Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 20 June 22 June >

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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 by Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atadesk[edit]

Atadesk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete - no citations, written like an advert.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Articles that have been labeled equal to hoaxes by uninvolved editors need to be removed. As pointed out, subsequent edits do not necessarily guarantee the errors have been addressed. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybot's algae articles[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Anybot's algae articles - see User:Anybot/AfD for a list

Anybot created 4092 algae articles by scraping information out of the AlgaeBase database, and formatting it into articles. In doing so, it introduced numerous serious errors into more-or-less every article. Common errors include:

  • basic taxonomic errors, such as calling a cyanobacterium an alga (a bit like calling a plant an animal, only much much wronger);
  • writing articles about extinct taxa as though they were extant;
  • descriptions that don't distinguish between the many different phases of the algal life-cycle, falsely implying a single generation or alternation of generations;
  • misuse of descriptive terminology; for example, 69.226.103.13, who appears to have expertise in this area, refers to
    "Phormidium, a cyanobacterium is described as having a crustose thallus. The term filamentous used in articles about cyanobacteria should be carefully distinguished as a bacterial colony's sheath. However, since our cyanobacteria articles make them eukaryotes the reader may not understand this is a bacterial colony not a multi-cellular organism with undifferentiated tissue (a thallus)."
  • incorrect species counts, partly caused by the false assumption that the number of species names recorded in AlgaeBase equals the actual number of accepted species, but partly inexplicable;
  • incorrect and contradictory taxonomies, partly due to AlgaeBase itself being outdated, but partly inexplicable;
  • creation of articles on names listed in the database as synonyms for other taxa;

The task of checking and fixing these articles has mainly fallen to 69.226.103.13, who has stated "Every one I investigated contained serious misinformation, except for those that had been later edited by other writers... There are so many errors and so many different types of errors that it is impossible to address each one other than by individually editing each article. I don't write science articles without checking sources. It would take me hours to verify each one." As with all of our articles, these articles are coming up at the top of Google searches; we are misinforming people who don't know better, and putting our incompetence on display to those who do. Our reputation is on the line here, folks.

There seems to be consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Algae articles AnyBot writing nonsense that these articles are unsalvageable unless we can find a phycologist willing to donate tens of thousands of hours of time; and even then it would be quicker to delete the articles and start again from scratch. The coder of the bot is presently very busy, and his/her response to this has been lukewarm at best. Specific errors that were pointed out a few months ago still have not been fixed.

The full list of articles nominated for deletion is at User:Anybot/AfD. If you are willing and able to rescue any, by all means do so, and then remove them from the list. Those that remain on the list at the end of this AfD should be deleted. I will personally commit to restoring any articles that should not have been deleted because they had already been corrected or verified as correct. Hesperian 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question I see it mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Algae articles AnyBot writing nonsense that some articles were pre-existing, and were then over-written by the bot. Are all of those articles included on this list too? -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 06:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; these are articles that the Anybot created (i.e. made the very first edit). Hesperian 06:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about redirects? These are not listed on the page of anybot's articles. Some of the redirects are not to the correct article, because anybot did not distinguish synonyms-sorry, can't find an example. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You want some examples? I noticed that there are quite a few inappropriate redirects to Ulva. See here and look towards the bottom of the page. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what links here for Palmaria (a disambiguation page). --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not asking for examples. Anybot's redirects, and there may be thousands, are not on the list Hesperian created. What will be done with these, will they be deleted also?
For example, and this may be one of the single worst articles anybot created, Leptophyllus was a redirect anybot created to Abedinium. The taxonomy box lists Abedinium as belonging to a diatom order (Brachysiraceae, an easy to recognize diatom order) in an obvious and familiar red macroalgae class (Gigartinales). However, in spite of our highly unusual taxonomy in the wikipedia article, Abedinium is a dinoflagellate in the order Noctilucales. I'm concerned that leaving the redirects will keep pages like this in search engine caches.
PS I deleted the taxobox so you have to look in the history to see it. Also, this is why we cannot just keep articles that have been edited by humans, each one has to be checked. Like the IP edited articles these were edited by two competent human editors but not for the most egregious errors, only for wikipedia style matters. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's let this AfD run its course. When we're done here, I'll produce a list of redirects and we can go around again. Hesperian 23:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seem to be a fair few (based on a quick spot check) Anybot-created redirects to Anybot-created articles. If the articles are deleted, the redirects become then speedy-deletable per Wikipedia:CSD#G8. There are a lot of admins who work in this area daily, so this issue will rapidly become somewhat less of an issue if this AfD is closed as delete. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Any mass creation of material that puts Wikipedia into disrepute as an innaccurate source of information should be reverted/deleted/removed SatuSuro 06:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We need to get these off of Google and the WP mirrors ASAP. As 69.226. states here, some of these are coming up as the top/sole Google hit. During the course of the discussion of this someone (I can't seem to find the exact comment now) stated that they were an teacher of some denomination and had discovered this issue after one (several?) of his/her students had handed in an assignment containing a howling WP-sourced factual error. This shouldn't be happening. I'd also suggest that in future, anybody considering running a bot creating or editing articles in highly-specialized and arcane fields such as this one should endeavour to get an expert onboard to consult with, before unleashing the bot full-throttle. As I understand it, the bot operator in this case is somewhat knowledgeable in the area but missed blatant errors early on that if spotted, would've avoided this entire situation. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator - have you removed from the list any bot-generated article since edited by User:213.214.136.54? As far as I know, these are now correct. It might also be an idea to get someone with a bot to AfD tag all the affected articles. There may be someone with one or more of these on their watchlist who could help with fixes, if made aware of the problem. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I haven't. I'll ask 213.214.136.54 is s/he is willing to vouch for the ones s/he has edited. Hesperian 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The IP only edited higher level taxonomies in the boxes. If you can generate a list of their edits I can edit the articles, maybe other writers could help. With the Chromalveolates I may have to stubify. I did edit one article, but undid my edit, because it would be a lot of work to edit these articles to a vouchable point, a couple of hours per article at least. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, here's a list of 213.214.136.54's edits, as generated by ContributionSurveyor - if that's of any use to you... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, this list is useful. It shows some underlying problems with wikipedia algae articles that need fixed first. This list could be used to stubify its articles with a bot under some guidelines: pick diatoms off by division/phylum (or both in some unfortunate cases, or class also). Have plant and protist editors pick the current higher level taxonomy for the Chromalveolata, and for the rest of these organisms (single-celled photosynthetic algae and their closely related non-photosynthetic taxon-mates), then run a bot (prefer an existing bot than anybot) to pull the class from the taxobox and rewrite the single sentence to "Thisgenus is a diatom." Leave that sentence, the taxonomy box, the link to algae base, and, to make it easier for other editors, categorize by family, order, class in that order of preference, as a stub. Check that a taxonomy box does not contain both a division and a phylum. A problem that was not evident earlier is that older higher level taxonomies from 2003/04 are different from later taxonomies. It seems a phycologist comes in every two years and uses their own taxonomy. One has to be picked for an encyclopedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question (sorry - last one!) - what should be done with the pages currently stored in Anybot's userspace? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google isn't scraping them, so they are low priority. I would be inclined to let the bot owner do whatever s/he wants with them. Hesperian 11:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We have a duty to remove misinformation when it comes to our attention. In a case of this scale, deletion is required to achieve this in the most thorough and timely manner available. Melburnian (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and de-approve Anybot. Clearly, this is a mess. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, for the reasons given above.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all that contain errors, improve bot code in consultation with 'experts', and run bot again. I had been unaware of the lengthy discussion at WikiProject Algae; first I should note that the original version of the bot contained some errors, which a later version of the bot corrected as soon as they were pointed out. The original version seems to have been run since April, replicating some of the errors, which has inflamed the discussion.

