whom we would keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. That this young woman won illustrates that the Scripps spelling bee is the equivalent of not just a national championship, but an English-speaking North American championship. Also, this young woman from Jamaica winning in 1998 (first non-US resident, first person of African descent) got her even more press and public attention than the typical Caucasian-American or Asian-American winner. When you combine the American newspapers, the Caribbean publications, and an American book, I think she's received plenty of significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Decafdyke (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please add these sources to the article.--RadioFan (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Done, but I put several as "external links" at the bottom, as I think they are duplicative of sources already cited and are not necessary or appropriate to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decafdyke (talk • contribs) 02:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No matter how many times you write about one event, it's still one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai R. Gunturi. Note for closing admin: If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai R. Gunturi is closed as keep, this probably should be as well as it was split out because Maxwell is more notable than the ones listed there. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:51, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of airliners by seat capacity

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of airliners by seat capacity[edit]

Unreferenced article that adds no value. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts. Has POV issues by not being a complete list of every airliner with more than 12 seats but that would make it even worse. Prod contested prod for being a long standing article.MilborneOne (talk) 11:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced, unmaintainable original research which is a bit misleading. All these aircraft could be used in a cargo configuration which makes their passenger capacity zero. Some of these aircraft are used in VIP roles which makes their passenger configuration much lower. If this were a committed project of Wikiproject Aviation, it would be different, but I see no indication that they've embraced this page.--RadioFan (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the article stands, it is not of much use, "typical seating capacity" is far too vague to be of any meaning. Except for some regional airliners, such as the CRJ and ERJ versions with 50 seats, there is far too much variation in seating layouts to call a specific number "typical". However, if the article could reflect maximum seating capacity, and put a lower cut-off point at 20 or so, the list has some merit. Note that the World Almanac also has a list of airliners listing up their seating capacity based on some sort of "average", average of what is to me unknown. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I don't see anything vague about "seating capacity" being defined as the number of seats on an airplane. For business purposes, the number of passengers that a vehicle can carry is a more useful measure of the size of a vehicle than things such as length, wingspan, etc., and it's a good topic for an article. A very weak keep, however, because of the lack of sourcing (I'm guessing that this is compiled from the Wikipedia articles about each airplane), and if there's no improvement, let it go. I have a feeling that this is already on a sortable table somewhere. Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this article is listed by manufacturer and model. Airlines determine the seating configuration, not the manufacturer. While there is a maximum number of seats that can be configured, there is no minimum (see my !vote above) so this range is unreferenced at best and original research at worst.--RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability as it has no refs. I also agree that the number of seats that can be installed in most models varies so much that even if you could source this the ranges that would result would make the article of little value. - Ahunt (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no way to determine what the "typical capacity" of a plane is as this is determined by the airline not the manufacturer, probably original research.Curtis (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Article is uncited and typical seating is very vague. If it listed max seating then the page might have a chance of getting cited and being OK. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The line colours do it for me alone! Acknowledging the effort that has gone in by the creator there must be another similar article or category that covers this. It's probably academic but I would have put the largest first. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 23:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. - BilCat (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is factually inaccurate as to passenger capacities and is unsourced. More importantly, it creates an implication of the meaning of the world "airliner" that has no basis in reality. "Airliner" does not mean "passenger jet"; it means "aircraft operated by an airline", whether jet or otherwise. A Dash-8 is an airliner. A L-188 is (or was) an airliner. It also omits dozens of historical aircraft types, some of which are still in operation. --NellieBly (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list has been difficult to maintain and has included some planes that may not be appropriate and did not include other planes. user:mnw2000 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:35, 2 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S Varghese

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S Varghese[edit]

Non-notable per WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, unreferenced. Per Ardua (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Per Ardua (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the section "Journey of Legend" as it appeared to be a copyright infringement of http://www.kshrc.kerala.gov.in/thecommission.htm. However, the same page does provide evidence that he is one of three members of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission. Also http://www.keralauniversity.edu/UniversityCollegeThiruvananthapuram.htm provides evidence that he is (or was until recently?) principal of University College, Kerala University. I'd like to give the creator a little more time to clarify the copyright position or expand the article and add references before I'd wish to voice an opinion on whether it should be deleted. Qwfp (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Delete - If the original author can change this article substantially, then we should keep, but as it stands now the article meets the AfD conditions outlined by Per Ardua. Frmatt (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The copyrighted text (WP:COPYVIO) seems be removed now, and he is a member of Kerala State Human Rights Commission, and a former principal University College, Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala University, notable enough to have an article news story, though still a stub! Informing WP:KERALA might help, Kerala stub tag added though. --Ekabhishek (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Decide about to remove or keep so that i can do further editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazjohn (talk • contribs)
Delete. The article seems to hinge equally on his academic standing. However, he does not demonstrate notability here, quoting from the article: "He has published three papers on ‘Thin Films’ in International Science Journals" – this is a country mile from satisfying WP:PROF #1, which the article's own content suggests should be applicable. Article still has lots of WP:POV too, e.g. titling a section Academic Excellence. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. I am pretty sure he doesn't pass WP:PROF: according to University of Kerala there are 81 colleges within that university, so being head of one is more of a dean-level position than a university president level, not enough for WP:PROF #6, and we don't have any evidence of his research making a big impact. What I'm less sure of is whether membership on a state-level commission should be enough, but I'm leaning towards the position that it isn't. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think it is either. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:53, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DarkStar (Rock band)

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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DarkStar (Rock band)[edit]

Declined speedy due to (unreferenced) claims of notability. Non-notable band, Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Some Google news hits on "Dark Star Orchestra", though that doesn't appear to be the band that is the subject of this article. RadioFan (talk) 11:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Per Ardua (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no meaningful assertion of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No meaningful third-party coverage, therefore non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any reliable sources about them. Fences&Windows 23:11, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sai R. Gunturi

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. BLP1E is specific that subjects of nios must be notable for more then one event,. In judging consensus I must balance the arguments against policy. BLP1E is policy and BIO and N are guidelines so BLP takes precedence. I wil redirect them all to [edit]List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions after deletion Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sai R. Gunturi[edit]

Contested prod. Notable only for a single event, winning the 2003 National Spelling Bee. No other claims of notability. RadioFan (talk) 11:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages of other spelling bee winners because they also are notable for only this single event. They are listed on List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions which is sufficient:

Kavya Shivashankar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sameer Mishra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Katharine Close (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Anurag Kashyap (Jeopardy and Scripps National Spelling Bee champion) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nupur Lala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rebecca Sealfon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Wendy Guey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amanda Goad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rageshree Ramachandran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jacques Bailly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

George Thampy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Comment. Not sure this should be a single listing at least two seem to have possible notabality beyond winning the competition - Jody-Anne Maxwell for presenting a TV show in Jamaica and Katie Kerwin McCrimmon for being ESPN2 commentator on the competition for many years. Dpmuk (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They've been moved to their own AFDs. That should keep this discussion as focused as possible.--RadioFan (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —RadioFan (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all (some may warrant separate renom). I'm working on the premise that a spelling bee is equivalent to a sporting event. Generally, athletes who compete nationally at the highest possible level in a sport, in the most notable competitive organization/competition of that sport are deemed notable. If they win at the national level, they are clearly notable. I accept spelling isn't as notable as some other types of competition, so we probably shouldn't include all the competitors, but the winners do seem notable. --Rob (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant see this as a sport, it's a competition. The comparison to atheletes also doesn't work because articles about professional or Olympic level athletes can generally show significant coverage throughout there careers and don't fall to WP:BIO1E as a result. However these only coverage is concerning this one event and any additional information is biographical and no other claims of notability are made. There is no doubt that the competition is notable, the question is do these biographies meet the criteria described by notability guidelines specific to biographies.--RadioFan (talk) 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Olympics is just an event, isn't it? These kids don't magically appear, they have to win the competitions that lead up to this one... sounds like a sport to me. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 15:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep all. Winning National Spelling Bee demonstrates notability; winner typically receives substantial TV/print media coverage, if only briefly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - winning a national competition passes the notability guidelines. -Falcon8765 (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we could probably keep all of them, but I haven't checked each one to see if enough information is available. I do know that Jacques Bailly unequivocally passes the general notability guideline, as he has been the primary subject of multiple news articles spread out over several years and published in several locations: [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 05:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. A National coverage merits as a good reference for notability.
Delete all. This looks like it is going to be a keep, but I have to say it. National coverage of one event is still WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be WP:FIVEVENTS for Katherine Close, who was a finalist 2002-2006. She was also one of five people featured in an independently published book, giving her the substantial independent coverage called for in W:N. --Rob (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except that the assertion of notability isn't being a finalist, it is for winning......And she only won once. One event. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Sai R. Gunturi and any of the others who are notable only for winning the Scripps National Spelling Bee to Scripps National Spelling Bee. Per WP:ONEEVENT, "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." Gunturi is notable as the 2003 champion, but not central to the Scripps National Spelling Bee overall. Note that this recommendation holds only for those individuals notable only for winning the Scripps National Spelling Bee; Amanda Goad, Jody-Anne Maxwell, and possibly others in the list are notable for more than one event. Gunturi is not. Cnilep (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All. A National coverage merits as a good reference for notability. (Dewan S. Ahsan 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC))
Comment Even if we accept that WP:ONEVENT applies (I don't), Scripps is not one event! It's one event per year since 1925. Every single year, a huge amount new coverage is generated, internationally, of the lead up (lower level competitions), the event itself, and for a while afterwards, especially if their was any special controversy/incident occurring. So, WP:ONEVENT would support a redirect to Scripps National Spelling Bee 2008, Scripps National Spelling Bee 2007, etc... with each such article covering the more significant competitors and details of their respective competition. --Rob (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - The event might be annual, but these are biographies. If this were an article about the event, you'd have a point. Many of them only make it once or only win once, hence one event. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Previous winners are not allowed to return in this competition; thus each only wins once. Decafdyke (talk) 12:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep We would keep such articles if this were an athletic contest. This is no different. Easily meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All National winners. This is a notable competition, almost as important as American Idol. But seriously, the winners are all obviously notable and attract lots of media attention each year. Bearian (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per other comments. Additionally, I don't think the national spelling bee properly falls within WP:BIO1E. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 22:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh.......nobody is saying the bee itself falls under BIO1E, it's the BIOGRAPHIES OF THE PEOPLE LISTED that do! Niteshift36 (talk) 07:26, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alison & Allie

