Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 5 July 7 July >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge to List of Home Improvement characters. (X! · talk)  · @447  ·  09:44, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Borland[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Randy Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jill Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tim Taylor (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

redundant - articles have been merged to List of Home Improvement characters - the pages for Mark Taylor Brad Taylor and Wilson Wilson have already been merged to one article, these have been left behind. Ejfetters (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So merge them if you want them merged, just as was already done once before. AFD and deletion are not any part of any stage of the article merger process. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge as above- these were well known character's on a major tv show, some coverage here is warranted. If we can't find enough to fill out full articles, then a merge is fine. But deletion really isn't the way to go in a situation like this. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge , with a strong recommendation to include more of the material than for the ones you mentioned. DGG (talk) 03:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • they were already merged but these three articles got left behind. don't see anything else here that isn't in-universe information that needs to be merged, they are covered enough... shall i just make these a redirect then? Ejfetters (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep/merge- The previous merge of Al Borland was defective because, instead of merging to List of Home Improvement characters, it was blanked and then erroneously redirected to Home Improvement. The Home Improvement article has only a short six-word description of Al Borland whereas the List of Home Improvement characters page has a much longer, detailed description. Since new or better information may have been added on (at) the page being proposed for deletion, a simple redirect is inappropriate. An actual merging of content to the Al Borland subsection of the List of Home Improvement characters page, and then a redirect from the existing Al Borland page would seem to be the proper procedure. If a person has deletion fever and can't be bothered with the actual editing work a need to resolve this quickly, then paste the current contents of the Al Borland page to the List of Home Improvement characters talk page and let other editors pick through it to perform an actual merging via word-for-word comparison. This recommendation is also applicable to the other Home Improvement character individual pages which are included above in the OP's proposed deletion request. Joe Hepperle (talk) 07:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:27, 10 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. Consensus is clear that this book doesn't deserve its own article. Given that the claim to significance in the Dalian Hansen article is that he is the author of this book, that article should probably be deleted too, but that decision will have to be made elsewhere. Flowerparty☀ 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANIMA: a novel about Second Life[edit]

ANIMA: a novel about Second Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book from vanity publisher; not reviewed in any mainstream sources, fails WP:BK. —Chowbok ☠ 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your Revenge For Hurt Feelings? So I undid one of your corrections, basically putting back a registered trademark symbol. As a result, you now put the entire article up for deletion. On what grounds? A publisher that has an inventory of other printed books but not enough to fit your standards so is demoted to vanity status? Outside news articles and the unique nature of the story are not enough because it did not become a best seller and remains a hot blog topic? Using popular opinion to justify a revenge tactic is really sad. If the article does not conform to Wikipedia standards then delete it and have your way. A discussion? As if people are already clamoring about the subject there needs to be a debate so you can contrive a legal stand to support your actions? I do not understand on what grounds you would single out this book, and not countless others listed on Wikipedia - all of which follow Wikipedia standards. And if the article was such a violation, why did you bother to make a minor correction to begin with? I personally do not care about the trademark symbol which was reverted, but I have seen it used. Clearly, the standards of consistency are not uniform. So if I offended you in any way I sincerely apologies and yield. As for the discussion on the article, it is not spam, it has been approved by past Wikipedia editors, and it does not violate any Wikipedia guidelines or First Amendment Rights. My vote is it should stay and the matter be promptly dropped. User:Kazkura (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to the article on the author, Dalian Hansen. It is possible for a self-published novel to become notable, though it very rarely happens. This one has not yet been reviewed by any newspaper, nor can I find much notice in the blogosphere except for an excerpt. It has just been published this week, so this article seem to be intended as promotion of the book. If it ever does get significant reviews in published sources, then try to again--in user space. DGG (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm confused. What was published this week? It looks to me that both the book and that blog post are from 2007.—Chowbok ☠ 04:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oops--and itf there is nothing more than that in 2 years, certainly not notable.
  • Update Just for the record, the article you noted was from 2007, not 2009. So clearly, there is not a lot of promotional value to this entry for such an old title. Other media sources were also listed in the entry, however, some of those organizations may have gone out of business. I would note that when a traditional newspaper goes out of business, it does not invalidate any of the news it reported. Likewise, many pre-dot.com companies still have entries in Wikipedia even though they no longer have web sites. Is a book is only considered valid if there is a newspaper review. This service can be just as easily purchased and assumes that reviews are only ever made online and never in such archaic forms as newsprint or magazines/digests. Libraries and Universities that use this book do not all post their resources to google, so using a keyword search as the end all be all of validity is not a fair standard. User:Kazkura (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Self-published NN novel, fails WP:BK The entire contents of the article was written and posted by the book's author. Although the book is credited as being authored by a "Dalian Hansen", there is no such person. The author of this book has created a false entry for "Dalian Hansen" here on Wikipedia in addition to his 'book' entry. "Dalian Hansen" is not the author, and is not the author's pseudonym. Instead, "Dalian Hansen" is the name of a character in the online interactive game called Second Life. The supposed 'picture' of "Dalian Hansen" on 'his' Wikipedia page is not a picture of a living being but rather it is a computer generated drawing. Another pose of that computer generated drawing can be found on the right side of the picture here. Not only should the book's entry be deleted but also the "Dalian Hansen" page should be deleted. Joe Hepperle (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Joe, are you blind or do you just select what facts you care to read? The whole deal about Dalian Hansen is he is a virtual character who wrote a book in a virtual environment (and we can have a debate about the financial status of the publisher if you wish to attack the validity of the book). Where do you justify saying he is not the author, or the pseudonym of the author? How is this fake? So every entry in Wikipedia has to be about a living person that can be googled to your satisfaction? There is an Anshe Chung and Aimee Weber, who are both simulated / virtual people who have extensive Wikipedia entries. Are these false entries too? These brand identities, even though virtual, are somehow a public fraud? I guess the trademark Aimee has for her avatar is a big lie too? Did you see the trademark papers or google them on the web to know for sure? Delete this entry as you please, but you are not a god of all knowledge and wisdom. If I seem rude, its because I don't like people calling me a liar. User:Kazkura (talk)
  • Delete - or merge to Second Life's own virtual Virtupedia - not that I think one exists - but seems to me if its only relevant in virtual world, it would be appropriate in a virtual encyclopedia, not this one. And — is encyclopedia a publicity platform for aspiring novelists?? While fascinating show of role-playing on part of the (virtual) author, not WP:BK. Casimirpo (talk) 20:01, 12 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopwood Junior High School[edit]

Hopwood Junior High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject of this article is a junior high school in the Northern Mariana Islands. There is nothing especially notable about this particular junior high school; therefore, I submit that, like the vast majority of junior high schools in the United States, it fails WP:N. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Huh? There is absolutely no requirement for it to be "especially unique or notable among all of the junior high schools in America". There are sufficient reliable sources for an encyclopaedic article to be written and it is plainly especially notable in the Commonwealth in which it is situated for its many, not few, awards. TerriersFan (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Would you suggest creating an article for all junior high schools or middle schools in the United States? This is one of only five articles in the category "Middle Schools in the United States." Looking at each of those articles, none of them assert the school's notability and only one of them meets Wikipedia standards (the others need to be wikified, linked to, have notability established, etc.) I'm not sure that any of these five stand out as more important than the countless other middle schools in the United States. Also, is notability within the CNMI enough to establish notability on Wikipedia? That seems to be what you're asserting... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a reliable secondary source that addresses the topic directly in detail per WP:N. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:50, 6 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I think one of the few schools in an distinctive region such as this might possibly be notable. On the other hand, I am not really convinced of the objectivity of the ref. mentioned just above by Explodicle. DGG (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reliable, independent, in-depth sources have been provided above. Passes WP:N regardless of what level school the article happens to be about. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Thryduulf. No assertion of importance or significance other than existing as a junior high school. A listing of all the teachers broken into teams? Half the information isn't even verifiable and it fails WP:ORG. Drawn Some (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources indicating passing WP:N. Contrary to what the pervious "delete" voter said, being the largest junior high institution in an entire US territory and the scholastic achievements described in the article are assertions of notability.--Oakshade (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Every single one of the articles in the google news search suggested by TerriersFan is from the Saipan Tribune. I'm not sure if that counts as significant notable coverage. LK (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - are junior high schools considered notable in themselves? There seems to be some assertion that they are. High schools I think are, but junior high? If it is then there's no need for other notability; if it isn't then other notability outside of the local press is needed I think (otherwise I'm afraid we would be able to suggest notability for just about every first school on the planet...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Square Thing (talk • contribs)
  • I don't think we should be making our notability judgements based on what type of school this is. This one in particular is pretty close to becoming a middle school, and deciding which articles to keep based on the structure of the American school system will lead to systemic bias. The quality of sources available should be the only factor here. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Determining notability guidelines at least partly based on the American school system is a good idea for schools that use that system or a system with a very similar structure (for example the school system of a US territory), and presents no systematic bias issues. Using the same guidelines for schools in other systems is of course a different matter. Blue Square Thing's point, I believe, was that certain types of educational institutions are considered notable in and of themselves (e.g. physical universities), while other types (such as elementary schools) are considered not to be notable unless the articles demonstrate why they are more notable than the typical such institution. My personal opinion is that junior high schools fall into the latter category and that this article doesn't demonstrate sufficient notability outside of its local area to merit it's own article. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've already got a general notability guideline that works fine without this instruction creep you propose. If we can back up everything in an article with reliable secondary sources, then what is the harm in letting people write articles on whatever schools they want? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite. There is no requirement in WP:N for something to be notable outside its state or territory. If there was then there will be an enormous cull of articles. We can start with buildings, such as California Automobile Association Building, which may be notable in California but most definitely has no national significance. TerriersFan (talk) 18:56, 7 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scandinavian Pink Floyd Show[edit]

The Scandinavian Pink Floyd Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tribute band, no recordings, possible notability due to international tour. Was tagged as a speedy. I have no opinion either way but believe a discussion here is the best way to resolve the matter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:21, 29 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there should be no article on a show unless it is something very notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:41, 7 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. Potential merger can be discussed on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B2B Trust[edit]

B2B Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is not clear whether or not this trust is a notable organization, and the article lacks reliable independent sources that would confirm the notability of the company. Prod removed by creator, who did not respond to my messages. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:33, 29 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carantrivero[edit]

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

How is this person notable? His grandfather was, but he seems not to be. Comes complete with a significant copyright violation. Polly (Parrot) 23:38, 6 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 United States Air Force KC-135 replacement effort#Round_1, Lease Contract. The target of the redirect can be altered or discussed as needed. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael M. Sears[edit]

Michael M. Sears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BLP concerns; does not appear to readily meet WP:N. Entire notability appears to be tied into one event so WP:BLP1E is also a factor and concern. Being an executive at 1-2 corporations or 1-2 divisions of a corporation is not evidence of notability in any way, shape, or form, either. There are thousands of such corporations and divisions. Delete per WP:BLP, WP:BLP1E, and WP:N considerations. rootology (C)(T) 20:06, 29 June 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The actual notability is the fine for being guilty in the ethics breach (a rarity). This article needs major expansion, and has more relationship to the fired individual (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:16, 13 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:54, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules Networks[edit]

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

Corporation, not notable. I speedied previously and it has reappeared with a minor tweak or two. There is still nothing to establish that this is anything more than an unfunded startup with a handful of people, an idea, and no money. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The company has significant funding - though private, the revenue is such that we are a nationwide distributor. If you visit the corporate website, you'll see that there are partnerships with many notable corporations such as Target, AT&T, Six Flags, etc. As for the experience of staff, again, on the corporate site you will see that the staff has very notable people, with extensive background and experience. There have also been many outside sources that have reported on the company and its practices, including a Fox News interview. I am not sure what is required to meet the notability guideline, but what specifics there may be can likely be met. Simon311A (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is at User talk:Simon311A. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see teh depth of coverage here that would clear the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here is a list of some of the external sources that have covered Hercules Networks:

Simon311A (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm really torn. On the one hand, these links show that this business meets the general notability guideline. On the other hand, I know from experience how easy it is for a startup to get this sort of coverage and how little fact checking is behind many of these articles. Most of these rags, you send them a press kit with some photos, a case study, and quotes from a customer, and they'll publish anything. You could almost tell them you've just patented the electric light bulb and have an exclusive contract with GE and they'd print it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but Vending Times for example, has been around since 1962 and had quite detailed coverage of Hercules Networks. As for fact verification, healthy revenue is hard to prove as it is private, but key partnerships with notable companies such as AT&T can be supported by the existence of branded machines - AT&T Machines Simon311A (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simon311A (talk) 20:34, 6 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a corporate directory for minor, non-notable business. It can come back when it actually is notable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article is no more than a Public relations exercise. News announcements, particularly those generated by the company itself, are not admissible as evidence of notability. notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:44, 13 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. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Mehr[edit]

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

Non-notable, delete. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this page created in error. There is a Road, No Simple Highway (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to contest the deletion of this page, please hold off on deletion for a day so I have time to contest.Spamandeggs (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability. Appears to be a student musician who has one a couple of high school competitions and organized a charity fundraiser. 1st reference is to the fundraiser 2nd reference is to a bands own page that does not list Mehr 3rd reference is again to a bands own page - one subpage does mention him 4th reference does not mention him 5th reference is for a high school competition. I therefore conclude that he does not pass notability under WP:MUSICBIO noq (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Delete This appears to me to be "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Spamandeggs is the article's primary author and wishes to contest. I see no harm in that, but I still doubt that this article will survive. rb000 (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please ignore duplicate of original nomination - trying to restore notice to the article page which seems to have disappeared from the original article history. noq (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am contesting the deletion of this page for the following reasons:

  • Under WP:MUSICBIO, section 1, number 6, notability is defined as "Is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles, or an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Samuel Mehr is cited as having performed in five notable ensembles (though not all are completely cited - I have printed evidence of these but none yet on the web).
  • Samuel Mehr is notable for his roles in fundraising for Toscanini's as cited in NYT and Boston Globe, as well as for his position as an ice cream maker (also cited).
Given the expanded information and notability derived from several sources - an individual musician, two single events related to fundraising, and a leadership position in a notable restaurant, this page should not be deleted.Spamandeggs (talk) 23:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • which two or more notable ensembles?
  • Are high school competitions major music competitions?
  • He did a high school fundraiser?
  • He raised money for an ice cream parlour that didn't pay its taxes?
  • I still can't see a reason why he should be included in an encyclopedia. noq (talk) 00:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eastman Wind Ensemble should be enough (they have recorded with Wynton Marsalis and have many recordings on major labels including Sony and Phillips - google it); Beantown Swing Orchestra performed on a major hollywood film, My Best Friend's girl (see http://beantownswing.com)
  • Essentially Ellington is hosted by Jazz at Lincoln Center and gets widespread media coverage. Downbeat is the top jazz media source in the country. Yes, both of these are major competitions
  • This fundraiser is notable because it is an endowment in a public school, which is a unique way of raising money for a music department. It's not a bake sale.
  • Apparently this was notable enough for the New York Times food section.
I'm no admin but I think this is significant information and meets Wikipedia:Notability standards. It could use better citations, but there's a template for that.Spamandeggs (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any more activity on this discussion? I'm not sure what happens next - Noq, do you have further discussion? If not should I remove the deletion tag? thanksSpamandeggs (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After 7 days, this discussion will be looked at by an uninvolved administrator who will decide on the consensus whether to keep or delete the article. The process is described at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion noq (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed the discussion and my earlier conclusion remains the same. I don't see anything to indicate notability sufficient to meet our guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we just consider the musical aspects of the subject under WP:MUSICBIO, I think it's clearly notable:
Under WP:MUSICBIO, it is stated that "a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" is considered notable. Mehr is a member of (1)Eastman Wind Ensemble, which must be independently notable because it has its own wiki, (2) Beantown Swing Orchestra, which does not have its own wiki, but is independently notable under WP:MUSICBIO part 10, having performed in the movie 'My Best Friend's Girl'[1][2] and (3) Eastman New Jazz Ensemble, which is independently notable under WP:MUSICBIO part 9 for their 2009 Downbeat award.[3] Shouldn't these three ensembles be enough for notability?Spamandeggs (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If my previous post showing notability is incorrect, can an administrator explain what I've misunderstood? did I miss a guideline?Spamandeggs (talk) 19:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1046163/soundtrack
  2. ^ http://www.beantownswing.com/news.html
  3. ^ http://www.downbeat.com/sma_winners.asp
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every member of an ensemble/concert group is inherently notable - as with any other article's subject they have to have significant, non-trivial, third party coverage as per WP:MUSICBIO. This coverage has to be about Samuel Mehr, not about any groups he was in. If he was notable enough, this coverage, whether on the web, in newspapers, or whatever, would exist. Thats abpout all there is to it - the guy's not notable enough, the article should be deleted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep re:Dylanfromthenorth, at WP:MUSICBIO, the guidelines specifically state that one of the criteria must be met -- that one criterion is that the musician is a member of two or more ensembles (item #6). This seems to be at odds with your definition of notability as 'not every member of a notable group is inherently notable.' That is a different discussion, though - as far as I can tell, this fits within Wiki guidelines.Spamandeggs (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Musicbio criteria 6 is the only thing resembling a claim to notability, and the claim that he is a member of these orchestras is not verified by any 3rd party sources. Even if it was, I don't think the guideline should apply to members of orchestras as being part of a 4 person band and a 20 person orchestra aren't really the same thing. (Although I do agree that Beantown Swing Orchestra is notable despite the lack of page.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:21, 8 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. A redirect can be created later if necessary. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paratrooping[edit]

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

unsourced, nonsense, OR. PROD removed by author Saalstin (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge into Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic#Early years. - Altenmann >t 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sovdepia[edit]

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

non-notable foreign language term Jd2718 (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. I created this stupid article exactly because the word is seen in English books, hence may puzzle an English reader. - Altenmann >t 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the second thought, the page indeeed is devoid of independent subject, and the explanatory info may be easily merged elsewhere. - Altenmann >t 03:16, 7 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.
  • Delete. Actually a derogatory term. Warrants an only passing mention in the USSR article. Certainly unfit for a separate entry.--Galassi (talk) 02:30, 9 July 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. There is merit to the concept of merging this to the article about the plane crash but that is not for AfD to decide per se - the only thing that is obvious is that there is a consensus to keep this information. Discussion on whether or not to maintain it at its current title or to merge it elsewhere should continue on the article's talk page itself. Shereth 22:18, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahia Bakari[edit]