    Now, in my opinion, articles that contain small errors (e.g. the wrong tense) but cite a reliable source are better than no article at all - and if all such pages were deleted from WP the encyclopaedia would probably shrink by a factor of two. As evidenced by the work of some dedicated IP editors, the existence of a skeleton article is often the seed from which a useful and correct article is developed. And as all of the articles use information attributed to a reliable source, it is possible for people to check the data against the facts (no-body should ever use WP as a reliable source in itself). Again, this makes the articles more useful than many other unsourced articles on WP.

    However, I am embarrassed that wide-spread errors do exist. Systematic errors - such as the use of 'alga' instead of 'cyanobacterium' - are very easy to fix automatically. If I had a list of the errors that have been spotted, so that I could easily understand what is said that is wrong, and what should be said, I could re-code the bot until it got everything right, and then put it up for retesting (hopefully it is now notorious enough that people will be willing to check its output). At that point it would be possible to run the bot again and create error-free articles. In the meantime, perhaps it is a good idea to delete articles which contain factual errors. (I will never support the deletion of any article which details a notable subject, and contains factually correct information attributed to a reliable source.)

    I think that the worst case scenario would be to delete articles willy-nilly and thereby deplete WP. We have the potential to use the Algaebase material to generate useful information - if it's not entirely up to date, then neither are most text books; and if the classification needs systematically updating, the bot can do that as taxonomy is updated. If this is done regularly, WP can keep up to date and become as useful a resource as Algaebase is today. Let's be careful to produce the best quality output we can before the deadline. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I responded to this post on this page's discussion page, in length, repeating much I said on the WP:Plants page, the bot owner's page, and the bot's error reporting page. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and scrap the bot. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the ones where the bot is not the only editor. Revert to the last non-bot edit for those created by humans, and delete or stubify the rest. This "kill-em-all" approach is not appropriate for an academic community. People have spent hundreds of hours creating some of these articles, improving others, and fixing the mistakes of the bot. We can't just get rid of all this good, solid content just because it's simpler to delete everything rather than be a bit more selective. Owen× ☎ 13:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those articles are not being nominated, see above. cygnis insignis 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are assuming that any subsequent edit is a fix. The truth is, people (and other bots) edit articles for all sorts of maintenance and cosmetic reasons. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zygosphaera&action=history ? Hesperian 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that some had been fixed, by the ip and someone interested in sea grasses, although I suspect that almost all of the subsequent edits were cosmetic. I notice there are language links being added (by bots!), they make the problem even worse. Still think they should be deleted, after a short grace period. cygnis insignis 18:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I noticed this bot created subpages, linked from the posts talk pages, when it found existing articles. The pages that aren't useful, such as the one announced on Talk:Amphibolis (a plant in this example), are potentially distracting and should be unlinked. I also can't see a reason for maintaining erroneous information in user space, the bot could restore improved versions as easily as it created them, the community should agree to their deletion too. Anyhow ... delete all those nominated above, for the reasons given above. cygnis insignis 13:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If possible, delete only articles edited by the bot alone. If this task can't be automated, I am willing to offer my admin services at the conclusion of this AfD. Otherwise, delete all un-vouched-for on the list. Also, make sure that the bot's over-writing of articles is reverted. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to edit articles edited by other writers if a list can be made. I may not be able to edit the Chromalveolates and there were some protozoa that I probably cannot touch. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Runningonbrains: It isn't all that difficult to generate a list of article edited by Anybot alone. But the problem with this proposal is that a great many edits get made to articles for purely cosmetic purposes. Therefore one cannot assume that an article has been fixed and/or verified merely because someone else has edited it. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zygosphaera&action=history. You would keep this article? Hesperian 23:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh*I just don't like the idea of wholesale-deletion of articles which no one has checked to confirm that they have a problem. I don't know enough about biology and/or taxology to do these kinds of checks. To me, the best way to do this is a deletion of bot-only-edited pages, then case-by-case deletions where improvements have been made. I know it's asking a lot from those who edit articles in this field, but I'd like to see the fewest number of deletions possible. I'm happy to try to coordinate this with you and/or other editors. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP edited 1567 articles. However, the articles they edited (KP Botany offers to save them below), are among the most difficult genera taxonomically. In other words the fewest possible editors who are competent to correct them. In addition, the IP only edited the higher level taxonomy in most of these, not touching the remaining text. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gasp! BAG approved the creation of crap? Delete all. I will edit the Chromalveolates that are salvageable--the IP list. If it's decided to delete them can they be posted to my user space in some way so I do not have to retype the taxoboxes? It's a shame to have an IP do a lot of work correcting wikiGarbage, then have the corrections deleted. I assume the list will be the photosynthetic Heterokonts and dinoflagellates, and I have no problem with editing these articles. No panic, Curtis, I'll use Lee, not Cavalier-Smith. I'll do it over the summer and start in a couple of weeks. I've been ill and had a family emergency that is slowly resolving. Also, the listed problems with the bot were discovered in its trial phase by an editor, who alerted me, and I ignored him/her based on an extraneous issue, then never got back around to looking at these articles. However, BAG told me to shut up, and I have been rather busy. My bad, but, bots do not need to be creating this many articles without specific approval and monitoring throughout. This is what comes of self-elected closed user groups: they decided to create these articles. --KP Botany (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "It's a shame to have an IP do a lot of work correcting wikiGarbage, then have the corrections deleted." I agree. As soon as the IP editor tells us that they consider the articles they have edited to be fixed, rather than merely fiddled, I'll remove them from the list.
    I suggest you proceed as follows:
    1. identify the articles you want to work on;
    2. remove them from User:Anybot/AfD, so that they are not deleted as a result of this discussion.
    3. if it is not appropriate to leave them where they are whilst you are working on them, move them into your userspace with an edit summary that cites this discussion (it won't take long for someone to detect and delete the cross-namespace redirects that you leave behind.)
    Hesperian 01:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles that are solely edited by Anybot or edits with other contributors (bots included) but considered to be cosmetic/courtesy edits. I know there's a leeway here and what constitutes as cosmetic edits are still open to discussion, but I believe we can use common sense here. Given the large magnitude of the articles that could potentially be deleted, I can offer my help to delete some of them if consensus is reached in this AfD. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree Ohana. The only problem is, who will spend the time assessing the edit history of 4000 articles? If you're willing to do so, then go for it: I've been saying all along that anyone may remove articles from the list if they are prepared to vouch for their correctness. Hesperian 02:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since admin should visit the page before clicking the delete button, it only takes them a few more seconds to click on its history and quickly examine whether someone fixed it or it's cosmetic edit or it's untouched. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But how could an admin without knowledge of phycology tell whether the article has been fixed or it's a cosmetic edit? You're an admin, can you look at Kurt Shaped Box's list of the IP's edits and tell me which ones you would keep under the criteria you posted above? Maybe you could post this on the discussion page. We should keep as many as possible, but if we keep articles that keep spreading misinformation we're being iresponible-particularly when we had the chance to stop the spread and chose not to. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and block the bot per others. Also checkuser Smith609 (the operator). The Junk Police (reports|works) 03:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be silly. Checkuser is for suspected sockpuppeteers. There's no evidence of that here. Hesperian 03:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On reflection, it actually might be worth checkusering the bot. Smith609 appears to be claiming here that the bot account was compromised somehow. I don't know if the checkusers will agree to do it (it might be considered 'fishing') - but I don't consider it beyond that realms of possibility that a registered user (one of the many banned ones, perhaps), aware of the issue and seeking to make a large mess even bigger, was behind this. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, that's a stupid idea, as I realized almost as soon as I'd posted it. In order to run the bot, <whoever> would have to have access to Smith's computer. Doh! Sorry. <slaps self with trout> --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Martin has indef-blocked the bot himself. Guettarda (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Martin runs another bot with a page full of "kooky errors." This is a different type of bot, apparently a user-script. The errors are similar to some errors of anybot, "Adding wrong URLs" (wrong information to taxonomy box), "Incorrect DOI" (wrong information), "Bot is adding dead link tags for links that are not dead:" (bad edits), "CitationBot removed a url= link to Google Books for no apparent reason:" (removing data that it had no business editing, such as replacing articles with redirects), "Replacing origyear with year" (when apparently not supposed to), "replaces author fields with its own" (again, it appears the bot is not being initiated with empty strings), "kooky edits" (lots of those with anybot), "Unnecessary addition," "removes valid ISSNs."
          • Maybe Martin's account has been corrupted along with the bots, or these bots are not well-coded. I have not checked the problems with citation bot. They may be nothing. But there are a lot of them. Should someone investigate this other bot? Is this a corrupted user account (Martin's), or systematic programming problems that are issues with Martin's other bots? Maybe your stupid idea was you wondering how this could happen, Kurt Shaped Box. Codes don't rewrite themselves. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've removed the nine articles I have fixed manually (after spending several hours reading my contributions to find them), but what is the best way to notify other contributors or identify articles they have fixed? Maybe by having a bot put a template (one of the usual AfD ones, I assume) at the top of all 4000 or so pages and giving it a bit of time? But I do think we should proceed with some kind of mass-delete. In addition to the bot problems, AlgaeBase itself has too many errors for this kind of automated process. Two I found today were: (1) typo in the species epithet for Postgaardi mariagersnsis (should be P. mariagerensis), (2) lists Calkinsia as Euglenaceae (this one is more defensible, could just be out of date, as I don't know how this genus was classified before Cavalier-Smith and other recent work. But it does limit its usefulness nonetheless). For the future, forget about mass creation of taxon articles, as all such mass creations I know of have needed a lot of cleanup afterwards and Wikipedia is already over the hump of "oh, no, there is no content, we need to seed it or no one will contribute". Kingdon (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, User:Polbot is able to mass-create species articles that are in IUCN database. See this bot request for approval. From what I know, there's little, if any complaints, about inaccuracies. The potential is there, but relies heavily on whether the coder makes sound and logical judgement when coding the bot. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You wouldn't be saying that if you had fixed as many Polbot miscategorisations and mislinking as I have: creation of categories for monotypic genera; creation of genus categories as subcategories of family categories that didn't exist; putting species in unrelated categories whose name happens to match the genus; linking to pages whose title is the name of a taxon, but which is not actually about that taxon.... Quadell is a good coder, and Polbot is probably the best content creation bot going around, but it still makes plenty of errors. Hesperian 04:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template. Create a template (with a link to the discussion page) that reads "This page was created by an automated process that is under review. If you can verify the accuracy of the information on this page, please remove this template. If this template is present, you should assume that this page has not been validated by a human." Add the template to each page in question. --Arcadian (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It might not actually be a bad idea to do that with *all* bot-created species articles in the future (if any more similar runs are planned), or place a notice on the talk page at the very least. How's about a hidden 'bot-created articles pending verification' category too? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runnin anybot to correct its errors[edit]