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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alison & Allie[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Alison & Allie

Contested PROD so this is a procedural nomination, no real opinion on the outcome. PROD reason was "There are no sources which says this show is in production." treelo _radda 10:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 10:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL.Pedro thy master (talk • contribs) 21:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, possibly a prank. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 15:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unable to find sources, sounds like a Danny Phantom fanfiction, TVRage.com even has a supposed picture for the show which looks eerily reminiscent of Danny Phantom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steffantucker (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norway–Romania relations

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 Withdrawing nomination in light of substantial improvement to article. LibStar (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway–Romania relations[edit]

although the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mainly multilateral and sport [29]. yes they've signed a climate change agreement and a heavy water incident in 1988 but not much else. Various sporting results [30], [31] and a Romanian hacker causing disruption in Oslo do not advance notability although I know at least 1 editor who would think so. LibStar (talk) 09:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of any notable ties at the moment. It fits better with Norwegian foreign policy when the other country is a (a) neighboring country, (b) peace endeavors or (c) a third-world country with substantial aid relations. Geschichte (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relations are not as close as some countries but sources exist in their relative languages to link the two countries. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources? Link how? I've had a Romanian athletics coach, but I can't think of any other obvious ties... must be about street criminals in Oslo hailing from Romania... Geschichte (talk) 20:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independant coverage of the topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Closer than most of these to relevence because they at least have embassies. But I don't see evidence of an actual notable relationship. Athough the Romanians did participate in the 1994 Winter Olympics held in Norway. Maybe someone will assert that as notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43]. That's what I could find in English in a few minutes with Google News. I've only skimmed the surface of the readily available sources there, and haven't even started looking in Romanian and Norwegian. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again we run into the mistaken notion that coverage of individual events equals coverage of the topic. It does not. Never has. Re-read WP:GNG. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is coverage a subset of the topic not part of coverage of the topic itself? Yes, different sources cover different subsets, but pulling them together, as long as no original conclusions are drawn from the combination of sources, is exactly what encyclopedias do. Anyway, out of the sources that I listed, several give general coverage of the countries' bilateral relations - those that do so and are available without payment/subscription include this and this. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added the sources identified above as external links in the article, giving date and publisher and sorting by general topic and date. Makes it a bit easier to see what content is available. I can't see any relevance to the "Sports & miscellaneous" content, but left the links for now, for the record. Otherwise, there is a record of the predictable and routine bi-lateral meetings and agreements, and information about economic links. Nothing very surprising, but enough independent sources commenting on aspects of the relationship to show notability. The article still needs expansion. I may tinker with it. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:36, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cody Arnoux

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Arnoux[edit]

Association Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, failing WP:ATHLETE Dancarney (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Dancarney (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Giant Snowman 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe that this person falls under Wikipedia:Notability (people), which states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."

A similar situtation has arisen with Anton Peterlin (soccer), both players trialled at Everton at the same time and agreed to join the club from US PDL club sides.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigJagielka (talk • contribs) 18:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article seems to be based purely on one event which is his signing for Everton. It needs more to pass. Spiderone (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to his not having played in a professional match, which means that he clearly doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:ATHLETE. SummerHoliday 15:43, 3 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 - Brehznitching's 15 minutes is over, obvious delete - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brehznitch[edit]

A non-notable argot that was recently invented and has little chance of being documented by reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia and as such is not for things made up at school one day.

This is a contested PROD, no reason for contesting given Mattinbgn\^talk 09:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not a single mention of it anywhere else. Hut 8.5 10:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Wikipedia has high standard requirements for even notable memes, so those most likely made up by the article's creator don't deserve their own article at all. Anyone can create a pseudolanguage or secret encoding for speech. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. - TexMurphy (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete meets CSD:G1. Nevard (talk) 14:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I live in the Brisbane area of Australia, and I've never heard of it. Wikipedia is not for stuff just made up one day. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:54, 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.

haha. you guys are all a bunch of losers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickysavage (talk • contribs) 08:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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; there's already a strong consensus against deletion here. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Lebanon relations[edit]

Israel and Lebanon never had any bilateral relations, and Lebanon does not recognize the State of Israel. It could possibly do that pending the Arab Peace Initiative or similar future developments, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Having a 'bilateral relations' article on this topic is factually incorrect. Some material of the article might be transferred to Israeli–Lebanese conflict. Soman (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a point of principle I think the lack of bilateral relations could very well be notable, especially when, as in this case, the two states share a border. In this context the fact that one doesn't recognise the other is also notable. The two countries may not have a normal bileteral diplomatic relationship but the artical title isn't "Israel-Lebanon bileteral diplomatic relations" and the very fact that Isreal has previously controlled much of Lebanon means the two countries have a relationship and given the magnitude of this event it's clearly notable. There are also many other events that make the relationship notable but that will do as an example. Dpmuk (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep 2 nations that have been at war have some form of relations even if it is unfriendly. these article series are not just about formal friendly diplomatic relations. As someone who has nominated a lot of these bilateral articles, this one is clearly notable. LibStar (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, "relations" in this context refers to bilateral diplomatic relations. States which do not recognize each other do not have relations. That why we don't have articles like 'Kosovo-Serbia relations', 'Morocco-Western Sahara relations', etc.. Israeli–Lebanese conflict is an apt place for the material of this article, Israeli–Lebanese conflict can very well include passages of informal contacts or possibilities of peace moves. --Soman (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

really, these 2 countries don't have formal diplomatic relations, yet an article exists Indonesia–Israel relations. LibStar (talk) 09:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't vote 'keep' on that article either. Perhaps 'Indonesian views on Arab-Israeli conflict' would be a better title for an article. --Soman (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I certainly don't share the complete pedantry of declaring that nations can't have diplomatic contacts without officially recognizing one another. Plainly governments have contact with one another, and the entries in this article are sourced and meaningful. RGTraynor 10:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "relations" does not necessarily mean "formal diplomatic relations". Hut 8.5 11:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is going to be a snowball. Although the nomination was made in good faith, the "x" and "y" relations articles are, as others have pointed out, not limited to diplomatic relations. If you're regularly fighting with your neighbor, you are having relations. The goal in weeding out the x-y articles has been to take care of those where there is essentially nothing happening between two countries, such as, say, Lesotho and Iceland. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Clearly notable, especially in regards to military history and source exist. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Appears to have good sources and countries do not necessarily have to have good relations to warrant an article on WP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaring Siren (talk • contribs)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puss in Boots: Story of an Ogre Killer

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) · @925 · 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puss in Boots: Story of an Ogre Killer[edit]

Per WP:CRYSTAL, only sources are to IMDB and Spanish equivalent, and even IMDB admits that pre-production hasn't started yet, thus failing WP:NFF. Note, writer removed a prod Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly much too early to have anything to say in this article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has been anaunced and we now it's in production, and IMB say so.Pedro thy master ^{Pedro thy master} 09:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:CRYSTAL - how do we define notability when the sources are as weak as they are? We can't. Pedro : Chat 20:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, until it can get some reliable sources that say so. IMDB is not a reliable source.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:03, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Bir-el Harmat

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bir-el Harmat[edit]

Article is unreferenced throughout, non-neutral, and almost certainly a fictional event. A number of issues with the articles can be seen in Talk:Battle of Bir-el Harmat, most notably that the Jewish Brigade did not exist before 1944. Searches for "Bir-el Harmat" returns five results in this book, which makes no mention of the battle in question. Page 70 of the book states that German forces broke through the minefield at Bir-el Harmat and overran the joint headquarters of two allied divisions on June 5, (date on p.69) a fact that clearly contradicts the article Sherif9282 (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Sherif9282 (talk) 08:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - arguments on talk page convince. Stephen Kirrage^{talk - contribs} 09:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Seems to be part of the Battle of Gazala --Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is an unsuitable resolution to this afd since, per the source I have provided, the entire event is fictional, and no battle took place here. All that should be mentioned in the Gazala article is that the Allied headquarters in Bir-el Harmat was overrun by the Germans on June 5. --Sherif9282 (talk) 18:34, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane O'Connor (soccer)

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) · @925 · 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane O'Connor (soccer)[edit]

Procedural listing after prod removed. Fails WP:ATHLETE. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to pass the general guideline either. Nyttend (talk) 13:36, 29 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) 00:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could be notable in a couple of weeks if he gets a first team game for Ipswich, but could just as likely also be in the reserves all season. When he's played a first-team game he can have an article.--Michig (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails both WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). Recreate if & when he meets either of these guidelines in the future. Giant Snowman 13:12, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rex Armistead

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. POV is a problem that can be fixed by normal editing. The neutrality of this article is an issue for the article's talk page, not AFD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Armistead[edit]

This article is very non-neutral and thus non-encyclopedic in tone. It would require a fairly significant rewrite to be neutral IMHO, if it could even be done. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started this article, and I think that Mr. Vernon is missing the point - Rex Armistead has been involved in well-documented and notable dirty tricks for a very long time - gubernatorial elections, the attempts by the Mississippi governors to maintain segregation, and the attempts to smear Clinton with the death of Vince Foster and with Cocaine smuggling. He's clearly notable. In addition, WP:neutrality does not mean "be nice". Every allegation there has been substantiated by reliable sources, and balanced where there is dispute. Let's not forget that the statement that Armistead has an "odoriferous background in Mississippi, ranging all the way from head-bashing of black civil rights workers to concocting a bizarre homosexual scandal in an attempt to defeat a gubernatorial candidate." was ruled by an 8-0 judges decision to be "substantially true" and not libellous. He does appear to be a nasty piece of work. If that's the case, then wikipedia shouldn't cover it up. If there is other material stating what he has done that is more positive, I honestly didn't find it.