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

It is clear, as per WP:BLP1E, that something should be done about this article. Personally, I'm completely open to a merge/redirect to Yemenia Flight 626, and in all honesty I would be inclined to !vote that way myself. However, as a WP:BLP, this article is worthy of at least a semi-procedural AfD, just to ensure that a merge would not be improper. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Per WP:BLP1E: "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." The subject of this article is one of a handful of people in history who were "sole survivors" of airline crashes. She has very high notability world wide, as Google attests ("bahia bakari", 293,000 hits at the moment), and that notability is unlikely to abate and very likely to increase. Other sole airline crash survivors are celebrities, written about by the news media, many years after the crash (normally for the rest of their lives), e.g. when a new sole survivor becomes known. There was renewed interest in and fresh interviews with Juliane Köpcke after this accident. This is exactly where BLP1E makes its exception. Crum375 (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was actually going to mention Juliane Köpcke in the nomination, but forgot to do so amidst all my formatting goof-ups. As the subject of a Werner Herzog film, Wings of Hope, and as a PhD scholar, Köpcke is no longer known for only one event. Things are known (and stated in Köpcke's article) about Köpcke's life before the crash, her experience during the ordeal, and her activities afterwards. At this point, the Bahia Bakari article is only about the crash and rescue; it does not even look like a biographical article about the girl. Bakari might very well become the next Köpcke, but it is really too soon to tell. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make is sound like "being known for one event" automatically prohibits a WP article per BLP1E, but it doesn't, as per the Hinckley example. In other words, we'd like to weed out "flash in the pan" type events, which are notable for a short time only, perhaps with mostly local news coverage, and then the person becomes obscure and disappears from the radar. In the case of "sole airline crash survivors", these people become celebrities for the rest of their lives. They are interviewed or give talks, they become subjects of books and movies, and are mentioned when similar events occur. Generally, they are world famous, although typically more famous in their own country, as Bahia will likely be in Comoros and France. You can be world famous for the rest of your life for being a sole airline crash survivor no less that for trying to kill a president. Crum375 (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm well aware of all these possibilities; hence the last sentence of my preceding comment, and in particular the link to WP:BALL. A lot of crashes have left sole survivors, but how many of them have become "celebrities"? Take Northwest Airlines Flight 255, for example. After 22 years, what do we know about the sole survivor, Cecelia Cichan? According to her article, we know when she was born (although we don't quite know how we know this, because we can't find those details in any of the references); we know "a popular, but untrue, story" about the crash (although we ought to doubt that such discredited speculation--about two people, one dead and one alive--belongs in a BLP); and we know about her university graduation (even though we're not sure if we ought to know this, as we find this BLP factoid in a primary source, reminding us of the WP:PSTS section of WP:OR). In other words, we don't know very much. If she's a "celebrity" in her home country (which also happens to be mine), she certainly evaded my detection (not that I have an outstanding grasp of popular culture, but you get my drift), quite possibly in no small part because her "relatives...shielded her from public attention." In Bakari's case, we thus have A) a case of sole-survivorship, which appears not to be a reliable predictor of celebrity status; B) a consequent WP:BLP, which needs to be addressed with caution; and C) a minor, to whom we could reasonably apply WP:BLP (including WP:BLP1E) with extraordinary care--especially given the possibility that she, like Cichan, could end up being legitimately "shielded...from public attention." Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If we choose our criteria properly, I think you'll see the distinction. One criterion has to be total passengers killed in the crash — in this case we have 152 total who died, more than in any of your example list, where some are less than 50. (BTW, AFAICT, this would be a distinction by itself — "sole survivor of the deadliest crash".) Another criterion has to be the survivor's age: if it's an infant, who can't really describe their experience and hasn't done anything special to survive, I think they would become more obscure as they age. In this case, floating alone in pitch darkness (initially), without a life vest, unable to swim, fighting high waves fatigue and injuries, for thirteen hours, is quite unusual, similar perhaps to Juliane Köpcke, but none of the others (AFAICT). Yet another is current notability: yes, it may decay over time, but with Google and other engines holding their data indefinitely, the present notability won't disappear, and may even rise. In our case, there was also the issue of a French government minister personally escorting the survivor back to France in a government jet, where on arrival she was hailed by the press as a "miracle child." These things don't fade away overnight, if at all. Overall, the google hits, which are already 293,000 for "bahia bakari", are not going to disappear. My guess is that the vast majority of BLPs on WP have far less google hits, esp. if you weed out the WP-related ones. Crum375 (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I'd think that the total number of fatalities could work against the notability of survivors. The more members of a sample (e.g., Flight 626 passengers), the greater the sample's expected diversity (e.g., survivorship vs. fatality). The fewer the people in a crash, the less likely any of them will stand out from the rest, and so the more peculiar it is when somebody does stand out. I'm not saying that Bakari didn't do anything special to survive or that she hasn't received special attention because she survived; indeed, I'm not saying that she isn't notable or that her article should be deleted (I opened it up to that possibility as a BLP precaution, but would be inclined to merge the material with Yemenia Flight 626). But we don't know much about her, and her article does not actually say anything about her, apart from noting her involvement in the crash and rescue. If this very non-biographical article about an underage WP:BLP1E tries to pass itself off as a biography, will it really "be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy" (as per BLP)? I'm inclined to think not, at least until she starts giving interviews and discussing things to the point of communicating a desire to be singled out for individual attention, and to the point of allowing the (uncertain) potential for her celebrity status to materialize. For the time being, I'd think that Yemenia Flight 626 has the capacity to describe her involvement to the lengths prescribed by WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS, and to describe it within the bounds set forth by WP:SS and WP:BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have added to the article the notable fact that she is the sole survivor of the deadliest of the 14 airline crashes with a sole survivor since 1970. As far as what's more notable, I think you'd agree that a sole survivor of a plane crash where (say) 3 people died would be unremarkable, whereas a sole survivor of a crash with (say) 100 people would be far rarer, 5 total since 1970 (including this one). Again, of all these known "sole survivor" cases, her accident was the deadliest. Also, as I noted above, if you include her 13 hours survival ordeal without a life vest, not knowing how to swim, fighting high waves in the dark, it adds even more to her notability. I think her full story wouldn't logically fit into the accident article (except in summary style) because someone reading about the accident wants to know only general details about the girl, and conversely, someone reading about the girl would want to know only general details about the accident. This is why summary style is the best solution. WP is not paper, and I think this is the most reader-friendly way to handle it. Crum375 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment: Yes, one minority among a large majority will stand out more than one minority among a small majority. The fact that a "minority of one" (as opposed to a minority of, say, two or three or four) survived may be emotionally (although not statistically) poignant, while the fact that only a minority (of any size) of passengers survived is statistically unusual (see [11], also cited below). But I'm not arguing that she isn't brave or special or "notable". This last term, by the way, gets tossed around a lot throughout WP, but ends up creating circular arguments on AfDs. A WP:NOTABLE topic is, technically, one that ought to have its own article, while an AfD exists to determine the fate of individual articles. So an AfD argument centered vaguely on "notability" can start to look like, "this topic should/shouldn't have its own article (i.e., it should/shouldn't survive AfD) because it should/shouldn't have its own article (i.e., it is/isn't notable)." Bear in mind that the general notability guidelines defer immediately to WP:RS, which in turn refers us immediately to WP:BLP, which in turn contains the WP:BLP1E section on which I based my nomination. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notable enought. The main article would be too large. Elmao (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What are you agreeing with? The indentation leaves it unclear as to whom you're responding to. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the fence - Vesna Vulović has an article and she was the sole survivor of JAT Flight 367 with no prior or subsequent notability, save that she holds the Guiness record for surviving the highest fall without a parachute. (I'd argue that confers enough notability to justify her article.) For Bahia Bakari, she's the sole survivor of a crash, (yes, the deadliest crash with a sole survivor since 1970), but is that enough to establish notability? I'm not sure; giving it more thought. -- Flyguy649 talk 03:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article could do with a cleanup as it contains more about the attack than it probably should. That said, her guiness title combined with political activity in Serbia during the early 90s confers further notability, excluding her from 1E. Making any such assumptions about the subject of this AfD would by crystalballery at a high level. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep World famous miracles are notable. DGG (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nobody is saying that the occurrence isn't notable. As for a "miracle", the remarkable thing about this crash is that so many of the people died. Most people usually survive plane crashes--especially those that, like this one, occur during landing ([12]). Perhaps a secondary "miracle" is the fact that so many people are pointing to the expected silver lining, rather than to the unexpected loss of so much life. Even so, I'm not saying that the silver lining should be minimized, only that it may be overstated as a WP:BLP1E with its own article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for uniqueness and notability, per the source provided, this specific accident, of which Bakari was a sole survivor, is one of only five sole survivor crashes since 1970 which had more than 100 persons on board, and 14 overall. As I noted above, Ms. Bakari is the sole survivor of the deadliest of all sole survivor airline crashes since 1970 (possibly ever, but we only have a source for 1970+). Her name, "Bahia Bakari", rings up 293,000 google hits at the moment, in a wide variety of publications, world wide. Crum375 (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Again, I'm not saying that she isn't special or unique or commendable or "notable" or whatever. What I'm trying to get at is that she has not been shown to be the subject of sufficient biographical coverage to warrant an article distinct from the page covering the one event for which she is known. She might very well "be numbered among an exclusive club." On that note, however, when The Survivors Club, themselves, reported on Bakari, they noted that "she is a very, very shy girl"--all the more reason, I would think, to stress her privacy to the maximum that WP allows. All of those WP:GHITS do not have to abide by WP:BLP or by any other encyclopedic regulations. WP can and must adhere to greater standards than a search engine. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP's primary role is to present the "sum of human knowledge" to the world. Yes, we have to be careful and sensitive, esp. about BLPs, and even more so for young people, and this is why the article steers clear of her personal details, like exact DOB, address (or even town!), siblings, etc., despite their being reliably sourced. But if a person reading the papers or watching TV googles for "bahia bakari" and gets 200,000+ hits, they would like to find out more about her on WP. Not the intimate personal details, but her survival story and its aftermath. And we can't censor that, or force it inside a small section of an accident article, where the focus is (and should be) on why and how the accident happened. Minister Alain Joyandet said about the "miracle girl": "In the midst of the mourning, there is Bahia. It is a miracle, it is an absolutely extraordinary battle for survival ... It's an enormous message that she sends to the world ... almost nothing is impossible." Are we saying that a person like that, who can inspire future survivors to persevere when all seems lost, should remain obscure and censored? Should we stifle that "enormous message"? Crum375 (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that two other sole survivors which have wiki articles, Juliane Köpcke and Cecelia Cichan, are still notable despite the years since their accident, and are mentioned and/or interviewed by the press whenever a new sole survivor accident occurs. Note also that Bakari is now a survivor of the deadliest sole survivor accident since 1970 (or possibly ever, since we currently have sourcing only for 1970+). Crum375 (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Köpcke clearly has achieved independent notability (for reasons mentioned earlier), whereas Cichan's article strikes me as just as problematic as Bakari's, if not considerably more so (also for reasons noted above). What Köpcke and Cichan do share with one another (but not with Bakari) is the ability to be viewed in hindsight. We don't know how Bakari's life will look once the dust has settled, but would do well to err on the side of caution in a BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, we don't have hindsight specifically in Bakari's case, but we do have relevant precedents and common sense: a. When you have 290,000 google hits for a person, they don't suddenly fade into obscurity; b. The previous "sole survivors" of large crashes are still notable; and c. Bakari is a survivor of the deadliest sole survivor airline crash since 1970, and quite possibly ever; these types of "records" tend to stick in the media's (and public's) memory and notability scale. So to not have an article for a "miracle" person with this much notability and public recognition, would be incompatible with WP's BLP inclusion standards, where I assume the vast majority of BLP subjects have far less than 290,000 google hits and overall notability. Crum375 (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Yemenia Flight 626. This is a clear cut BLP1E, the event is notable, even the survival is notable, but the person who survived is not. This is exactly the intention of 1E, with WP:BIO1E stating "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered.". In this case the significance of the indivduals role is entirely coincidental and not actually connected to the individual. The entire participation was to be unlucky and have a really rough time. To the extent that anything "sticks" in the minds of media and people, it's the event not the person, about whom the only relevant thing is having been the participant in the event. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The individual in this case was one who managed to stay afloat for 13 hours clinging to debris in the middle of the ocean, despite being unable to swim, fighting pitch darkness, high waves, injuries (including a broken collar bone), thirst, fatigue, not to mention mental distress of having lost her mother and seeing 152 people drown. If that's not a "significant individual role", I don't know what is. This was enough to inspire a French government minister to say about her: "In the midst of the mourning, there is Bahia. It is a miracle, it is an absolutely extraordinary battle for survival ... It's an enormous message that she sends to the world ... almost nothing is impossible." In addition, Bakari is currently the "record holder" as a survivor of the deadliest sole survivor airline crash since 1970, and quite likely in history. The other sole airline crash survivors have wiki articles (separate from their crash articles), and their crashes were less deadly than hers. She also has 387,000 google hits, which probably puts her in the top percentile for WP BLP articles notability-wise. In summary, she is excluded from BLP1E because of her remarkable and notable individual survival effort, as attested to by numerous media reports worldwide. In addition, her being a record holder, and member of a tiny group of sole airline crash survivors (only five for crashes of 100 or more fatalities since 1970, possibly ever), keeps her notable indefinitely.Crum375 (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Big numbers and other content notwithstanding, this is a perfect example of 1E. The survival is impressive, notable and encyclopaedic but this does not dervie through the incident to the person (well, she may be impressive, obviously I've never met her so it's not a stretch for me to leave that option open). Heck, you'd even be better off with an article about the survival (independent of the crash article) than a BLP. In general, if a persons notability derives entirely from one event it is better to cover the event than the person and leave a redirect to the event (paraphrase BLP1E). You make a mention of John Hinckley, Jr. above and while the fundamentals of the comparison are fair (both peoples "fame" derives from a single event) Hinckleys relevance long term has been proven as the subject of extensive writing and as a recurring mention in television and movies. If conditions change and Bahia becomes a motivational speaker/author, subject of extensive fiction/non-fiction, a notable air safety activist or first Emperor of the Moon, then we would need an article about the person to link the content about the other notability with the content about the plane crash. All these things may one day be, but that's where BLP1E often (almost always) links in with WP:CRYSTAL. We have no grounds on which to assume that miss Bakari will ever be mentioned again outside listings of sole surivors. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 07:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • BLP1E says: "If the event is significant, and/or if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be appropriate.... the significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources" In our case, we really have two initial events: the crash, and the survival/rescue. Both will have an aftermath which may be notable on its own. For the subject of this article, her role in the survival/rescue event is substantial — she is the event. The relative notability of the two related events is indicated by 10 times more google hits for "bahia bakari" (200,000+), vs. "flight 626 (16,000+). Clearly the girl is far more notable, specifically for her unique unprecedented survival effort, and there are no known single survivors of airline accidents in history. Clearly BLP1E does not apply to her any more than to Hinckley, because of her "substantial role" in her event, and the persistent coverage. There is a very small percentage of current wiki BLP articles with her notability. By the way, "John Hinckley" himself, the poster-boy of the BLP1E exclusion example, gets only 112,000 Google hits, roughly half of "Bahia Bakari". Crum375 (talk) 07:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I end my participation in this debate with two simple points and one piece of advice. WP:BLP1E and WP:CRYSTAL are my policy links and WP:GOOGLEHITS is my advice. You claim persistent coverage but there is no proof of that. The accident was so recent that reprintings of a single significant event will give the impression of persistence, even if the number of news hits (and I don't care about google.com, I really don't, you could write 632 Billion google hits and I wouldn't care) has fallen drastically with only a few scant mentions in the last days and generally in articles about the dead being found. Note that wikipedia is not a google results listing. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think we all agree that google hits aren't exact science; they are at best a rough indicator of relative notability. And in this case, we already know that, per multiple writeups in mainstream publications around the world, she is notable, so that's not at issue here. Google does seem to show us that she is more notable than the accident itself, which is logical and reasonable. Consider this non-Google point, which I mentioned above: French Minister Alain Joyandet said about Bakari: "In the midst of the mourning, there is Bahia. It is a miracle, it is an absolutely extraordinary battle for survival ... It's an enormous message that she sends to the world ... almost nothing is impossible." WP's role is to disseminate information. We can't properly present to the world her "enormous message" if it is stuck inside a sub-section of an accident article, which is focused by necessity on how and why the accident happened. Bakari's notability, given that she is the survivor of the deadliest ever sole survivor airline accident (as far as we know), and the only sole survivor ever of an ocean airliner crash (as far as we know), and given the persistent notability of other sole survivors, of less notable or deadly accidents, there is no reason her notability should significantly diminish from its current high. Crum375 (talk) 08:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to article about the event. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by "event" you mean the crash of flight 626, then it is far less notable than the "miracle girl" survivor. For example, Google for "flight 626" yields 16,300 hits, vs. 200,000+ for "bahia bakari". That's a factor of 10+ more notable for the survivor than the crash, if we use Google as a rough notability guide. Also, all other sole survivors of airline crashes have a separate wiki article, and this one is possibly the most notable of all of them, since its related crash is the deadliest single-survivor airline accident to date (going back to 1943 in ASN's database for 100+ fatality accidents). Can you explain your reasoning? Crum375 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could have sworn that I made a comment about the relevance of the number of Google hits earlier, but it seems to have disappeared. Once again Crum375, your reply to Niteshift36 is based purely on statistics. From WP:GOOGLEHITS:
        • Although using a search engine like Google can be useful in determining how common or well-known a particular topic is, a large number of hits on a search engine is no guarantee that the subject is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Similarly, a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet. One would not expect to find thousands of hits on an ancient Estonian god. The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged "Internet meme" that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed.
        • Overall, the quality of the search engine results matters more than the raw number. A more detailed description of the problems that can be encountered using a search engine to determine suitability can be found here: Wikipedia:Search engine test.
      • Whilst Google is a useful search engine for finding information, it is not our only criteria. It has not been around that long comparatively speaking, its algorithmns are not publicly known, it references blogs, fan sites, small ads sites, newspapers of varying quality, TV listings, reliable sources etc. indescriminately. Wikipedia is about quality and reliably sourced information, not amassing the sum of information available on the Internet. AlexandrDmitri (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that relying on raw statistics can lead to false results. In this case, I only use Google results as a rough tool, to give us general ideas, vs. hand-waving and guesswork. Specifically, Google tells us that "bahia bakari" is more notable than "flight 626" (by a factor of 10 google-wise, but clearly that's not set in stone). It also tells us that "bahia bakari" is notable in general, almost twice as much as "john hinckley", the prototypical example of the BLP1E exception. But even if we leave Google and statistics aside, we still have numerous world wide mainstream references showing notability in general; we have a French government minister saying about Bakari: "In the midst of the mourning, there is Bahia. It is a miracle, it is an absolutely extraordinary battle for survival ... It's an enormous message that she sends to the world ... almost nothing is impossible." As I asked above, do we want to stifle that "enormous message", i.e. her incredible and unprecedented survival story, by sticking it in a small sub-section of an accident article, which is (correctly) focused on finding out how and why the accident occurred? Our subject is also the survivor of the deadliest sole-survivor airline crash ever, and the only one ever in the ocean (both to our knowledge: back to 1970 in general, to 1943 for over 100 fatalities). Notability of such "record holders" does not fade much over time, since the media keep revisiting the old ones and using them as reference points when new accidents occur, as they are doing in this case. So yes, I agree that statistics can be misleading, but in this case we have other, non-Google, direct criteria to establish notability and avoid BLP1E. Crum375 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - To update the statistical record, I found a reliable source (the Guardian) which says that, per ASN, Bakari is a survivor of the second deadliest single-survivor airplane crash ever.[13] According to the same ASN database, she is a survivor of the deadliest single-survivor ocean crash. Crum375 (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That's all quite interesting and such, but it remains a fair margin beside the point. The point is, we do not know enough about her to have an article about her. What we do know is that she's quite young and "very, very shy"--two reasons, I would think, to make a presumption in favor of privacy. We also know that Bakari is known primarily for being a victim ("survivor" is one side of the coin; on the other side we have the sheer fact that she was in a plane crash, let alone the crash that killed her mother). In the link I just provided, we see a note on "dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Admittedly, the letter of this passage does not make one think immediately of airplane crash survivors. But the spirit, I think, indicates that we should not shine too bright a spotlight on those who were forced onto the stage by factors mostly out of their control. If she ends up convincing the "audience" that her victimization somehow has made her less shy than her own father (who, incidentally, adds, "I can't say that it's a miracle") says she is, then perhaps she ought to have an article despite the WP:BLP precautions. Otherwise, this looks like a classic cause for BLP restraint. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do know quite a bit more about her and her family, per reliable sources, but I opted to leave all those personal details out for BLP reasons. Per your proposed inclusion guideline, we'd need to delete most of our BLP articles. This subject is *extremely* notable, probably more than 99% of our BLP subjects, with reliable mainstream sources writing about her, some by first name ("Bahia, the miracle girl"). She is likely to remain notable for a lifetime, since she is a survivor of the deadliest sole-survivor airliner ocean crash, and second deadliest sole-survivor airplane crash, ever. These types of "records" confer lifetime notability, since the media keep rewriting about them when related events occur. Her survival story, a twelve year old girl being thrown out of a crashing airliner into the ocean, in pitch darkness, being unable to swim but surviving by holding on to bits of wreckage, in high seas, for over thirteen hours, is unprecedented in recorded survival stories. A French government minister says about her: "In the midst of the mourning, there is Bahia. It is a miracle, it is an absolutely extraordinary battle for survival ... It's an enormous message that she sends to the world ... almost nothing is impossible." He can clearly understand the immensity of her message, which will serve as inspiration of survivors for years to come. Wikipedia's role is to help spread human knowledge, not censor it (when done in a sensitive way to protect personal details). And sticking this information inside a sub-section in an accident article, which is necessarily focused on the hows and whys of the accident, is improper for both her as well as the accident article. As the survivor of the deadliest sole-survivor ocean crash with world wide notability, with an unprecedented ocean survival story, clearly she warrants her own article. Crum375 (talk) 18:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Not even the nominator wants to delete this article and so this discussion is a waste of time. AFD is for deletions only. If you want to discuss mergers then there are other processes for this. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would not have brought it here if I were not open to deletion. As far as I'm concerned, a consensus to delete at least 99% of all WP:BLP1E articles would be acceptable (although, of course, an umbrella nomination to that effect would not). My inclination to merge this article is minor, tentative, and mostly intuitive. My inclination to open it up to deletion, however, is strong in light of WP:BLP1E and WP:RECENTISM. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Willing to keep at this moment - personally, I heard about the survivor before I heard about the crash. G-hits mean little, but his survivor's story does appear more covered than the crash itself (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Sally[edit]

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

WP:N and WP:V; Finishing last in a horse race certainly doesn't warrant notability, though article asserts notability (not verified) because of a "common phrase" inspired by the race. Possible vio of WP:NEO. SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I found two sources in a Google News search ([14], [15]), both from the same newspaper. I tried a normal Google search, but that came up with stuff that obviously weren't about the horse (i.e. this), and a more specified search came up with nothing. Those two sources lead me to believe that the horse doesn't pass WP:N -- the horse was listed as a "strong contender" in one, and the competition he won wasn't a notable competition. -- Nomader (Talk) 23:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Matt Deres (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would have had to finish last because of attempted abduction by aliens in order to be notable (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:26, 13 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 CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rannow's Theorem[edit]

Rannow's Theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No google hits. That could mean only that this name for the theorem is not commonplace. But the proposition seems silly: one could say that the average value of a continuous function on an interval about a point approaches the value of the function at that point as the interval shrinks. But that does not involve this strange iteration of the function, whereby one integrates over an interval in the range rather than in the domain. That looks like a wholly pointless complication—just camouflage and razzle-dazzle so that the inattentive reader will not notice that any worthwhile content can be stated more simply. The article neglects to mention that the whole thing works only if the relevant part of the range is also in the domain. It also neglects any hypothesis of continuity. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unsourced. It seems a very unusual theorem with the same function appearing as the integrand and the limits. Good sources would defiantly be needed for such a strange result. --Salix (talk): 23:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced, and it's a rare theorem in real analysis which assumes that an element of the range (A) is in the domain of the function, except for explicit fixed point theorems. (The fact that I never heard of it also weighs against it.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable, incorrectly stated, probably OR. Ozob (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I respect the input of the above experts in the field. Additionally, in the context of a suspected neologism or hoax, the fact that the article was the creator's first and only contribution is very often a bad sign. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or clumsy OR. This is claimed to be a "key theorem in calculus", which it is not, and the explanation of what it is useful for doesn't make any sense. --Uncia (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. No hits in Google, Google scholar, or Google books. Salih (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the above. Paul August ☎ 15:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article reflects somebody's discovery, in my view. I would not be surprised if this is the case, partially because of the use of "key theorem". If this is not the case, there must be some calculus book for which this result is a theorem, but since it seems that there is no (famous) mathematician by the name of "Rannow", this is unlikely. Furthermore, in my (limited) knowledge of calculus texts, I do not recall having seen a theorem with statement similar to this one. The theorem is also incorrect for more reasons than one. --PST 08:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - OR or hoax. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Default to keep. Smashvilletalk 16:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decommunization in Russia[edit]

Decommunization in Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The term "decommunization" is a neologism in the English language. While the term generates some hits on search engines, its usage in English language literature is obscure. Specialists on the post-Soviet era in Russia writing in English language publications tend to use the terms "post-communism" or "transition" in describing the period. Encyclopedias are supposed to direct content to entries on more widely used terminology. If some of the content is salvageable, it should be moved to entries on post-communism, transition, or post-Soviet history. 172 | Talk 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is also by its nature not WP:Neutral point of view. The article, which is really more like an essay anyway, takes the point of view that decommunization is something that ought to be happening and in fact should be happening faster. While I agree, it is not the job of an encyclopedia to make judgements on history or politics but to report the facts. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks a lot like a POV fork? Artw (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. To give the creators of the article the benefit of the doubt, maybe they did not realize that the topic is already discussed in articles under more established terms (e.g., post-communism and history of post-Soviet Russia). 23:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep Google books shows 466 hits for "decommunization" by itself [16] and 244 with Russia [17] which makes it notable and not really a neologism (decommunization without "transition" also yields lots of hits suggesting this is a distinct concept). And of course the term is no more POV than Denazification or Destalinization. If its POV-forkish then adjust the content, not delete.radek (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A neologism is not necessarily a term that has never been used. The term's usage is just not well established. For instance, the same search engine shows 8,448 entries for either "post-communism" and "postcommunism." In academic publications, the researcher has license to invent or introduce new terminology, or favor terms not in wide use. (I certainly use my own favored pet terms in stuff I publish.) In encyclopedias the guidelines are more restrictive. Naming guidelines in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia) favor the term more widely used in the language of publication. Hence, any content with merit in the article can be redirected to entries related to post-Soviet history and postcommunism. 172 | Talk 23:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
466 book, mostly academic, hits suggest that this is NOT a term that is "just not well established". That's a lot of academics just "inventing" supposedly new terminology. Of course "post-communism" gets more hits - it's a broader concept. Not a reason to delete.radek (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
466 is not really that much by the standards of a Google serch ... Just about all those books aren't too widely read in U.S. political science cources, or widely cited in U.S. political science research. 172 | Talk 23:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, 466 is actually quite a lot for Google books - certainly more than sufficient to establish notability. And how exactly do you know that these books "aren't too widely read in US political science course" and why does this even matter? Reliable sources are not restricted to just stuff that's read in "US political science courses".radek (talk) 23:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I teach in the U.S. and English is my first language. The term is not widely used in the U.S. or other English speaking countries. 172 | Talk 23:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I teach in the US and English is my first language (no, really). I've heard the term quite a few times here and in other English speaking countries (where I've also taught). Since when have personal anecdotes become more important than reliable sources?radek (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps merge into an article like history of post-Soviet Russia. As Steve points out, it has a clear ideological POV by nature rather than a WP:Neutral point of view. radek is right that sources use the term, but, from what I see, it's to invoke the political content or stakes of the term, some even tongue-in-cheek, few seem to be about the actual history of post-Soviet Russia.--Junius49 (talk) 23:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is the article title "clear ideological POV"? Should Denazification also be put up for AfD? Obviously history of Russia since the fall of Communism is a very broad subject. This is one particular aspect of it, which is significant and notable enough by itself - judging by number of hits - to merit an article of its own. This is like arguing that we should delete the article Grunge just because there already is a 1990s in music article. I don't think that's usually a sufficient criteria for deletion.radek (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, denazification should not be deleated. The term itself was promulgated in the 1940s by the Allies to describe their agenda for postwar Germany. The Allies (not obscure academics writing in the past couple of decades) used that specific term. 172 | Talk 23:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's two questions here, notability and POV. I addressed the notability above. This was a question about why it's POV, not why it was notable. And why are these sources "obscure"? Greenwood publishing is a respectable publishing firm. As is Rowman & Littlefield. As is University of Missouri Press. As are pretty much all of them. You calling them "obscure" does not make them so. Again, the question is whether or not these are reliable sources, not whether or not you happen to like them. And how exactly was anyone suppose to write about decommunization before the fall of communism (i.e. in the past couple of decades)? To continue with, the Grunge analogy, are we not supposed to have that article because all the sources on it have been written "in the past couple of decades"??radek (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are hundreds books mentioning this subject [18]. Biophys (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as no valid reason for deletion has been provided. If somebody thinks the title is wrong, there are other venues for renaming the article (to "post-Communist transition in Russia" or whatever, I don't care). Note that Wikipedia naming conventions allow for descriptive titles. Colchicum (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands now this article is available at 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, and provides no details on any so-called decommunisation in Russia. I have removed information from the article on the registration of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, as it is a novel synthesis to link this registration to this process; after all, I thought the registration of political parties was to be encouraged in a democracy, and has nothing to do with what is stated in the lead. --Russavia Dialogue 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Russavia and Steve Dufour. POV fork. PasswordUsername (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there are plenty of books that discuss this (note the difference in spelling): Decommunization in Russia, Decommunisation in Russia, so the nominator's contention that it is an "obscure neologism" doesn't hold up. Issues of POV (if any) should be discussed on the article talk page. --Martintg (talk) 21:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by several participants. It's not a perfect article, but it can be improved through editing. - Biruitorul Talk 21:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1. PoV fork (WP:FORK of information already at USSR, 1991 Soviet coup d'état attempt, History of post-Soviet Russia; any additional information can be inserted into those articles, Government of Russia, Politics of Russia and/or Communism. 2. Minor Neologism (WP:NEO, in that scholars are divided on what it means and what terms to use for it, or even if it exists, which leads to the third point. 3. Insufficient content to support an article: The final two sentences of the article itself, easily inserted into History of post-Soviet Russia: "On November 30, 1992, the Constitutional Court partially reviewed the decrees and lifted the ban against the Communist Party of the Russian SFSR[9] There has been no deliberate attempt to deal with the Soviet past for Russia as a society.[10]" The article itself declares that there is nothing much to talk about, and certainly not enough for a whole article. So what is in the article now? That's the fourth point. 4. Current article content is unconnected with the title. Potted history of the coup, aftermath of the coup, ending with the best evidence that decommunization, like the USSR, is a relic of the cold war. Decommunization is better described as the ten-year Russian ban on the Communist Party, and the place to do it is in the articles listed above. Anarchangel (talk) 20:37, 13 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 all. Flowerparty☀ 01:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TexA.N.S.[edit]

TexA.N.S. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Also nominating

Never Again (TexA.N.S. album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Live_At_Sons_and_Daughters_Hall_(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Band has not received significant coverage by third party sources. The only notability this band has is that Maynard James Keenan played bass for them. The band Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty, also notable only for having Maynard as a member, has been deleted for lack of notability, and Maynard played a much more prominent role in that band than this one. Conical Johnson (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BAND. I did a quick look-up of sources on the internet, but I couldn't find anything other than YouTube videos and auto-coverage on sites like Pandora which are music sorting sites. I'll look again later, and if I find anything I'll so note on this AfD page. For now though, delete. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - way below the necessary notability here. I appreciate that while a key member of a major group played for them, it was well before he was actually notable himself from the looks of things. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited, even "upwards" - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Notability isn't inherited, so why not merge the information into Maynard James Keenan, the one notable member?--Junius49 (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usually I'd agree with that rationale, but the Maynard James Keenan article already contains a note about his involvement in the band, and the note is referenced. The band we're talking about here existed for only about a year, and is insignificant for Keenan's article beyond the point that he was involved with it. -- Nomader (Talk) 05:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't even find good reasoning to redirect - unless someone wants to redirect to a specific section of the Keenan article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:27, 13 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.

You can still buy TexA.N.S. albums in many record shops and online. The information of the deleted page was relevant. Find the archive and bring it back. Why delete free information that will help people discover new music?.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.169.195.238 (talk) 17:53, 19 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 Speedy keep. The reason for the nomination cannot be reconciled with the content of the article. This is not an article about a work of fiction; it is about a real ethnic group. If someone has a relevant reason to request deletion of this article, they are free to renominate it. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenians in Greece[edit]

Armenians in Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete. Plot summary and original research for a marginally significant character. No sources to back this evinde up. It is like made up story with no real evidence to support this.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. --LightAtmosphere (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)--LightAtmosphere (talk) 22:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um... what? To the nominator: did you miss and hit the wrong article here, or am I reading this wrong - the article is not about anything fictional, nor is it about a character. Speedy keep and an explanation would be nice. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. (Edit Conflict) Why does the nomination for the article have nothing to do with the article itself? It talks about "original research for a marginally significant character" when the article is about a group of people living in a nation. I'm assuming good faith on the part of the nominator, but if this AfD is to stand, I'd prefer it if the nominator could revise their statement to match their reasoning for the article's deletion instead of a different article's. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I apologise for silly copy typo. I fixed the nomination.--NovaSkola (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It wasn't a copy typo that was the problem... it was that the nomination seems to be for a different article, and it still seems to be. Your nomination talks about nothing that has to do with the article -- the article itself is not on a character at all. I understand that this can be kind of confusing at first glance, but I'd suggest you try to work with other nominations before you put this up for deletion again. For now, I'm going to vote speedy keep. -- Nomader (Talk) 22:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, a candidate for Speedy Keep for sure, it still looks like you have either the wrong article or the wrong nom statement up there. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Going by nominator's edit history, this was a purposeful nomination with a confusing rationale meant to make nominators who would not read the article vote delete just for the popular "plot summary" reason. I want to assume good faith, but this needs to be closed. Going without the actual nom reason, as Greece and Armenia are within the same region, there is no reason to delete this at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as an incoherent nomination. If something reasonable was intended, should be tried again properly. DGG (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apple&Stone[edit]

Apple&Stone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The sources for this music are its own website, a fansite, myspace, and facebook. Unless someone can find a real reliable source, it should be deleted. Chutznik (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've reviewed the content, and I still have to vote delete, although it's no longer a copyright violation (per Paul's work). I looked through websites about the band, and though they've worked with ATB, I still don't think they're notable enough to pass WP:BAND. If the singles had charted, they'd be notable by now, but until I see the reception that their debut album garners, I'm going to have to say delete. -- Nomader (Talk) 00:04, 12 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. Notability not asserted, and no references provided. DGG's google search found different people than the one mentioned in the article. SilkTork *YES! 21:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Harit[edit]

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

This page is apparently about a minor character in Mohammed's life. However, given the contribution history of its author - see Talk:Mohammed#Atrocities - it appears that his primary motive in writing it was to fork a negative perspective on Mohammed into a new article. As such the article is not neutral. Chutznik (talk) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the one source used here is this book and as far as I can tell there is no mention of al-Harit, though it would be nice if the article creator could let us know what page of the 1000+ page book Al-Harit is mentioned. The few places I can find "information" about al-Harit is at website like answering-islam. Nableezy (talk) 22:54, 8 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, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A considerable number of sources [19]--see the first two items in particular and [20] -- not all of these are the person here, so we may need as disam or a fuller form of the name or even some more articles.DGG (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The single provided source is reliable and verifiable Rirunmot (talk) 17:12, 13 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cathe Jones[edit]

[Cathe Jones|Photo of Comedian, Artist, Author, and Rat Wrangler, Cathe B. Jones]]

Cathe Boudreau Jones was born in Boston, MA on May 1, 1964. She is the author of TimeLine (http://byShayne.com/timeline) [1], and is owner and chief artist of Cathe's Comicz. Aside from her work as a writer she is notable for her 30 years of work as a stand-up comedian at the Comedy Store, and in Las Vegas, as well as a member of the now defunct [2] Additionally, Mrs. Jones is a full time singer and songwriter working with notables as King Lizzard,. Living in Las Vegas, she is married to [& Teller]'s music director and jazz pianist, [Jones.] The pair met when Cathe was hired as a rat wrangler for Penn & Teller's television show, Bullshit.