Whilst this debate rumbles on, the errors made by the unauthorised running of a bug-laden version of the bot script are still on WP. I have already coded a script to fix these errors, that will
  1. Only edit pages where Anybot is the sole contributor (not counting certain maintenance bots)
  2. Remove many glaring mistakes
  3. Not introduce any new errors (unless there are errors in Algaebase's higher taxonomy; if these are systematic, they can be fixed automatically.)
This script will also fix problems with kingdom-level classification, but will not address some of the other issues, because I'll have to write a separate script for these taxa. However, it will make the articles less misleading until their fate is sealed. It may be useful for anyone contributing to this discussion to only consider the corrected articles when forming their opinion of how unfixable the 'mess' is; I have noted several cases above where people refer to errors which only exist because of the, as it was put above, 'corrupted account'. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you managed to discover how the bot was accessed and run without your knowledge yet? If not, I'd be rather uncomfortable with you setting it to work again. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the outdated version of the script which must have been run, and disabled it. The script could be run by visiting the URL http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/anybot/algae.php - visit it now to verify that this no longer works. I have also included an IP check in the new script so that only I can access it. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It comes up with an error message and tells me to contact you. That's good, I guess. :) If I were you, though, I'd wait to see what the other users who've been involved in the discussions here think about you running the bot again. Then perhaps it might be a good idea to just do ten or twenty edits, just to see how they turn out and run them past the algae guys... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspending the debate pending the outcome of the suggested test edits seems reasonable to me. I am more than willing to change my !vote to Keep if the bot can salvage its own articles in a timely fashion. -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 17:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am concerned about the bot editing articles without each being individually checked by a human. A test run of 10-20 articles I don't object to. Please pick 10-20 from different times. I checked articles written by the bot in February, before and after all coding corrections mentioned on the anybot errors page, March, April, before, during, and after the April 18th/19th glitch. If I mention a specific case it is not because I only found errors in that time frame. There are errors that make the articles unusable in all time frames of operation.
I would like to see the algorithm if users here ask for the bot to be run to correct its own errors--the bottom-most coding algorithm. I think it's a bad idea to use this bot for this purpose. How about asking the other bot (mentioned above) that has created taxon articles?
Keeping these articles on wikipedia to continue being accessed, as bad as they are, is not user-friendly for wikipedia. I disagree with a suspension of the deletion while anybot is the one fixing the articles. However, as an IP I have no vote in the matter-doesn't bother me, something wikipedia gets right. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that's where you're wrong. AfD is not a vote; it is a discussion, and constructive opinions are considered no matter what their source :-D -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 20:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also uncomfortable for the bot to correct its own mistakes when I have already lost my trust towards the programmer. Each page should be checked by a human to verify whether it's correct or not, not by the bot that screwed it up. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it's not being checked by the bot that 'screwed it up', but by a different bot (which operates from the same account). Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still support deleting these articles and do not support re-approving either bot (the original one or the "fix" one). Kingdon (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the bot approval discussion in your edit history. It's hard to understand the bot process but it appears that bots require approval and "flagging by a bureacrat." --69.226.103.13 (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solution[edit]

I've been trying to resolve this situation in something of a rush, as I am remarkably busy at the moment. In retrospect this was a dreadful idea; I have apparently introduced new errors; and I have not been able to keep track of all the discussions related to the bot, which seem to span about a dozen different pages. This has led to some editors feeling that I am ignoring them, for which I apologise.