If we consider what WP:neutrality has to say on bias:

cited selectively - I don't believe I have done this. There isn't much nice said about him in any WP:RS.
painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate. No. I have reported what others said (check the sources).
made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present. No - indeed I didn't include some material because I didn't feel it could be triangulated with other sources. There is material there on his interactions with the Ku Klux Klan which is fuzzy, so I didn't touch it, as it's not clear to what extent he took action against or tolerated their activities, at least not in the sources I could get hold of.
subject to other factors suggestive of bias - that's for someone else to show, of course. I admit the more I looked into his life, the more shocked I was, but I believe I have put down what makes him notable.

So in all, I do not agree with this AfD nomination.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep. No reason has been given for deletion. This is Articles for Deletion, not Articles I Think Need a Rewrite. Be bold and rewrite it Mr. Vernon, before you nominate it for deletion. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 08:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. An article that unlike this one had no sources and was intended to defame its subject would be subject to deletion under WP:CSD#G10 as an attack page. But that's not the same as a well-sourced and well-balanced article, as this one appears to be, that says primarily negative things about its subject. To take an extreme case, we don't delete our article on Ted Bundy for being too negative. So, while Vernon's nomination rationale could be valid in different circumstances, I'm not convinced that it applies in this case unless Vernon or other proponents of deletion can come up with substantial positive coverage which was inappropriately omitted from the article. And even if such material turns up, I agree with Esradekan that it would more likely be a cause to rewrite than to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:20, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serbian surnames

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. JForget 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian surnames[edit]

The whole article is a joke, because most of that what the article claims to be "serbian only" isn't really serbian alone. The whole article has a great pro-serbian-bias! Cantabo07 (talk) 05:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course... Serbian surnames are more often than not completely indiscernible from Croatian, Bosniak and/or Montenegrin surnames - and vice versa. This article labels surnames as "Serbian" without any real source, and imposes the idea that people with this surnames must be "Serbian". In short, these are not Serbian surnames - they are just as much Serbian, Croatian or Montenegrin. Some of the names on this list are certainly identified as Serbian, as someone's bound to point out, but this is still not necessarily so! How do we draw the line? The article is a fictitious list of arbitrarily selected names and smells a lot like Serbian nationalist POV-pushing, its not for an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 06:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, without prejudice for recreation. Direktor is not entirely correct when saying "usually no different from Croatian..." -- in some cases they're usually discernible, yet in others they aren't; but the article even fails to mention that. But the difference is like saying that the glass is half empty or half full. While I think that there exists serious ethnological and genealogical research behind the issue (roughly summarized in references such as [44], [45]), the article now serves just as a phone book, and that long list is a meaningless, vain, original research. Should someone recreate the article with encyclopedic contents about the main origins of the surnames, I'd be fine. But we should be better off starting from clean slate. The article is garbage. No such user (talk) 08:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is: we have no objective method or (non-biased) source that we can use to discern between the "totally Serbian", the "not-necessarily-Serbian", and the "completely ambiguous" surnames. Who can say he has an objective encyclopedic method of differentiating between Serbian, Croatian, and particularly Montenegrin surnames? How do we draw the line? The discussions on this can be both endless and pointless. Sometimes, upon hearing a surname, people from around here can assume they know the nationality of the person, but this is not something to use as a criteria upon which to base an encyclopedia article. How do we recreate an article we cannot objectively write?

I invite all native Serbo-Croatian speakers to just browse through the names, the absurdity can be found on every letter. Why should "Adžić" not be Bosniak, why should "Anđelković" not be Croatian or Montenegrin? "Brković", "Brnović", "Brstina"? Why are these necessarily Serbian? The list goes on and on... I personally know a lot of people with surnames from this list, most of them Croats - imagine their surprise when they find out Wikipedia says they have Serbian surnames(!) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I said that "in some cases they're discernible"; a Jovanović, Ilić or Milošević is quite likely a Serb, or of Serb origin. But as you say, the line between Montenergin surnames is totally blurry, and between Bosniak and Croatian ones is often so; it's dangerous to say "X is a Serbian surname" in most cases. What I said was that it's possible to write an article along the lines of "Serbian surnames are most often patronymic [examples], especially so in Central Serbia where they were stabilized in 19th Century by order of Prince Miloš. In Vojvodina they are often in form of possessive [examples] because of [history]... while "funny" surnames [examples] often come from Lika because [history]... They are also shared with Montenegrin [examples] and somewhat less with Croatian [examples] stock..., while there also surnames of Hungarian [examples], Vlach [examples] origin.". See the reference [46] for a reasonable outline, i.e. a broad overview. But not anything resembling the current "article". No such user (talk) 10:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And don't forget Filthirić, Sevenyearić, Đigađić and Withoutahić. It's essentially an indiscriminate list of names. Even if it were made useful (such as the etymology of a name-- what's the origin of the name "Milošević"?), it would still violate the rule of Wikipedia not being a directory. It's not much different than a list of "Jewish names" or "Anglo-Saxon names", and I don't see any use for it. Mandsford (talk) 13:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have enough users trying to lay cause for driving a chisel through the different peoples of the former FROY, causing more friction than needed. Though there are some names which may be to some degree discernible on paper, this does not necessarily make them either Croat or Serb or Bosniak live and in person. Vukovic on the list huh? We can tell that to my family members from Gospic. Nathraq (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there are probably thousands of last names missing. Serbian last names are quite diverse. Yes there are nations that have about 100 last names and they can be listed but it's not the case here. If the author can assemble them then OK but as it is now it's not a worthy article. And what exists is wrong too. Whoever changed -ca ending to -ća was wrong so we have Koprivića, Koštunića, Bajalića, Govedarića etc. which is total nonsense.--Avala (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references, no rationale, nothing to say why these are Serbian rather than (for example) Croatian family names, nothing more than "these are surnames found in Serbia". As an example, what if we had an unreferenced England equivalent with "Smith, Jones, Brown..." then the bloodbath over whether Jones was English or Welsh would be fearful, as would be that over the additions of Singh and O'Reilly. Be gone. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a consensus, then? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems so Nathraq (talk) 20:46, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friends of the Birth Centre, Canberra

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. notability requuires multiple detailed sources to be provided. they havent been so the delete side wins Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Birth Centre, Canberra[edit]

fails WP:ORG, nothing in google news [47]. mainly directory listings in google search. article only has 2 reliable sources. LibStar (talk) 04:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm glad the Birth Centre has friends. However it does not have its own article so why should its friends? i.e. not WP:Notable. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean Delete? LibStar (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To answer Nortwestgnome's question, the answer is simply "Nobody has written it yet." I'd hate to think that because an article hasn't been written then the subject is not notable. If that is that's the case we might as well pack up and go home now! : ) Gillyweed (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I guess I got ahead of myself. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 05:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when has Google News been the arbiter of what is notable? There are three perfectly good references. Maternity Services in Australia are a major battleground at present at the FBC is one of the major players in Canberra. it's also a member of Maternity Coalition. Gillyweed (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if it is a major player, wouldn't it naturally follow it would get significant coverage? also from WP:ORG: A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. 3 sources is not significant coverage, also:

[Non-commercial] Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources.