Early Career[edit]

As an author Cathe first published her work in Boston, as a student in elementary school. She won several awards, was a member of the Boston Public School's Talented and Gifted Program which allowed her to complete college courses while still in middle school. She was offered a scholarship to Emerson College, but elected to graduate a year early and attend Massachusetts College of Artat the age of 17. For financial reasons, she left art school and took time out to join the United States Navy, serving aboard Mobile Diving and Salvage Unit 2. Upon her departure, she again went to Mass Art, where she was one of their first computer animator and artists, completing her degree in 3 years. Each year she provided work with Boston's First Night, adding giant Ice Sculptures to the event.


Upon graduation, she was offered an Ahmanson scholarship to California Institute of the Arts, by artist Ed Emshwiller, studying under Jules Engel and Christine Panushka, she was awarded an MFA in film in 1991 for her film thesis animation "Revelation/Transition", available at the Calarts Library. During her studies she worked as a stand-up comedian the Hollywood Comedy Store, studied at Second City, and played a [[Porky Pig[[ of Magic Mountain to pay for her education. Soon she was offered a permanent job at Boss Films, studying effects under Academy Award winning artist Richard Edlund. Citing her disdain of Los Angeles' unending traffic, she found herself as an Assistant Professor of Communications at New Mexico Highlands University.

Comedy, Music, Writing and Ren Faires[edit]

While teaching at New Mexico Highlands University Cathe continued writing, publishing TimeLine, and performing spoken works and stand up comedy around the country from San Francisco to Austin's SXSW. Prompting from several members of bands, she gave up teaching to study music at San Francisco State University. While there, she continued performing spoken works at Above Brainwash, and was a regular comedian at Catch A Rising Star. For a short while she also worked in Sacramento, however, she was asked back to the Comedy Store, and again became a regular there, since the comedy boom of the 1980's was starting to wind down. To pay bills, Cathe managed to procure jobs at Fortune 500 companies including Pacific Life and Macromedia developing web site intranets and extranets. It was during this time she landed a long time online radio star job with Premiere Networks for the Pat & Mike World Wide Radio Show, in which her Internut Comedian segments gained a large following. She also sang with Surfwater Bandits, a band out of Santa Monica.

When Jones was off, and not producing music, radio, writing, or doing web work, she began studying sword fighting with members of the St. Alban's School of Defense, which lead to several summers as a member of California Renaissance Fairs performing with members of the Familia Medici, playing Lucrezia, and Louise Labé, the woman who create salons. It was during her work at the Ren Faires where she discovered a love of rats. She began training them with the guidance of the rat wranglers there, and soon was able to work for television and movies as a professional. This is how she began her work with Penn & Teller, and can be seen in the Series One extras of Showtime's Bullshit.

Ehlers-Danlos and Disability[edit]

Cathe Boudreau Jones was diagnosed with a collagen disorder, Ehlers-Danlos, which allows her joints to dislocate and sublux randomly, causing great damage to her joints, including bone spurs and misaligned ligaments. Her active performance, radio, and work schedule was cut substantially back by her mid-thirties, and after seeing no alternatives, she was forced to apply for disability.

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 Green Party of Canada. Should be mentioned somewhere, but not suitable for a stand-alone article. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bloggers[edit]

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

While "green blogging", referring to blogging on the environment, is a notable concept, I'm less sure that Green Bloggers is. No Gnews hits for green-bloggers.com, and a fairly limited number of regular Google hits. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does Blogging Tories constitute evidence of some sort of left-wing bias on Wikipedia? Do you actually know what Tories are? (And, for that matter, Canadian Greens aren't exactly what you seem to think they are, either.) Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 10 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 Ghost Hunters.. lifebaka++ 13:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Harnois[edit]

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

Unsourced biography of living person, unclear notability. Article has previously been redirected but redirection has been reverted without any references added snigbrook (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect: Just of note, Ghost Investigator is the former Ghost Hunters member Brian Harnois and I told him a few months ago that he's turning his Wikipedia page more into a personal website than an article which could violate Wikipedia policy. I told him he could probably put this personal info under his "Ghost Investigator" User Page here on Wikipedia because it won't fly as an article. Also he apparently doesn't want his name redirected to Ghost Hunters or TAPS because he's not part of these groups anymore. He also deleted my suggestion to redirect to TAPS under the article discussion. Cyberia23 (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ghost Hunters. Person is not notable enough for a standalone article. Even if any of the info on that article is true, not one piece of it has been properly sourced. roguegeek (talk·cont) 00:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Middlesbrough Futsal Club[edit]

Middlesbrough Futsal Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Club playing in a minor league that hasn't received much press attention bar a local newspaper reporting a charity match. Notability tag since september 2008, but has not yet been established. Quantpole (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cause Mapping[edit]

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

I fail to see the importance of this. —Chowbok ☠ 21:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although well-written, it discusses a strategy promoted by a corporation, and the only external source is to a web page operated by the same corporation. Chutznik (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - marketing term associated to one company. This is probably intended to boost the brand, from the writing. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catapult Systems[edit]

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

Smallish consulting firm in Texas with no mainstream media coverage; refs are all press releases. —Chowbok ☠ 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. per nom. Possibly a spam advertisement. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, borderline WP:SPEEDY G11 but has some encyclopedic contentRcurtis5 (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Catapult Systems is a legit, national Microsoft IT consulting company that has been in business since 1993. And, they have stellar customer list. Nancyrush (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is questioning your company's legitimacy, or that of your customers. Please don't take this as a referendum on that or on Catapult's worth or anything else. We just try to limit the coverage here (on every subject) so that Wikipedia doesn't get excessively unwieldy. Please read WP:ORG to see our rules on inclusion for businesses, and let us know if you still think the company should have an article when going of those, and, if so, why.—Chowbok ☠ 17:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks much, we understand the situation now. We do believe the company should have an article; to support this we've added a number of secondary references to show national media coverage, and will continue to do so on a regular basis as Catapult Systems continues to grow and receive accolades that are of national interest.--Nancyrush (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see significant coverage from independent reliable sources. What I do see is a lot of press releases. -- Whpq (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unify4life[edit]

Unify4life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There's enough at [21] to avoid a speedy deletion (from me anyway), but not enough to avoid AfD. Note the copyvio and the promotionalism. I'm not opposed to having something about Unify4life on Wikipedia, maybe a short article or just a mention, but not this article. - Dank (push to talk) 21:23, 6 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cary Kochman[edit]

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

I don't think UBS's "Co-Head of Mergers & Acquisitions for IBD Americas" is really notable enough for an article. Yes, he's been quoted by the WSJ once or twice, but I don't see any mainstream coverage of him specifically. See below. —Chowbok ☠ 21:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • This article should be kept, however more information on the subjects' newsworthy coverage should be added. He is head of Mergers and Acquisitions for the Americas for one of the worlds leading (and still standing) financial institutions UBS AG, and has been cited more often than is reflected in this article. It's not only the WSJ quoting him, but the Financial Times and other sources. As such, information about this person is relevant, especially in today's worldwide financial climate. --Kentcamp (talk) 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Being quoted a bunch of time does not establish notability. What is need is coverage in articles that are about the subject rather than quoting the subject. This is behind a pay wall but the Chicago Tribune thinks it significant enough to note his career move. This article establishes the subject as a key hiring. And CBS Marketwatch also took note of him taking on his position at UBS. -- Whpq (talk) 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've changed my mind upon reading Whpq's links.—Chowbok ☠ 20:29, 10 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. Seems marginally notable. Ruslik_Zero 08:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegrin Australian[edit]

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

I'm not seeing the notability of an ethnic group of ~1,000 people out of a larger group of 22 million people in Australia. This group makes up .0045 percent of the population of Australia, not even a drop in the bucket... Tavix |  Talk  21:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Size has nothing to do with notability. Topic is covered in other specialist encyclopedias and seems reasonably notable: Zizic, Danilo (2001), "Montenegrins", in Jupp, James (ed.), The Australian people: an encyclopedia of the nation, its people, and their origins, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521807890. cab (talk) 10:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: notable, verifiable. - Altenmann >t 10:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem a notable designation to me. There are no reliable sources *discussing* (rather than merely establishing the existence of) a Crnogorski community in Australia - how did it get here? why? in what way does it distinguish itself or interact with other groups in the Australian community? etc. Other ethnicities have books, theses and significant research behind them. Orderinchaos 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Notable and sourced article on a notable ethnic community in Australia. Badagnani (talk) 03:45, 9 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. Bearian (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988[edit]

Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Contested prod. This non-notable piece of proposed legislation never became law.

Further, this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia. We should have detailed and in-depth coverage of American politics insofar as it's notable, and indeed we do. But we do not need a separate article for a piece of legislation that has never been and will never be law, and allowing it to exist creates NPOV and coatrack problems in a controversial and problematic area that it will be difficult to police. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per S Marshall's excellent nomination. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see that the bill never making it into law makes it automatically un-notable. Nor is the fact that a topic is controversial a reason to ignore it -- indeed, these two issues seem somewhat mutually contradictory: if it is minor, who will care about biasing it beyond help, and if it is controversial and liable to attract attention, is it truly non-notable? -- Pthag (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I were to create an article about a piece of legislation that never even became law from, say, China or India, it'd be gone in a New York minute. Also, I don't agree that problematic article areas are the ones that attract attention. In my experience, the worst NPOV violations are the ones that languish in articles Wikipedians don't notice.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be so sure, if it were interesting, it should stay. "Should" being the word here -- just because somebody wouldn't immediately appreciate it is no reason to cut it. To say that this should be deleted because a similar, non-american one would be is taking a mere glance at the Western bias in wikipedia and declaring "fuck it, if nobody else is having nice things, neither are we" -- clearly counterproductive! -- Pthag (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q: Items dealing with China and India should be dealt with in the same way as American and European items, Marshall? Anarchangel (talk) 21:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The White House's opposition to the 'Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988' is what makes this piece of legislation notable. Dynablaster (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That alone does not make a proposed act notable. Clinton alone vetoed 37 bills (meaning both the Senate and House approved them and sent them to him, this does not include bills that failed to pass because Clinton threatened to veto them). I am not sure of my opinion on whether it's notable, I am just saying that the White House opposing a proposed bill does not make a bill notable. TJ Spyke 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NN Bill (or proposed Act) per WP:NOTNEWS and also per WP:Synthesis - the direct linkage to the bill and many of the refs (in Section "Background") is just not there (not saying that it doesn't exist, but it doesn't exist within the article), Section "Passage" is redundant - the same sentence/ref from the first para is rephrased, Section "Later Significance" is pure synthesis as it stands. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 22:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above rationale. We have many bills here that are not law, but that doesn't mean that they are automatic deletion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A quick search today found it referenced in a number of other articles. Of course it was rather sparce, but I've fleshed it out now. Pthag puts it well. And as a non-USian I can confirm that it's of wide interest.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Snori (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator seems to have mistaken Wikipedia's notability policy with his or her own subjective determination of what is "notable". This article is well sourced by a significant number of 3rd party independent sources. Notability exists. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Cdogsimmons. Even "a piece of legislation that has never been and will never be law" provides insights into related issues. For example, from a lawyer's perspective, failed legislation helps us understand the motives of Congress at that time -- e.g. helping us to interpret the purposes that underly successful legislation. Notability exists. Agradman talk/contribs 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (However, I'm a bit confused -- User:S Marshall, are you also arguing that this article is a candidate for deletion because it's a magnet for NPOV violations? Even if I agreed that this threat existed, would that be grounds for deletion?) Agradman talk/contribs 18:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable and sourced. No valid reason for deletion was given by nominator. "this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia" is not a valid reason by any means.Biophys (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 22:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Devane[edit]

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

Non-notable amateur player that has not yet played professionally- fails WP:N and WP:HOCKEY. Prod tag recently removed. The DominatorTalkEdits 21:01, 6 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. Flowerparty☀ 01:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prayware[edit]

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

An IP requested (at the wrong forum) that this article be deleted, and made a malformed attempt at AfDing the article; the AfD tag was removed because a subpage was never created, but I saw it and am going through with it now. I agree that the article subject seems to be a non-notable neologism and no sources are given to verify that this word has widespread use. The word is used twice, on two random websites, which is not enough to prove that it's really an important term. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not appear to be a notable term. Nakon 20:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator, this should be Deleted. Crafty (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: if this is deleted, redirect at List of prayware software should also be deleted, per WP:CSD#G8 87.113.26.43 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge into Shareware#Derivatives. Google shows some potential for the term; WP:GHITS aren't everything, of course, but the WP:BURDEN of verification rests upon the article's contributors. Failing a merge, then delete. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Merge into Otherware per Cosmic Latte (which was linked from Shareware#Derivatives) - Until prayware is notable enough for its own article, if ever, it can sit in the list of weird shareware systems described in Otherware. —LedgendGamer 23:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge/redirect to another more appropriate title, a relevent google search turns up bupkis beyond the usual wiki-type content, basically Urban Dictionary is as good as it gets. Per WP:NEO, this neologism has not established itself as a valid wikipedia article term. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to otherware. Surely it can be included there if "beerware" and "catware" are. :) see below --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meh, I just removed "beerware" and "catware" instead... when something is so clearly junk why keep it, and why use it as justification to create more junk? We have "don't add sewage to the already polluted pond", maybe we should add "don't move sewage from one sewer to another when you could just get rid of it".... rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, I looked more closely and "prayware" doesn't seem to really be used but "prayerware" definitely is... in fact it might even be notable. However, that has no baring on this discussion. I'm going to go ahead and add prayerware to otherware. Prayware can probably be deleted, but I wouldn't object to a redirect since it is still plausible as search term even if it isn't the normal term used. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not clear to where that redirect should go. There seem to be three distinct (and none of them very well used) meanings of "prayware" or "prayerware": a) software that helps you pray (timing, subject matter, program etc.); b) software which requires you pray for its author; and c) [used waggishly] software that's so unreliable that it needs divine intervention to get it to work. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 17:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Otherware. Given that Thaddeus has found evidence for "prayerware" and this is a reasonable variant on that term, not to mention that redirects are cheap, a pointer to otherware seems the most useful solution. LadyofShalott 03:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 03:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no redirect or merge anywhere. All information on Wikipedia must be verifiable using reliable sources. No reliable sources for this are in evidence. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 05:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Prayware looks like the kind of thing that might conceivably exist, but does not. We will improve WP's reputation for reliability if we insist that there be an article only at such time as it can be reliably sourced. If 'Prayerware' becomes a real, sourced article I wouldn't object to a redirect from here to there, as a plausible misspelling. At present 'Prayerware' is only a redirect to Otherware, and 'prayerware' itself has no sources at all. So at this time I would favor a frank deletion of Prayware, not a redirect to anything else. The above comments in the AfD about Google results for prayware and prayerware are quite unconvincing - we are the #1 Google hit for prayware. EdJohnston (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed we are...raises an interesting (or not-so-interesting) question of why the article was created in the first place. ;) rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There may be grounds (as per ThaddeusB above) to create Prayerware as a redirect to Otherware (Already done). This article should be deleted however for reasons such as notability, verifiability, neologism, etc. Manning (talk) 04:10, 8 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. BJTalk 03:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


AJAST (programming)[edit]

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

Not at all notable. The term was coined in a blog post by a random web developer, and doesn't even have any mainstream use. Also, seems to be just another variation of Ajax, which already has its own article (in which this very technique is mentioned). If anything, the technique should be further discussed in the Ajax article, but it doesn't need its own. — FatalError 20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - does not appear to be a widely used term. Possibly the technique of inserting script tags should be discussed in the AJAX article, if it is not already. Artw (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Script tag injection, JSON injection or another relevant name. While the term AJAST is itself not widespread, the described technique is, and its different to AJAX so it should get its own detailed article.Diego (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First of all, the very fact that the term is not widespread is reason enough to have it deleted. And second, it is Ajax. The very section that you linked to says dynamic script tags is one method of retrieving data. Either way, I think it just needs to be discussed more in the Ajax article; it doesn't need its own article. — FatalError 21:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone creates an article for AJAIF (Asynchronous JavaScript and I-Frames), AJAD (Asynchronous JavaScript and Document.load), AJAF (Asynchronous JavaScript and Flash files)... --Quilokos (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take the minority opinion and say Weak Keep. A google search shows that the term has been used in several places, including several sources that appear to be very reliable. Also keep as the concept is worthy of an article, even if the name is not. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to argue about going by Google on this one. The first 7 hits on Google seem to be the only ones pertaining to this article; one being an error report of one of the library's users, one being the main site for the library, one being a blog on the person that coined AJAST, and the other four being the Wikipedia article. The rest of the 1,009,993 hits on Google seem to pertain to a foreign name/word, a Java app, and various other one time uses. This article seems to be blatant advertisement for a library, worded in a way to make it sound like it's about a web development technique.
    • Alexa comes up with the AJAST.org site ranked 7 millionth on the web with an average of 2 hits in the last three months. (http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/ajast.org)
    • This article was created 3 months ago by a new user with no previous edits. The article's content has been added by anonymous users with no other contributions.
    • The article states, "Like Ajax, AJAST is used to create interactive web applications or rich Internet applications in cases where data access is needed from a remote host which violates the same origin policy of Ajax." AJAX doesn't have a same origin policy; XMLHttpRequest did because of Microsoft. The level 2 W3C specs of XMLHttpRequest doesn't require the same origin policy. FireFox added support for this in 3.5. Microsoft IE8 has the XDomainRequest object instead of supporting the level 2 specs.
    • Saying the AJAST technique deserves its own article is saying the JavaScript/I-Frames technique deserves one (I could write a lot on this considering not many user agents support file uploads via XMLHttpRequest yet), the JavaScript/Document.load technique deserves one, the JavaScript/Flash technique deserves one (look at SWFUpload), and all the other methods.
    • I suggest its content be moved to the AJAX article. And if AJAX isn't suppose to be the catch all phrase for the single concept of creating Internet protocol requests through client-side scripting, then I suggest a main article be made about that instead of all the possible ways to do such a thing. --Quilokos (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'marketing acronym hell' generated largely for marketing purposes. Or merge someplace. Wikipedia-wise: Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY & WP:NOTMANUAL. Web-business-wise, AJAX, and so on are meant to look sexier than 'javascript solution for servers and browsers talking over http'. But in the end it is just javascript and HTTP, or just something sold under 'AJAblah'. These could perhaps collected as mentions under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(programming) or someplace. Indeed it seems there is a lot of noise with these pseudo-technique acronyms flying about. Casimirpo (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take note of many similar articles[edit]

I noticed the following articles also exist: AXAH (0 bytes), AHAH (32), AxsJAX (0), Ajax.NET (0), xajax (0), Sajax (1,606). They're all libraries relating to AJAX derivatives.

Based on the final say on this article, should all of these articles be nominated for deletion, too, if this one goes? They're even less notable than AJAST. --Quilokos (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good find. Yes, I'd say they should. I don't see why not. If this article is deleted, those (even less notable) articles should go as well. — FatalError 20:09, 11 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 deletion (G3}. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Harper (footballer)[edit]

Daniel Harper (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article Hardale (talk) 20:17, 6 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. BJTalk 03:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the APS position on global warming[edit]

List of scientists opposing the APS position on global warming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We don't list politicians by religions, and we shouldn't list scientists by beliefs either. List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming covers this topic more than adequately already.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 19:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (I am the author). The only reason I published it is the failure of other people to add these scientists to the very article you quote, see this discussion. Failure to include a Nobel laureate (Ivar Giaever) onto the list of skeptics simply due to the fact that William M. Connolley thinks this article is his "ball" is why I think this list can be useful. For the record: I have no position on GW, but at least let's list the truly famous skeptics somewhere. Dimawik (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "American Physical Society (APS) Council on November 18, 2007 adopted a position on global warming that agrees with the theory of modern warming being man-made". So in other words, the APS position is the same as the mainstream scientific assessment, and the same scientists could be listed on the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
Speedy Delete. List has obvious Political POVEstragons (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a list of signatories, after all. Kinda hard to have harder NPOV facts :-) Dimawik (talk) 02:18, 7 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 '. g11, g12 take your pick. i have used csd to allow recreation without needing a drv but please rewrite from scratching using sources Spartaz Humbug! 20:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RuralE·evolution European Project[edit]

RuralE·evolution European Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Project more than a corporation. Reads like a brochure, no reliable english sources (Besides the projects own site). Seems just like an environmental cooperation between several companies/research groups that really doesn't merit an article.

This one is a close call for me, so I am only offering it for debate and not placing a vote myself. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:18, 6 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) 00:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - legitimate quasi-governmental energy programme; links to other related articles. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as copyvio, mind-bendingly incomprehensible spam and non-notable. Some of the other "related" articles are copypastes or on non-notable topics uploaded by the same user. Abductive (talk) 14:23, 14 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. – Toon 00:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quantronix Corporation[edit]

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

While this company meets WP:N IMO, a lot of the text is copied straight from the links given, and it currently is little more than a vanity page. ARS could easily save this one (I would myself, but I unfortunetaly lack the time). Currently deletable per WP:COPYVIO and flirts with WP:SPAM, hence the nomination. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename and merge into an article on Excel Technology which seems to be the parent company. Incorporated: 1985 Employees: 619

Sales: $122.68 million (2003) Stock Exchanges: NASDAQ Ticker Symbol: XLTC ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 6 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Princess new york[edit]

Princess new york (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I rejected the db-nonsense tag, but there is no CSD tag that applies for this type of article. I Gsearched it and didn't see any results. Unnotable upcoming series and maybe some of WP:CRYSTAL ZooFari 18:39, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bow and arrow curve[edit]

Bow and arrow curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was PROD by User:Melchoir with "Apparent hoax, no attestation found", template was removed by "64.175.42.228" with no reason, I re-instated it (probable vandal), then removed by User:Closedmouth who wanted it taken to AfD. It's outside my field, so we need some more input.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That Euler was interested in the graphs of such equations is attested in multiple sources—see, for instance, here (§3.2). I'm not finding any sources for this term, however, either in English or in German (Bogen-und-Pfeil Kurve?). It's probably best to wait for WikiProject Mathematics to weigh in, though I'm not sure there's much hope of expanding this beyond a dicdef. Deor (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources for this term can be turned up. The WikiProject Mathematics discussion doesn't seem very promising. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. The article provides no sources to establish notability, and apparently nobody on WPM has ever heard of it before, either. The citation provided by Deor above isn't too helpful here, as it discusses only the specific curve xy = yx. I'm not convinced that he studied the other curves discussed in the article. Even if he did, I'm also not convinced he gave them the name "bow and arrow curve". Ozob (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. It's hard to prove that the claims concerning discovery are false, but we can say that there is no verification that Euler assigned this name, or that the name is well known (it is not). Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone comes up with some sources. I wouldn't call it a "hoax" exactly - the given equation does describe a graph resembling a bow-and-arrow - but if we can't find any sources, then this isn't a topic for an encyclopedia article. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Google is almost useless for this sort of search. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Euler wrote a lot of stuff in Latin. How do you say "bow and arrow" in Latin? That should be included in a Google search. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rather difficult, since in geometry the Latin word for a bow (arcus) is used to mean simply "arc," and the word for an arrow (sagitta) is used to refer to a segment joining the midpoint of an arc to the midpoint of the chord that subtends it. Therefore, one gets many irrelevant hits. (And since Euler used the words in these senses, I doubt that he would also have used them metaphorically in naming the sort of curve described here—too potentially confusing.) Deor (talk) 11:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and what's Latin for "archery"? Could that have some bearing here? Michael Hardy (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Archery" = "ars sagittandi = "art of the archer"
"Archer" = "Arcitenens" = "Bow holder"
"Archer" = "Sagittarius"
I don't think those help, but there they are. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one occurrence of the word sagittarius in a book by Leonhard Euler. Another is on page 278. Sagitta gets a couple of hits but they don't seem to shed light on this discussion. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bow-and-arrow curve", verbatim, is found in three books found via google books. But it's on a different topic. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Delete UNLESS" is a recurring phrase above. For the time being I'll say delete but allow re-creation if it can be established that Euler used the term. The mere fact that it was used by the most famous person who lived in the 18th century might be sufficient grounds for notability, but we don't yet know that it's a fact. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:08, 13 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. Shereth 18:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of educators[edit]

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

unmaintainable list —Ruud 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 19:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator's rationale; this is far too long to fit into the list format. It works much better in the parallel system of categories and subcategories (or in lists of academics associated with individual institutions). —David Eppstein (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. Alos, the critera of "educator" is overly vague. An educator is someone who teaches something to people as a job. Kindergarten teachers are educators. One could argue a Sunday school teacher is an educator. A driving instructor is an educator. A karate teacher is an educator. Do these people all make the list? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they do provided they are notable, but few are. The list seems of little use. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Ah, but this list doesn't specify notable educators, does it? And judging by the redlinks, notability doesn't have to be established to be included. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, judging by the red links, that may not be the authors intent. How many times to we merge and redirect things because they aren't notable enough for their own article....yet there they are in another article or list. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:50, 8 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 Bernhard von Bülow. Article history is preserved, so any merge can still take place with little difficulty. Shereth 18:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Place in the sun[edit]

Place in the sun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I voice my concerns that this topic does not warrant its own article. No claim to notability (it only refers to a german wikisource). Simply a single phrase once said by von Bulow, which could easily be included in his own article if deemed relevant/notable enough. SGGH ping! 18:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move content to Bernhard von Bülow, then Delete. It's not notable to have its own article, but could be part of another main article. Ydouthink90 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and delete, per above. The premise of the article is that the phrase was coined by von Bulow, yet there is no evidence to support this. I42 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect- If any information is merged over to the main article, then the page history needs to be kept per the GFDL. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. If anyone wants to move any of the content to Bernhard von Bülow, that's one thing; the edit summary of the addition there can refer to the history of this article, obviating any copyright concerns. (And the relevant entry in A Place in the Sun (disambiguation) can be altered to link to the relevant section of the Bülow article.) I think, however, that the redirect from this title should be to the target A Place in the Sun, a much more likely candidate for the intended destination of someone entering this phrase in the search box. Deor (talk) 19:47, 6 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. Much of the argument below has little bearing in policy but when the discussion is distilled down to what is relevant to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, the consensus hee remains that this article does meet the criteria. Shereth 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EUROCALL[edit]

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

EUROCALL is a significant organization for the dissemination of information about the use of technology in language education. Its conference is attended not only by Europeans but by members of the international academic community. Please retain this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.239.172 (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another speedy that I may have called too hastily. Educational organization with a minimal assertion of notability, and no third-party coverage. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've an interest in this entry as I'm the web admin of the EUROCALL website, and I'm astonished that a) there hasn't been a Wikipedia article on the org until now, and b) that folk are thinking of deleting it. EUROCALL is a legit non-profit international org going back to the 90s, which I've been involved with since 1996 or so. It holds regular well-attended conferences and publishes a refereed journal. Its personnel are quite clearly set out in its website, with emails, phone numbers, and postal addresses. Quite what the grounds for deleting the article are I don't understand, considering how much guff there is in Wikipedia. If the article is considered to be badly-written I'll happily help the original author out with a better-looking version, but to exclude a long-established international organisation from Wikipedia would be plain bonkers. I'm a newbie Wikipedia contributor so maybe there's something I'm missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredriley (talk • contribs) 14:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I rally to the defence of the author and his article because a few hours ago you hung an AfD on a similar article of mine, and there now appears to be a trend in the making for ultra-rapid deletions of extremely harmless educational articles.