May I propose a solution, which I hope will satisfy everybody?

  • Now: to delete all articles which have only been edited by Anybot (and maintenance bots such as User:Addbot)
  • To retire Anybot in its current implementation
  • If and when I get time to work on this project again (October at the earliest):
    • To discuss whether a bot is capable of creating articles automatically without introducing errors
    • If so, to re-apply for bot approval
      • Discussion about how the bot should operate, whether pages should be tagged with 'this article was created automatically, and whether I am incompetent can be held at that stage
    • To proposition community input into the bot output
    • To ensure that all errors mentioned here are fixed
    • To make the bot's source code openly available
    • To undertake more rigorous testing processes (as advised)

If it helps, I can offer to automatically tag pages for deletion; I understand that my programming credentials are under fire so would be happy to post the code before operating it, or to leave the task to others.

How does that sound? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said a number of times now: This is an esoteric subject. Very few editors know enough about it to correct errors or add content, and those who do have already filtered out the articles that they have corrected. 99% of edits to the remaining articles will be drive-by cosmetic and categorisation changes. The proposal to retain articles edited by a human will only preserve error-riddled articles, and for no apparent gain. Hesperian 04:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is also going on at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Request_for_deflagging_and_blocking_of_Anybot

Hesperian is on top of the situation with this AfD. But, since the bot owners do not appear to listen to anything when said once by only one person or said for months by 5 or 25, it bears repeating: this does nothing to address the articles created by anybot and subsequently edited by humans.
213.214.136.54 did demanding work on upper level taxonomies of over a 1000 Chromalveolata articles. These are articles where wikipedia is deficient in even the most common species, groups of organisms understood by few authorities; even within the field of phycology the understanding of these organisms, particularly the single-celled ones, is low and expertise is held by few.
All of 213.214.136.54's editing efforts, excellent work on the higher level taxonomies of the Chromalveolata, will probably have to be deleted. 213.214.136.54 repeatedly attempted to work within wikipedia's guidelines, discussing issues with the bot owner, trying to get things fixed.
But, by Martin continuing to ignore this editor's contributions, it seems to me that you, Martin, are insulting them on top of the forthcoming injury of having to delete all of their hard work.
How does wikipedia expect they can keep excellent and dedicated IP editors like this, who are willing to correct the serious gap in expertise found in many areas of wikipedia, when the editor is repeatedly ignored, their contributions devalued, and even their hours of efforts to improve wikipedia dismissed as if it does not exist?
--69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit to feeling slightly insulted myself. My offers to improve the situation have all been scoffed at, and by (a) saying that every single article should be deleted, (b) telling me to fix every article, and (c) ignoring all of my requests for input so I can do a proper job of it, you are implying that my time has absolutely no value. At a time where I am incredibly busy at work and home and barely have time to cook myself meals, this is slightly hurtful. If you intend to insult me then go ahead, but if not then please consider your words more carefully.
You also seem not to value the time of the IP contributors who have worked hard to correct a great percentage of the created articles. To me, if you want to devalue an editor's contributions, and to dismiss their hours of efforts to improve Wikipedia as if they did not exist, the best way to do this is to delete all their edits. I have done all I can in a limited portion of time to enable these articles to be preserved, and I will be the first to admit that I haven't had enough time to do a good job of it. But, according to WT:WikiProject Plants, 213.214.136.54 spent three days fixing articles, and a sample of these edited pages found (by 69.226.103.13)to be error-free.
I think that what we need to establish is whether the rate of errors in the articles which have been edited by human users is significantly greater than the error rate in WP's scientific articles as a whole. It is possible that all are perfectly correct, and it is also possible that all still contain errors and should be deleted (although according to 69.226.103.13's check, this would seem unlikely). If we are considering throwing away three days of work from a knowledgeable and valuable contributor (213.214.136.54), not to mention several days of work from a malicious, nasty and ignorant editor (Smith609, apparently), then I would suggest that (1) we should have rather strong evidence that at least a significant proportion of the edited articles still contain major errors; and (2) that it it worth matching 213.214.136.54's time with a similar amount of time ourselves (if that means that only errant articles are deleted).
Given that 142,310 articles don't even cite their sources, and given that from personal experience somewhere around 50% of the articles in my field (geology) contain glaring errors which I have to fix by hand, I'm going to take some convincing that articles which have been reviewed by editors are any worse than the average WP article. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the proposal above (which appeared to be well received, and elicited no objections), I've created Template:AnybotAlgae, which automatically places articles in "Category:Anybot algae articles to be validated". I recommend that a bot be run to append this to all of Anybot's algae articles, whether re-edited or not. Then, on August 1, 2009, delete all the articles that still have the template on it. --Arcadian (talk) 16:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that sounds like a very, very good idea - I do have a couple of thoughts though. Firstly, would it be appropriate to amend the template to include the term '...and may contain significant factual errors' (i.e. let's tell the plain truth to our readers!)? Also, I don't know if policy will allow this - but how's about adding {{noindex}} to every article created or significantly edited by Anybot in order to stop these from appearing at the top of Google searches? Either way, I fully support getting everything templated as soon as possible. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which proposal above received no objections? Not Martin's? It has objections, serious ones. It completely ignores the IP edits, which are over a 1000 bad articles. The proposal to tag the articles? I think that's a good idea, but I don't know which proposal you're discussing. Noindex sounds like it should have been done the first day this discussion arose. If templating delays deletion I don't support it. However, if it can be quickly done on the way to deletion, I'm 100% behind it. The template looks good, but it also ignores the 1000+ bad articles edited in only the upper taxonomic levels that Hesperian mentions in the link I include in this post. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have missed every post I've made about articles I've reviewed. This doesn't help the situation.
I'll respond and repeat, again, for other readers of the discussion: I have not found a single algae article created by the bot and not completely rewritten by meat editors that is good enough to be left on wikipedia without a couple of hours of hand editing. The articles completely rewritten have been removed from the afd list. If someone has the expertise and over 8000 free hours for the rest they should alert readers of this afd.
213.214.136.54's articles were only corrected for the higher level taxonomies. All of them still contain the fundamental errors within the text that anybot created; I assume they do because I found no evidence to the contrary.
As stated elsewhere, I searched through every major taxon of article created by the bot, from all time frames of its operations, and on both sides of all major errors reported on its board, and found huge errors in every type of article that make the article completely worthless at best. These are not "single glaring errors" in the articles, this bears repeating as it's not being listened to by parties who should be listening, these are errors which make the articles far worse than useless, and bring wikipedia into disrepute for publishing them in the first place, anf for allowing them to continue for so long in the second place.
Please, reread on this page and in WP:Plants and on anybot's error reporting page for examples of the nature of these errors.
Please, if you're going to run a bot on wikipedia, at least read the errors the error reports. If you don't have time to read the error reports you never should have operated a bot. Not any bot or any other bot. Now you clearly state how little time you have, but, instead of devoting it to learning what was wrong, you devoted it to writing an entire new program containing ever more creative errors, then operating this bot clearly without community consent and without community input. Please read the error reports.
Go ahead and search the articles yourself and find a group of articles that can be saved. It seems straight-forward that your arguing and proposing solutions without knowledge of the nature of the errors is without benefit to the discussion. It seems from this post of yours you meant to consider the IP's edits as leaving good articles in spite of what has been said about them. The IP's work corrected only higher level taxonomies.
Also, you can't legitimately cite AlgaeBase as a source for the articles anybot created. I compared the anybot articles to AlgaeBase and did not find organisms with our types of errors.
An article that lists an organism as one kingdom at a family level, another at an order level, with text about a organism that belongs to neither of these kingdoms, and taxonomic information based on a programming error rather than a source, is most emphatically, not a glaring error, it is simply wrong. The entire article is wrong. And it's not in AlgaeBase.
--69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I originally only ran the bot while I had time to fix its errors. Secondly, I take issue with your estimate of how long it will take to correct articles. Herpothamnion is a typical article I chose at random from the bot's articles - I don't understand how one could spend two hours correcting it. I could check it against algaebase using the link within the article in 20 seconds. Thirdly, the only information that the bot didn't take directly from Algaebase was originally the higher taxonomy; many algae are listed in Kingdom Plantae on Algaebase, and since I was unaware that bacteria were present in the database, I simply classified everything as algae. Beyond the classification, the bot read Therefore Algaebase remains the source of the information. Many of the statements you make are based on your personal assumptions and do not reflect the true situation; in the interests of allowing you to form a balanced view of what has happened, I've made the source code of the fix-script (which I ran in May, and modified to use Algaebase's higher taxonomy last week) available at http://toolserver.org/~verisimilus/Bot/anybot/fix-algae.php. You can view source or download the file to see it in human-readable format. Hope that helps, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Viewing the code now is pointless the bot won't be run. Your errors are not in the code; well, they are, but they started in the algorithm. Errors of this nature have little to do with the code. Again, feel free to post your bottom-most algorithm, for future codes, even for this one, and I will debug it.
How would you fix Herpothamnion based on AlgaeBase? It has no taxonimcally based valid species, and no description on the linked page. I think it's a synonym. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely should delete Herpothamnion unless a better source can be found. AlgaeBase makes it look like an old (not currently used) synonym, but it is hard to be sure. The paper doi:10.1515/BOT.2007.025 probably has a better answer, but is (I think) paywalled. Kingdon (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said about you before, one of the editors competent to edit the articles. Schneider and Wynne indicate Herpothamnion is a synonym of Spermothamnion. Their article, based upon the 1950s work of Swedish phycologist and red algae expert Harald Kylin, could be used for synonymy of many red algae, and I'm certain Professor Schneider would send anyone a copy.
The Herpothamnion article is not editable with the link in the article in 20 seconds. It could be quickly edited by one of the editors I mentioned who knows enough to find the proper source, the Botanica Marina review. The information for this species is not in AlgaeBase. This is the case for many of the articles that anybot produced.
I'm not a phycologist; I am an experienced researcher. I reviewed the articles and spent a lot of time trying to find a way to save most, then any, of the articles. Encyclopedia articles require a specific type of research, less than academic writing by far, but they require proper sourcing, and this demands knowledge. Careful knowledge by an editor could save articles, sloppy 20 second editing without the proper sources will leave the articles no better than they are now.
My estimate of the time necessary to correct the articles is based on an estimate of the skills of editors capable of rewriting the articles (from the editors' edit histories), the obscurity of some of the species, and the type of proper sourcing an encyclopedia article should have. This one Botanica Marina article could be used for some species, while most articles would have obscure and less available sources, probably many genera would require research at one of the major research universities with phycology departments (Sweden, California, Australia, East Coast US, Ireland). Understanding what is necessary to repair the articles is part of the work. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No wiki[edit]