LibStar (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Far from being "perfectly good references," the sources given aren't any good at all. Notability is not inherited from the Birth Centre, and WP:N holds that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage." (emphasis mine) This support group isn't the subject of those transcripts; the Birth Centre is. RGTraynor 10:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RGTraynor is absolutely correct, the sources are primarily about the Birth Centre not Friends of the Birth Centre, WP:N also considers the depth of coverage, if they were specifically primarily about the Friends of the Birth Centre then the sources carry much more weight. LibStar (talk) 12:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps it's worth a mention in Maternity Coalition or Canberra Hospital. Since a Google news search would pick up articles from the Canberra Times, and it hasn't, I think that's a good arbiter of showing that this organization isn't notable enough to get noticed by the local press. Mandsford (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sources are available like Canberra Times and others to write a decent article on it. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Are they? I couldn't find any about the Friends (as opposed to about the Birth Centre). Would you mind telling us what sources you found yourself? RGTraynor 16:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the Canberra Times only ever puts about 1/4 of its material on line. It's the scabbiest newspaper around. So online searches are not going to find references to it. You actually need to do the hard yards and read the Canberra Chronicle and Canberra Times rather than just do a google search. I've read about them there but I'm not going to spend time going to the National Library to look up back issues of the papers to find references to them. This is a major drawback of Wikipedia. If the data is not electronic then apparently the evidence does not exist. The group is not notable enough to have a book written about it (nor been in existence long enough), but does appear in the CT and the Chronicle but not in electronic form. So does that mean that the article is deleted? There are submissions that the group has written on various government websites. Gillyweed (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are submissions that the group has written on various government websites. this only verifies the existence of the group not establish its notability, many non govt organisations and individuals submit stuff all the time to government. it's not a reliable source as it's essentially self written and again doesn't establish notability. if I submit to say 10 government inquiries it doesn't make me notable. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I understand that. I was responding to the view that if there is no electronic information out there, then the group is not notable. I've explained that the Canberra Times and the Canberra Chronicle only put 25% of their content on the web and therefore finding independent electronic references is difficult. What I perhaps should have said is not only are the submissions there but also the Government's reponse to them, thus providing some evidence of notability. Hansard from the ACT Legislative Assembly also refers to the group. If they were non-notable then they wouldn't be referenced in Hansard. Gillyweed (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no hansard is purely a record of what is said in Parliament, for example a MP might mention a group that lobbied him/her to make representations in Parliament. I would have to look closely at the context in Hansard, being mentioned in Hansard doesn't automatically mean notable. please refer to my previous comments re WP:ORG, Wikipedia isn't really into local groups for 1 town/city unless there's significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 00:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Obviously, Gillyweed, electronic sources aren't required. Sources that can be verified by other editors are. Since the official onus is on Keep proponents to supply sources (and not, as many seem erroneously to feel is the case, to blithely speculate that "sources must exist"), I'd be perfectly happy to see a publication cite with the date, author and article name. I live a subway ride away from the largest public library in the Western Hemisphere and would be glad to verify any citation proffered. RGTraynor 03:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Wikipedia isn't really into local groups for 1 town/city ..." Can you point to the policy or guideline that states this? This organisation may not be notable, but not for the reason you have given here. Wikipedia is "into" covering whatever can be verified by multiple reliable sources and meets notability guidelines. -- 03:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:CLUB: "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: 1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale ... Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area." RGTraynor 03:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Well in that case I'd have thought the Stateline reference shows very clearly that the group is discussed by reliable independent sources outside the organisations local area. MangoMango (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not just write an article on the Birth Centre itself and mention this group there? Northwestgnome (talk) 19:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content to Canberra Hospital. There is unlikely to be any sources that will demonstrate independent notability for this organisation, given that its reason for being is inextricably tied to the hospital. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 03:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The FBC was established as a consumer voice to counteract the approach taken by The Canberra Hospital to maternity policy and therefore merging it when they are quite separate entities would not work. I believe that the references cited indicate that the group is notable. They may not be notable internationally but certainly as a small group in Canberra in conflict with the ACT Government and the TCH, inclusion in WP will provide some information to those seeking it about the group. MangoMango (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which is, I'm afraid, an illegitimate reason to have an article. Wikipedia is not a webhost, and an article cannot be established just to provide an otherwise non-notable group with free publicity. RGTraynor 02:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment You are twisting my words. I am stating that the references provided show it is notable and meet the notability guidelines. I simply said that this is a useful article for those seeking information about the group. I am not stating it is a webhost or a noticeboard. In fact, I expect this article to be a little more balanced with some criticism of the group added by those who don't like its existence. Please don't misunderstand what I write. MangoMango (talk) 03:10, 30 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 nomination withdrawn. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction and Fantasy Association of New Zealand[edit]

fails WP:ORG, nothing in google news search [://news.google.com/archivesearch?um=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Science+Fiction+and+Fantasy+Association+of+New+Zealand%22&cf=all] LibStar (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The biggest science fiction society in a country? One that runs the national science fiction awards of that country(awards which do, by the way, register with google news)? Surely you should be using WP:CLUB rather than the more general WP:ORG for judgement here anyway. In which case it passes criterion one easily, and as for criterion two it should be an easy task to find some good primary sources online - if not, then there's plenty in printed form that can be added in. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —Grutness...wha? 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in light of these sources, I will happily close this AfD, but as the article creator I do wonder why you didn't add any sources in, during the 3.5 year existence of this article. leaving stubs for a long time is not good for Wikipedia. LibStar (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the time it was created, the club's president was also a Wikipedian and knew of the article. He was better placed to add such sources - and I assumed that he had done so. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are still listed as article creator and obviously were in contact with him so had access to sources. LibStar (talk) 00:34, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robison Wells

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. There are sufficient references to establish notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robison Wells[edit]

Mormon author with some books published on a tiny Mormon-only press, so tiny that Amazon.com and other booksellers do not carry any of its titles. No independent reliable sources demonstrating any notability. The awards this author created also has demonstrated no notability, and has given out two "lifetime achievement awards", one to Orson Scott Card (the only prominent Mormon author) and one to someone also published through this tuiny press nobody has heard of and who, oddly, is also on the award committee. DreamGuy (talk) 03:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because he's not notable, not because of his religion. (I don't see the reason to use the word "Mormon" three times in the deletion nomination.) Northwestgnome (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added several third party citations establishing notability. I'd also like to point out that just because a literary market is niche doesn't mean that no one has ever heard of it (as DreamGuy claims) or even that it's tiny. See the article on LDS_fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CagedFury (talk • contribs) 19:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was able to find this author on Amazon quite easily. This incorrect claim was also recently made on a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Blair. This appears to be a trend, as is the repeated use of "Mormon" is if it were a pejorative. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Awards also seems to be related to this AfD. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also a quick search of Amazon for "Covenant Communications" yields 1,530 Results, so Covenant Communications books are sold on Amazon, counter to the claim in the AfD. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable because he has been the subject of published secondary source material, Deseret Morning News among others. – jaksmata 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This may very well be a niche printing company, but LDS (Mormon) members make up the 4th largest Christian denomination in the USA. Notability established.--^StormRider 16:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment There seems to be some debate over whether or not sources such as Deseret News are sufficiently 3rd party to establish notablity for this and a number of other Mormon related articles. I've added the Rescue tag, hopefully if we get references from other sources it will render that debate irrelevant. Artw (talk) 21:36, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Boston Yanks players

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) · @037 · 23:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Boston Yanks players[edit]

A rather useless list. A category could accomplish the same purpose. From spot checking, a lot of entries on this list go to dab pages or to unrelated people, so it hinders navigation more than it helps it. B (talk) 03:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:CLN the existence (or possible existence) of a category is no reason to delete a list. My normal intpretation of these issues is that if the list can add more information than a simple listing of articles then it should be kept as it provides more information than a category. In this case the list could contain information on the number of performances, when the players played for the team etc and so provide a useful summary. The fact that an article needs work is not a reason to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The listing provides more information than a category. There are countless players who do not have articles, and would not show up on a category. These lists offer information on several different articles and help with navigation--Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 11:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the classic indiscriminate list, and it doesn't have to be. In its present form, I agree with nominator that it's rather useless. The sad thing is that there are ample resources about this team (profootballresearch.com, profootballreference.com, etc.) that would supply such information as the position that someone played (quarterback, center, back, etc.) or what number he wore, or whether he led the team in scoring, rushing, etc. It's like paying for a game program and all it has is a list of the players in alphabetical order. Merging this to the Boston Yanks article would detract from that article. Mandsford (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:CLN and the fact that, even excluding the possibility of any improvement, the article does not duplicate the category since it includes players who do not have articles. Given the potential to improve the article and add additional information, there is no reason to delete. I view Mandsford's comment as actually a reason to keep, given that there are clearly sources available to expand the list. Rlendog (talk) 19:16, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Awards

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Awards[edit]

Award given to Mormons, created by a Mormon author whose work is published by a tiny Mormon-only press. No notability established, just links to its own website. DreamGuy (talk) 03:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several citations, including links to news coverage of the '08 awards ceremony, discussion of judging, and Orson Scott Card's acceptance speech. I'm curious about why Dream Guy's justification for deletion uses the word "Mormons" repeatedly, as though he's making a point. I'm not sure what he's driving at with the first sentence. More clarification?CagedFury (talk) 18:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The Mormon author that created the Whitney Awards is Robison Wells, and there is a related AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robison Wells and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Blair. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been established because the Whitney Awards have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject: Deseret Morning News, Mormon Times and others. – jaksmata 14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agreed with jaksmata that notability has been established. Also, a very strange way to word your proposal to delete; is the term Mormon supposed to terrify readers or is it just very poor word-smithing?--^StormRider 16:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment There seems to be some debate over whether or not sources such as Deseret News are sufficiently 3rd party to establish notablity for this and a number of other Mormon related articles. I've added the Rescue tag, hopefully if we get references from other sources it will render that debate irrelevant.Artw (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no position on the notability of the award itself, but it should require lot more than a common religious affiliation between the newspapers and the Whitney Awards organization to draw their reliability as sources on this matter into question. Discrimination on the basis of religion is an ugly thing, and has no place on Wikipedia. Ray^Talk 22:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - FWIW I'm not trying to imply there's validity to that argument, just pointing out a way to avoid it in this case. Artw (talk) 22:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You have Latin_Grammy_Awards which only goes to Hispanics. Many notable groups have notable awards for themselves. Only given out to one group, does not disqualify an award. Dream Focus 01:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Latin Grammys do not only go to Hispanics. Please support that claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The latin grammy is for latin MUSIC, not only latin artists. The fact that most of those making latin music albums are latin is contributes to the trend that latins win the award, but non-latins are perfectly eligible if their album qualifies. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, bad example. But there are awards that only go to people of certain groups: ethnic, religious, or whatnot. Dream Focus 07:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - a better example would be Edward Lewis Wallant Award for Jewish writers. Pohick2 (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User:Jaksmata may have missed the fact that the Mormon Times (which only covers Mormons and news related to them) is owned by the Deseret Times, which is owned by the Church. Listing them as seperate sources is kind of....wrong. I don't see this alleged ant-Mormon bias the nom is being accused of. Nor is it a factor for me. I see this as a non-notable award that limits itself to a narrow range of eligibles. Regardless of how many Mormons there are, it's not for all Mormons, it's for Mormon writers, and that field quickly narrows the number. I haven't seen evidence that the award is considered all that notable outside of a very small field (ie the Church). Niteshift36 (talk) 07:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability has been well established. With respects, four different articles sent to AfD with each making the same repeated assertions of some questionable relationship with the Chrurch of Latter Day Saints is indeed worrisome, as Wikipedia is not censored. Per WP:RS, the Deseret News qualifies as a reliable source. Owned by Mormons? So what? A newspaper is expected to serve the needs of its community. That a newspaper in Utah, no matter who owns it, reports on Morman news, is exactly what it is expected to do. No one discredits news about Catholicism from the Vatican Publishing House, nor news about diseases from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Heck William Randolph Hearst started wars in order to sell newspapers, and yet his publications are RS. Time for some perspective folks. WP:CSB is as much for religious bias (real or perceived) as it is for cultural... and notability to the perhaps 13 million members of that church sure does count as notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I'm obviously late to this party, but for the reasons noted above. Thmazing (talk) 00:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Having just revisited the article, it seems pretty well sourced now. Certainly well enough to have this discussion closed. Thmazing (talk) 00:14, 4 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kerry Blair