"I am a member of EUROCALL, an extremely useful organisation. I cannot even begin to wonder why you should want to delete the article, the organisation serves the world very well and the same applies to its US equivalent CALICO. Please reconsider your action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.114.136.168 (talk) 09:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron: "All too often, an article about a perfectly notable topic lies wounded, badly written, unsourced – but should its life be taken at Articles for Deletion? No! Only articles about non-encyclopedic topics should be deleted, not articles that need improvement. Improvement is the opposite of deletion.
An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content."
These education articles have been created by the least likely perpetrators of the very serious issues that call for speedy deletion, and it is a sad day for Wikipedia when such informative articles, however short and unreferenced are to be classed among vandalism, spam, slander, and blatant advertising. In doing so, serious authors may well be discouraged from continuing to contribute to the Wikipedia community. It is equally important for us to consider who we are deleting as well as what we are deleting. There are certainly quite a few anonymous adolescent vandals at work; equally there are Nobel laureates behind the nicknames of some of the authors.--Kudpung (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above treatise aside, is this association notable as per our guidelines? I don't see any references to ensure that it has any inherent notability for itself. Could the above commenter perhaps provide some coverage of this group to prove that it meets the guidelines for organizations? Until then, weak delete from me. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My issue with the article, in response to some of the comments, is that there's minimal actual coverage of the organization to provide the reliable sources we need to determine notability. DGG's note on the journal is useful, but when I run a news archive search I mostly get articles about unrelated companies, with a few minimal pieces about this organization. If there are more sources out there that I'm not seeing, they need to be put into the article. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the existence of a journal devoted to the subject or project published by Cambridge University press. [22], now in its 21st volume-- from 1989 to the present and indexed in all the major services [23] . That sort of evidence would seem to show something a well established academic subject. The article needs a little rewriting to clarify. Probably also needs a second article for the journal. DGG (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I suppose it is a treatise, but in cases of AfD I tend to look at the bigger picture and not assume that Wiki rules are graven in stone, especially where stubs that are clearly not spam are concerned. However, I am not the creator of the article and I feel the onus is on the article's creator to fulfill the required criteria, as I have done with my similar article that Blanchard AfDd, and which I now hope meets the criteria for keeping. In cases such as the above, I usually send a friendly message to an author to suggest that his/her article needs some urgent attention and wait a while. Neverthless, I am neither an admin nor a 'maintenance' editor, so although the stub is indeed still lacking important expansion, my suggestion to keep it will probably carry little weight here.--Kudpung (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you editor guys at Wikipedia are looking for. Do you know anything about ICT and foreign language teaching and learning and how important it has become over the last 30 years? OK, so the article is a stub at the moment and ready for expansion, which many others better qualified than myself will doubtless do as they article becomes more widely known, But if you are looking for third-party evidence that EUROCALL is well-known and highly respected then you will find brief references to it all over the Web. You won't find a substantial article on EUROCALL on the Web - apart from my article (already cited) about it's evolution - and the same probably applies to CALICO. Here's a reference to EUROCALL - in German. After all, it is an international association. Monoglots, watch out!

Die Hauptziele von EUROCALL bestehen darin, die Integration von Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (ICT) in den modernen Fremdsprachenunterricht und die Zusammenarbeit von Fachleuten auf diesem Gebiet zu fördern. Die Palette der Themen ist breit gefächert: Lernforschung, Integration von CALL/TELL/ICT in den Unterricht, Corpora, Lehrerweiterbildung, Multimedia-Programmierung, autonomes Lernen, Organisation von Selbstlernzentren, computergestütztes Testen, Softwaredesign, Fachsprachen, Literatur, interkulturelle Kommunikation, Lernen über das Internet, Verarbeitung natürlicher Sprache und vieles mehr.

  • The principle aims of EUROCALL include:
The integration of information and communication technologies in modern foreign language teaching and to promote the collaboration of sopecialists in these areas. The range of thesmes is wide: learning reearch, integration of CALL/TELL/ICT into lessons, Corpora, further education of teachers, multi-media programming, self-study, organisation of self-study centres, computer aided testing, software design, language for special purposes, literature, intercultural communication, learning on the Internet, treatmemnt of natural language, and much more.
roughly translated by--Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GroovyGuzi (talk) 17:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)GroovyGuzi[reply]

http://eurocall.tu-dresden.de/eurocall.htm

What we are looking for? Here, you are asserting that the issue Eurocall is addressing is notable. Fair enough, but that does not mean Eurocall itself is notable enough for inclusion. See WP:NOBLECAUSE. Now DGG may have pointed you in the right direction, I'm not sure, but the main point is, the notability of an organization (click on the link to see what we mean by that) would be shown by the fact people unrelated to the organization find time to write stuff about the organization itself. You wrote that I won't find an article about Eurocall or Calico on the Web. If that is true, then that is by itself a solid argument for deletion, per our notability policy and precedents too numerous to count. Wikipedia refuses to be the first site to become a third-party reference about an organization.
It is important for you to make a clear distinction between the notability of a cause (which you asserted here beyond argument) and that of an organization working towards that cause (which you haven't hinted at, yet others have done it for you here). -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Maybe if the above German text (see my translation) is taken from the German Wikipedia and it article is sufficiently referenced, perhaps those references could be translated into English and used here.--Kudpung (talk) 03:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DWIW, I was clearly talking not about the issue, but the particular project. A book or 2 by a reputable publisher discussing a project makes that project notable, both by common sense and by GNG. A entire multi-year run of a journal from a major scientific publisher devoted to a particular project is much , much more so. I'd certainly to argue that normally even one or two special issues on a project in a reputable journal is enough to show notability -- but this is 20 years worth of regular publication! . DGG (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG's last comment hits the nail on the head. The long-standing ReCALL journal itself, which is read by academics (and not just EUROCALL members) in this field all over the world, is proof enough of EUROCALL's significance. EUROCALL is referred to by numerous organisations, e.g. The National Centre for Languages (CILT, UK), The British Council, The European Commission, The Council of Europe, etc. As I said before, you probably won't find an entire article by a third party extolling EUROCALL's achievements, and this is true of many organisations, authors and educational establishments that have entries in Wikipeda. But you will find numerous recommendations for EUROCALL both on the Web and in print. Are these the kind of third-party references that you are looking for?

GroovyGuzi (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose editors do not often admit their mistakes. I have been brutally edited on occasions and, as an editor and reviewer who has worked for several international publishers such as Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Taylor & Francis, Peter Lang, I may have been a bit hard at times. I think Wikipedia is right in maintaining editorial standards, but here the editors are being a bit rigid. I have written entries for two encyclopedias (one published by Elsevier and one by Routledge) that have not been subjected to such harsh and, dare I say, naive editing. GroovyGuzi (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally added the comment below to the discussion page of the EUROCALL entry instead of this special page, where it apparently belongs (at least the discussion on the other page seems to have died down). So let me repeat here that I think there is ample ground for keeping the EUROCALL entry as well as the CALICO one. For example, the claim that one gets many other hits when googling EUROCALL is rather surprising - try googling for EUROCALL and language and you will indeed find over 19000 hits which all seem to be about exactly the organization we are talking about here, e.g. just to pick a couple from the list: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-115103425.html http://bildungsserver.vhs.at/fachgruppen/eurocall So why is this not ample proof for the fact that EUROCALL is a notable organization according to the Wikiedia guidelines? For the record, below is my original statement, which I had posted at 11:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC):

I would also strongly support that the Wikipedia articles for EUROCALL and CALICO remain. I work in the area in which both of these non-profit organizations are active, and it is readily apparent that they should fit under the notable criteria, i.e. they are international and information about them can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. For example, Cambridge University Press publishes the journal of the EUROCALL organization called RECALL, which can be directly verified at http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayJournal?jid=REC In the same way, the CALICO journal published by CALICO can be readily verified in library catalogues, such as http://swb2.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.312/SET=1/TTL=1/SHW?FRST=6/PRS=HOL&HILN=888&ADI_LND= If more proof is needed, please let me know. I am very surprised that this even is an issue. Prof. Dr. Detmar Meurers (The Ohio State University, US and Universität Tübingen, Germany) Detmar (talk) 17:07, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CALICO - The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium[edit]

CALICO - The Computer Assisted Language Instruction Consortium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I initially nominated this one for speedy, but I agree with the creator that it should not be deleted without a discussion. Educational organization. Aside from the rather promotional article title, the subject has a rather weak assertion of notability and no reliable sources (none have been provided). Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing intentionally promotional in either the title or the content. This stub is about a serious not-for-profit organisation concerned with education, managed by Texas University. It is a consortium of high level academics from many important US and other universities and colleges, and its mission is to promote and control the quality of computer assisted language learning programmes. The article may be short, and lacking in third party praise, but many organisations, especially many schools and colleges, may not have the kind of mention elswhere that serve the purpose of justification for their Wik articles. If the same criteria were to be applied, then hundreds of school and education articles in the Wikipedia would also require AfD. I feel that within the scope of any WikiProject concerning education, the organisation may have sufficient notability; the article's existence is in no way a flagrant breach of Wiki guidelines.
The article was written to be purely informative. However, as I am not connected with CALICO in any way, and have no reason to promote it., if after reviewing the the organisation, it is really not considered to meet Wikipedia's criteria for an article, I have no objection whatsoever to it being removed. I do however consider 'Speedy' Deletion to be a harsh tagging, and that at least PROD would have been more appropriate. There are numerous less worthy articles in our encyclopedia where I would personally hesitate before hanging a 'Speedy' AfD on them.--Kudpung (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taken at random from the Category:Education organization stubs, (421 stubs), based on the same criteria, the following example articles may also be candidates for speedy deletion:

--Kudpung (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article in question has since been updated and expanded. --Kudpung (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as they will all require a separate discussion, having no connection with each other, they should be nominated for AfD individually---after trying to source them. I am assuming they are not included in this AfD. And, as Blanchard said for this one, they are not appropriate candidates for speedy deletion. DGG (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I hope that maintenance editors will not now charge across to the Education stubs department wielding their deletion wands. I was merely citing those articles - taken completely at random from the 400 others in the category - as being of similar scope and substance as CALICO, and certainly was not recommending them at all for AfD. I generally put very gentle comments on authors' pages about improvement before going anywhere near as strong as AfD. I hope I have not done those authors a disservice.--Kudpung (talk) 05:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think there are clear reasons to keep this CALICO article. Even a casual google for "CALICO language computer" returns over 15000 hits, most of which are related to this organization and provide ample evidence of the notability of the organization. I originally posted a more extensive comment to the same effect on the edit page of the article itself instead of here, which apparently was the wrong place, so let me repeat here that it is readily apparent that CALICO (and EUROCALL, for which a similar attack has been mounted) should fit under the notable criteria for organizations, i.e. they are international and information about them can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. For example, the CALICO journal published by CALICO can be readily verified in library catalogues, such as

http://swb2.bsz-bw.de/DB=2.312/SET=1/TTL=1/SHW?FRST=6/PRS=HOL&HILN=888&ADI_LND= If more proof is needed, please let me know. I am very surprised that this even is an issue. Prof. Dr. Detmar Meurers (The Ohio State University, US and Universität Tübingen, Germany) Detmar (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of AfD tag Please:

  • review the current content of the article, its footnotes, references, and bibliography
  • reach a consensus based on this dicussion
  • remove the tag or authorise its removal.
  • close and archive this discussion

--Kudpung (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – in addition to all the points above, there are incoming links from eight other articles on Wikipedia – which would become redlinks if this article were deleted. Only one of these articles appears to have been created by Kudpung. -- Euchiasmus (talk) 12:39, 12 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. Problems with the inclusion criteria or content issues can be handled by the standard editorial process. Shereth 17:58, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of leading shopping streets and districts by city[edit]

List of leading shopping streets and districts by city (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates WP:NOT#INFO, WP:OR and WP:V. One of those broad unsourced lists that has no criteria of entry, and it seems like every street with stores, or any mall can qualify, making it unmaintainable as well. Delete Secret account 16:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. WP is not a collector of links, nor an indiscriminate collector of information --Saalstin (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#INFO, cited by both people so far, prohibits 4 things: Plot-only description of fictional works, Lyrics databases, Excessive listing of statistics and News reports. So clearly that doesn't apply here. WP:V demands only that sources exist, not that they be cited in the article this very moment, although that's preferable. Do sources exist saying Fifth Avenue, Rodeo Drive, etc are "leading shopping districts"? Obviously. It just might be synthesis to compile a bunch of stray articles into one Wikipedia article claiming what the top shopping districts are, but there actually are articles written and studies done on this very topic: Cushman & Wakefield for example does an annual study of the top shopping streets worldwide.[24] This article doesn't cite sources, it's true, but they seem to be out there and relatively easy to find, so improve the article and keep it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For someone who was lightning fast to quote the "arguments to avoid at AFD" essay in another debate, you sure run afoul of WP:PERNOMINATOR a lot... why should your comment be given any weight? It's not even a comment... it's an attempt to vote. --Chiliad22 (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you have your underwear in a bunch because I disagree with you on another AFD doesn't mean you need to follow me around and add pointless comments. "per nom" means that I agree with the rationale of the nominator and don't see a need to re-type the same crap over again. And closers are bright enough to understand that. If you want to continue with your personal comments, take it to my talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How could I possibly be following you around if I commented in this AFD 4 hours before you? And in lieu of typing "the same crap over again", now that I've contradicted every one of the nominator's points, you could explain why you still thought the article should be deleted... --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But your comment about my !vote came AFTER you and I disagreed in another AfD earlier. So you came back here and attacked my post. That is what I mean about "following". As I said before, if you want to keep discussing your personal opinions about how I choose to word my vote, please take it to my talk page. As for this AfD, I don't feel you have adequately "contradicted" them, so I won't be changing my opinion at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had replied to your comment in the other AFD days ago. You made and continue to make weak arguments here - what do you feel was inadequate about my argument here? Just saying "nuh uh" doesn't do much, you have to articulate why. If you can't defend your weak arguments at AFD, and get angry when you are expected to be able to... maybe you shouldn't be leaving weak arguments at AFD. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted my response to you at 16:56. You put your comment here at 17:15. Now I conceed that math was not my major in college, but it is still pretty clear that you posted your response here AFTER I replied to you in the other AfD. The fact that you make a reference to my response in that AfD confirms that. Further, I'm not "angry". I'd actually have to care about your opinion of me or of my !vote to be angry about it. Feel free to continue playing the sound of one hand clapping because I will not continue this pointless back and forth with you in this discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I posted in both AFDs before you, it's simply impossible that I'm following you around. I always watch AFDs I have commented in. This is like going to a store, seeing a guy who works there 9 to 5 every day, and saying "ah hah! you're stalking me!". You can make the argument but I doubt anyone will believe it. I see you still have no explanation of why my argument about this article is insufficient... presumably the closer will discount your opinion then, given your utter lack of any explanation. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup, add a reference for each street.  A M M A R  08:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the criteria for inclusion is vauge, vast, subjective and relative to the culture, size and affluence of a place. Some of the entries on the list contradict the criteria - e.g. if only the largest cities have more than two at most such areas, why are there three distinct areas in Cardiff (only the 14th most populous city in the UK). It does not normally distinguish between adjacent streets with similar character (e.g. Bristol) and distinct areas within a large metropolitan area (e.g. Birmingham). Where it does distinguish it does this in multiple ways (e.g. compare London and Cardiff). Finally, without any sources the whole thing smacks of original research. If there is value in a list like this (and I'm not convinced there is, although well defined and sourced lists for metropolitan areas within a country might have merit) then it will be much easier to start again with soruces that demonstrate the entries meet the well-defined objective criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this topic is obviously going to continue to have world-famous shopping streets like Bond Street and Orchard Road upon it. Deleting the list and starting again would be a silly waste of effort. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A global list with sensible criteria would obviously include those two streets. However those same criteria would exclude many if not most of the current entries on the list, which are nowhere near as notable. I do not agree that there should be a global list though, because I do not believe that it would be possible to have such a list that had both globally neutral objective criteria for inclusion and was not unweildy. What characterises an "upscale" or "leading" shopping street is so bound to the culture, laws, fashion, size and affluence of the city, region, country and those surrounding it that the criteria for London, Adis Ababa, Singapore, Athens, Moscow, Los Angeles, Edinburgh, Bunos Aries, etc. would all have to be different. Lists by country would be more objectively definable and probably more encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick D. Kim[edit]

Nick D. Kim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A nonnotable chemist/cartoonist. No independent sources to verify notability and info. - Altenmann >t 16:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This one gets a loud ""HUHHH" from my direction. Article subject is a chemist and an academic who apparently draws cartoons as a hooby. Given his extensive listed history of chemistry-related publications, I think it's safe to say his cartooning has little to nil to do with his notability. Unless the nominator can explain the nomination better I'd say just close this ASAP Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)![reply]
  • Sorry; updated the statement of the nom. Still, your vote is ungrounded. Every scientist produces publications in various journals. The question is how notable they are. - Altenmann >t 23:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I think his notability is for his comics rather than his academic work and perhaps the article could emphasise this more. Certainly I have seen calenders of his comics sold in the past. - SimonLyall (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 01:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It is difficult to disentangle the various N D Kims, but I get GS cites of 100, 80, 26. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep for this cartooning, which needs better coverage in the article. His Tess of the Dirigibles is a classic Stuartyeates (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Probably fails WP:ACADEMIC but is known for cartooning. Cartoons are published irregularly in the Waikato Times and apparently in some journals. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for voters-keepers - how about the the most basic rule of wikipedia: verifiablity? "I saw it somewhere" is not an argument. Where is the scholarly/critical discussion that he is a notable cartoonist? - Altenmann >t 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've added back the section on his cartooning that was removed about a year ago (usual two vandals and the second got reverted). He's on cartoonstock here. He's moved his domain a few times so searching is harder. How about this page on a book of his cartoons:
His pictorial gems have been featured in various magazines and journals including New Zealand Science Monthly, New Scientist and Physics today. He also produces a weekly cartoon for the Waikato Times. In 1996 and 2001 he received the "Sir Julius Vogel Award" for Best New Zealand Science fiction Art.

-SimonLyall (talk) 00:22, 8 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. Shereth 17:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syllabotactics[edit]

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

Looks like a new or emerging theory with limited acceptance. All citations are to one author, who may also be the author of this article. No non-trivial Google hits besides this page and mirrors. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. The Google hits I found lead to pages stating "no results found for syllabotactics". THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I noticed this article about an hour ago when the PROD tag was removed by a newly registered editor; I've spent the time since then looking for sources and not coming up with any. (I am a linguist, not working within phonetics or phonology except for some teaching on the undergrad level, but I do have access to a range of journals in the field). This is not a hoax or anything like that -- the references in the article are real, but the term has not been used by anybody except for that one article author, as far as I have been able to find. It is also worth noting that the article was created by one editor, links to it from other WP articles were added by another, and the PROD tag was removed by a third, and that none of the three accounts has any edits apart from those related to this article. --bonadea contributions talk 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* This is an article that introduces a new topic to Phonolgy. It is a new theory and for that reason there are not many citations of that but as a phonologist I am aware that in certain universities the methodology used in this theory is used to study syllabotactics of some Indo-European languages. I don’t find the comments made in this discussion board scientific. E.g not enough Google entries, one editor article etc. These are not valid and from an academic point of view strong and well substantiated statements. Having said that, I believe that whoever put this article in Wikipedia, made a big mistake. Wikipedia is not a platform for serious and scientific material. This article must be removed from Wikipedia and moved to a platform where scientific ideas and novel theories can be discussed with respect and appreciation. Wikipedia in my opinion is not such a place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fonologia (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment You did not mention why you do not believe that the points being brought up are not valid, but it should be said that a discussion concerning whether a concept is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article is not a scientific or academic discussion -- it is a procedural discussion which has to be conducted within a specific paradigm, namely that of the policies and rules of Wikipedia. The frameworks of academic discourse are not relevant here, except where they coincide with the framework for discourse in Wikipedia. You are absolutely right about Wikipedia not being a place to introduce new theories, or to discuss interesting groundbreaking concepts. There are other fora for that, within and outside the realm of academia. --bonadea contributions talk 07:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —+Angr 05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In fact, this is not a new theory; it's just a new name for (a subset of) phonotactics. The distinction between phonotactics and "syllabotactics" claimed by the author is artificial. I'm the one who PRODded it to begin with, and my reasoning holds: it is a neologism that has not found acceptance among other linguists than its creator. +Angr 05:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with Angr. We already have an article on phonotactics; that makes this article a content fork about one man's minor theory. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism lacking notability. Cnilep (talk) 21:16, 7 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Koukouroukou[edit]

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

Unreferenced explanation of alleged greek expresion. It was tagged "copy to wiktionary. Do not. You cannot fill wiktionary with unreferenced stuff. How do you know it is correct info? - Altenmann >t 15:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A Google search results in a food product or people that have "Koukouroukou" as part of of their username on various websites, but no connection to what the article says. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenet: FYI, copying to Wikitionary doesn't mean it is automatically included there. It goes into "transwiki" space where the information sits until it is verified. In this case, it would have sat until someone who actually knows Greek evaluated it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks for the info. - Altenmann >t 18:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a foreign language dictionary. WWGB (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Koukouroukou is (or was, I'm not sure they make it any more) the actual brand name of a chocolate here in Greece, and is a slang term for "being nuts". Either way, non-encyclopedic and certainly non-notable... Constantine ✍ 09:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Constantine. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Constantine. Cnilep (talk) 21:18, 7 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 deleted A7, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Romano[edit]

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

Vanity page. All edits appear to be by the subject of the article. Hosting a talk show on a college radio show is not inherently notable. —Chowbok ☠ 15:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Facepunch Studios[edit]

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

Article appears to failWP:WEB. Although there are a large number of GHits, the site lacks any substantial GNEWS. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable web content. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 18:38, 6 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. WP:BAND #6 states: "an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians (emphasis added)." I take that to mean that the members' notability cannot depend on another band. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Organ Thieves[edit]

The Organ Thieves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The band has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. In addition, they've only been active since last year and have released one self-released EP, having not been signed by any record label. The band fails the music notability guideline. Timmeh 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Does not fail WP:MUSIC because of multiple members with their own article. (WP:BAND#6). ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 08:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That criterion is referring to independently notable musicians. Just because a musician has his own article, it does not necessarily mean he is notable. From the looks of the musicians with their own articles, both (other than Baksh) don't look notable. Timmeh 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes but all three of the musicians with articles have, including their associated acts, separate acts as well which have their own articles. To me, this means they would probably pass an afd on their independent notabilities. Assuming that at least Coles and Baksh would pass, then I cannot honestly say that WP:MUSIC is failed. However, since only one of the criteria is passed the keep is indeed a week one. ZabMilenkoHow am I driving? 05:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just as a note, it looks like Coles isn't notable. See the Google News search which only turns up one result that briefly mentions Coles. Timmeh 03:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Coles is a member of two notable bands, though: Cauterize and Brown Brigade. That's usually enough for WP:MUSICBIO. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am really beginning to dislike that criterion. A band is notable simply because two of its members are notable simply because another band is notable? The notability of this band seems to depend solely on the individual notability of a completely different band. The music notability guideline will say what it says, but I really think there should be reliable sources covering this band in detail before it deserves an article. Timmeh 15:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The last time a suggestion was made to deprecate criterion #6, in this discussion a few months ago, consensus was not reached to remove the criterion, although the required standard was tightened up. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 14:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • That looks like an interesting discussion, and I may be able to learn something from it. I'll get to reading it more thoroughly after the holiday. Timmeh 02:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not terribly fond of it either, but the problem is that regardless of whether they're notable enough for their own article, a musician is always entitled to be at least a redirect to their band. But if they've been in two different notable bands, then how do you decide which of their bands gets priority over the other one as the redirect target? The answer is that without violating WP:NPOV and other Wikipedia proscriptions against arbitrariness, you don't — so until it becomes possible to redirect one title to two different articles at once, making that a criterion for a separate article is the only solution that survives the neutrality test. Bearcat (talk) 12:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability is not inherited.--Cannibaloki 18:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already listed. magnius (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Chuck Coles, as it seems to be his side project. I think that the WP:BAND suggestion that bands with multiple notable members is likely notable itself is quite wise but not infallible. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:41, 6 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 transwiki. Since an entry already at Wiktionary I will leave a soft redirect; I was inclined to delete as the article here is almost entirely unsourced but will leave the edit history intact in the event that source proves useful in the future. Shereth 14:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squid (motorcycle)[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICT. Neologism. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donor cycle--Dbratland (talk) 04:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is widely used, but there isn't any agreement on what it means or where it comes from. This article says it well: a squid is defined by whatever the beholder subjectively feels is too foolhardy -- George Carlin had a great routine how everyone who goes faster than my speed is a maniac, and anyone who goes slower is an idiot. The only thing you can say for sure is that squid is a pejorative, but anything beyond that is a lot of speculation and opinion. So you could have a one sentence definition (Pejorative for a reckless, novice motorcyclist) but that would belong on Wiktionary, or you could have longer article like the current one, filled with idle guesswork, which doesn't enlighten the reader.
    Of course I could be wrong, but that's my take on it. The concept of riding within your limits is worth exploring, but the word squid is useless except when you want to call someone you don't like a name.--Dbratland (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, there's no agreement on what it is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. WP:NOTDICTIONARY may apply, but the fact it's a little vague is reason enough for it to stay on Wikipedia for me- there's room for expansion and comparison of the various sources. Having said that, I could be slightly tainted, as I know the creator and many editors of the SPT. But it isn't like I've been making COI edits or anything. tedder (talk) 05:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. A squid isn't always a hooligan. Hooligans are deliberately malicious. Sometimes a squid can simply be young, inexperienced or foolhardy. Merge into hooliganism and this aspect is lost. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have to be called "Motorcycle hooliganism." Hooligan is just the word I am using at the moment to cover illegal/anti-social/dangerous motorcycling that is not related to serious organized crime, but is more of the entertainment variety. Motorcycling that the community disapproves of, but not the same as prostitution, drug dealing, violent crime etc. In particular there is a generational and cultural divide between 1%ers and young packs of riders who skirt the law.
And I only meant that we would use the motorcycle hooliganism article (whatever it's named) as a place to include a definition of "squid" which would only say that squids are reckless motorcyclists, not say that they are hooligans per se. By the same token, I was thinking of including the problem of unlicensed motorcycle taxis in Asia, on the grounds that they are also loosely organized and are not hard-core criminals like Hells Angels, even though they are not "hooligans."
I probably wouldn't have nominated Squid for deletion if I'd thought of this before.--Dbratland (talk) 18:40, 11 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 -- the original article that was tagged for deletion has been substantially cleaned up, and the current article meets WP:RS standards. Furthermore, this is a commercially released film with a well-known cast, most famously Academy Award winner Dean Jagger, and these considerations need to be factored into assessing the subject's notability. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evil Town[edit]