I agree with the suggestion above about adding a nowiki tag in spite of the additional work of tagging articles slated for deletion in a day or so.[1] I asked at the bot board for someone to do this. I'm sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes. It's so disappointing to see garbage from wikipedia. Many wikipedia articles contain errors, but I've seen few outside of hoaxes with errors this bad. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Most participants agree that sufficient sources have been found to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Manjoo[edit]

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

This BLP does not seem notable. The source for the guy being a "regular contributor" to NPR only has him appearing once. Unsure about this one, so I am bringing it to the community to decide. — Jake Wartenberg 23:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese cultural artifacts controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Japanese cultural artifacts controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have reviewed this article as a member of the WikiProject Visual Arts because of its long-standing NPOV issue. Despite reasonable efforts, no reliable sources for the claims proposed here could be found. Either the issue is not reflected in reliable sources, or the topic is in fact non-notable. Since the AfD discussion two years ago there would have been ample time to fix the article. As it stands (1) the article relies on a single Web-source that does not satisfy WP:RS, (2) it therefore contains unverified claims, (3) the community of Wikipedia editors has not been able to fix the article's problems, which have existed since its creation in 2005. The article violates WP policy and should be deleted. Enki H. (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete attack piece Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic is clearly notable although there may be POV issues. I added a couple of external links to reliable sources (Time, NewsWeek) that verify at least the basic concept of a controversy over art looted by Japan in Korea for one. There's a whole category including similar topics, such as Looted art and Nazi plunder. An alternative would be to merge with Looted art where there are sections on countries who looted although some of those might might deserve their own articles instead. Perhaps a pruning down to verifiable facts and merging with that article would result in less POV. Drawn Some (talk) 00:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is no question that there are incidents of looted art and of restitution claims. Claiming that there actually exists a notable "Japanese cultural artifacts controversy" is another matter. To support an entire article on that assumption would need broader sources. I have not seen such sources forthcoming since 2005. Adding the new material you found to Looted art is an excellent idea - however very little, if anything, of the material currently in the article is sourced. Enki H. (talk) 03:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I originally created the article but have no objection to its deletion. A much more important issue is that of historical revisionism claims: Koreans and some others say that Japanese schoolbooks omit important episodes such as the Rape of Nanking (Japanese killing Chinese) and Comfort women (Japanese enslaving women for forced prostitution). --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Whatever else is done with this, there are a lot of long-uncited opinions (people say, some think, or such things in quotes without citation) that need to be removed, including the first sentence. Dekimasuよ! 04:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Keep The topic seems to be real and important enough. It needs better sources if it is to stand as an article. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep since info in article is now well cited. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated this article for deletion over two years ago; I think it may have been the first article I brought to AfD. It survived, obviously, with the lesson to me being that nearly anything is salvagable, if only a bit of work is put into it. Well, as far as I can see, that didn't happen. In two years the article got about six edits and nothing substantial changed. Still, I've learned a lot and I today I actually believe that this article should not be deleted. On the other hand, neither can it be allowed to exist as the nippophobic piece of claptrap that it has remained. So I have taken a chainsaw to it, and I believe that the current version should pass muster. It's NPOV, it's documented, and yes, I'm afraid, it's both brief and boring. So be it; at least now someone might build a quality article from this base instead of being scared away by the propaganda page it was before. Unschool 03:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn - Unschool has fixed the issues the article was tagged for, and while the issue has gotten far less attention than e.g. the German restitution controversies, the significant coverage in TIME and Newsweek articles demonstrate notability. It may still be that the topic could be better discussed in a more comprehensive context of occupation and reconciliation, but that is a different discussion. In its present state, the article can remain. Thank you. Enki H. (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Obviously a real and verifiable topic, but one that is going to be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, within a Wiki-type project, to maintain NPOV. The best an article like this will ever be, I think, is a series of statements, one from one national POV, followed by a contradicting one from the other. I question the uniqueness of the situation-- Are there unique articles on Greek or Egyptian antiquities stolen by England, France, etc., or any number of countless such thefts throughout human history? I also question the title of the article, but have no better suggestion... That said, as far as sourcing, I think we're overlooking the obvious: This is a hot topic in Korea, and I am sure there are many significant articles or books covering the matter in Korean. I'm also quite sure many of them have an obvious bias. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were also many articles and a few books on the subject in Japanese. Again, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had an obvious bias. So I vote "Keep", I guess, but am resigned that the best this sort of article will ever be is a squatting-ground for POV-warriors who create "consensus" just by building up the numbers on their side of the issue... Dekkappai (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I too would favor moving this to a different title. Any suggestions? Unschool 18:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All good and valuable suggestions, I propose to take that discussion to the talk page however, and possibly initiate a merge proposal. I too agree that what the article needs most is context that encourages NPOV coverage. Cheers --Enki H. (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea; I should have thought of that. Accordingly, I have taken that suggestion and initiated a section on the article's talk page. (Presuming that that discussion moves at a pace similar to the article's evolution, we should achieve consensus on a new title by late 2012.) Unschool
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Features of the Marvel Universe. Black Kite 21:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casket of Ancient Winters[edit]