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kerry Blair[edit]

Writer who has no notability established. Books published by a tiny press called "covenant" apparently only for Mormons, and which is so ruinky dink that its books are not even carried on Amazon.com. Obnly possible claim to fame was that article had claimed she won a "lifetime achievement award" from a group that only gives them to Mormon authors and which she is listed as a member of the award committee and that was created by another author nobody ever heard of who also is published by "Covenant". DreamGuy (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I admit that the article is a stub and needs significant expansion, I find DreamGuy's deletion argument strange. Several of DreamGuy's points (such as: that Covenant only publishes Mormons, and that Kerry Blair won an award only given to Mormons) are irrelevant because Blair publishes in a niche market. Just because the publisher and awards are Mormon-only doesn't mean that they are not notable. I will get to work on improving the article, but I think that DreamGuy doth protest too much.75.169.49.204 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar police: "doth protest too much" means that someone says they like something so much or vows something so vociferously when asked that it seems that they are overemphasising insincerely, losing credibility. It's from Shakespeare, dontchaknow. Lesson endeth. Fences&Windows 01:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article somewhat, and added several citations. (And sorry--the previous comment was from me. I always forget to sign.)CagedFury (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough. Jeni ^(talk) 00:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It was quite easily to find this author on Amazon with less than a minutes effort. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robison Wells this claim was also incorrectly made about books not being carried by Amazon.com. It was interesting to see that a quick look at Kerry Blair's own website will find links out to Amazon for people to purchase her books. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Covenant Communications is a wholly own subsidiary of Deseret Book, a publisher with a 140+ year history. It once was a separate company, but was purchased by Deseret Book in 2006, and is currently still run as an independent entity (Deseret Book may or may not stock a Covenant title). -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitney Awards also seems to be related to this AfD. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Writer who has notability established. Books published by a press called "Covenant Communications" apparently owned by Deseret Book, and which is so notable that its books are even carried on Amazon.com. Claim to fame was that she won a "lifetime achievement award" from a group that gives them to Mormon authors and she has also been a member of the award committee and that was created by another author who's notability is also well established who also is published by "Covenant". – jaksmata 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established. --^StormRider 16:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment There seems to be some debate over whether or not sources such as Deseret News are sufficiently 3rd party to establish notablity for this and a number of other Mormon related articles. I've added the Rescue tag, hopefully if we get references from other sources it will render that debate irrelevant. Artw (talk) 21:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That award is notable(see discussion over at that AFD). And winning a notable award, makes this author notable. Dream Focus 01:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As award-winning authror. That she is Morman and publishes through a LDS publishing house is not a valid reason to dismiss the notability she has for her millions of readers, whether of her faith or no. As for her publisher Covenant Communications, they are notable through enough independent significant coverage.[48]. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:29, 3 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1632 writers

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 1632 (novel). Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1632 writers[edit]

No real-world notability. Most of these authors are notable largely because of their assistance in this fan fiction. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1632 Editorial Board or a related page; nn, breakout not needed. JJL (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(EC)Comment The 1632 series of novels, historical and technical articles and story collections appears to be notable. In the encyclopedic coverage of a large body of fiction and fact writings, the authors are deserving of coverage when there is verifiable information. They could be covered in the article about the fiction, unless the coverage would make that article too long, as appears to be the case here. In that case, a stand-alone listing of authors like this may be appropriate. I look for discussion of whether merging the info into some article or various articles about the series is more appropriate than a standalone listing. Edison (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-of-people-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete enwiki has been spammed by a commercial franchise. This is entirely non-notable and is full of fake refs back to the primary sources. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also checked out the main article on the 1632 thing, which I have never heard of before. It looks like a great project but what WP really should have is one, much shorter, article giving the basic info so that people who don't know about it can find out what it is, and then links to fan sites where all of the interesting details can be found by those whose interest is excited. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:N. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: ~~I like that idea. Several of the authors are notable by themselves (Flint, Weber, etc.) and since the entire series is an open universe a category would work well.~~ Scratch the category idea. I believe it violates WP:OC#PERF. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like the transwikification idea a lot better. Wikis like Wikia are *for* fancruft. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is verifiable and within WP:BLP into the main article. Per Jack's concern I'm slightly suspicious as well when I look at how the article is constructed, but I'm going to AGF for now. MuZemike 21:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The methods used to construct this cloud of articles is entirely focused on obfuscation. It's a twisty maze of templates that are all anti-wiki. This serves to deter any editing along the lines of clean-up or merging as it's not realty implemented as wiki-text. This is about cementing promotion of a commercial franchise into a major website. Us. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but with what? Several of us listed already have Wikipedia pages. Whoever set up this page did so using a boilerplate approach that unnecessarily fenced off the 1632 material from the rest of the Wikipedia world. I suggest that the first priority be to merge, for example, Douglas W. Jones with 1632 writers#Jones, Douglas W.. I assure you that both pages describe me, and by using this example, I acknowledge a degree of self interest. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That whoever also did it to a bunch of pages related to Charmed. This stuff belongs at Eric Flint Wiki and/or 1632 wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, not a notable cross section of fiction writers. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with modifications. All of the 1632/Grantville articles are currently ~~a clusterf~~- lacking cohesive structure. I assume in good faith that the templates and other mess are due to multiple fans earnestly working at cross-purposes to improve things. I actually like the author cross-reference list, because it's hard to keep track of one author across 20+ volumes. However, the current format is inconsistent, making it difficult to edit. Just getting tables going, and getting someone sane to explain or rip out templates right and left, would help a lot. Tkech (talk) 20:50, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisemitism in patristics

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in patristics[edit]

This article appears to consist entirely of original research by synthesis. All the sources cited are primary sources; there are no third-party sources that tie these together under a common theme of "anti-Semitism in patristics." Unless such sources can be found, the article should be deleted. *** Crotalus *** 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was proposed for deletion on July 21. The page was never edited to reflect this AFD, so perhaps it was never transcluded. I found it using categorized discussions. What should be done?Synchronism (talk) 22:46, 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) 01:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment This was an orphaned AFD. I used the relist script to get it onto the current log. Consider this the first week of discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete concur with nom. that this appears to be a case of synthesis. JJL (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Keep This seems to be a genuine topic. Perhaps it is already covered in other articles on the history of Christian antisemitism. If kept it should be improved. For instance it doesn't say what "patristics" are. I honestly don't think this is a word most people would understand, and I am not uneducated. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important aspect of the broader phenomenon of Christianity and antisemitism and it has been studied in detail by numerous scholars in recent years. There could be a bit more sources, but that is not a valid reason to propose a deletion. Also, the word patristics is not so complicated, it means Church Fathers. ADM (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article cites only primary sources. I don't see any secondary sources that discuss the subject of "anti-Semitism in patristics." We need reliable secondary sources, or else this article constitutes original research by synthesis. Are the statements quoted anti-Semitic by modern standards? Absolutely. But no matter how obvious that seems to us, we can't just make that judgment on our own. We need sources to do that for us. *** Crotalus *** 16:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of second-hand sources available, and it would not take long to add them. This has been a favourite topic for scholars of antisemitism in recent years. Although the concept of antisemitism did not really exist in late Antiquity, many of these controversial views would qualify as such to most modern scholars who study the past development of this phenomenon within the Christian Church.[49] ADM (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked on that Google link, and the results were not promising. Most of the highest-ranking pages were self-published personal websites and/or blogs (and, unsurprisingly, Wikipedia itself was #1). There were some books that appear to match, but not all of them were on topic, and few of them discuss this specific subject in any detail. *** Crotalus *** 14:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – (2x edit conflict) it looks like the article is using sources to implicitly show the existence of antisemitism in patristics, which would constitute synthesis. MuZemike 19:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article does "combine material from multiple sources", it doesn't "reach a conclusion" or "advance a position". It just gives the information. What could be more encyclopedic? Laughingyet (talk) 00:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does advance a position, as described in the very first sentence of the article. It advances the position that "The phenomenon of antisemitism in patristics has been studied in detail in recent years." This position itself needs to be backed up by third-party sources. I did a Google search on that phrase and found nothing but the Wikipedia article, Wikipedia mirrors, and various search engine spam. Any legitimate material can be included under Christianity and anti-Semitism. This article serves no purpose. *** Crotalus *** 14:41, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymundo Del Rosario

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) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raymundo Del Rosario[edit]

contested prod. original reason: fails the politician notability guideline (WP:POLITICIAN), no significant coverage in reliable sources. Bluemask (talk) 01:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of being the (former) mayor of a 175K person city. I acknowledge that there isn't a huge amount of coverage online, but that is to be expected given that The Philippines is a "second world country" at best, and that very few of the countries newspapers are available online. However, it is highly unlikely that such sources do not exist. Certainly, we need to find someone with access to more usable sources, but that is more likely to happen by keeping the rticle than by deleting it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 02:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – looks like it would meet the notability guideline for local politicians, being a mayor of a large city and all. Certainly, he has had some press coverage in Philippine sources out there, whether it be web or likely print. MuZemike 21:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are very little online references that are useful for Philippine-related articles. The best places to go are the Philippine news websites such as that of the Manila Bulletin, the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine Star, but take note that they have limited archives. The best resources in this case would be print articles, which might mean that someone would need to visit any library such as the National Library of the Philippines. I'm sure there may be a host of articles about this politician in the newspapers, just that we'd need to look beyond the Internet for these sources. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per ThaddeusB. Edward321 (talk) 04:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the arguments above. Mayor of a large city, in a nation which doesn't have its major newspapers online. Dream Focus 01:55, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Petrarca

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. Cirt (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Petrarca[edit]

contested prod. Non-notable local weatherman. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Only references are primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more information. Also, other meteorologists from WPRI have pages which are uncited, and much less notable.