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

Non-notable film, article has hoax claim of notability for its popularity among fans of "graphic rape related content." No reliable third party sources, although several self-published horror film sites note that is not a "real" film at all, but patched together from unused cutting-room-floor footage from at least three other movies. Not every actor listed on IMDB is notable enough for Wikipedia, nor should every film be. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No evidence that the "article has hoax claim of notability for its popularity among fans", it is just unsourced. Film was obviously sold and is still available on VHS [25] and DVD [26], sure enough to proof that this film is a real film. Here [27] and here [28] are the covers for this film, another proof about a real existing film. Even The New York Times Movies page includes this film [29] and Allmovie [30]. This is not the correct place to discuss if every film listed on IMDB is notable enough for Wikipedia. --Ilion2 (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see statements like "the movie has contibuted to a popular grassroots philosophical movement, focused on humor that lightly implies insidious acts, such as rape" as a hoax claim of notability (as well as borderline creepy and likely to make Wikipedia seem disreputable if tolerated). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment has been rendered moot, as those statements to which you refer have since been removed from the article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Luckily, there are sources available other than Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes, and a diligent search at a library and online found the film in books in a more-than-trivial fashion. It was kind of a switch to look for sources somewhere other than a limited internet. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Visited a real honest-to-gosh library tonight and found it full of books. Thank goodness Wikipedia does not demand that sources be only online. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny thing, I know books are acceptable sources, and (*gasp*) I have books, and this includes Halliwell's Film Guide, and this film isn't in the last three Halliwell film guides, so while it may exist I don't feel it is notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Film has been written up in reliable sources. These have been now added to article. It is now worth sending to cleanup to remove fluff. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In addressing the nominator's concern, the unsourcable false notability have been removed. What now remains is an expanded and sourced article that meets WP:NF by its coverage in reliable sources. Yes, the released film is a patch-together of earlier unreleased films with the addition of fresh footage, but such has been sourced and now meets guidelines for inclusion. The film was edited together in 1984 and director Mardi Rustam liked the new story enough to remake it on his own as the film Evils in the Night (1985) [31], which he released two years before Evil Town. Its a keeper. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of these references establish notability. [32], [33] or [34]? Please reread WP:FILMNOT and don't try to sell this fluff as significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. — Rankiri (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FILMNOT specifically states that trivial coverage, such as newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database does not satisfy the general notability guidelines. All your references irrefutably fall under this category. As for WP:V, Darrenhusted already noted earlier that the main issue in this AfD nomination is WP:GNG, not WP:V. — Rankiri (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Darrenhusted is corect that the issue is notability, not verification. But it is you who are pulling out the sources used to WP:Verify and making the fuss that those few used only to WP:V do not meet WP:GNG. Policy mandates a notable cast and notable director MUST be WP:Verified, and POLICY does not require WP:V to be lengthy. To continue puling those few out as representative of the whole is misleading. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issuses of notability per WP:GNG have indeed been properly addressed, despite your opinion to the contrary. The opinions offered by reviewer Cavett Binion of All Movie Guide [35] and the write-up in The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual: The Films of 1987 [36] are not "trivial mentions". The coverage more than 5 years after the film's release in books such as The psychotronic video guide [37], Video Movie Guide 1991 and Video Movie Guide 1995 are not "trivial mentions", as they all address the director, the film, and the film being put together as a compilation of earlier works. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, a plot synopsis and a capsule review? Please read WP:FILMNOT already. Trivial mentions in all-inclusive almanacs aren't acceptable under WP:GNG—and for a good reason. Almost every single person or product is listed somewhere. Unless you make a conscious effort to stay invisible, your own information is probably listed in dozens of governmental, commercial or academical registries. Per WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed, and being verifiable doesn't automatically make something suitable for inclusion. Sources like "Bowker's Complete Video Directory", "All Movie Guide" or "The Films of 1987" don't provide any significant independent analysis and obviously don't differentiate between notable and non-notable titles. Your unflinching stance, however assertive, is in direct conflict with WP:FILMNOT and isn't not actually based on any official policies or guidelines I know. — Rankiri (talk) 23:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah... then the ones you must not be familiar with are WP:Five pillars, WP:V, WP:PRESERVE, WP:POTENTIAL, WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IMPERFECT. My stance is per policy and per guideline, just as you believe yours is. If you had spent a few hours in a library and examined the hardcopy real books that dealt with the subject, rather than based your assumptions on the offerings available online, I'd be less likely to see your unflinching stance, however assertive, as being WP:IDONTLIKEIT backed up by one guideline taken out of context and the ignoring that WP:NF begins with "best treated with common sense and the occasional exception". Even if you are unable or unwiling to visit a library and hold a hardcopy book about the subject in your hands, are you still unable to grant that notable cast + notable director + verification, might just equal notability through "common sense" or be a guideline allowed "occaional exception"? No need to answer, as the question is a rhetorical you have already answered. Dissmiss what sources you will... they still exist and wikipedia is improved by inclusion of this article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop with WP:IDONTLIKEIT already. I have no vested interest in the subject whatsoever. It all comes down to the fact that notability is not inherited and none of the provided references demonstrate the movie's notability. The fact that most of your objections contradict a well-accepted policy and some of your references (e.g. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/evil_town/) are obviously misleading is not persuasive either. — Rankiri (talk) 13:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy? WP:V is a policy. WP:BURDEN is policy. Are you contending that sometime in the last few hours a guideline has been promoted to policy? We both arrived on Wikipedia the same month... January 2008. I appreciate that you have edited 393 unique articles and made 746 live edits [38] since arrival, and that I have only edited 2,960 unique articles and made only 11,441 live edits [39] in that same timeframe. I also grant that although you may not have created any new articles and rescued none, I have only created 13 new articles and only rescued 125. I applaud your enthusiasm, and even though we may go about it in different ways, we are both here to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His point was that we each contribute in our own way and, though we may disagree, we are here to improve Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — talk 02:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer
  1. The concern of the nominator's, that "article has hoax claim of notability for its popularity among fans of graphic rape related content", has been addressed by the removal of that assertion from the article. A simple WP:CLEANUP that did not require deletion. AfD is not for cleanup.
  2. The concern of the nominator that the article had "No reliable third party sources", has been addressed by addition of reliable third-party sources through simple WP:CLEANUP. AfD is not for cleanup.
  3. The concern of the nominator that "several self-published horror film sites note that is not a "real" film at all", is a strawman, as the nom does not source this assertion. It cannot be known shown that these unlisted sites are SPS or not. And such were not used to source the article anyway.
  4. The nom's concerns that the film was "patched together from unused cutting-room-floor footage from at least three other movies." is another strawman, for the patch-up is part of its notability and has been WP:Verfied through sourcing provided by WP:CLEANUP. AfD is not for cleanup.
  5. The nom's statement "Not every actor listed on IMDB is notable enough for Wikipedia, nor should every film be" does not belong in this AfD nomination, as this nomination is not about "every actor", nor about "every film".
AfD is not for cleanup. AfD is not a vote. AfD too often incorrectly becomes a debate over interpretations of guideline. I will trust an closing admin to not count votes, and to compare the article that was first prodded by the nominator to the encyclopedic one that resulted through cleanup and improvement while the clock was ticking. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vast improvement from the original version. Seriously guys, if you put as much effort into finding reasons to delete it, you could improve it to the point of non-deletion. Kudos to all who improved the article. — BQZip01 — talk 07:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I spent a lot of time looking for convincing references. I wasn't able to find any. Were you? — Rankiri (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did you get the referenced books? I only have abstracts at the local library, but what I have reads as quality critical analysis. Is there something wrong with those books? — BQZip01 — talk 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Motion Picture Guide 1988 Annual: snippets from Google Books don't show any evidence that the book offers any kind of significant coverage.
  2. Bowker's Complete Video Directory 2002: the visible snippet from Google Books clearly shows that the book doesn't any offer significant coverage for the film.
  3. AllMovie(database; 220,000 titles[40]) and The Psychotronic Video Guide (covers more than 9,000 movies): both only provide minuscule plot summaries or capsule reviews that can hardly be seen as significant coverage.
  4. Video Movie Guide 1995: guide to more than thirteen thousand films (including offbeat and obscure films)...[41]
  5. Video Movie Guide 1991: same publisher, same author. This is obviously an older version of the same guide [42] and this is exactly why I placed the validity of MichaelQSchmidt's sources under question.
  6. References 1, 2 and 9 don't provide any type of coverage at all.
All mentioned references come from all-inclusive directories similar to white or yellow pages. None of the mentioned references seem to discuss the subject in significant detail. All mentioned references are explicitly denounced by the generally accepted film notability guidelines: a page in the database does not by itself establish the film's notability and so on. — Rankiri (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lots of sources that tell you very little about the film. Mere mentions of the film do not show notability. No reviews in any mainstream publications. That the effort put in to try and rescue this article has only resulted in finding trivial mentions in film compendiums reinforces the point that this film is not notable. And I think MichaelQSchmidt deserves a trout for his 'note to closer' - there are other opinions being expressed here than those of the nominator, and I am sure the closing admin is quite able to read the discussion for themselves. Quantpole (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The film was in theaters and video and it was reviewed. And the star is Dean Jagger and he was an Oscar-winning actor. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any sources for the theatre release? Quantpole (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I'm not 100% convinced that these sources are sufficient, but in borderline cases I think we should err on the side of inclusion. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Alefbe (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the film wasn't notable, it wouldn't be mentioned so many places. It was the last movie an Oscar winning star with a long movie career ever did. Dream Focus 22:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize this is a wasted effort at this point, but... Notability is not inherited, and if the film were in fact notable, some of these places would actually review it in detail. — Rankiri (talk) 23:05, 11 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 Professional life of George W. Bush#Texas Rangers and allegations of insider trading. Other possible merge targets have been menioned but I do not see any reason to endorse or enforce any of them here; the page history remains available for that purpose. Shereth 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush insider trading allegations[edit]

George W. Bush insider trading allegations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a violation of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. It is a recounting of a years-old news story dressed up as an encyclopedia article.

I voted the straight Democratic ticket in 2004, 2006, and 2008, and I regularly read a variety of liberal weblogs. I'm familiar with most criticisms that have been leveled at George W. Bush, but I've never even heard of this alleged incident. It appears to have been a brief blip on the radar which then faded away with no further ado — precisely the kind of thing that we have routinely deleted in the past. *** Crotalus *** 14:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I disagree that the story itself is not notable. From [Google News]:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=oeoPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=pI0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4008,7204089&dq=bush+harken+insider+trading+sec
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/07/12/harken/index.html?x
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/09/business/corporate-conduct-president-bush-defends-sale-stock-vows-enhance-sec.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200209/kelly — Rankiri (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article is not "WP:UNDUE". To the contrary, the precise purpose of this article is to preserve properly sourced and encyclopedic information but not to give it too much weight in the main Bush bio. It's an application of WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 15:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More precisely, the section of the "Professional life" article is textually similar to this article, not vice versa. The "Professional life" article was created later. Perhaps when that one was created, it should have included only a brief summary of the insider trading issue, with a wikilink to this article. Certainly this article wasn't created as a content fork or POV fork of the then-nonexistent "Professional life" article. Of course, that leaves open the question of how best to present the material. JamesMLane t c 16:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, whatever the case, one of the articles should almost certainly be redirected to the other one. As for the WP:UNDUE aspect, as a nonpartisan individual with no prior knowledge of the incident, I feel that the article conveys the distinct impression that "he did it but got away with it" and should probably be rewritten from a more neutral perspective. — Rankiri (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at the passage it's mostly just facts, so I'm hoping if you think the passage is stacked against Bush that you have some additional facts to add that would help clarify the matter rather than paring down the information presented. --kizzle (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not redirect? I think it would be useful. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict)Having a redirect for individual activities within a professional career is pointless, but I could live with a redirect if forced to. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Rankiri. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Redirect... as my nemesis JamesMLane states, the two sections are textually similar. Putting on my Republican hat for a second, I don't think there should be an article about W's professional life where 70% of the text is covering an allegation of insider trading. I think the article should be kept and linked with an ultra-brief wiki-link from the professional life and main Bush article. Also, no offense to the person proposing the deletion, but simply because they've never heard of something is not grounds for deletion. --kizzle (talk) 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect This probably doesn't warrant coverage at all, let alone its own article. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In the Madoff Era, people are seriously considering suppressing information about corporate criminals who got away with murder. This is unbelievable. Corporate crimes such as this have brought the global economy to its knees and need more attention, not less. Madoff's case was dropped by the very same enforcement agency, the SEC, in the very same year 1992, under the first President Bush. Serious food for thought there, in the country with the biggest absolute and percentage prison population in the world, overwhelmingly consisting of poor people jailed for minor drug-related offenses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gensmahaut (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deciding what to do with this article for political reasons would conflict with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DataShackle Framework[edit]

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

Recreation of a recently deleted article (Expired prod - WP:NN software created by article's author.) Please note that this article was created by a different user, a likely sockpuppet of the software's author. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- although salting is a bit exteme, since, as I understand it, reposting information deleted by Prod is considered a contesting of the prod, not a reposting of information deleted by discussion (which also means its not G4 eligible). However without any sourcing to back up any claims of notability, there's no reason to actually keep the article. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 7 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. Shereth 14:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Scotland Royal Air Force plane crash[edit]

2009 Scotland Royal Air Force plane crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:AIRCRASH, military aviation crashes don't tend to pass WP:N. The military aircraft section makes it pretty clear that this accident is not notable, merely tragic. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I disagree that failing WP:AIRCRASH is the issue. The guideline says that military crashes don't fall under that guideline, not that they are not notable. I say delete simply for WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline says nothing of the sort. It differentiates them from what went before, sure, but it doesn't remove them from the guideline. That's why there's several lines of it afterwards where they are discussed in their own right. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether or not AIRCRASH applies is unclear: the page unhelpfully says that military crashes '...are not in the purview of this discussion', then proceeds to provide a set of guidelines exclusive to military craft anyway. One possible reading is that the 'discussion' that the military crash guidelines are not 'in the purview of' consists of the previous guidelines for general aircraft crashes. Reguardless of whether they are formally applicable, the guidelines in AIRCRASH seem to be perfectly sensible: the crash occured during the course of routine training with no unusual circumstances, did not occasion the loss of civilian life, and is almost certainly not the first crash of a twenty-three year old airframe. Therefore, not notable. -Toptomcat (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete military losses are not normally notable paticulaly when no other party (apart fom the mountain) is involved. One of thousands of similar non-notable fatal military aircraft accidents this one is just WP:NEWS (or it was last week). MilborneOne (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this involved the loss of two lives. We have other military crashes on here that could be considered questionable, but they are here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:33, 7 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. Needs some more work, but notability requirements appear to be just met (non-admin closure) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Shapiro[edit]

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

His notability is asserted in the article, however he does not seem to satisfy WP:PROF at this time freshacconci talktalk 12:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. He appears to satisfy criterion 7 of WP:PROF, having made "substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity"- largely by virtue of a single paper on bias in the media that made a number of waves. See http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12510893 for the highest-profile example I can find. -Toptomcat (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He was also mentionaed by The Economist as one of the best young economist. http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12851150. He also appeared in the RePec Ideas ranking: http://ideas.repec.org/top/top.young.html 23:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raulbajob (talk • contribs) — Raulbajob (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. My usual position is that most assistant professors have not yet had time to demonstrate their notability, but there are exceptions, and he seems to be one. The bias paper is not even his most cited; it has 130 citations in Google scholar, while another on the economics of obesity has 387, and he has two more with 77 each. He seems to already be a star, and deserving of his position at one of the top business schools in the country. I think he passes WP:PROF #1 already based on the academic impact his works have had, and possibly #7 based on the media coverage pointed out by Toptomcat and Raulbajob. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I do not use citation counts from GS the same way as from Scopus or WoS--they count material from a very wide range of sources. For peer-reviewed work in science and social science , only citations in other peer-reviewed sources are relevant for an academic. But in this case the GS results for the obesity paper, for the first 200, 90% are good academic sources ( the percentage drops sharply further down to include miscellaneous academic web results) Comparing to an actual citation count in Scopus, It lists for the obesity paper 127 citations, and for the bias one 22. The other papers are 19. 18, 12, 11. 8, 6, 2 We can argue which is the more relevant, but for comparison of different scholar Scopus has the advantage of being a professionally prepared database with known criteria using known sources. A difference of 2:1 or 3:1 between GS and Scopus (or WoS) is pretty usual -- the more the work has diverse non-technical appeal, the higher the ratio. The real question is what to do about academics whose work attracts popular attention--typically due to the choice of a timely subject, or one that catches the public eye. It does not make them more notable academics to a fellow academic. It may make them more notable in a general public sense. She probably is notable on that. (that's why there's the escape clause in WP:PROF that other factors must also be taken into account)., DGG (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Britain's Got Talent contestants[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Britain's Got Talent contestants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A long list of individuals without articles, making it violate WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Acts are already listed in Britain's Got Talent (series 1), 2 and 3 articles. And we have Category:Britain's Got Talent contestants. Otterathome (talk) 12:14, 6 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. Shereth 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Walker (footballer born 1992)[edit]

Paul Walker (footballer born 1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE because he has not made a first team professional appearance. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you might want to reconsider that. Under-21s maybe, but under-17 international level receives minimal coverage in the media; you maybe see the result in the paper, that's about it. He won't have received significant coverage in independent sources due to that. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete playing international youth football (including under-21) does not make a player notable, as the highest level of football they can play at is the senior side. He fails WP:ATH as he hasn't played in a fully-professional league/competition, and due to lack of secondary sources WP:N. Recreate if and when he does make his professional debut. --Jimbo[online] 13:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I'm sympathetic to the Welsh U17 point. If he becomes notable then he'll play for Northampton. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, and youth caps do not confer notability, especially at such a low level. --Angelo (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now due to failure to meet WP:ATHLETE and lack of sources establishing general notability. This article can easily be recreated if and when he makes his professional debut. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable athlete. Jogurney (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no pro appearances and under-17 international football just isn't notable. I was at school with a lad who played under-17 international sport and even the highly parochial local paper didn't bother mentioning it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled EP (The Avett Brothers album)[edit]

Untitled EP (The Avett Brothers album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced article on an untitled album. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Provided sources are not reliable. RadioFan (talk) 11:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Speedy delete is not an available remedy because none of the criteria for its application apply, see WP:SPEEDY G1-12 and A1-9. Nevertheless, "[a]ll articles on albums, singles or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," see WP:NALBUMS, and this article adduces none.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:24, 6 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. Hoax. Tone 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junior Bruce[edit]

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

Probable hoax. Player is not listed on Bermuda Hogges site. Soccerbase or indeed any other stat site has no record of Damien Bruce or Junior Bruce playing for Leicester, No reference found to show player of that name played for Bermuda at any level. ClubOranjeT 11:18, 6 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. Shereth 14:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pathipon Petchwiset[edit]

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

non-notable footballer who hasn't played in a professional league, also it's unsourced and there are many similar Afds Spiderone (talk) 11:13, 6 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. None of the arguments for deletion address issues that cannot be repaired with some (relatively) simple editing, and there is no evidence that previous attempts have been made to address the issue via tagging/discussion. Therefore this is a full "keep" closure rather than "no consensus". Shereth 14:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics related to Black and African people[edit]

List of topics related to Black and African people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Generic lists of lists of articles. No references. No particular ordering (not by date, not by importance). Better done by existing category and template structure, such as {{Pan-African}} and {{African American topics sidebar}}.

  • Delete --William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Overly vague list. Determining what "relates" to blacks is too subjective. Blacks watch TV, smoke cigarettes and drive cars. Are those "related" to blacks? Has no defineable criteria. The list is trying to be all things to all topics. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider dividing. It might be better to have this on African topics, and a separate one for the diaspora. It is in the US anyway reasonably clear what topics relate to the Black experience in the US. I do not consider any of the ones on the list totally out of place, though some deal with the experience of Black people along with other minorities. The place to discuss any that are questioned is the talk page, as usual. DGG (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what you mean. One would assume that almost every American topic would somehow relate to the "black experience" in the US. — Rankiri (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and so they would, if one wrote the specific article relating it. And so we should. We would not have "Kansas" on this list, but Blacks (or Afro-Americans) in Kansas history is a very appropriate topic. The best way of going forward at present would be to see if there are other articles to add here, and write the 100s or 1000s of appropriate ones we are probably missing. DGG (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because everything in the nomination is specifically refuted by WP:CLN. There are very good reasons to have lists as well as categories. I can watchlist a list. I can make a list sortable by criteria other than alphabetical order. Wikipedians can usually use categories effectively, but end-users (i.e. non-Wikipedians) find lists easier to use; few of them are even aware of categories.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally, I'd agree with you. But this has no annotation, no criteria for inclusion, no sorting. I'd prefer to stick to the actuality, rather than some hoped for pie in the sky.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:DGG] & User:S Marshall. Useful, well organized list. However, I think the article title is misleading - presumably it means Black Africans, thus excluding articles on Rhodes, Smith, Botha, etc. —G716 <T·C> 02:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 02:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Niteshift36. Indiscriminate hodgepodge of topics that juxtaposes African American & Afro-Caribbean subjects with, among other things, completely unrelated topics such as the North African caliphates and Aboriginal rock. Selection appears to have been based on highly subjective criteria as to what exactly constitutes a "black" civilization or topic; see discussion. Also runs afoul of WP:SALAT as listing is too broad in scope. Soupforone (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete way too broad (WP:SALAT violation) and Niteshift summed it up perfectly. Blacks do a lot of things and there is no reason why these are listed while others aren't. Tavix |  Talk  19:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can it be renamed into something less ambiguous? List of ethnological topics related to black people, perhaps? Otherwise, I tend to agree with Niteshift36 and the others: the list is simply too broad in scope and would have to adopt an excessively segregationist inclusion criteria in order to stay manageable and useful. — Rankiri (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the name of the article and the scope can be fine tuned, but the list article is a very useful encyclopedic and helpful catalog of topics. The sbuject areas covered are very notable and I think it's worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the list has a lot of blue links, to relevant categories, and is thus valid. The name should be changed. The word Africa should not be included in it, since you aren't talking about the white South Africans, or the Arabs of the Egypt or other north African nations. Dream Focus 20:33, 10 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. Potential merger can be discussed at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Infinity and Beyond (catchphrase)[edit]

To Infinity and Beyond (catchphrase) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not really notable enough for an article - yes, it's a popular catchphrase, but then so is The Cake is a Lie and I doubt there's an article on that. Seems like some blatant trivia to me. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I stand corrected :/ weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (X! · talk)  · @450  ·  09:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Patton[edit]

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

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE. He fails WP:ATHLETE because although he played in the League of Ireland, it was not fully professional when he participated in it (1980s). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following articles on the same grounds:

Andy Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Paul McNally (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marcus Tuite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ian Douglas (soccer player) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All players who played in the League of Ireland before it supposedly became professional in recent years. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, namely WP:ATHLETE - no evidence the league was fully-pro at the time (and no evidence it is actually fully-pro at the present day). --Angelo (talk) 10:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, how utterly feckin boring! Can you please concentrate on one AfD at a time and try and get concensus there before AfD numerous articles - it will just be the same discussion on every page. The FAI top tier slips in and out of full time professionalism. Here is a source from the BBC which explictily outlines full time professionalism within the league. Have you a source which outlines that the league was not fully professional for every season which this player played top flight football in Ireland?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the onus is more on providing sources for the players nominated, and justifying why they are notable people and athletes. None of the players nominated even have so much as a source confirming their identity. But, anyway, here's a source which shows that a Dundalk player also works for Ryanair.[43] Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No doubt the articles are pretty shit but that is an arguement to improve them and not to delete them which is the issue here. Is your nomination based on a lack of sources or notability? Like I have said - the league slips in and out of professionalism almost on a year by year basis - dependant on the clubs that have been promoted and relegated and the state of the economy. I have provided a source which states the league is professional. Have you a source which states that league was not professional for the years that all those players played in the top division?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Which is the issue here"? Both - if the articles were good and cited lots of sources and showed plenty of independent coverage, then I would probably leave them alone. There are lots of similar articles which I have not nominated because the articles have given at least one or two references, or have shown a level of achievement (eg playing and scoring goals in European ties). The BBC source you are citing everywhere now itself states that the league was semi-professional until recent years. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Keep, this nomination just shows how moronic Jmorrison230582's crusade against Irish footballers has become. There is an ongoing discussion with regards this issue here and it would have been advisable to sort it out there especially as this player in the same league recently passed an AfD and there was almost unanimous keep !votes of the Tony Moore AfD which is almost identical to this situation where you have league and cup winners and U-21 internationals all up for AfD!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please remain civil. Coleman was going to be deleted at AfD until you pestered the closing admin into keeping. Frankly I don't understand the logic behind the Tony Moore afd result. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pestered" is an interesting description for provided evidence requested!--Vintagekits (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom; non-notable players who fail WP:ATHLETE. The discussion you have directed us to Vintagekits seems to conclude that the LoI is NOT fully pro. GiantSnowman 11:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it is unhelpful to bundle individual players into 1 AfD - these Irish players should be re-listed separately (or preferably not at all).Eldumpo (talk) 22:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all no indication of notability; fails WP:ATHLETE over prof status. Is it just me or is wikipedia being overrun with frivolous sports bio articles. It is in danger of turning into a directory of every man who has kicked a ball around a field while anyone was watching--AssegaiAli (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. They all fail WP:ATHLETE as they have never competed at a professioanl level, and a few quick Google searches don't appear to produce enough online sources to establish their notability in any other way. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn McNally and Tuite as references found for them playing in what appear to be more notable matches at European and international level. They arguably still fail the WP:ATHLETE guideline but probably pass WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as they fail the criteria set for sportspeople at WP:ATH as they have not played in a fully-professional league or competition. LoI is not fully-professional. Articles also fail general notability guidlines due to a lack of non-trivial secondary sources. --Jimbo[online] 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, what proof have you got that Sligo Rovers and the league wasnt professional back when Patton was playing?--Vintagekits (talk) 23:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same BBC Sport report from June 2009 you have been using elsewhere, It's a common complaint across a league that over the past several years transformed itself from a semi-professional league to a fully professional one. This article (written December 2007) states that there are six fully professional clubs in the League of Ireland, when the top division had 12 clubs. The article was talking about the proposal to make an all-Ireland fully professional league, the implication being that the existing league was not fully pro. Or this article from World Soccer, which states: A few years ago the aim was to have a full-time professional league, but this season only Bohemians, Dundalk, Derry City and Sligo Rovers can be considered full-time, while Cork and St Patrick's Athletic will have a mix of professionals and part-timers. Again, implying that the league has never been fully professional. It aimed to be, but the financial problems prevented this. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reading of it doesnt impy anything of the sort! In fact this source outlines Rovers where fully professional back in the 1960's.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appearing in your own club's Hall Of Fame does not confer notability.--79.70.181.5 (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if you clubs it the longest running professional club in its country with national league and cup titles as well as numberous European appearances then it does.
  • Keep The LOI is as professional a league as you're ever going to get in a country like Ireland. The OP is obviously a pedant with too much time on their hands, or simply a crank with a bee in their bonnet. No offense like. Dahamsta (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as simple as that; if it is not big enough to be professionsal then it doesn't meet noteworthy status. Players in most countries are therefore disadvantaged but that's just the way it goes. Articles are not a right for sportsmen generally-they must achieve something notable first rather than get an article in case they do.--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, your reasoning seems to be all over the place. First you say you dont want frivolous sports bio articles, then you state Sports columns.........are not signs of objective noteworthiness - not sure where else sportsmen are supposed to procure a media outlet! and then you state football newspaper articles as indications of notability. I think Dizzee Rascal had it right. What exactly do you consider a football had to do to become notable?--Vintagekits (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:ATHLETE failure. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (all) certainly meets WP:ATHLETE criteria in its intentions. There is no necessity for LoI to be professional for these athletes to be considered notable, they certainly played at the highest national level, which is the clear intention behind the guideline. RashersTierney (talk) 13:18, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They certainly do not meet WP:ATHLETE, which states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". They do not play at a fully professional level, because the LOI is not fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your selective quote is 'unfortunate'. The guideline in question goes on "...or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." The intention of the guideline is clearly based on the assumption that the highest level of all league sports is 'professional', which for many countries is the case, but not always so, as with League of Ireland at some point in its history. It was still the highest level at which the sport was played in Ireland which certainly meets any notability requirements in keeping with the spirit of WP:ATHLETE. The players in question did so at the highest level possible short of emigrating. The guidelines are just that, not laws to be parsed to the overall detriment of the project. The idea that an amateur athlete might qualify as notable while a semi-professional might not, simply because their sport is considered 'league' or not is nonsense, and to take that narrow meaning is just petty Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. RashersTierney (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My "selective" quote is not unfortunate. The second part of the sentence is clearly irrelevant, because this is a league sport. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the LoI is a league sports, so the arguement of "competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport" falls down there. --Jimbo[online] 16:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • By that criterion the article on James Creighton should also be deleted, since US baseball was generally amateur when he played, though organised in a league . Please try to see the intentions behind the guidelines. Perhaps the articles should be deleted, but certainly not for the reason given here. RashersTierney (talk) 16:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) That's totally different. Professional sports/sports leagues didn't really exsist in the 1800's, even in football. --Jimbo[online] 16:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The criteria in WP:ATHLETE are obviously too crude to determine notability on their own. Should every article in Wikipedia about a 'league' athlete who was not professional be deleted for that reason alone? Of course not, but thats the proposition here. What about GAA athletes, they play 'league' but are not professional. Try proposing their mass deletion and see how far you get. RashersTierney (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument isn't valid. Would a player who reached the highest level in Northern Ireland, Luxembourg or Malta be notable purely because they had reached the highest level in that country? I don't think so, you have to demonstrate a professional level of achievement. There are many ways to do this, as hundreds of Irish players have done by playing in fully professional leagues, or reaching full international status, or competing for an Irish professional club against other professional clubs in European competition. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Playing LoI as an amateur or semi-pro. may not in itself be 'proof' of notability, but not having played in a professional league is not sufficient for a mass deletion of articles. You must have some reservations in this regard having removed two articles from the initial list. Had the proposal been more broadly framed re. notability, and each article individually examined I would not be so concerned. The 'professionalism' test is too crude to be applied so bluntly. So far I've heard no convincing argument for the guideline above to be interpreted so narrowly and simultaneously applied to so many pages. Is the project so stuck for bandwidth? RashersTierney (talk) 23:35, 12 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chayanon Arbsuwan[edit]