Casket of Ancient Winters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional item, deprodded on the summer solstice. Absolutely no reliable sources exist for this item. It is mentioned in a book by its creator, and that mention, besides being in-house, does not make it notable. Abductive (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the sole (self-published) source that refers to this item, the boss "sent a memo around saying, 'here's the deal. it's going to be winter in the Marvel Universe whatever month that issue's coming out. If you want to do something with that, that's cool. If you don't, that's okay too.'" This suggests that the whole thing was not important, and that the casket of ancient winters was not the cause of the winter. But all this is moot; no reliable sources discuss this item. Therefore it does not deserve a stand-alone article.
Don't you feel that all these stubs are kind of lost? Lonely scraps of information with no context and all the wonderment from your (and my) childhood wrung out of them, and their dry hides nailed to a wall in Wikipedia? Abductive (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It really is a shame... I wish I had the time, energy, and resources to fix them all. :\ But... I don't feel that my lack of ability is a reason to delete anything - merging it now would allow it to be improved down the line, if someone were to find such an undertaking worthwhile. BOZ (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. A merge looks to be the most likely compromise here; but there are multiple possible targets. I suggest a talk page discussion to determine that, but there does not appear to be a consensus to delete this article completely at this time. ~ mazca talk 23:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WoW: Emergent Media Phenomenon[edit]

WoW: Emergent Media Phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Cannot find non-local media coverage of notable degree. Museum exhibits need to be specifically notable outside their local area, and outside of an announcement by the housing museum. In other words, museum exhibits should be judged as art, unless otherwise notable, and this is not. Shadowjams (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 snowball delete, to save any more arguments on an overinflated discussion which has reached a conclusion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg W. Moore[edit]

Greg W. Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The *best* reference is a trivial reference on a partisan blog. The article and sources (which are databases and listings) show a solid but non-notable government employee. Cameron Scott (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the scientific community there are special, and very thorough peer-review processes to evaluate whether somebody is or is not a notable person. In proven cases - when the result is positive - the community nominates individuals to memberships in organizations which recognize the accomplishments. And - there is no higher recognition, except the Nobel Prize, than a membership in an academy of sciences. This way Dr. Greg W. Moore became a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences. This way also Dr. Greg W. Moore received a special recognition from the U.S. Senate, Committee (Democratic !) Chairman Sen. Bennett Johnston. This way also Dr. Greg W. Moore was recently included into the report issued (see the quote) by the U.S. Senate - this time led by a Republican (!) group. So - there is no better proof of objective/neutral recognition of Dr. Greg W. Moore by the community as it comes from BOTH the Democrats and Republicans. Dr. Moore was also so much involved in serious management of various activities within the community that he eventually was offered a very unique opportunity of leaving the academic community and joining the U.S. Government community as a scientific consultant which he did. So - he did not loose any titles - he simply changed the professional environment, which was a kind of "promotion", by his own choice. Greg W. Moore (talk) 23:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you refer to yourself in the third person?--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are talking here about an article titled "Greg W. Moore" - THIS is the subject of the discussion and not my person. Besides - almost all the data pieces were not, kind of, written by me but are an almost a copy of the statement and the report issued by the U.S. Senate - that's why it is not an autobiography - it is a quote from a public (and very high level) source/resource. It is also neutral and objective as "Greg W. Moore" received recognitions from BOTH sides - Democratic and Republican. Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment For the record, Google only has 33 results on "Greg W. Moore" (and I don't know which ones refer to him) and Google news has none.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is almost a copy of a statement from the US Senate, then surely it is a Copyright violation. Martin451 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Greg W. Moore is aka G.W. Gmurczyk (legal name change) - so you should Google G.W. Gmurczyk too - he generated a lot of papers and reports under the latter name (recognized already by the U.S. Senate and the New York Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Government). Greg W. Moore (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

31 results for "G.W. Gmurczyk" on Google and none on Google news.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it 64 items total - quite a lot but still, with full respect, it is not Google which conducts thorough professional peer-review processes and decides on nominations to academies of sciences - it is the very professional community which does it - and they did. As I mentioned already - both the U.S. Senate and the New York Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Naval Institute and the U.S. Government recognize it. That's plenty - and I am saying that as a member of another notable organization not mentioned before - namely: Washington Editorial Review Board which is a U.S. Government interagency elite professional body. Greg W. Moore (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except not all those sites refer to you. For example, I don't think you're a reverend, and you're clearly not deceased. On a related note, a Google search for your name and the organizations that you mention only brings up your Wikipedia article.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "And - there is no higher recognition, except the Nobel Prize, than a membership in an academy of sciences. This way Dr. Greg W. Moore became a Member of the New York Academy of Sciences." As near as I can tell from the New York Academy of Sciences website, all one has to do to become a member is pay them $108 (or less if one is a student). Deor (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not check all the items with the name Greg W. Moore but certainly ALL the 31 items with the earlier version of the name G.W. Gmurczyk are mine - there is no other person with the name G.W. Gmurczyk in the world. Re: the NYAS - you won't become a member unless you have a proven and recognized list of accomplishments. Again - instead of searching for info here and there - see the most recent statement and report just issued by the U.S. Senate which includes a summary of ALL recognized and reliable information all in one place/document. They already did the whole verification. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming to be the only "G.W. Gmurzyk" in the world is quite a big claim, and not one of a proper scientist. If you really are as notable as you claim, why has someone else not written a neutral article about you? Martin451 (talk) 02:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They already did - it is included in the summary report by the U.S. Senate (see Ref.#5). This article is merely a copy (almost) of it. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. ref #5 is not a neutral wikipedia article. It is a quote from you (with a political agenda) with a short WP:Peacock bio. The article on wikipedia is your own work, which is not backed up by the sources which you have provided, not very good from a scientist. Martin451 (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons mentioned above in support of deletion. Ref #5 does not show that the US Senate reported anything about you, but that a Senate staffer added you into a committee report. That is different from being honored by the Senate, and besides, even being honored by the Senate does not in itself make one worthy of an encyclopedic article. The New York Academy of Sciences has 25,000 members according to its article, and surely they are all not worthy of Wikipedia articles. I am usually sympathetic to keeping articles of professors and scientists, but the article says nothing about any of your papers and you assert other reasons of importance for you as a subject, none of which qualify for a Wikipedia article from what I have seen so far. The first words of the article say it all: there are many technology consultants to the federal government and that simply does not impart notability.--Gloriamarie (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious conflict of interest as an autobiography. That said, I still don't think notability has been established. Using big words and mentions of scientific concepts doesn't make up for it. Qqqqqq (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Getting hired by the fed does not make someone notable, what you do does. Even though govt. websites are considered reliable sources, the mentions in here don't show me notability. I also have serious concerns about the WP:COI issue involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails basic WP:N - not enough secondary sources to prove his notability. Also fails WP:PROF by almost any measure - not a full professor or department chair, no extensive list of publications or teaching credentials. Furthermore fails WP:FRINGE - advocate of a non-notable fringe theory. Membership in the New York Academy or name-dropping Congressional reports do not prove notability. No ability to verify any of this information from ordinary Internet searches. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC) P.S. Disclosure: I was a former student member of the New York Academy. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Person not notable.LouriePieterse (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The significance of "senior member" in AIAA seems to be roughly on par with NYAS (see above), i.e. not notable. It is evidently a membership upgrade one earns for having been a member in good standing for at least 8 years. Documentation is here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong delete Non-notable, and haranguing every delete commenter is not helping your cause, Mr Moore. ukexpat (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Greg just tried to remove the AFD template off the article as well as the autobiography tag.[2]--Sandor Clegane (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Report Somebody at Wikipedia who has access to the right tools has removed a large portion of the discussion which happened yesterday afternoon. As ttonyb1 just confirmed it even the history tool does not show the removal nor who did it so - somebody did it at the deep level within the system. Greg W. Moore (talk) 02:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I indicated in the user's talk page, "I think you [Moore] are clearly mistaken. Wikipedia history is not edited except in extreme cases where there are user issues. In those cases the entry is not removed only the actual text the entry refers to. No one has an incentive nor the time to request this type of change to your talk page history." ttonyb1 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article of questionable reliability. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment: Can it be snowy if there is one person objecting? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable individual. — Jake Wartenberg 04:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST FROM THE AUTHOR: GREG W. MOORE[edit]