Bg02445 (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment The first reference is a primary source, the second is about another personality at the station, not the subject of this article. Wikipedia notability guidelines require significant coverage where this person is the subject of the article. Its just not there. Also, other stuff exists is not a good argument to make against deletion.

Delete Apparently there is no reporting from AP on his 6 awards [50], and that's the only claim in the article that would make the guy notable for me. --Pgallert (talk) 10:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment, I see sources have been added for the "best meteorologist" award from the local newspaper, but I still dont think we are above the notability bar yet. Unless the claim of AP awards can be referenced somewhere other than a primary source, that needs to be removed from the article.--RadioFan (talk) 13:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find anything in there to establish that be won these awards by the AP, which would otherwise establish notability. Nothing in independent reliable sources otherwise. MuZemike 21:53, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Referrals

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. JForget 00:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Referrals[edit]

Large claims for an organization that was created in the Summer of 2009. Limited GHits and NO GNews. Appears to fails WP:COMPANY ttonyb1 (talk) 01:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication that this new company is notable outside of the unsourced claims made by the original editor. Unverifiable. No non-trivial coverage. Wperdue (talk) 01:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it really was the one of the largest internet marketing organizations in operation today as claimed by the article, there would certainly be coverage on websites and news. Kotiwalo (talk) 10:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find anything from outside sources establishing any verifiability. Also somewhat written like an advertisement but nothing G11'able. MuZemike 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - part of a cluster of unsourced promotional articles about this "program" and various affiliated entities. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:44, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Guardians (film)

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. Consensus is that coverage is sufficient at this time, and that it should be classified as "in-production" given the lengthy cycles of animated films. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardians (film)[edit]

Completely fails WP:NFF. Not in production, no significant coverage in reliable sources, nothing but a "pending" note on ComingSoon. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards Keep: The info from ComingSoon is based on a press release from DreamWorks, which also appeared in several notable sources (such as Variety). Further, animated films are generally in production for longer periods of time than live-action movies, so odds are work is underway. That said, the fact is that the book series the film is based on is 18 months from being published. So there's a lot of assumptions being made. Reasonable assumptions, perhaps, but assumptions nonetheless. If the book, for whatever reason, bombs, DW would probably 86 the project. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 01:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I declined a speedy delete because the article's author was a banned editor. The problem, however, was the editor sneaking in and not the article or the notability of its subject. A quick Google News search confirms notability: [51]. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually surprising myself and voting to keep. I've blocked the user as a returning sock, but the MO of the account is slightly different than previous accounts. If others are willing to pitch in and rescue this, I'm all for it. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – there are a scant few sources out there that provides some verifiability. I also moved to The Guardians of Childhood, but some sources say this is the title, while others say it isn't. I also rewrote the Plot section as it was a copyvio. MuZemike 21:45, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs in Metalocalypse

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. Cirt (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs in Metalocalypse[edit]

Half of the songs in this article appear in The Dethalbum article, while most of the latter songs use unofficial titles. The unofficial titles are not sourced. The final section of the lists "Songs performed by other artists or bands", which are all fictional characters from the show - not actual bands. These songs are not notable enough yet to have their own list. StarScream1007 ►Talk 19:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only difference in accrediting songs in The Dethalbum article and this article is the presentation of that information. Both articles feature attribution of songs to Brendon Small and Tommy Blacha. Both articles mention the fictional characters who performed songs in the episodes of Metalocalypse in which those songs appeared.

It's a shame that the person who wrote this article did not include the citations of the unofficial names from the MP3 download sites, but perhaps they were considering avoiding advertising.

I am withholding my vote until more information about notability and sourcing appears. Anarchangel (talk) 10:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the term "Unofficial MP3" suggests that it's actually another file format; I'm aware that it more likely means 'Recorded from my DVR'd episode collection'. that in turn means that they're hazarding a guess as to what it was actually titled by the show's production studio/writers/the living band members. It can easily lead to duplications by assigning the song two different names, neither of which can be confirmed. The use of the term to apply to MP3s downloadable via the show or creators sites gives the patina of legitimacy to the pirated material. I'm not sure that the article can be saved without appearing to be a duplication of the DethAlbum article. Alternately, a new article 'Non-album releases by Metalocalypse' can be created for the limited release, non-album songs which can be efffectively documented. Either way, all that 'unofficial MP3' stuff needs to be gone fast as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and a generally bad idea for oour articles to be seen as endorsing media piracy. ThuranX (talk) 13:58, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the valid copyright concerns presented above. It could be very much argued that this constitutes a copyvio in the Wikipedia sense. MuZemike 18:55, 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. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sound devastation records[edit]

Non-notable record company. Don't let the blue links fool you. Only Black Boned Angel could conceivably be considered a notable band, and I'm not sure about them. I'm thinking about nominating them for deletion, too, if reliable sources can be provided. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly new to this, apologies. I think that there are bands on the list of releases who are notable. However, I accept that some are not. I would like the opportunity to reduce the number of releases given in the table so there are less non-notable releases - That could improve the quality of this article. Kimaddison (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add that some of the bands on this label are actually notable indeed within their scene.

For example, Amenra are notable for having toured with bands like Battlefields and having a US release out on Init Records. Ehnahre feature ex members of Kayo Dot. Fall of Efrafa are a notable band originating from the crust/punk scene. Nadja (despite the earlier comment that they are non-notable) have toured with bands like Khanate and Isis and feature Aidan Baker (well known solo artist) and have released albums on Alien8 and also Profound Lore Records. Nadja are very well respected in this scene, and in some ways more well known than Black Boned Angel - does the commentor have enough knowledge about this scene to rate Black Boned Angel better and more notable, when by many they are considered the lesser?

Future releases on the label include Blackstorm, who feature Karl Middleton - notably of Earthtone9. Also Year of No Light will be appearing on the label shortly, which in themselves will improve its (the label's) notablity.

All these names which appear on the label are well known in their neische metal field. They are notable for that.

I do concede that many of the released on the label are far from notable. I can easily remove these. I merely wanted to document what I knew before I removed any. I can also begin stubs on those artists who are more notable, and so help create a more informative section within Wikipedia. My aim was to begin furnishing orphaned or uncreated websites/stubbs with information on a scene which is not well represented within Wikipedia.

I add that the article I wrote was in every way objective, with no bias for the kind of music I listen to. However, I think it would be a shame not to have this kind of music represented within Wikipedia. Kimaddison (talk) 23:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If kept, should be moved to Sound Devastation Records per WP:NC. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 21 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 00:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. While some of the bands on the label may be notable, there is nothing to show why this company has stand alone notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 08:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find anything providing any coverage about the company itself that can establish why it may be notable on its own. Remember that notability is not inherited through its children subjects and topics. MuZemike 18:52, 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 Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full House (Philippine TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:CSD#G4 candidate; page deleted per WP:CRYSTALBALL recreated again. Recommend salting until WP:RS references can be provided. See also history of Full House (2009 TV series), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ang Pinakamagandang Hayop sa Balat ng Lupa, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/My Name Is Kim Sam Soon (Phlippine TV Remake)) Tassedethe (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE: Please do not delete the article Full House (Philippine TV series). The show has been conformed by GMA. GMA already showed a Full House Teaser / Commercial as seen in this links, [52] and [53]. Those links should prove that the article should not be deleted. Thank You. GMA Fan 22 July 2009 4:07PM (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE: Please do not delete the article Full House (Philippine TV series). The show has been conformed by GMA. GMA already showed a Full House Teaser / Commercial as seen in this links, [54] and [55]. Those links should prove that the article should not be deleted. Thank You. GMA Fan 7:05PM 26 July 2009 (UTC)

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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenny McAllister

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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny McAllister[edit]

While this is a lengthy article, there is actually no notable material here. Just a guy who blogs and attends conferences. LeilaniLad (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newschoolpolitics (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)This is a guy with a book coming out, a leading young Republican, and a leading Black man in America that is not in the Democratic Party. He is a leading blogger in the country and is a leading young Republican with a growing following. Here is just one article of several that was done on him http://www.charlottemagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7506[reply]

Also he appears regularly on XM Radio and other media outlets. Just again on Anderson Cooper 360 Thursday. He is speaking out on race with the Republican Party more than the rest. This guy is legit. I will put notations in here starting tomorrow. This article should not be deleted though, so please do not delete it.