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

this and all the similar articles of players in the same league, a league that isn't even professional plus the fact that they haven't made an appearance and according to Muang Thong United they were released Spiderone (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (X! · talk)  · @450  ·  09:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry R. Jackson, Jr.[edit]

Harry R. Jackson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced biographical article about a pastor at a NN church. No independent sources to indicate notability. Large section of unreferenced claims and accusations in contravention of WP:BLP, plus other sections evidently placed by an editor with a WP:COI both make the article extremely unreliable. I42 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm absolutely convinced the subject is notable; the interview in Christianity Today alone suffices, the media presence merely gilds the lily. However, the article is repeatedly attracting unbalanced and inappropriate editing, both pro- and anti- the subject. A well written article would be better and probably more stable. I've just gone through and axed the worst of the BLP violations[46], as Bjweeks did a couple weeks ago[47]. Given the notability, we should have an article, thus keep. Given the poor state of the current article and its history, if consensus has changed without my awareness to allow deletion on the grounds of failure to maintain a BLP compliant article I'd support deletion on that basis. But I doubt consensus has changed that much, so I think current policies call for keeping. GRBerry 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per GRBerry above. The subject seems to be a rather controversial subject, and seems to attract a lot of detractors/vandalism, which also seems to indicate at least a kind of public awareness. I too would support deletion if the difficulty of keeping a BLP compliant were grounds for deletion, but don't remember that being the case. Some level of locking on the article would probably do much the same thing. John Carter (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I semi'd the article. BJTalk 15:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve this poorly referenced and sourced article. Notability does seem established. Springnuts (talk) 12:37, 10 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. If at some point he plays in a professional league, let me know and I will restore. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian James Wong[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE, no evidence that he ever played a league game it just says he had a trial and played in non-notable competitions Spiderone (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 6 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 as there is no evidence that he has played in a fully pro league. If any becomes available (or he does at some point in the future, I will restore. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneh Jan-Im[edit]

Kaneh Jan-Im (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable footballer Spiderone (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless he makes an appearance in the league he isn't notable Spiderone (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)][reply]
  • I also believe that Nitichai Chamchoi and Pathipon Petchwiset may fail notability. I'm sure there are probably some Thai sources that could prove me wrong on this because a Google search only shows sites that link to Wikipedia. Spiderone (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 6 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 as there is no evidence that he has played in a fully pro league. If any becomes available (or he does at some point in the future, I will restore. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kittitad Pachantasee[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer who hasn't played a league match, also unsourced Spiderone (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. How did this end up on AfD in the first place? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Thomas (reporter)[edit]

Lee Thomas (reporter) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I propose to not delete this article. It's just extremely underdeveloped. He wrote a best selling book, is an Emmy award winning anchorman, and has appeard on 20/20, and Larry King Live. -- I think this is notable enough. A rewrite is called for, though. Blindeffigy (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Afd is not the place to discuss cleanup of articles, either tag with appropriate templates or (crazy I know) improve it yourself Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that this article was tagged for deletion by an IP user who made no comment on it. The first comment is presumably from an editor unconnected to the nominator. MorganaFiolett (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per nom. (Or NOT per nom, depending on how you look at it.) -WarthogDemon 23:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but needs better disambiguation. There is also a Lee Thomas (writer) for another award winning writer. (I renamed and described on the disambig page. Will add hatnotes when i have time).YobMod 15:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


KEEP --- He is famous enough, and even more famous nationally since he has Vitiligo like Michael Jackson. More people will be interested in another public person with Vitiligo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.38.115 (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural speedy keep as no deletion rationale has been proposed. <eleland/talkedits> 22:16, 9 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. BJTalk 05:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M61 Gas Mask[edit]

M61 Gas Mask (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

IMO this article does not meet the relevance criteria, because it is not specified why this gas mask should be on any significance or importance to have an article on it Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exactly per nom, there's nothing to denote any significance of this product over any other. Nja247 08:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)2009 July 6[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep on the grounds that the article does not make NO claim to notability: its claim of ubiquity as one of the most common gas masks on the civilian market ought to qualify. -Toptomcat (talk) 14:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if it was a common gas mask it would easily get third party coverage. [48], none that I could find from gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability has not been shown; lack of reliable sources. Esowteric | Talk 19:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't think gas masks are going to get a lot of news coverage, or reviewed in major magazines. Not unless there are a lot of gas attacks somewhere, and people are seen surviving them with these things, or the news media otherwise mentions them. And its one of the most common gas masks on the market, so yeah, that makes it notable. Dream Focus 16:56, 11 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. BJTalk 05:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Populist Party (UK political party)[edit]

Populist Party (UK political party) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This minor UK political party is not notable. I searched for mentions in reliable sources and could find none, and the contents are not verifiable. Fences&Windows 22:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the previous AfD under a different title: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Populist Party (UK). Fences&Windows 22:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can register a political party with the Electoral Commission. Wikipedia standards require coverage in reliable secondary sources. Not every registered political party is notable. Fences&Windows 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete A putatively national party that claims (according to our article) merely forty members in a country with 44,000,000 voters is going to have to work very hard to show notability, and this article has not shouldered that burden. WP:GNG and WP:ORG require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and "[t]he depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." I see little evidence of that (2,410 ghits, which is actually a very generous ceiling rather than an accurate count, since many of the hits appear to have nothing to do with the subject of the article or circle back to WP), and none is cited in the article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinarily this might be a candidate for speedy delete, as a previous AFD deleted it as non-notable. See WP:SPEEDY c4. But that was in October 2006, and both common sense and WP:RECREATE allow for recreation if the notability status has changed, as things might have done in two and a half years. AFD is thus the appropriate forum. But, as I said this morning, things do not appear to have changed, so deletion is again appropriate.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non Notable regardless of registration. Estragons (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a pretty classic example of a "political party" which really exists in name only. It contested one local election, with a single candidate, oven ten years ago, and received about the same about of votes that trivial candidates in local elections usually do. It makes no attempt to engage with the political discourse of the country, has a nominal policy of not competing in European elections but doesn't compete in the others either, and has fewer members than the average Scout group. It's the political equivalent of a micronation. Shimgray | talk | 21:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hadrosaur#Diet. The arguments for merging weren't refuted by the keep votes. Many keep votes simply said that the article was well written, which didn't adress the concerns of the deleters. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study[edit]

2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a well-made and well-sourced article on a paper which itself is non-notable. Parts of the content should probably be merged to Hadrosaur#Diet. However, Wikipedia isn't the place for articles on individual papers on extinct genera, or we would already have thousands of articles on scientific papers. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to mention 9 Google hits 0 Google scholar hits. This paper may be notable someday, but it is not notable at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the search is only on the long-hand exact title there are a few number of hits, but if you used more general terms to search for this specific study, you'd find a whole lot more results. That's another reason I reverted the name back to its original, shorter one; naming conventions indicate a more common name would be preferred here... — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I support the change back to the shorter title. "Quantitative analysis of dental microwear in hadrosaurid dinosaurs, and the implications for hypotheses of jaw mechanics and feeding" wasn't an appropriate title for a Wikipedia article. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The study is quite notable and has received a lot of attention. The article itself is high quality. There's no good justification for deleting it. Abyssal (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where has it been noted? And where has it received attention? I am normally an inclusionist, but I can't find any evidence that this paper has received much attention at this time. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and rename:As it stands, this article is not encyclopedic, and instead belongs on another Wikimedia project. It reads like a well-written news article, so it belongs in Wikinews, not in an encyclopedia, where it is our job to provide concise information on hadrosaurid dinosaurs and their diets, and not give undue attention to one particular study out of dozens written on this topic. --Spotty 11222 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article's title was originally much shorter, before being moved to this longer title. There's definitely worthwhile content here, but I feel an article coving just the one paper is inefficient, sets a bad precedent (because how many papers have been written about extinct animals? Should we have articles for all of them? Slippery slope... ), and is ultimately unencyclopedic (because not even specialized dinosaur encyclopedias contain this level of detail). Firsfron of Ronchester 23:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a shame that the hard work should be destroyed but an entire article on one study is problematic. There are no other palaeontology articles I know of that are souly about one study. Anyway science isn't about any single study, it's about many studies in combanation. This study isn't the end of the debate and other researchers have yet to have their opinions about it published, so it doesn't make sence to give this one special attention. But I agree with suggestions that some of this could be salvaged and turned into an article about Hadrosaur chewing and Diet research or the Diet section in Hadrosaurid could be expanded to include some of this info. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well cited with legitimate sources, which I believe by themselves indicate the article's notability. Not only were the findings themselves in this study very significant, but the method used to learn them was innovative and will be used in future studies. The article is really more about this important scientific study and what was learned, moreso than simply the journal article itself. But even if it were focused on the article itself, that wouldn't be all that outrageous; there are Wikipedia articles about journal articles out there. Obviously not every journal article in the world will warrant a Wikipedia article, but some will, and attention from nonbiased, legitimate, third party sources (i.e., the media) are a good indication of which ones are deserving. And finally, for me it all comes back to the question: is Wikipedia worse off, or better off, having this article? If somebody decided to look up this information on Wikipedia, what's the harm of having a page about it? I would argue Wikipedia is better for having it, not worse, so even putting aside all my other arguments I'd say screw it and let the article stay... (Please note: I also restored the name back to its original, shortened name.) — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the sourcing and work you've done on this article. This is truly beautiful work, and it belongs somewhere on Wikipedia. However, none of the sources listed appear to even mention the journal article's title by name. In other words, they're news stories which report that there's been a new study, and what the study finds, without even naming the study: they're less about the study, and more about the concept. That's why I'd support a merger into an article about hadrosaurid diet. But there are dozens of such studies every year, even studies which are widely reported in the press. That doesn't make the studies themselves notable: these AP articles are just news items announcing a new paper, the name of the paper itself apparently unprintworthy. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a way, I think you're making my case for me. You're saying these articles aren't only about the paper, but about the entire study in general. That's exactly what this article is about (not just a single article, but the hypotheses, the method, the findings, its relevance with regard to other studies, the whole she-bang). That's why I think this article is warranted; it's about more than just a single journal article; but at the same time, that doesn't mean it doesn't all fall under the umbrella of a this specifc Purnell study. Obviously, all these articles and sources about this study; they weren't just randomly written articles about hadrosaur eating habits in general. (That's why I think the title as it was before wasn't accurate, because it made it seem like the scope was limited to just this one article.) But I don't want to get this AFD too bogged down in a point-counterpoint discussion between two people, and I don't think it's fair to respond to every single person I disagree with. I've said my peace and would rather hear other people say theirs. — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The scope of the article as it is now is very limited. It concerns just one study, while an article which discusses many different hadrosaur feeding studies would be more balanced. This article gives undue weight to one very recent study, without the benefit of time. We don't know what aspects of this paper will be accepted by the scientific community and what portions revised by later authors. Above, you link to Category:Journal articles. But the papers in that category are ones which appear to have stood the test of time. The first one I clicked on apparently "form[s] the foundation of chemical thermodynamics as well as a large part of physical chemistry" while another "was the first publication which described the discovery of the double helix structure of DNA". This paper doesn't fall in that league. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with hadrosaurid or any other relevant article. There's good content here, but the study itself certainly doesn't merit an article. Alternatively, if there is too much information to merge, create an article on hadrosaurid feeding based on this content. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it Hadrosaur diet or Hadrosaurid feeding per mgiganteus1 (basically a daughter article of Hadrosaurid) and make its focus slightly more general, and less a discussion only of a single article. I doubt if the article itself is notable, but the topic certainly is, and probably the article is too long to merge into Hadrosaurid. Ecphora (talk) 01:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see I used the word "article" confusingly to refer to the Wikipedia article and the journal article; but I think my point got through, the journal article may not be notable, but a Wikipedia article on the general topic would be. Ecphora (talk) 01:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also like to quick point out I don't think a merge is the appropriate action because this study itself (not just the paper, the whole study) meets notability standards (verifiable, legitimate sources, etc.). If it didn't, a merge into a feeding article would be appropriate because the study couldn't sustain it's own article. But in this case, I feel it does. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability and verifiability are two different things. If we created an article on every dinosaur study that received media attention, we'd have hundreds of such pages. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've responded to you here, so that I don't bog down this page too much... — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't split up the discussion in multiple places. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:36, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. I was trying to avoid responding point-by-point because I thought it was unfair, but that seems to be the direction we've headed, so I've copy and pasted my exact statement to Mgiganteus1 below:
Hey mgiganteus1. I wanted to respond to your comment about the notability of 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study here, since I said on the AFD that I didn't want to get into a point-counterpoint thing there, as I don't think it's really fair. And don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to be difficult; I think AFD (and all Wikipedia) should involve a healthy debate between intelligent people, not just fighting. Anyway, I agree that you're right about the difference between verifiability and notability, but I think at least a passing review at the General Notability Guideline indicates that it passes. 1) Significant coverage. It has received significant coverage, not only in the press but in other sources. (Heck, the journal article itself indicates this, as this article is more about the study than just the article.) 2) Reliable I don't think anyone is questioning that. 3) Sources The sources are secondary and reliable, and there are multiple ones. 4) Independent of the subject I've deliberately not cited the actual article as it is not independent, but there is still no shortage of sources. And of course, #5 is Presumed, which is the one we're debating now at AFD. — Hunter Kahn (c) 01:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this wikipedia article is on a subject that is notable both for the methods used in the study and the topic of the study. If one day there are hundreds of such articles, that could only be of benefit.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, this is absurd. I for one am not going to be responsible for hundreds of useless wiki articles that could be summed up in to one, or even a paragraph. This study isn't On the Origin of Species which changed many people thinking about Life. A few months back a study came out saying that based on energy expenditure of sauropod necks that they would probably hold ther necks horrizontal. It got a lot of media attention. A few weeks later another study on sauropod necks comes out saying that sauropods probably habitually held there necks errect because thats what most modern day animals do. It got even more media exposure, the authors wrote 10 blog posts and have entire page dedicated to the press coverage of the paper. Neither of these studies deserve an entire wiki article and on their own are not notable. Both studes say the exact opposite and to write a wiki artile from the POV of one of them is misleading. Any one study is not special, this is not how sciecne works.
  • Either delete the article and move some of the content elsewere or do a major rewrite and change and remove the POV so it becomes and article about the genral debate over hadrosaur feeding and chewing as per mgiganteus1 and Ecphora (talk). Also I don't like the fact that all of the sources are media reports. Those are Not reliable sources for science stories. The media nearly always screw them up, miss the point, reinterpret them in their own special way. This is exactly what the media do, they treat every new study as if it's the current thinking for science and it's hugly important, ignoring every study that has come before. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They aren't all media sources. Most of them are, but even so, newspaper articles are acceptable as verifiable Wikipedia sources. — Hunter Kahn (c) 13:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about what is acceptable source by wiki standards it's about the accuracy of those sources. In any science article it doesn't make sence to use anything other and primary or good secondary sources. Ultimately what matters is what the researchers publish and what other researchers publish and not what the media interprets or in some case fabricate.(I'm not implying that the reporting of this particular study is inaccurate, to be honest I havn't read the media reports on this study.) For the record I currently have no problem with keeping the article only if it's is renamed and rewritten to include the entire debate on hadrosaur feeding and diet. If this doesn't happen then it should be deleted. By the way I really apreachiate the time and effort you put into this article and I hope that you'll help out with other paleo articles in the future. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to hadrosaurid feeding in the hope that will encourage restructuring and broadening to eventually become an impartial review of the research in this field rather than giving undue weight to the methods, results and conclusions of this single study. Qwfp (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of this study appears to be established by reliable and secondary sources, am I missing something? We have articles on studies, journals, books, collections, single experiments and any other thing editors care to write, editors once thought to bring them here for discussion. I understand the surprise they may cause, but we can have articles on papers because we are not paper. If someone wants to use secondary sources to write an article about a single study of an extinct genus, or family, I don't see the issue. This content should not be merged or moved to any of the suggestions above, that is when problems of POV would emerge. If the reason for deletion is no longer lack of notability (or "undue weight"), is it now the period of time since the results were published? cygnis insignis 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, noting Hunter, Abyssal, Toddy1, and the keep/merge reasons, but using the Abyssal solution: keep this, create new. As a recent publication, the content would only present difficulties when merged. cygnis insignis 15:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet, or rename to Hadrosaur diet. The distinction is: the diet of the hardrosaur is notable because of the paper. The paper itself isn't. Sceptre (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steveoc and merge the info as suggested above. I appreciate the effort put into the article, but a precedent has to be set. As a new study the article smacks of undue weight, and there has not been sufficient time for the scientific community to weigh in with their opinions on what is currently the theory of one research group. Sasata (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename per Qwfp. It really wouldn't work out within Hadrosaur at this time, because it would overwhelm the current article. However, it could make a really useful part of a dedicated paleobiological article. Hadrosaur feeding is a complex topic that has undergone numerous revisions since the late 1800s, starting with Edward Drinker Cope's interpretation of an Anatotitan to show that hadrosaurids were water-plant gummers, to the discovery of "mummies" that included fragments of plants in their guts, and following to several landmark studies of hadrosaurs (Lull and Wright 1942, Ostrom 1964, Weishampel 1984) and the summation in Bakker's The Dinosaur Heresies, to the present, where we've got studies from the back end of the dinosaurs (Karen Chin on probable Maiasaura coprolites with evidence for feeding on rotted wood), from the middle of the dinosaurs (Tweet et al on Brachylophosaurus), to the business end (computer modeling saying the upper jaws were immobile, and now this microwear study saying that they were). If no one minds the esoteric nature of the subject, that's more than enough for a featured article.
Having said that, there is something that made be a big issue with the article as it stands currently, and that is the news sources. I noticed in the discussion of the Tweet et al work that a 2009 MSNBC article reported the brachylophosaur as having a variety of stuff in its guts, when the research paper reported the opposite: a homogeneous mass of millimeter-scale leaf fragments. The 2008 MSNBC report also cited did not make this mistake, though. Apparently the more recent article included the pollen information with the leaf information, or accidentally used the information from a different specimen. It's not something that Hunter Kahn got wrong, but the MSNBC source itself, and I worry about other inaccuracies. I haven't gotten a chance to see this new research article, yet, but once I do I'll be happy to check this through. J. Spencer (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(plus to above): I'm not in favor of articles for individual papers at this time, unless they are of great import (which can usually only be realized in hindsight). The problem I see is that the information will get fragmented and each study will become an island unto itself. I'm in favor of a wider framework to bring individual studies into some kind of context. J. Spencer (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favor of articles that establish "some kind of context," but there's no reason we can't create an article about hadrosaur diet in general and keep this article about a particular study relevant to the subject. Abyssal (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, large article covered by several sources. I see no reason to delete because there is thought to be nothing similar. --candle•wicke 19:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's arguing that it should be deleted because there's nothing similar to it; several people are arguing that it should be merged because it gives undue weight to one very recent paper, out of many thousands on extinct animals. There's no evidence that this paper, out of so many, deserves this special attention. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I want to point out my strong belief that this article isn't only about one paper but about the entire scope of the study. The findings, the method, the publication, the comparison to other cases, the ramifications, the confirmation of previous theories, etc etc. — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every paper has a study behind it. There are currently 1247 named dinosaurs, each one with a paper describing it, most with subsequent papers studying them. We're talking easily 10,000 papers/studies. What makes this one stand out? What makes this one special? The fact that it was picked up by the press? That happens every few weeks. The press reports aren't even very accurate, as J. mentioned above. WP:DINO has long had an informal policy that articles based on popular press pieces were not a great idea because the reporters writing them don't know what they're writing about, and that articles should be based instead on peer-reviewed papers. Perhaps it's time to set that policy in stone. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Does the fact that the press covers something count for nothing though? Whether they do accurately or inaccurately (in any case, not specifically this), press coverage increases interest/attention from the general public, the subject is highlighted (it may seem unusual to those who deal with the topic every day but that's up to what captures the imagination of the press), more sources are available and the subject becomes more memorable by more people (particularly those who are not experts on the topic) than those which are not picked up by the press... --candle•wicke 20:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly all the recent papers on new genera are being picked up by the press now. I fear this will condemn us to the hell of having to make an article for each new taxon and the paper announcing each new taxon. That is insane. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's great that the Wikiproject is so active and have no doubt you guys are improving this encyclopedia every day. Even so, I find the argument that we shouldn't condone an article because it might lead to more articles troubling. The idea that it will become slightly more difficult to maintain a larger number of articles strikes me as a terrible argument for not including worthy works on Wikipedia. — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your article is really great. And it should be included somewhere. As part of a larger article on hadrosaur studies, for example, where it can be balanced by other papers. But keeping this as-is will open a can of worms ("this paper is standalone, so why can't we have more like it?"). People are always coming up with brilliant ideas, like rating each WP:DINO article on a quality scale, or adding placeholder images to dozens of articles, etc. The regular project members say "This is a bad idea, it can't be supported, it's not going to be maintained." but it's done anyway. The result is we end up having to clean up after abandoned projects that were supposed to "improve" the content. I've seen it a dozen times, and I'm not the only one who has this reservation. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree to disagree with you on this, but I'd like to add one thing: I don't think it will open a can of worms. First of all, I think you're giving me too much credit that I would start some sort of trend. :D But more substantially, anyone who tried to say "this paper is standalone, so why not more like it?" would be violating Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. If there were other study articles that pop up (which I still think would be a good thing), they'd have to prove notability and meet Wikipedia standards on their own... — Hunter Kahn (c) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I really don't want this to drag on, you have to realise that there are hundreds of thousands of science papers that exist. Why is this one paper on Hadrosaur chewing even remotely notable enough to have an entire article written about it. I'd say that J. Spencer is the most qualified person currently on wikipdia to handle this but I dont expect him to go out of his way to deal with this article. The article as it stand is ignoring 100 years of debate on this topic and focusing on just one study that got a little bit of media attention. What about other papers on hadrosaur chewing. Would you seriously expect to have 50 articles each with relatively unimportant sections, like the publication, and many of these wiki articles saying the same things over and over, each one compering each paper to every other paper. All we need is one artile covering this topic. I'd be happy if this got a major rewrite, but as it stands it can't stay. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please address some of the points made above, this isn't as simple as just sources or no sources. It's about notability, usfullness and undue weight. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, notability as we define it here is purely based on sources, although judging the sources is subjective. In my opinion, the sources are sufficient to establish notability. That's pretty much the end of this AfD. It's notable, and merging or renaming or whatever is an editorial decision to be made later. Usefullness is subjective, and I don't have a lot of use for dino info myself, but it's fine for a paperless encyclopedia. Enough people care: as shown by the sources. - Whoops, gotta go. I'll try and address UNDUE later. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)
UNDUE is about imbalancing articles, compared to what secondary and tertiary sources say about the subject. It's not about wikipedia as a whole having too much coverage of a particular subject. So UNDUE does not apply. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(contribs) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - excellent article; multiple secondary sources establish notability of subject. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources included even name the paper involved in the study; the study could be included as part of a larger article on hadrosaurs, but the secondary sources don't establish the notability of the current subject if they don't even note the title of the paper which reports the findings of the study. The articles included in Category:Journal articles have references which mention the article's title; this doesn't. Notability hasn't been established. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'm repeating myself, but this article is about the study, not just the paper. Additionally, there are in fact sources that that include the name of the paper (here), not that I find that argument particularly relevant anyway; it's obvious the subject of the articles is this study, and they don't mention the paper by name because it's a mouthful for readers. As for notability, secondary sources like these have long been established as acceptable for establishing notability. I still haven't heard any real argument as to why this article doesn't meet notability standards. I've heard people say they don't think a journal article merits its own Wikipedia entry, or that they are worried about an unflux of similar articles that will be difficult to maintain, all of which strikes me as a bit too WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But if you look at the general notability guidelines (which includes general coverage, reliable, sources, independent of the subject) it seems to me to fit the bill. — Hunter Kahn (c) 14:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as we would expect a source providing notability for a person to include basic information like the person's name, it seems to me we should expect the same for a paper. You may not feel that's a "real" argument, but I don't agree. You link to IDONTLIKEIT, but I've already stated I like the article. But it is not balanced, doesn't provide for a WP:NPOV discussion of hadrosaur chewing (because it's only about the one study, and thus can't address other studies), and thus gives undue weight to its subject. A broader, merged article would give some balance where it's needed. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Hunter Kahn. The sources are all specifically about the study and the paper. Each of them mentions the journal and the researchers by name. For example, PlanetEarth Online article says "Purnell, along with graduate student Vince Williams and Dr Paul Barrett from the Natural History Museum, found an overlooked piece of evidence: tiny scratches on the dinosaur's teeth ... The results, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ..."; MSNBC says "The researchers behind the study, published online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... Purnell and his colleagues ..."; LIveScience says "The results, which are published online this week in the early edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences ... paleontologist Mark Purnell of the University of Leicester in England and his colleagues ...". Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources = notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree. It's not about wikis standards on notability. It's about it's Scientific notability (untill other researchers have published opinions on this, it is no more notable than other studies), the style of the article and its undue weight (people are forgeting that!) to one study. Read Edmontosaurus, this is the style of a science article. Hunter's article is more like a news story. Just because a study gets some press coverage doesn't mean it needs an entire wiki article. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. This sub-thread was started by Firsfron of Ronchester disagreeing with my statement "multiple secondary sources establish notability of subject", and I definitely (and obviously) meant Wikipedia's notability guideline when I wrote that. If you want to play with your own definition of notability, take it somewhere else! Gandalf61 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands currently, this article is not up to Wikipedia standards. Why not have hundreds of thousands of articles on other "noteworthy" journal articles. You might as well create an article that describes the three new Australian dinosaurs. This gives undue weight to one specific study. Even if it does incorporate other studies, however, it still focuses on this one study, and no other Wikipedia article is like this. This isn't about notability so much as undue weight. If the article begins to encompass all of hadrosaurid feeding, then it would be equal and fair, and not focus only on one specific study. Why not have articles on the other two dozen journal articles that describe hadrosaurid feeding mechanisms? It simply doesn't make sense to do it that way. This should be renamed and encompass all of hadrosaurid feeding and the history of the study of it, not just one story that just happened to get media attention. That alone doesn't make it worthy as a stand-alone and it makes Wikipedia look like Wikinews, where this article (as it is) belongs. --Spotty 11222 15:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This argument is a prime example of What about article x?, which is listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Saying "There are not Wikipedia entries other journal articles, so this one should be deleted" isn't a valid point. And I suppose I should respond the undue weight argument. I obviously don't think it gives the study undue weight. It's pretty clear in the context Wikipedia entry that this is a study, and thus comes with the same understandings and limits of any study. In fact, I went out of my way to point out that certain elements of the findings are still the subject for debate, specifically so I wouldn't give it undue weight... — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Hadrosaur diet. A well made article; it probably goes into more detail than a print encyclopedia would, but it isn't like we're running out of space so we need to be deleting information. If further studies are made of hadrosaur diet, information from them can be added. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As per other comments, may benefit from renaming and a little reworking, but a sound article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet or rename to Hadrosaur diet, with a slight preference for the latter (are you getting all this down, closing admin?) due to its greater length than Hadrosaur. I wouldn't actually say that this has 'significant coverage' because the newspaper articles are not about the study itself but about its findings. To reuse an example from above: a newspaper article saying "The Origin of Species has had a huge impact on science" supports the notability of the book; one saying "Species change through natural selection, as reported in the Origin of Species" gives notability to natural selection but not to the book. I think the sources given here are more analogous to the latter than the former, and my feeling is that the quotes given above by Gandalf are at the level of "...as reported in the Origin of Species, which was written by Charles Darwin and used data about finches" but not at the level of "Charles Darwin wrote OOS using finch data and it was important".
But even if you disagree and think this does constitute significant coverage, I'd argue that this is a case for making an exception per the GNG which says "Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article." Really, if the notability guidelines conclude that any scientific study is worth an article just because lots of science journalists have decided to cover it I think it indicates a weakness of the guidelines. And I do think Gandalf's interpretation of those quotes would conclude that - journalists put similar sentences in tons of articles about scientific studies.
All that said, it's a very nice article with a lot of information appropriate for the encyclopedia so merging or renaming it is preferable to deletion. We needn't even lose anything, since methodology of studies about Hadrosaur diet is perfectly appropriate for a Hadrosaur diet article. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One thought about the idea of merging: Suppose we created a Hadrosaur diet article and merged this into it. If so, that diet article would have a whole lot of info on this study, and not much else. I would argue that the study would then be given undue weight, moreso than in its own seperate article, because the amount of information regarding the study would so severely outnumber the amount of information for any previous studies. (I believe this is what cygnis insignis (talk · contribs) might have been saying above, but I don't want to speak for him.) I think a Hadrosaur diet article would be a good idea, but I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Rather than merge this study into a diet article, I think the better method would be to start working on the diet article (which I'd be happy to do), get as many studies and viewpoints into it as we can, and then go back and determine whether this 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study has to go. (And even in that case, I'm not so sure it should be deleted. The overall diet article could have a brief amount of information on this study, and then if readers want to learn more about it, they can go to the main article specifically about the study. Again, the two aren't mutually exclusive...) — Hunter Kahn (c) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My feeling is that starting off the hadrosaur diet article now with a heavy weighting on this article but an expectation of broadening it in future is OK: I'd rather see an article that doesn't yet match its ideal, Wikipedia-as-a-finished-product scope than one which shouldn't exist in W-a-a-f-p; I think the former is easier to correct by cumulative additions from people thinking "why doesn't this talk about X?" than the latter. That's a personal view though, and I'm not sure if policy or consensus are with me. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Move to one of the articles proposed above. A study is not deserving of its own article except for extreme circumstances. Many thousands of peer-reviewed papers on studies are published every year, and maybe hundreds of these receive press coverage; however, this does not confer notability on the study, but rather the topic of the study. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue this article is on the topic of this specific study. But even putting that aside, can you tell me what notability standards this article doesn't match up to? — Hunter Kahn (c) 18:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not arguing for deletion (few are), but there is WP:NTEMP: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Qwfp (talk) 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article already has some non-news article sources that indicate its more than just a short burst. The publication of the study, too, indicates it's more than that, although I deliberately didn't cite that as a source since I wanted to limit the sources to those independent of the subject... — Hunter Kahn (c) 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not trying to be obtuse, but which sources? I can't spot any references myself that are non-news sources, about this particular study, and independent of the subject. Qwfp (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Refs 8 & 9 aren't non news sources. I think more sources will be available in the near future. That's another thing to keep in mind, this article is still fairly new... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ref 8 is an abstract of a talk by Vince Williams, one of the study's co-authors, so not independent. Ref 9 is a ref for one of the previous studies mentioned in the "Comparison to other cases" section, so doesn't mention this study and therefore has no bearing on its notability. It does bear on the notability of "Hadrosaur(id) feeding / Hadrosaur diet" as a topic, and i'm arguing it would be better to have an article about the topic, not this particular study. Qwfp (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and rescope to something like Hadrosaur feeding, discussing not only the one journal article, but also using other WP:RS that discuss hadrosaur mastication and diet. LadyofShalott 19:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The study is already discussed at Hadrosaur#Diet, and any additional relevant material can be added there. If the section becomes unwieldy, a spin-out article (Hadrosaur diet or similar), making use of all research on the subject, can be created in accordance with WP:SPLIT. Articles such as this, treating individual recent studies as though they were the ne plus ultra of research, are a Bad Idea. Deor (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added the bit that's at Hadrosaur, but kept it to a minimal. Putting a small amount of information about the study in Hadrosaur#Diet, then keeping the rest in a separate article, strikes me as far preferable to just plopping it all in the Hadrosaur article and letting it overwhelm that article... — Hunter Kahn (c) 21:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Dietary habits of hadrosaurs, based on LadyofShalott, HunterKahn and Deor. The title is inappropriate, akin more to the July 2009 Urumqi riots. Rename and thus enlarge the scope of this article to the subject matter it discusses so well already. Shiva (Visnu) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:' Article is well sourced and well structured. The Flash {talk} 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per the issues raised by Spotty11222, Firsfron of Ronchester, etc. This article while well written is is POV towards Hardosaur feeding methods. It should be renamed and expanded to reflect the fuller spectrum of research which has been made regarding this subject.--Kevmin (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Hadrosaur#Diet. Wikipedia absolutely is not a place for an encyclopedia article about every journal article someone published. Whoop-de-doo: Two scientists spent a year studying something and wrote it up. Shall I write an encyclopedia article about each journal article I and associates published? I think not! Do you have any concept of how many journal articles equal to or better than this are published every year? Edison (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your argument smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Regardless of whether you think it's a worthwhile subject, if it meets notability standards, it's worthy of an entry. — Hunter Kahn (c) 03:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it doesn't. We're not saying we don't like or disprove of the actual study, just the article as a stand-alone. As it is, this article is very suitable for Wikinews, where this really belongs, and not in an encyclopedia. --Spotty 11222 11:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But again, not to belabor the point, this doesn't address what general notability guidelines fails to meet. General coverage? Reliable? Sources? Independent of the subject? When you look at those, it seems to me to meet them. To say "this article doesn't belong in Wikipedia" is one opinion, but isn't a sufficient argument for inclusion (per WP:UNENCYC or WP:IDONTLIKEIT). — Hunter Kahn (c) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge The result is notable as oart ofwhat is known about the animal, not the particular study. The information goes in the main article, & is already in the one on the principal investigator. Individual scientific projects if less than major expeditions of very large scale multi-center studies are not notable for an encyclopedia--the knowledge of the subject that they gain is what's notable. There are many interesting results on many animal from the microscopic examination of dental wear, and the discussion goes with the subject studied. DGG (talk) 04:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Hadrosaur#Diet. No particular scientific publication deserves that long an article on its own. A Wikipedia article should be about the science and not the scientific publication (except when the publication itself is of historical interest). Ollivier (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll just again note that I don't think people saying that a scientific study doesn't warrant it's own Wikipedia entry is a sufficient AFD argument. If there are verifible sources, and if general notability standards are met, that is the basis for whether it warrants an article, not a judgment from individual Wikipedia contributors as to whether something is articleworthy. (This is as per WP:UNENCYC, which states, "It is insufficient to simply assert that an article (or the subject of an article) is not appropriate for Wikipedia." And per, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which states "While some editors may dislike certain kinds of information, that alone isn't enough by itself for something to be deleted. ... Such claims require an explanation of which policy the content fails and explanation of why that policy applies as the rationale for deletion."') — Hunter Kahn (c) 02:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a lot of repetitive policy-quoting going on here. The point is that policies can not possibly list every subject which is non-notable. The simple fact remains that there are news sources which talk about a study of a subject. Does this confer notability to the study?
Let us take a similar, hypothetical situation. Astronomer John Doe studies the star Anonymous Prime and discovers evidence of a planetary system capable of supporting life. This study, and the paper announcing its results, are covered in major news outlets, and are talked about all over the world. This is a clear indication of notability. However, what would the article be on? 2009 Anonymous Prime planetary study? NO. It would be on Anonymous Prime, or Anonymous Prime planetary system.
Since the creator of this article quotes so many WP's, allow me to add my own: WP:Use common sense. The point of Wikipedia is to provide a summary of all scholarly knowledge in the world, and to arrange it logically for ease of use and in a balanced way. If we had a separate article on all the studies of a subject, the same information, or even worse, contradictory information would be contained about a single subject in many different areas, against the basic spirit of Wikipedia.
Without saying that this would set a bad precedent, I will say it is a bad idea in this and almost every other case I can think of. Let's work together on that Hadrosaur diet article, shall we? -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 07:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been waiting for someone to bring up WP:COMMON, as in my experience it's often the last resort after notability can't be disputed. ;) In seriousness though, you make a good point. However, I've always maintained that a Hadrosaur diet article can and should be made, but that Hadrosaur diet and 2008–2009 hadrosaur chewing study don't have to be mutually exclusive. There should be an overarching article about diets in general that include elements from lots of different studies or findings, and in the context of that article, this study should be discussed in a succinct way. But then if a reader wanted more information about that specific study, they could go to the main article about it. As you yourself said, Wikipedia is meant to "provide a summary of all scholarly knowledge in the world". Using this approach, we're meeting that charge by providing as much knowledge to the reader as we can. As long as the article about the study is presented in the proper context (it's already clear in this article that it is a study, not definitive fact, and even indicates what areas are still subject to debate), and especially because the study is notable beyond just its findings (the methodology used is completely unique, the way the study was conducted can be used in future studies), then a stand-alone Wikipedia entry about the study as well as a larger Hadrosaur article is appropriate. — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, but of course, WP:COMMON is the favorite policy of us deletionists. :-D -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, for what it's worth, I just added a new source that puts a little more perspective on the relevance of this study. I expect more sources like this will be popping up over the next few weeks/months... — Hunter Kahn (c) 15:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - the coverage really makes it a news item and nota the subject for an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment much as i would like to increase the coverage of science in Wikipedia , I do not think that news sources about a particular study make that particular study, as distinct form the underlying subject, notable. I would reserve the coverage of individual papers of this sort to those which are the subject of later historical discussions. The rationale is the same as NOIT NEWS--we're at the mercy of temporary interests and fads. Not that thissort of work is a fad, but it is one part of what is known about the general topic. Nobody is going to come looking for a topic like this: they would come looking for Hadrosaur, or possibly Hadrosaur diet, or the article(s) of the scientists involved. DGG (talk) 21:15, 11 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rermrat Ngamchareon[edit]