PLEASE DELETE THE ARTICLE "GREG W. MOORE" FROM THE WIKIPEDIA RESOURCES. REASON: EXTREMELY UNPROFESSIONAL, LOW QUALITY REVIEW PROCESS. THANKS!

Unfortunately your own Wikipedia contributors have badly violated your own rules - namely: one of them keeps promoting his own political agenda (see records of his modifications he did to the article by adding the name Inhofe) by suggesting that the very article and the subject of the article are completely biased politically which completely contradicts the truth as the subject of the article was highly evaluated throughout his career by both parties equally. Even more - that same Minority report just issued, quoated Greg W. Moore as a person who claims there is no evidence on Global Warming to support either side - neither Warming alarmists nor deniers. This way your contributors completely distort the truth and paint the subject of the article in a way he has absolutely no connection with. In other words - your contributors are highly unprofessional, biased, and clearly vandalize Wikipedia by violating its own rules. That is why please remove the article from such a unprofessional environment. Thanks. Greg W. Moore (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whose own agenda? What modifications? If an editor is acting out of line, go to WP:AN/I. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment There is one very notable Gregory W Moore, who has worked on theoretical physics. T Scopus shows 75 paper, and the citation counts are 429,221, 204, 172 , 155 , 117, etc. The most cited paper is "onabeuons in the fractional quantum hall effect" by Moore, G. , Read, N Nuclear Physics B Volume 360, Issue 2-3, 1991, Pages 362-396 . I don't think that the person we are discussing here, though. As for this GW Moore, I cannot find a full CV, so it is hard to tell. Does anyone actually have one available DGG (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Not all delete comments are of high value, but there is no request to keep and in any case WP:CRYSTAL relates. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 12:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Momma's House 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Big Momma's House 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails future film guidelines. Lugnuts (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nomination withdrawn, thanks to cleanup efforts by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs). –Juliancolton | Talk 01:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yair Qedar[edit]

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

Limited notability, but violates WP:BLP and WP:V. Google News returns only passing mentions. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nomination withdrawn Davewild (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Adams[edit]

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

American college football player, drafted by an NFL team but apparently never played. No playing professional = failing WP:ATHLETE, and there aren't sources to make him notable in any other way. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, as it says in the article, he did not play in any preseason or regular season games. Can not find anything to show he meets the GNG either. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport" (my emphasis). He has not competed in the NFL and there is not substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet the GNG, therefore he is not notable according to our guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Black Kite 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Channels removed from Sky Digital[edit]

List of Channels removed from Sky Digital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

violates WP:NOT (Wikipedia is NOT for indiscriminate lists); list is non-sourced mhking (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Although the article needs split the channels remove is not notable, however maybe channels that have closed down to finical diffuclites etc might be but it iwll require a lot of work to make it notable. it would solve some problesm on this article and similar one but not fully as it only reduce the size down a little--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Former channels are notable - It's information that is useful, and if the channels have articles, why wouldn't they be? Esteffect (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what i am suggesting, former channels that have closed down in the uk, but not spefic to sky or virgin or any platform, if it spefic to one platform it is not notable--Andy (talk - contrib) 16:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Hartland MacDougall. There appears to be reasonable consensus that the title of this article is a transcription error for Hartland MacDougall, and so it seems reasonable to redirect there for the time being, giving the opportunity to resurrect the article if this does not turn out to be the case. Black Kite 21:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. McDougall[edit]

A. McDougall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a tricky one i think. WP:Athlete may define that hes played at the highest amateur level at the time. And hes won a stanley cup. However that said; He played played as a substitue goalie for only one game in the regular season year of 1895, his first name is unknown, biographical records of him are unknown and their appears to be little record of him outside this one game. Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