Keep. I found some sources: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]. A few are trivial mentions, but #1 definitely is not. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:17, 24 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 00:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:BLP. There is quite a bit of unsourced contentious information about this living person. I won't preclude recreation if it can be properly sourced to follow the policy. MuZemike 06:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Charlotte Magazine source given by Newschoolpolitics demonstrates notability. As for BLP, any contentious material should be removed from the article but deleting the whole thing is a last resort and doesn't seem at all necessary here. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll read over it again, but I think at a minimum there is quite a few negative material that needs to be removed, including all the unsourced material about his controversies. I punched in delete because it looks like it's scattered all over the place (that and it was about 2:00am yesterday morning when I punched that one in). I'll strike the !vote but leave the comment. MuZemike 18:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've also asked for input at WP:BLPN as to what should be removed. MuZemike 18:46, 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 and redirect to Halo (series) Marasmusine (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Engine[edit]

The Halo series is notable. The engine powering the games? Not so much. Most of the content is covered in the respective video games articles, and the rest is minutiae. There's no secondary sources to my knowledge or a couple of searches that focuses specifically on the engine itself, aside from some first-party slideshows from Bungie themselves; fails to meet WP:GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Halo (series). Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but the other games engines, such as the Unreal Engine in Gears of War have their own articles. So why not the Halo Engine? General Heed (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Unreal engine is licensed and used in many dozens, if not hundreds, of games. The Halo Engine is proprietary, which limits its scope and coverage. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joe Chill (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While the series is very notable, I agree with David in that the engine itself isn't. The engine is nearly completely proprietary with only a couple of titles outside of halo using it. The only other notable source I have managed to find that discusses it, is an old Gamasutra Article where Bungie's head of production says that there is no plan on selling it. As such I say delete per WP:GNG. Noctrine (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I found another news article discussing a game engine used in the Halo series. SharkD (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Choosing The Game Engine That Can SharkD (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The Halo Engine is a very notable engine. It may not be as widely used as the Unreal Engine, but nonetheless, Halo Engine is still very unique. It's been used in every Halo game so far (except Halo Wars) and it has even been used in another game called Stubbs The Zombie]. Plus, there are a few sources online about the Halo Engine. It's not a lot, but it is enough for an article. I say we keep the Halo Engine as an article. Who knows, perhaps in the future, the Halo Engine may be used in even more games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by General Heed (talk • contribs) 06:19, 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 00:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is filled with original research. The references only discuss Halo 3 and don't regard the game's engine as a separately notable subject. Moreover, most of them don't verify the article's text and none of them actually use the phrase "Halo Engine". The official name of the engine is rather unclear since the official developers—as well as most search results—don't capitalize "engine" and don't treat it as a proper name[62]. From what I see, the engine is only used by the Halo series and Stubbs the Zombie. SharkD's "Halo Reach “AAA Engine”? and Choosing The Game Engine That Can offer some minor facts but don't provide nontrivial direct coverage of the subject and I couldn't dig up much better sources myself. — Rankiri (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article seems to talk about Halo 3 but not about the engine itself. It needs coverage about the engine itself. MuZemike 06:23, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unification Church and antisemitism

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 and move to Unification Church antisemitism controversy Improvements by Dufour seem to meet WP:RS. Cheers, I'^mperator 18:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unification Church and antisemitism[edit]

This article is entirely WP:Original research. No reliable secondary sources are cited to show that this is even a notable topic. Primary sources are cited but not in a way that meets WP's standards. Borock (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sure looks like original research to me, too. Might also violate neutral point of view. Anyone?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Paul McDonald Christiansocialism (talk) 04:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research and violates NPOV --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 09:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It was certainly an important topic 5 years ago, even if it's poorly documented. Aren't there enough sources for the claim that the church is anti-semitic? Isn't anti-Semitism important? I don't understand why people want to eliminate this topic instead of improving the article. Anyway, another contributor recently announced plans to merge the information into Unification Church. Please let him do this, and leave a redirect behind. --Uncle Ed (talk) 10:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was the one who suggested the article be merged, but to Divine Principle and that didn't seem to work. This is a real topic. I am a church member and once in a while I meet someone who is shocked to find out that I don't hate Jewish people (quite to the contrary actually). I don't know why the article is so poorly sourced but that could be improved. It might also be retitled to something like "Unification Church antisemitism controversy" or something like that. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references seem to establish notability of the topic. Whether the article should or should not be merged, and whether it needs improvement, are essentially irrelevant to this discussion. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this is original research via synthesis and a NPOV violation. *** Crotalus *** 21:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added a couple of better sources to the article. I hope this at least shows the notability of the topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Steve Dufour. I think the notability is now established by the ref. Europe22 (talk) 18:52, 24 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 00:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Unification Church antisemitism controversy per Steve Dufour and the recent additions. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements above. MuZemike 06:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be merged provided that the non-cited information regarded as OR is referenced. ClockSpire (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet notability requirements. May need to merged, however, if it can't be expanded. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:54, 30 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Athelston Williams

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. Arguments for keeping: Sourced (IMDb is not reliable), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:USEFUL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athelston Williams[edit]

Non-notable actor, famous only for an injoke. No reliable sources cited, I doubt any exist. J Milburn (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – doing a search myself, I could not find anything as the nom indicated. MuZemike 06:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree he was only famous for an in-joke, but having appeared in 17 episodes over 7 years, it was a very long running joke, which is reaching new audiences as the shows are repeated. There is nothing wrong with in-jokes - there is category for them. IMO an encyclopedia should explain, whereas deletion only makes the in-joke more "cliquey".Arjayay (talk) 08:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's our job only to explain that which is significant- IE, reported in reliable sources. We're not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you want this article to be kept, you're going to have to demonstrate that the subject is notable through the use of reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the Internet Movie Data base not a "reliable source". It doesn't say mention this in the WP article Internet Movie Database, and there are about 122,000 WP articles that link to that article - you could be very busy removing all of those.
    I accept there is little information about Athelstone, but what there is, is ordered and relevant, not "indescriminate".
    Arjayay (talk) 12:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - IMDB is not a reliable source. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is that a POV?, or can you cite a definitive ruling?
        If a ruling, why is it not stated in the Internet Movie Database article? and what happens to the other 122,000 articles?
        Arjayay (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It is not a POV. IMDB is edited by members. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Internet Movie Database states "Due to the process of having submitted data or text reviewed by a section manager, IMDb is different from database projects like Wikipedia or Openstreetmap, contributors cannot add, delete, or modify the data or text at their whim, and the manipulation of data is controlled by IMdb technology and salaried staff."
        I repeat - "can you cite a definitive ruling?"
        Arjayay (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't matter if it is reliable or not because it doesn't show the person's notability. Joe Chill (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (EC) What on Earth would count as a "definitive ruling"? A statement from ArbCom? From Jimbo? From the Foundation? "Definitive rulings" are few and far between on Wikipedia. In any case, that's not an article, it's a list of films in which he has appeared, so it wouldn't count for much even if considered reliable. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, "Definitive ruling" was obviously the wrong phrase - perhaps it should have been "guideline"?
        The majority of my edits are music and I was thinking of:- WP:BADCHARTS - Deprecated Charts - "This is a list of charts which should not be included in Wikipedia articles."
        Is there such a list, or guideline, for Film/TV?
        Despite being linked to 122,000 articles (over 4% of all the articles in the English WP) - You categorically stated "IMDb is not a reliable source", which changed to "it does't matter if it is reliable".
        Ignoring Athelston for a moment, I would like to know where I stand if I quote IMDb in the future?

I started off by agreeing Athelston "was only famous for an in-joke, but having appeared in 17 episodes over 7 years, it was a very long running joke, which is reaching new audiences as the shows are repeated." I know you can and will cite rules - but IMO this case comes under WP:IAR.
I am not saying Athelston deserves a place in perpetuity, but whilst the shows are still being repeated, people will seek information, which you propose removing.
I rest my case. Arjayay (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then include information about him in the article on the television programme. Oh, wait, no sources. J Milburn (talk) 16:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The show itself is surley a source in its own right being a primary source of informtaion beyond reasonable doubt, as is the book. As he appears in a book as a charcter in a fictional sense, you can justify this article in the same sense as an article about any fictional charcter. If there exsists primary sources of informtion that you can direct people to if they are intrested you do not need to reference to secondary sources that may be dubious. Surley cast lists or pages from the book can be obtained from some source (BBC?) if nesacary to provide online reference. I just found this page today and found it relavent, maybe it should be intergrated into the main article, but as he made an apperance outside Never Mind the Buzzcocks it should be seperate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.126.183 (talk) 16:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is completely contrary to our guidelines on reliable sources and notability. As a rule, we do not cover subjects that have not been covered by decent, secondary sources. J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable beyond Buzzcocks, therefore anything he does not require his own article. U-Mos (talk) 12:08, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egypt-IBM Nanotechnology Research Center

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. Cirt (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt-IBM Nanotechnology Research Center[edit]

Article consists of two long quotes from external web sites, and one line of location information. While not exactly plagiarized (the sources are clearly referenced) there is not much else in the article. I'm not entirely sure about such an article, that's why I list it here. Pgallert (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Suggest taking this to WP:Copyright problems. Might even be speedily deletable under WP:CSD#G12, but I'm not sure myself about the status of press releases, as they are issued with the specific intention and hope that large parts will be copied. Qwfp (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the "author": Hi, thank you for the review and advice!
I can only comment, that this EGNC is a project in the early phase of development, and it's future is important for millions of people. A great initiative, in IMHO, that's why I opened the article.
Of course I didn't consult all the various policies, so thanks again for bringing those to my attention.
Best regards, Nanonymus (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyright violation. You can use other websites as a source of content but not as a source of sentences. MuZemike 06:13, 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. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genie (programming language)[edit]

I've given the article a few days to develop. There's nothing there right now. I can't find any obvious reference to the language outside of very specific gnome programing environments. No coverage outside of these sources. Non notable. Shadowjams (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 09:29, 20 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) 00:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I was hoping that Scholar would have something there, but I came up empty here. MuZemike 06:11, 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. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JEMRIS[edit]

No assertion of notability Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 16:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A code library, just like any other software product, needs some notability to merit an article. I can't find any. No reviews of it either directly or via other products that use this one. DMacks (talk) 19:43, 20 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) 00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I cannot find anything that can establish any notability for this. MuZemike 06:08, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Haliburton Sculpture Forest

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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haliburton Sculpture Forest[edit]

Strongly appears to fail WP:NOTE:

Unclear listings outside of travel blogs and travel directories: Google search — Google news search — Google Scholar search - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:25, 20 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) 00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – it looks like there's a minimal amount of notability established via the sources currently listed. MuZemike 06:05, 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.