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

non-notable player playing in a league that isn't professional Spiderone (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 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 boldly closed per WP:SNOW, since nobody, including the original nominator, has come forth with an argument for deletion. No prejudice against renomination with valid reasoning. NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny Blonde[edit]

Skinny_Blonde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])
Comment the nominator (an anonomous editor) has not supplied any reasons as to why this article should be deleted. The AfD tag should be removed if no reasons for its impostion can be provided. 01:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I created this article only after learning about the subject from a reliable source. There are already several reliable sources given which establish notability, and there appear to be many other sources out there on Google. Compared to many of the other articles in its immediate category, this article is already better sourced. -- əʌləʍʇ əuo-ʎʇuəʍʇ ssnɔsıp 07:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - concur with the points raised above. It should not have been included for AfD in the first place. Dan arndt (talk) 09:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the points raised above. Apart from being a stub, the article is generally fine. There is no need for deletion and I do not know why it was listed for AfD. Andrewmc123 (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supawut Nontapaoraya[edit]

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

Non-notable youth player who hasn't played professional football Spiderone (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suphat Onthong[edit]

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

Non-notable footballer Spiderone (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thewa Srithamanusarn[edit]

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

non-notable footballer, like the others I've nominated Spiderone (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (X! · talk)  · @450  ·  09:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire[edit]

Wars in A Song of Ice and Fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


No third party sourcing and unlikely to be any substantial third party work to support a viable article about wars in a fictional series. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trim and Keep or merge - presumably the wars have in universe notability and there is no consensus that real world notability is required for individual elements of fiction. The article contains excessive detail, but that is a problem that can be solved via editing not deletion. Usually merging is the best option for this type of article, so I would certainly support that. However, the information relevant to the novel's universe should be preserved in one fashion or another. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 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 as he clearly meets WP:ATHLETE, having played international football. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zami Mohd Noor[edit]

Zami Mohd Noor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability, poorly written, impossible to find sources etc. Spiderone (talk) 17:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:27, 6 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. BJTalk 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VH1's 100 greatest songs of the '90s[edit]

AfDs for this article:
VH1's 100 greatest songs of the '90s (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subjective list, criteria for inclusion dependent only on what the programme-makers thought would fill an hour or so of telly and attract advertising, possible copyright violation. This will never be more than it is now, and its presence in Wikipedia serves only as an advert for the show from which it is taken.  pablohablo. 08:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What Tavix said. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 22:10, 9 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

S'Quarrels[edit]

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

Card game that does not appear to be notable. I found an entry at Boardgamegeek for the game, but that was the only source I found other than the game's own site. Suggest deleting without prejudice so it can be recreated when sufficient notability is established. bonadea contributions talk 08:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is not understood why this would not be considered for Wikipedia. I undestand the reasons for a need of notability, however this game is a growing design. Please do not deleat this article as it has been requested from other sources to be on this site. If there is something on the page that needs to be repaired please let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couggar (talk • contribs) 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable based on the complete absence of independent coverage in reliable sources. Nuttah (talk) 19:32, 6 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 Pastor Theo (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cap Ball[edit]

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

Subject is not notable. Also, WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:ONEDAY, with only source linking to personal blog. SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:31, 6 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. BJTalk 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grazielle Oganna[edit]

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO, no third party coverage [53]. article has existed for almost 5 years with no substantial establishment of notability. LibStar (talk) 07:01, 6 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. Blanked by creator (G7). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare phase[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability guideline. This would need sources and information from neutral sources, instead of just the author, who appears to be the sole contributor. Kotiwalo (talk) 06:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I haven't checked GOOG but certainly this would not be difficult to recreate if deleted but justfiable for inclusion later. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Parkerparked (talk) 11:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article revision alone justify the deletion. Wikipedia is not the place for promoting homemade manga. The article creator is the same one of that manga plus its sole contributions are on this article Special:Contributions/ShadowLovely. Clear case of self promotion. --KrebMarkt 12:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:NFT. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filtering to just applicable uses of the title isn't the easiest process in the world, but this self-published work does not seem to have received any attention at all, let alone from the reliable sources Wikipedia guidelines require. Fails WP:BK = delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT, also fails Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). --Junius49 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Was not trying to self promote manga. This page was requested by several readers. Did not mean to violate any guidelines and would love to know how to fix.--ShadowLovely 9:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • 1) You can start by striking the "keep" vote. 2) Acquaint yourself with WP:COI as well as the aforementioned WP:NFT. 3) And you can stop calling it "manga," it isn't no matter how hard you call it that. At BEST it would be OEL manga, though I object to the very existence of that term (if it isn't Japanese, its a comic). 159.182.1.4 (talk) 18:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To have the article kept, you need to show that the work meets one of the inclusion guidelines for books, which in this case almost certainly means the first one: that multiple third-party (people who are not connected with the publication and so have no stake in promoting it) reliable sources have talked about the work, be it in published reviews or scholarly analysis. Since these disucssions last five days, you have a couple more; if you can't complete that in the time limit, you can always request that the closing administrator copy the article to your userspace before it's deleted. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for any confusion or inconvenience my article caused. I use the term manga because not many people are educated to the proper terms about comics, manga, and other literature. If it's this big of a deal, I will remove the page, no harm done to me. Like I stated previously, this wasn't to promote anything, simply requested by some readers. ShadowLovely (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day and Wikipedia is not a webhost. I also recommend deleting the article creator's userpage because Wikipedia is not a repository of links. --Farix (Talk) 03:38, 9 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. Shereth 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter McEvoy (disambiguation)[edit]

Peter McEvoy (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is only one Peter McEvoy, this page is unnecessary. michfan2123 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? I'm sure that there are many. There are at least three to disambiguate: the two already listed (the Australian one is more commonly known as a producer rather than a journalist), and the one involved in the Walsh Street police shootings (who, per Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?, warrants a redirect). That's two things that would have articles by the title Peter McEvoy, and third that would have a redirect at that title, which seems to be quite proper grounds for a disambiguation article. Uncle G (talk) 06:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one article linked from the dab page; Walsh Street can be handled by a hatnote on Peter McEvoy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That deals with only two of the three. What about the producer? Uncle G (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Things that don't have Wikipedia articles don't need to be disambiguated by Wikipedia disambiguation pages. I also did not deal with any of the infinite other possible "Peter McEvoy (some other occupation)" red links. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The other infinite possible redlinks are not the issue, though. The issue is the specific subject asked about. Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is only one Peter McEvoy article on Wikipedia so this is totally useless. If it's ever needed it can be re-created in less than a minute. Drawn Some (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G6 as this should be uncontroversial housekeeping unless anything new comes to light. Tavix |  Talk  22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the state of this very discussion page even at the time that you added to it one could deduce that it is not uncontroversial. It's always wise to read prior discussion before adding to it. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dab pages should have at least three bluelinks. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At least two (base-name no-primary-topic dab might have just two). -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Changing my !vote as there are now three plausibly-related bluelinks on the page. I don't insist that the links actually have to be to articles with the name Peter McEvoy as long as there is some likelihood that a link somewhere else might go to the wrong Peter McEvoy and need to be disambiguated. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I expanded the disambiguation page to three entries: primary topic and two others. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neither of the articles you linked to are likely to ever be titled "Peter McEvoy" or any variation thereof. At this time there is still just one article under that title. Drawn Some (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are three articles linked on the dab page. One of the articles is about the primary topic entry. There are two other entries with no entry-blue-link or entry-red-link, but with links in the description. Yes, they are unlikely to get entry-articles of their own. Yes, the Peter McEvoys mentioned are still ambiguous with the primary topic. So, the disambiguation page is necessary. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As JHunterJ points out, ambiguity occurs when redirects conflict, just as much as when article titles conflict. There's clearly, as pointed out above, a case for a redirect from, say, Peter McEvoy to Walsh Street police shootings. And even if Peter McEvoy the producer turns out not to warrant a whole article, there's clear indications in sources that he, too, will warrant at least a redirect somewhere. Media Watch, perhaps. (That currently links to Peter McEvoy, notice.) Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. BJTalk 05:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Am a Hotel[edit]

I Am a Hotel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show that this short film passes WP:NF. Iowateen (talk) 06:03, 6 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW and WP:IAR. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–Chile relations[edit]

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

noting the last nomination was a group nomination. neither country has resident embassies, and a distinct lack of actual bilateral coverage, seems almost every mention is with another country [54]. multilateral coverage does not prove notable bilateral relations. Recognition of the Armenian Genocide is adequately covered in its own article. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 6 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 deleted G12 by Wwwwolf (talk · contribs) – Toon 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mod4j[edit]

Mod4j (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod removed without comment. Starting AFD to make it "stick". This appears to be a rather non-notable piece of computer software, and does not appear to pass the WP:N inclusion criteria. Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edenton Bell Battery[edit]

Edenton Bell Battery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's never been clear what this article is about: the artillery unit, or the cannon that belonged to the unit. Either way, it's never had proper sourcing, nor have any articles ever linked to it. Sadly, the creating editor, when queried about these, will only say that questioning its notability is offensive and racist. Not that this is relevant to the AFD, but y'all should know what you're getting into. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdrawing per BusterD's suggestion below. So long as someone's shepherding this article, I'm fine with keeping it (although I think that merging it into Edenton, North Carolina might be better in the long run). BTW, I never thought that it was a hoax; just that it was an orphaned article with no sources or references. Between that and the way it wasn't even clear on its topic (artillery unit or artillery itself?), it wasn't an asset to Wikipedia as-is. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion is not clean-up. The article appears to be about a notable military unit from the United States Civil War. It is referenced to reliable sources. The US civil war is one of the most carefully documented and thoroughly studied events in history; I am fairly confident even more sources exist than even what is listed in the article; however what is already present in the article is enough to consider this a valid subject, even if the article is somewhat confused. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bigtime. Googlebooks turns up lots of RS, and while this page isn't finished, it's a fair first attempt from an editor who identifies himself as fourteen years old. Not biting newbies, this page needs wikilove and citation, not deletion. BusterD (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'd like to commend the nominator of this process, even though we disagree. Editor has shown restraint in helping new user, has made substantial improvements to the article, and has been dealing with a fourteen year old's logic and temper in a patient way. For me, the bottom line is this isn't an apparent hoax, it is a remarkable and verifiable story, and discovery of reliable sources on Google books puts the unit past the notability bar, IMHO. There's substantial room for page growth, and lots of sourcing to seed it. I'll volunteer to make improvements myself, and list it under "expansion needed" at the ACW task force to do list. New user could use some mentoring. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I've roughed in several sources for examination. I'll fix these when I get an evening free later this week. BusterD (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggestion I have zero objections to the way Dori has handled this situ so far, but it might demonstrate good faith and provide a sense of accomplishment to the young user if this nom were to be withdrawn at this point. I pledge to personally watch this page myself and provide the basic cleanup; I'd rather farm this work out to the page creator and will provide guidance if I can be helpful. BusterD (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable battery. Churches donated their bells to be made into cannons. Significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. (At first, I expected it was an article about electricity). Edison (talk) 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there now appears to be quite a few sources about this military unit following rescue work mentioned above. I believe that the article probably meets notability guidelines and can be expanded/improved by interested editors. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:42, 7 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 -- as per consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Household Hacker[edit]

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

Household hacker is, apparently, a group of youtube hoaxers who "teach" their viewers to do things that are impossible, and have been shown to be impossible, such as running a TV set off of a AAA battery (impossible) or charging your ipod with an onion (proven impossible on Mythbusters as noted in the article). Household Hacker fails to meet the notability for web guidelines, as it is not mentioned in any secondary sources. Given this, it is therefore impossible to point out in the article that all (or nearly all) of the HH videos are hoaxes, since this would be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemoWilliams (talk • contribs)

In addition the page is an orphan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemoWilliams (talk • contribs)

  • Keep - I am about to head to bed, so specific sources will have to wait till tomorrow. However, I would like to point out that neither making hoax videos or being an orphan are valid criteria for deletion. The only actual reason cited is "not mentioned in any secondary sources" which is false. A GNews search reveals coverage in several sources. (I'll state which ones I think are significant sources & why tomorrow.) The Household Hacker videoshave been tested by ABC News and (according to the nom) MythBusters. The fact that major sources are testing their "hoax videos" is clear evidence that their videos are notable.
Not mentioned was incorrect, however, in looking through your cites, other than the ABC article about the onion/IPod video, the mentions are only in passing, and I still would argue that the subject is not notable enough for inclusion in WP. In addition my point about the impossibility of writing a substantive article without original research stands. It is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of electrical knowledge, for example, that it is impossible to run a plasma TV on a AAA battery, however, I can't find a cite for it. Also, peanut butter does not remove scratches from CDs, but again, no way to cite without original research. I quote WP:Notability -- "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1]" While the ABC article gives an in-depth debunking of the onion/IPod charging hoax, it does not address the subject of Household Hacker itself in detail, and none of the other sources do, either. RemoWilliams (talk) 11:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)--ThaddeusB (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further rationale/comment on sources: There is no reason the article has to debunk, or even mention, every video the channel has released. Thus, the inability to find sources to debunk every last one is not a valid reason for deletion. Indeed, an encyclopedic article would be far better served by not going into detail about individual videos except for the most notable ones (such as the onion thing). I have checked and it appears Mythbusters have debunked at least there of their videos: iPod onion, High-def speaker for under a $, & Hover shoes. I see no reason that Mythbusters can't be sited as a reliable source. Here are some other sources:
  • ABC News story on iPod onion - clearly in depth coverage
  • La Vanguardia story on iPod onion (4th most read paper in Spain according to Wikipedia) - attempts to explain the popularity despite the obvious fakery
  • unrelated InfoWorld story - doesn't count as significant coverage but can be used to reference the HH channel's number one ranking for that month
  • LATimes story - decent sized mention in a larger article
  • Salon.com story - technically a blog post, but still a RS (IMO) for the purpose of reviewing the videos
  • Most of the remaining RS coverage is trivial in nature. There are countless internet reviews of their stuff - most would not count as reliable sources, of course, but I am sure there are a few that would if one bothered to sift through all the junk.
It short, there aren't an huge abundance of sources and most coverage is about the onion video specifically. However, our guidelines only require two significant sources and that is clearly reached. You could say that technically this only makes the onion video notable. However, it would be silly to say the onion video is notable, but the guys who produced it aren't - it is much much better to cover the information on their page. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the onion video, however, I'd argue that even that video, the most widely cited one, is not notable in the long-term, merely due to a couple of substantive articles, and several trivial mentions. I disagree that the LA times mention was significant, as it tells us nothing new about HH, other than to mention the onion video. In fact the only thing that seems to be known about HH themselves is that they are anonymous, and their videos have received a lot of views. I agree that Mythbusters is a reliable source, but, again, the shows did not concentrate on HH themselves, but their claims. I think the article could be improved somewhat, with your sourcing work, but would still argue that it is impossible to do in-depth coverage of the topic without original research. RemoWilliams (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ABC News and Forbes are "multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage" besides the 7 million or so YouTobe hits and other coverage. A good hoax does not have to be true to be notable. Edison (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The forbes mention is a one-liner, in an article about the queen. The ABC news article does not address the subject of the article at all, much less in detail. It addresses the onion hoax and only the onion hoax. RemoWilliams (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with your characterization of the significance of the coverage in the sources. The coverage is significant. ABC covers the onion hoax, and attributes it to the subject of the article. The hoax would not exist without its creator. Edison (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which part do you disagree with? I agree unreservedly that the ABC article is an in-depth look at the onion hoax, but the forbes article can hardly be called significant. Also, the stated policy is: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content." [emphasis added]. The WP article is about Household Hacker. How can we possibly write a good article about Household Hacker, when the only significant coverage we have is of one of their videos? And does the ABC article directly address HH, in detail? It seems hard to argue that it does, or that any of the sources do. RemoWilliams (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much as I dislike pop culture nonsense like this, the amount of coverage in the media (I could care less how many views they have on youtube) makes the notability clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of articles doesn't do anything to make the coverage more significant, and it still would remain impossible to write a detailed article about Household Hacker without original research.RemoWilliams (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've been working on trying to decide which way to go on this, but researching the sources, even those that are claimed from reliable sources show absolutely no "depth" required by the "significant coverage" clause of WP:N. At best, the name is mentioned in passing, or even less so, something that was featured on this youtube channel is mentioned without even naming the channel. Since there does not appear to be any non-trivial coverage of this topic, I see no reason to keep it around. If someone could provide some non-trivial sources, I would easily be inclined to change my opinion.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, and would also point out that the reason I nominated it for deletion is because I wanted to improve the article, but found it to be impossible. I could also change my opinion with the right sourcing.RemoWilliams (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have completely rewritten the article using seven different reliable sources in the process. It is now free of original research and adequately explains the notability of HH, in particular what a phenomena the onion video caused. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw ThaddeusB's edit is very very good. I still have small concerns, but nothing worth deleting over. RemoWilliams (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As of July 2009, the channel was the second most subscribed "Guru" channel on YouTube, and the 23rd most subscribed overall. Sounds notable to me. Plus news mention sites posted above. If you withdraw something, you have to edit the AFD and close it. Dream Focus 11:36, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: He can only "strike" his own !vote. Since there are a couple other deletes, the AfD can't be closed as withdrawn. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:03, 12 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. BJTalk 05:23, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olof Emanuel Näslund[edit]