Keep. The sources are reasonable, and as there is little sense that this is promotional it is OK to relax the WP:N detailed sourcing requirements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/District Assemblies

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

District Assemblies[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, part of local government admin in Pakistan. Pahari Sahib 08:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, This term could easily be defined as part of Government of Pakistan and is not notable. Delete IAW DICTIONARY.—Teahot (talk) 08:59, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot see how notability is established for this. MuZemike 06:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the equivalent of a county council in the world's sixth most populous country. I'm finding it very difficult to formulate a rationale here because I'm at a total loss trying to understand how anyone could possibly think that this was not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. Of course the title should be changed to the singular. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWikireader41 (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your vote? Generally, AFD votes have some reasoning behind them. Cheers, I'^mperator 18:38, 2 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. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFV Student Union Society[edit]

This student government is not notable. I searched by a variety of permutations of the name to be certain. The page is beginning to resemble a Facebook account. Abductive (talk) 06:24, 20 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) 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 04:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not only the notability concerns, but it also looks like it's written to supplement its website. MuZemike 05:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable organization; possible violation of WP:SPAM --mhking (talk) 20:05, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Gaughan

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) 22:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Gaughan[edit]

Seems to be a minor academic and local politician (who hasn't achieved any particular office). I don't think this person is notable enough for an article. A couple of news links to a failed election campaign and a published book does not seemingly add up to "significant coverage in reliable sources". Trxi (talk) 13:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like Trxi's nomination is more concerned with the sourcing than the notability. I admit the sourcing of the article can and should be improved. I, however disagree, with the contention that the person in question is nn. We should not conflate a title or office with notability; the subject of the article is very important politically, and has long, strong academic ties to Canisius College and SUNY Buffalo. --Cjs56 (talk) 18:23, 20 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) 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup, preferably with haste as there is a bit of unsourced BLP information, especially in that second section. Otherwise, there is a minimal amount of notability here. MuZemike 05:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to respond to my own listing, as someone who isn't from the US, the article as it stands certainly doesn't make a case for the person being notable. I don't object to the sourcing, per se, just that there isn't enough of it, and the article body doesn't actually explain why someone who ran a failed election campaign and wrote a book or two is so important. However, I'm glad this process is working as it ought, though, since it seems he is in fact notable enough to retain an article. Trxi (talk) 11:49, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Gaylord

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Gaylord[edit]

Not notable Xatanix death metal (talk) 21:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - This is a dreadfully written article which manages to never state what the subject actually does until the end of the article. However, the claim that his work is in the collection of the MOMA, NY is an assertion of notability and needs to be verified. This article covers the subject. Press clippings from the subject's own site (which I don't doubt are legit) such as [63] indicate that he is covered in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I've tried top verify inclusion in the MOMA's collection. MOMA's Collection Browser doesn't show anything held in their collection from Gaylord. I've revised my opinion to a weak keep based on the available sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 24 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) 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per Whpq. A minimal amount of coverage is there, including the works being in MOMA, seems to indicate a weak sense of notability. MuZemike 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. There isn't a single citation to substantial coverage in a reliable independent source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:35, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrea Edwards

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. — Aitias // discussion 00:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Edwards[edit]

All that I can is trivial mentions. Her only roles are one supporting role and a minor role. Joe Chill (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 7 episodes of Raven and a minor role......fails WP:ENT. Might make it someday, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also unreferenced for a BLP including nothing I can find past IMDB. MuZemike 05:51, 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. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue 15 Bahawalpur[edit]

Non-notable division of Punjab Police. Article has much unencyclopedic information and irrelevant details more applicable to the Pubjab Police as a whole. Nominated since Wikipedia is not a directory nor is it a collection of indiscrimimnate information. Astronaut (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure: I have tried unsuccessfully to edit this article to contain only potentially encyclopedic and relevant information. My efforts have been repeatedly reverted without explanation, despite my best efforts to contact the editor. Astronaut (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. very awkward redaction, doesn't seem to pass WP:NN. some of the info could be transferred to Punjab police--camr ^nag 23:28, 20 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) 00:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Punjab police as suggested, assuming there is any useful info here that is not already in the main article. Fuzbaby (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – it looks like it was written like a web page for this division, which is not what WP is for. MuZemike 05:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge or redirect Per above. Computerjoe 's talk 18:13, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Gilbert[edit]

Delete for such a tout in the one-line unsourced bio one would expect throngs of reliable sources, hoards of kudos, accolades by the gazillion. But a google search turns up many Colin Gilbert, none obviously this guy - of course we don't have much to go on other than he's had a long career of trying to make Scots laugh. Anyway, notability is a bit thin and the flattery thick. Fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, with only modest effort I found this, which seems obviously to be the person described here, and suggests that his credits, while not quite as impressive as they are made out to be by the peacockery in the article, still are far from trivial. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 00:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete as CSDer and per nomination. MS (Talk|Contributions) 00:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm going to bed now, so I don't have time to update the article, but this Google News search finds plenty of sources which are obviously about this guy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 21 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) 00:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – that gNews search seals the deal for this one. MuZemike 05:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per gNews search --mhking (talk) 20:04, 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. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Lee Scott[edit]

Declined speedy. No reference on Google associating that name with the name Thalians. All I could find with the name Tony Lee Scott alone are sites stating that she was a friend of James Dean, which is not enough of a notability assertion. Notability is not inherited. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:11, 20 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) 00:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I cannot find any sources that can establish how this user may be notable. MuZemike 05:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- non-notable individual --mhking (talk) 20:02, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calvin A. Grant

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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin A. Grant[edit]

This article really seems like a vanity puff piece with little if any outside reliable articles backing up any of its information. Due to Grant's dubious accomplishments and tenuous, at best claims to having accomplished them, it should be deleted. The lack of neutral, verifiable sources is disconcerting at best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregDraves (talk • contribs) 2009-07-04 02:10:59 — GregDraves (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:12, 20 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) 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup – a doctor making groundbreaking achievements in his field. There are also some good sources there that clearly establish notability. MuZemike 05:37, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Now, Discover your strengths

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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Discover your strengths[edit]

Possible G12, questionable notability. LeilaniLad (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wow, an AfD nomination 27 minutes after creation. What happened to things to try before AfD? As for G12, what makes you believe that this is a possible copyright infringement? I can't find the source on Google, at least. Jafeluv (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. This stub article is sub-minimal quality (which may be partially due to its very rapid AfD nomination) and the book in question probably is That Sort of Thing. But Google News seems to indicate its presence on a number of best seller lists, which may constitute borderline evidence that the book is notable under the relevant guideline. The book would appear to be the second in an apparent trilogy, and as such the three might be combinable in an umbrella article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 20 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) 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can find stuff about latest book StrengthsFinder 2.0 (the one that is the best-seller), I cannot find anything showing that the book itself is notable. MuZemike 05:35, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahodai

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. JamieS93 21:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kahodai[edit]

Delete this has been tagged since 2008 as unref'd and a google search turns up nothing by way of reliable sources of even the existence of this tribe much less its notability and any of the details about apparently living people supposedly belonging to this tribe. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Both names seem to yield only false hits on Gbooks. The Khudai are a religious group [64] while the Kahodai are a type of mollusc. [65] Edward321 (talk) 04:48, 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) 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I could not find anything through searching, either. MuZemike 05:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 22:09, 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 redirect to Wrasse Records. Stifle (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humphead Records[edit]

No reliable sources found. All this label does is reissue MCA and Mercury albums. Doesn't even seem to warrant a merge to Wrasse Records. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 11:53, 21 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) 00:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wrasse Records, since it is a sub-label. Chubbles (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Chubbles. I cannot find anything that can warrant an independent article here, let alone any verifiability of any content here. MuZemike 05:19, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiskView

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 Cheers, I'^mperator 18:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DiskView[edit]

This is not notable enough to be included on an wikipedia. I can't find much reference to it outside of download sites and the company website. There are no third party sources that discuss it. Rcurtis5 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - lots of downloads sites but coverage in reliable sources are few. I found this which is a very brief mention. And this PC Mag review, although it so short I would hesitate to really call it a review. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - with the Winternals reference from Topthwolf, this squeaks by for me when combined with teh short reviews I already found. -- Whpq (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The very first hit I got in Google Books [66] was Winternals Defragmentation, Recovery, and Administration Field Guide (ISBN 1597490792) which gives this topic significant coverage. Further searches turn up even more information. Hardly not notable. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Whpq - lack of reliable sources. Yworo (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to rephrase that. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A software with as large as usebase as Diskview is obviously notable.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 20:34, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per search made by Tothwolf. Looks like notability is sufficiently established. MuZemike 05:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Plenty of reliable sources have been found. Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 MLL Collegiate Draft

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 MLL Collegiate Draft. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2004 MLL Collegiate Draft[edit]

Article already completely exists within MLL Collegiate Draft. Also, an article should not be created for only one of the years without creating the rest. Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 03:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:15, 20 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) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MLL Collegiate Draft as already duplicate material. MuZemike 05:13, 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.