Olof Emanuel Näslund (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced biography. In addition to being non-notable and failing WP:BIO, there is no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. I have looked for Swedish sources and found this mention on a geneaology website, which pretty much asserts non-notability (for Wikipedia's purposes, that is. Personally, I think pictures of people born in the 1820s and information about their lives is really fascinating - just not encyclopedic.) --bonadea contributions talk 09:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not even any claims of notability, let alone any evidence of it in reliable sources. Robofish (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @450  ·  09:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azura 70s R&R band[edit]

Azura 70s R&R band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural listing for open debate, speedy declined because of choice of criterion. Uncertain whether this band can meet notability expectations, but do not want to presume given that there are probably minimal reliable sources for many bands of this era available online. Risker (talk) 04:35, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timmy Adamson[edit]

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

Footballer who has only played in the semi-professional league in Northern Ireland, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. Not notable otherwise. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until he signs fully pro somewhere. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE - recreate if and when he plays in a fully-pro league --Angelo (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 11:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's also no evidence he's the "top striker" in his league. Spiderone (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, is playing in a notable league, and is additionally making significant coverage. The frequent references in these AfD's to people 'failing' what is guidance is unfortunate. Eldumpo (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The title should really be changed to rules instead of guidelines since that is what it is used as. Iowateen (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the league is notable as a whole, but I would question how notable individual players within that league are. The status of the league in the Republic of Ireland is under debate, but I don't think there is any question about Northern Ireland. The vast majority of players in that league are semi-professional, and any Northern Irish players who are serious about wanting to make a professional career sign for a club in England or Scotland. For example, Ivan Sproule was working as an engineer while with Institute F.C., and only turned professional when he signed for Hibernian F.C. in 2005. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Iowateen (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to compete at a fully professional level. Furthermore, I could only find one news story about him, specifically his transfer to Linfield - this isn't enough to establish him as a notable player. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 14:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The BBC citation in the article confirms that Adamson is employed as a BT engineer and it follows that he must be a semi-professional footballer at best and so does not reach the inclusion criteria of playing at a fully professional level. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable football player. -- Carioca (talk) 20:24, 12 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysia–Romania relations[edit]

Malaysia–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

whilst noting the 2 countries have embassies, a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, mostly multilateral. [55]. the first article of this search is the usual "we want to cooperate more" type but there's little evidence of coverage of actual cooperation since they said that in 2001. they met again in 2003 and said much the same thing. all countries with diplomatic ties want to increase trade. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you provide evidence of significant coverage to establish notability? LibStar (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Here's an example [56] "KUALA LUMPUR, Fri. - Malaysia and Romania are looking towards strengthening relations in political economic and cultural fields in view of the huge benefits that could be accrued by promoting each other's products in their respective regions. Acting Romanian ambassador to Malaysia Mihail Montanu said Romania with its strategic location, including direct access to the Black Sea and bordered in the south by the Danube river, could be an excellent gateway for products from Malaysia and the Asean region to Europe. " MOre here [57]. THis article for example talks about Ceausescu's visit to Malaysia in 1982. [58] and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad's visit to Romania in 1983. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
visits by leaders do not in itself establish notability, secondly "looking towards strengthening relations" type statements happen all the time, we need evidence of actual and notable relations such as trade agreements, significant trade, military cooperation etc LibStar (talk) 02:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaders shaking hands? Vague diplo-speak about hoping to strengthen relations? I have difficulty considering that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is based on substantial coverage in reliable sources. So whether we think the visits were notable or not is irrelevant. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not seeing anything (in the article, cited in this debate, or in my own searches) that meets the bar of WP:GNG, namely, the existence of independent, reliable sources that address the subject directly in detail. Yilloslime TC 20:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only substance is a handful of treaties of the sort most pairs of countries engage in. No notable significance on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 05:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just about everyone "looks toward strengthening relations in the political, economic and cultural fields". That cannot mask the lack of multiple, reliable sources actually discussing this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 15:24, 12 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. Consensus is clear that reliable sources sufficiently establish his notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Justin Wolfram[edit]

Donald Justin Wolfram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person, fails WP:BIO. Only references are a couple of one-line trivial mentions and obituaries. Drawn Some (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hardly any third party coverage. [59]. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep references used show notability and verifiability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you missed the part about the references being trivial one-line mentions and obituaries. That doesn't meet our standards here at Wikipedia. Please review WP:BIO and WP:RS. Your !vote should be disregarded by the closing editor. Drawn Some (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You actually have to read the source material, not just look at the one line I quote in the reference. He has a full obituary in the Denver Post to attest to his notability. I know of no rule that excludes obituaries. If you do please quote it here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leader of a religious denomination, whose death is covered in an obituary by a major metropolitan newspaper, in addition to covergae in other reliable and verifiable sources, all establishing notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please show significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable references. Simply saying that such references exist is insufficient. You might as well say it's notable because the aliens from Pluto told you it is. Drawn Some (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The cited Denver Post article is an obituary — non-autobiographical (as obituaries, by their very natures, are), 477 words long, and directly about this subject rather than the "trivial one-line mention" within discussion of some other subject that you imply it to be. Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncle G, do you wish to go on record as saying that anyone who is dead is notable by way of their obituary being published? This is what you seem to be implying, but I notice you don't actually say you think this person is notable or that the article should be kept. Drawn Some (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This obituary is written by a staff writer and not his relatives, so it is independent. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the references I see are from the http://www.belleview-college.org/ domain or passing mentions in books. I don't see any obituary in a "major metropolitan newspaper" (again, only the belleview links; I searched google web and google news trying to find the obit Alansohn is talking about, and couldn't find it, so if it does exist a direct link would be useful). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You haven't read carefully enough. You had the direct link. The WWW page that you allude to is "the obituary in a major metropolitan newspaper". It is, purportedly, a copy of the obituary written by Virginia Culver and published in the 2009-08-23 edition of the Denver Post. It does say this, quite clearly, at the very top of the page. It hyperlinks to the original URL of the DP article, which although not directly available for free from the DP any more can still be located through archive services. Look beyond URLs and pay attention to authors, titles, and publications. Uncle G (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only hit by mainstream media is the obit in the Denver post and I dont think that's enough significant coverage to provide notability Corpx (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Obituaries are actually quite good references in general as they include overviews of a persons life much as we strive to do. Per WP:CSB it's logical that a minister who's not scandalous will have less than a pile of mainstream online sources - especially as most newspaper accounts are likely not eve available online as yet. I have little doubt other sourcing exists and would be more swayed if anyone was presenting evidence that anything here was false or misrepresenting this person. See also noms for
    * Arlene White Lawrence and
    Orland Albert Wolfram -- Banjeboi 04:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not enough to just "have little doubt other sourcing exists." We need significant non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to prove notability. Also, please review WP:BIO and WP:RS. Drawn Some (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your interest in deleting this content but I simply disagree and yes, I'm quite familiar with those policies and no, i don't have to prove anything to express my opinions. Your opinion seems to be that only deletion is appropriate here and my opinion does not coicide with yours. I believe other sources exist and you won't accept that they might unless they are in your face. Luckily neither of our opinions alone determines the fate here. Hopefully other sourcing will emerge so it's a moot issue. -- Banjeboi 05:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • As I suspected, you have no sources to back up your opinion to keep, so your opinion should be disregarded. Drawn Some (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep While I don't like the way it is written at the moment, he was leader of a religious denomination for some time. Fuzbaby (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fuzbaby, you seem to be saying that anyone who has a position of leadership in any religious organization is automatically notable, even if they fail the general notability guidelines. Is this what you intend? Drawn Some (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The obituary is enough sourcing, though I'd be happier if it was from a city other than the one he lived in. The bit from the Handbook of Denominations in the United States also establishes the significance/importance of the subject. I also trust the judgment of the creator and primary author of this article. GRBerry 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry, you seem to be implying that anyone who dies and has an obituary published is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia? Is this what you are saying? Drawn Some (talk) 15:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone. It depends on the country, as obituary practices vary between countries. For the U.S., those practices also make an obituary outside the city of residence more significant than one in the city of residence. (Given my understanding of practices in the United Kingdom, I believe a full length obituary in a major UK paper is in and of itself adequate evidence that we should have an article, as the UK practices are different from US practices. I don't know the practices in other countries well enough to comment.) It depends on the obituary contents. I am saying that in this case, there is enough sourcing and evidence of enough significance to keep the article. Reading me to have implied a universal statement is almost always misreading me; I know better than to make universal statements as they are almost always wrong. GRBerry 16:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with GRBerry's reasoning here. Drawn Some you seem oddly motivated to get this page deleted. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drawn Some has been wikistalking me and nominating articles I have been working on. I am assuming good faith, but most likely as retaliation for opposing his votes for deletions on the articles on bilateral relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect (to Pillar of Fire Church) but certainly not "delete," similarly to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arlene White Lawrence. Admin, feel free to interpret my vote as a "weak keep"--that is, I am convinced some notability exists. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He was the head of a religious denomination with a noteworthy and colorful past. The article is very worthy of keeping and expanding.Buz lightning (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Denver Post obituary is enough to establish passing WP:NOTABILITY. This wasn't a a family-paid obituary of someone's grandpa, but an editorial decision by a very reliable secondary source to write an publish a biography.--Oakshade (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is a small (only 6 churches), fringe (formerly associated with the Klan) denomination and I believe most of the coverage is because the media likes to report on the strange, but the coverage is there. And, BTW, I don't think obits are what gets people past notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is a bit like being dead. You either are, or you are not. He has sufficient WP:RS to pass the threshold. He may not pass it by much, but he does pass it, so he is notable. Springnuts (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming his position was leader of this sect (akin to the Moderator of some Calvinist churches) then keep -- if not then delete. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pillar of Fire Church. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orland Albert Wolfram[edit]

Orland Albert Wolfram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable person. Only references are obituaries. Clearly fails WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. We worked out a quick solution at User talk:Otebig#Urumqi riots right as this was being posted, so no longer any need for deletion. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

July 2009 Ürümqi riots[edit]

July 2009 Ürümqi riots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Word-for-word duplicate of the full text of East Turkestan independence movement#July 2009 riots. The creator believes the riots are not relevant to the East Turkestan independence movements, but they are (see my rationale at User talk:Rjanag#ITN for East Turkestan independence movement). Note that the East Turkestan independence movement, a social phenomenon/idea, is not the same thing as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, an organization; saying "the riots were not related to the ET Islamic Movement" is one thing, but "not related to the general independence movement" is another, and the editor here seems to have gotten the two confused.
In any case, Wikipedia is not news, and there is no point having an independent article on this event until there is more information available (particularly, not until we can discuss its impact and aftermath, at the very least). I recognize that the AfD process takes so long that such information may become available before the AfD ends, and if that happens I'll withdraw it; if not, though, at least we've got the ball rolling. By the time the typical AfD period has passed then we will have a good idea if this event merits its own article or not. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 02:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's already not a word for word copy, I added additional information, and will continue to do so. It is a NPOV violation to have it on the ETIM (independence movement, not Islamic movement, I'm not getting them confused) article, because from all reports the riots are about unfair treatment between Uyghurs and Chinese in Guangdong (i.e., China proper, not Xinjiang). These riots are likely about equal rights, not independence (which others have been). Connecting it to the larger independence movement, which any activities related to are banned in China, gives the authorities a legal means to crack down. Without a single non-PRC source linking it to the independence movement (or repeating PRC claims), we are pushing PRC POV by keeping it on the ETIM article. Rjanag's rationale is well intentioned, but ill-informed and incorrect (which shows just how well the Chinese do in their work to make everyone immediately connect all riots in Xinjiang with ETIM). Otebig (talk) 03:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emery Secondary School[edit]

Emery Secondary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable secondary school. Article has no sources. It's time to stop accumulating unreferenced articles on local schools that aren't notable or verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment search under its former name Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's a secondary school. Article needs work but it's a valid subject for an article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as with all high schools this is a significant institution in its community. There are plenty of sources available and time should be given for the sources to be added. Bringing it here a couple of days after creation is not the way to go. A better way forward is to provide guidance to the creator about how to source up the page. TerriersFan (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep or merge into Emery Unified School District. These kind of school articles are becoming more and more popular on Wikipedia. They are notable, but I would like to see higher quality articles, rather than stubs. In this case, because the school is small I suggest merging. Danski14(talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • how many times do have tell you fix i dont how fix so give off my back if see problem you fix your self but dont delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K w 2009 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - There is no reason to think that this secondary school is any less notable to its community than any high school. The article already shows reasonable sources and should be allowed to grow into a better article. -- DS1953 talk 00:43, 9 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 under A9 – B.hotep •talk• 16:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernails (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fingernails (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dog.House (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These were both nominated before, and it was decided to merge this content into Children of the Anachronistic Dynasty. However, someone else then nominated the band for deletion, and the consensus was to delete it. Since it has already been established through consensus that the band is not notable enough for a page, and the albums are not notable enough for their own pages, they should pretty obviously just be deleted. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:28, 6 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene White Lawrence[edit]

Arlene White Lawrence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO. Only has a couple of extremely trivial mentions in media, mostly in obituaries. Drawn Some (talk) 02:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets every criteria for verifiability and notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Pillar of Fire Church. I don't see how notability here is achieved by way of a rather passing mention and a couple of obituaries. A list of important church members in the main article would be enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reading Uncle G's comment (below) and a brief chat with Alansohn I am more cognizant of the relevance of obituaries. I do feel that 273 words is a bit too brief and the Rocky Mountain News a bit too small to pull me into the "keep" camp, but I would be perfectly happy with a keep and would ask the closing admin not to count my vote as being on the "delete" side--if this makes sense. :) Drmies (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple obituaries about the subject are just a few of the reliable and verifiable sources included in the article that establish her independent notability separate and apart from the Pillar of Fire Church. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trivial mentions in obituaries and even one's own obituary are not sufficient to establish notability. Do you have any reliable sources to support notability and verifiability or should your !vote be disregarded as well? Drawn Some (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please, again, AGF and don't threaten commentators. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obituaries are rarely, by their very natures, autobiographies. As such, they count as independent sources. The one in the Rocky Mountain News is 273 words long, and is directly about this specific person, not a tangential mention in the context of some other subject as you claim it to be. Uncle G (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Pillar of Fire Church per Drmies. Subject fails WP:BIO, but could and should be mentioned in Pillar of Fire Church. Yilloslime TC 04:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Somewhat boring but notable and source-able to standards.
    See also noms for:
    * Orland Albert Wolfram and
    * Donald Justin Wolfram. -- Banjeboi 04:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you have sources to determine notablity, please provide them, or your !vote should be disregarded. Others have been unable to find them so please share! Drawn Some (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are mistaken. The closer should add weight to !votes per our guidelines and nothing states I have to prove anything to express my opinions. With such logic the burden would be on you to prove that no sources exist which is illogical and certainly untrue. I feel you're motivated by other issues than your interest in this content but your vehemance in defending your delete position speaks for itself. If I have time I'll look to variations on her name to find possible sourcing but no, it's not my job to fix the article. Thank you however for your keen interest in discussing the merits of my opinion. -- Banjeboi 05:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming good faith, but, the motivation appears to be to retaliate against me for voting against Drawn in the bilateral articles. He is following my edits and bringing multiples articles to AFD that I have worked on or created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The obituaries are enough sourcing. The bit from the Handbook of Denominations in the United States also establishes the significance/importance of the subject. I also trust the judgment of the creator and primary author of this article. GRBerry 13:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes the article is brief as is, but like the lesser sovereigns of a notable dynasty, Arlene is noteworthy. There is more to tell about her. Sourcing more is difficult, but we'll find more. Buz lightning (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is a small (only 6 churches), fringe (formerly associated with the Klan) denomination and my opinion is that most of the coverage is because the media likes to report on the strange, but my gut feeling isn't relevant here, the fact that coverage is there is relevant. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are RS to show notability. Springnuts (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable to me. Can't they get a better photograph? Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you think that you want to see her any more clearly? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:35, 10 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) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime We Touch Tour[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Everytime We Touch Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a brief tour - lacking sources and no verifiable content to support notability of the subject. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:04, 29 June 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 00:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question- Isn't it a candidate for speedy deletion as per CSD:G4? Plastikspork (talk) 02:32, 6 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. Sole keep vote doesn't address the concern that the article is duplicated by other articles. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Credit Management[edit]

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

Junk essay that duplicates other content. Beat with burning stick. Ipatrol (talk) 00:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. I endorsed Fences and window's PROD on this article as original research that can not serve as a starting point for an article. Can an article be created with this title? Yes. But this is not the starting point for it. PROD was removed with no explanation other than "Removing PROD" and no improvement to the article either. I was going to bring this to AfD after a couple of days, but glad it's here. This is definitely not an article that can be left out there in the hope that someone will come by and improve it. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is our explicit editing policy that we leave articles out there in the expectation that other editors will improve them. You fail to provide any reason why we should not follow policy in this case. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and a personal essay. Drawn Some (talk) 01:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please indicate any original thoughts and personal sentiments and explain why we might not just edit these in the normal way. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is sensible that we should consider these other articles but these other topics seem subordinate in that they describe a component of the overall process of credit management. As an encyclopedia, we should first aim for a broad treatment rather than confining ourselves to specific details. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't disagree, but I don't feel well-positioned to do that task and felt a rd was preferable to volunteering that someone other than I do it. At this point some sort of merge of this article and Credit manager seems sensible to me. JJL (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR, then potentially redirect. Plastikspork (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I prodded, the deprod was done without any reasoning or improvement. This is an OR-filled pointless essay, unsalvagable without starting again entirely from scratch. Fences&Windows 03:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I experience no difficulty in improving the article without first deleting it. Please explain the problem as we require solid reasons to deprive contributors of the editing credit to which they are entitled under the terms of our licence. Please see our guideline, "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility".
  • ''Accounts receivable is strictly just the bookkeeping for debtors. Credit management is a larger topic with a wider scope. A significant part of the activity is to keep bad risks from becoming accounts receivable. The continuing financial crisis indicates that there is much need for education about these matters and so we should cover the topic carefully. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The great notability of this topic may be seen from the thousands of books, scholarly papers and encyclopedic articles which cover it, many of them being devoted entirely to the topic and given the title Credit Management like our article. The article just needs improvement in accordance with our editing policy and deletion is not helpful in this. I have made a modest start but the article already has better sources than some of the suggested alternatives such as Accounts Receivable. The editors above who complain of original research provide no particulars or evidence but it seems that they misunderstand the point. Our articles are required to be original writing as they might otherwise be in breach of our policies on copyright or plagiarism. What we must avoid are original theories or discoveries but this issue is not relevant to this article which describes a common business activity. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This topic is covered pretty well by other articles. And the vague title of the vague topic will of course turn up thousands of ghits because the phrase is so common, but that doesn't mean it pertains to this topic. For example: [62], [63] and [64] all come up on google search, but those are for consumers, not businesses, but they use the vague phrase "credit management" in their meta tag. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, duplicates (cfork?) other articles and invites synthesis. Verbal chat 16:31, 8 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Collection[edit]

The Love Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. Can't question this, I actually asked TPH's advice before trying to save this one. I believe a full discography is important for any artist, but it's not covered anywhere to my knowledge despite being considered by fans as one of her best albums. This page originally redirected to Bonnie Tyler discography which isn't right, as another artist might have a notable album by the name. The page should either be proven notable or axed completely. CycloneGU (talk) 06:07, 1 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) 00:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Search fails to show any coverage to save this from being axed. Fuzbaby (talk) 18:22, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia Geersen[edit]

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

Geersen's feature in Holland's Next Top Model, Cycle 1 made her notability. Thus, she made only WP:ONEEVENT. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:20, 29 June 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) 00:12, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Disick[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Cannot find any proof of notability outside of appearing on Keeping Up with the Kardashians six times (according to the article) and aside from some gossip sites and a weird site that claims his family's home might be in foreclosure, I can't find any reliable sources. Pinkadelica♣ 04:48, 29 June 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) 00:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as badly failing notability guidelines--no independent significant in-depth third-party coverage (and no big record deal, charting albums, buildings named in his honor, presidential pardon, knighthoods, etc. either). Drmies (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources don't cut it as reliable to me and the mentions in it are because of his association with a Kardashian girl, not because he is so notable. His 15 minutes are up. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 7 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) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perica Jerković[edit]

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

Biography of non-notable comedian. Borderline advert. Prod tag removed by original author without explanation. Delete DMG413 (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep The sources included in the article seem to have some substantial coverage of the subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:20, 29 June 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, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm finding zero hits in English-language media, and so not notable for en.wiki. (I recognize this a controversial position.) Yilloslime TC 00:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe he is on the wrong wikiversion; I can't find any English language sources to indicate notability. Looks like an add, too. Fuzbaby (talk) 07:13, 6 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) 20:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Djidjov[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Exert (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. With four books and a papal homily listed as references in the article how does this "not appear to be notable"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here at Wikipedia we don't delegate decisions of notability to religious leaders. We have our own standards of notability. Drawn Some (talk) 00:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We also have standards of civility here. Someone with four books and a papal homily in the references is notable, period. No need to sneer at some religious authority; the authority that matters here is WP:GNG. Djidjov was beatified in 2002; that alone is probably enough to acquire notability, something that both you and the nominator could have found if you had read all the way through the article. And I know there is no guideline that says that--there doesn't need to be. People who are beatified generate coverage, and so did this one. Drmies (talk) 02:42, 6 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, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I did a quick google search, and though at first it would seem like an issue of WP:ONEVENT, I've noted that he's gone through Beatification, thus making him notable in my mind. -- Nomader (Talk) 01:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. JJL (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--a pretty obvious case of a notable person. Books, beatification--that ought to be enough. Perhaps someone wishes to argue that this person's execution was an example of WP:1E? Drmies (talk) 02:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to have sources which fit WP:N. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:10, 6 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josaphat Chichkov[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Exert (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - due to a smattering of sources on Google News. Will probably require a bit of effort to tease a quality article out of it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With four books and a papal homily listed as references in the article how does this "not appear to be notable"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here at Wikipedia we don't delegate decisions of notability to religious leaders. We have our own standards of notability. Drawn Some (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we do delegate decisions of notability to reliable sources, such as the books cited. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:04, 6 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, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Perhaps a merged article on those executed along with him would be best? ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why the "weak"? Multiple reliable sources have been provided to satisfy the general notability guideline and WP:ANYBIO says that people are generally notable if they have "received a notable award or honor". Speaking as a confirmed and sometimes militant atheist (that's the second time I've had to say that in two days) I can't think of many more notable awards or honours than beatification in a church with over a billion members. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This discussion reveals many editors with doubts about the notability of this song; but there is no overall consensus to do anything in particular with it, and definitely no consensus to delete. A merge to Confessions of a Shopaholic (film)#Soundtrack does seem a reasonable way forward, but I can't really pull a consensus to do so out of this discussion. ~ mazca talk 00:19, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion (Heidi Montag/Lady Gaga song)[edit]

Fashion (Heidi Montag/Lady Gaga song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Never released as a single and no notability outside its album. Not a lot else to say really. DJ 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nomination. MS (Talk|Contributions) 09:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DJ 17:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Confessions of a Shopaholic#Soundtrack KMFDM FAN (talk!) 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable. Recorded by two major pop figures. Included on soundtracks to major shows. Definitely worth including. Plenty of coverage here [65]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 articles. All trivial mentions. DJ 17:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is about a subject, it is by definition more than a trivial mention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baloney. Read WP:RS. DJ 19:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First you argued that the mentions were trivial, now you're arguing that the sources aren't reliable? You're welcome to take MTV News and Access Hollywood to the RS noticeboard. I'm confident that when it comes to pop music they are very appropriate to use. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to Confessions of a Shopaholic (film)#Soundtrack. This song fails WP:MUSIC: it hasn't charted, there's no reviews, and the given sources don't cover the song deeply. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Confessions of a Shopaholic (film)#Soundtrack. The song was sung by two well known recording artists and features on very well known television and movie soundtracks. It was also released as a single.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
  • Delete per nomination. --Legolas (talk2me) 10:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The song has been performed independently by two notable artists and thus passes WP:MUSIC. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 11:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you actually read that notability guideline? Simply being performed by notables doesn't make the song notable. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:MUSIC, being indepedently performed by several notable artists - which this song is - automatically makes it notable. Maybe you need to read into policies a little better... --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 02:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The song is still not notable, as not received by third party critics or charting in any charts. Hence fails badly. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:MUSIC states, "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable." So the fact that neither version has charted is irrelevant. And being received by third-party critics is not a requirement. --Pokerdance (talk/contribs) 22:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ ISBN-10-0-9725593-1-0, Godless Grief
  2. ^ Santa Monica Second City Troupe.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_July_6&oldid=1142644605"