commentWithout some basic information about the person, it is impossible to verify or expand this article. His name is unknown. The single verifying fact that he played on the team is already presented in another article 1895 AHAC Season. Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets guidelines for notability in athletes. Edward321 (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that im commenting here alot(this will be the last time, promise!), but its an interesting case of WP:athetle and alot of older articles for players that played a hockey game in the 1890s and the basis for which this information is collected. Hartland Macdougall (no article present) was a player that played substitue goal tender for the montreal victorias (as well as defencemen) in several seasons including the season where A.Mcdougall played one game. In fact he is recorded as playing goal twice that season). Hartland can be verified as winning several stanley cups (about 4 i think). A.Mcdougall is not mentioned after this. The article (current a mcdougall) states that he is the brother of A.Macdougall. But this is not verifiable (can it be?). Could A.Macdougall simply be Hartland Macdougall, and the single source that recorded this event be based on a typo? That it was Hartland not A.Macdougall who played goal? This though is original research and cant be verified. I would argue that hartland would be notable based on his extensive play. The source that A.Macdougall is based on is the trail to the stanley cup volume one. and the process to how james coleman (author) collected information is from newspapers. It is possible that this could be a typo, however; if someone were to have access to montreal newspapers on microfilm and searched January 13th 1895 (the day after the game that he allegedly played) perhaps this could be verified and the article could be improved (but still the article would be solely based on this one source). A newspaper clipping from one game complied by colman nearly 80 years after the game took place. No other information exists beyond this. The essential reason as to why Ive posted him is that there is little way to 'verify' his actual playing, this could be someone else. It is based on a single source which could have inherent errors presented within it. I would not object to creating an article merging the A Macdougall article as well as all other goalies that played for the montreal victorias under their stanley cup run (there are at least 5 other goalies). Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott (ice hockey) resulted in a delete. Article was the same nature as this one, ie same two refs and similar content (Scott (first name unknown played one game ...) Maxim(talk) 19:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What are guidelines for when we don't have all the biographical information for someone, but we know that the person would meet the notability guidelines? As Ottawa4ever says, there have been many mistakes in the early days of hockey with regards to record keeping. When Total Hockey came out, there were several players who were deleted from the NHL player register, just as there several players added to the register. These additions and subtractions were due to poor record keeping at the time. If we can find proof that a A. McDougall played in a game, it should be a Keep. But we can't make that determination. The A. McDougall could be either of his brothers, even though we have no proof of that either. Patken4 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Im breaking my promise here but, this is important info. I was able to trace a bit more information about Hartland Mcdougall. Hartland was not the brother to robert mcdougall. But they did have a buisness relation outside of hockey. Hartland ended up being president of the montreal stock exchange in the early 1910s and formed his own finicial firm Macdougall Macdougall and Mactier in Montreal around that time. The company still exists today. Ill be creating the hartland Macdougall shortly. Still nothing on A. Macdougall though. Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
have mixed sources on wther robert was his brother, but I found this source that relates Robert and Hartland http://www.sportshall.ca/accessible/hm_profile.php?i=257 , but not A. Its the canada sports hall of fame, which hes a member of. I also did a census look up in the canadian census. Theres no Robert MacDougall which the article suggests, but there is a robert McDougall in the census. Do you think possibly the A in A.McDougall, was actually M'A'cDougall and that was the typo. Its agreed that the only way to verify this is to proove A.McDougall played that game. Ive in the mean time created the article for Hartland MacDougall. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
few updates on the search for truth in these articles; This is a collection of original research and syntheisis so it cant be used in the article but it does shed some light on information of these people. Ive managed to determine based on the canadian census that Hartland was the child of George McDougall of scotland, and the siblings from that marriage were Mary and Hartland. Robert is not listed as a relation to hartland. This is using the 1891 and 1901 census. and using information from another ref on who Hartland's parents were. I think determining the fact that they werent brothers is important because commonly they are associated in most documents as brothers. Its also notable that the census uses Mc.Dougall when refering to the name of them (1891) census not as MacDougall. Secondly i looked up robert Macdougall (as well as a search as McDougall), Based on roberts play i think an article is certantly warrented for him so collecting info is valid i believe. I used another source which stated in 1896 he was 20 so at the time of the census he would have been 24. Robert E Macdougall was 24 in the 1901 census and is the only Robert in quebec that fits the description. His parents are Robert W. Not the parents of hartland. One source confirms they are not brothers as well ( http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/2007/03/1896-montreal-victorias-reclaim-stanley.html) though the canadian hall of fame says they are. the source mentions that they worked together at the bank of montreal after their hockey careers ended. A Robert E. (same name) would later join hartland to form Macdougall and Macdougall. (likely the same one) Which if they had met years earlier would make sense also considering they worked together (which is original research and speculation, not facts here 'caution') Nethertheless in both families no one with the first name A. exists in the census. that is a fact. So it can with some certainty be proven that they are not brothers or related in anyway. There is alot of possibilities here that make record keeping from that era questionable. Alot of old time hockey players are judged based on whether they played a single game, but errors can be made in record keeping and people like me deducing whether the relation is that they are brothers have many errors as well. Can this be proven is the bottom line? Can it be proven that A.Mcdougall skated into goal that game. It likley can be proven he is of no relation to the other players by blood. But it cant be proven that the record that its based on was not an error or misprint. Can it just be a score card with a simple typo that created two people in history? Or can someone play one game and be notable 100 years later. Bottom line is there will be a reasobable level of doubt associated with old time hockey records and caution needs to be taken when ascertaining whether notability is truly based on playing one game and we shouldnt be applying WP: athlete to every case unless documented evidence exists on the person that can establish whether they existed and played that game. Especially considering he might not have existed and may be someone else.Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Winning the Stanley Cup is enough to determine notability. Yes, you personally may have had trouble finding much information on him, but that does not mean it is impossible to find such information. -Djsasso (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming he exists that is but theres no proof. I think the next step is to look at several newspapers that reported on the game and see if it can be confirmed that A.Macdougall was written down twice. Two last things before this, A.McDougall is not in the team photo for the 1895 championship year (http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WcsOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UTkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4690,6300584&dq=hockey) nor does the press at the time consider him part of the championship team. And another thought i had is on the score card A could have been mistaken for H based on the writing. Will look into this a bit further by checking both montreal and ottawa newspapers for reports on the game in question....Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
small source updates here; the team roster at the beginning of the season can be found here http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=SMsOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=UTkDAAAAIBAJ&pg=1566,4192954&dq=hockey . Some players are absent that are listed in other sources but the metropolitan newspaper can confirm their existance (by virtue of a junior team roster) with the exception of A.Mcdougall who is no where mentioned as part of the team during the 1894-1895 paper run. In addition throughout the time period checked there are numerous references to Hartland playing goal for the victorias as well as Lewis, and a brief mention of fenwick. Ill still check a few other sources but I can confirm now that beginning and end of the season A.Mcdougall is not considered part of the 1895 Championship team. Ottawa4ever (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eureka! My friends after an exhaustive search I can proove A.Mcdougall did not play the game. I will be posting shortly the pic. Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thumb|right|200px|Summary from January 14th Globe and mail showing H.Macdougall as goalie not A.Macdougall

So in summary of the search; the picture to the right above shows that the goalie for the game that A.McDougall was alleged to have played was in fact H.McDougall, or Hartland Mcdougall. This game was played on January 12th 1895, and the picture is of the Globe and mail January 14th 1895 edition. Previous to the start of the season A.Mcdougall was not on the victoria's line up nor at the end of the season (links to articles above this thread). Hartland is confirmed letting in one goal in this game, the only goalie in the 1895 AHAC season to let in only one goal (Goalies who played for the victorias only). Further Hartland and Robert Macdougall are not brothers as the census points out and no where in their lineages is there an A Mcdougall. A mcdougall doesnt exist (rather he is Hartland MacDougall) and is merely a transcribed error taken in the trail of the stanley cup written 60 some odd years after the game was played. If any additional information is needed ill be happy to provide it. As for this article, both Hartland MacDougall and Robert MacDougall have articles now, I think a merge and redirect to Hartland Macdougall would be appropriate. However at this point it repreasents original research and may be tricky to merge, but defineatly as it stands it is proven inaccurate Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per WP:CSD#A3 no content. Thryduulf (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

R TV[edit]

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

Delete again minimal article, with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. AfD was perhaps not the best first stop for this, in part because the nominator seems to be calling for a merge, not a deletion. There is clearly no consensus to delete, so that was not an option as for as a close to the AfD. Some editors want to merge content here back to a larger article such as Christianity and abortion. Others wonder whether this article is (or should be) about "Roman Catholicism and abortion" or rather about the broader "pro-life" aspects of Catholic belief. It's not for a closing admin to determine that, but questions about the article title and scope, and whether it should be a standalone article or merged elsewhere and turned into a redirect, can and should be worked out on the article talk page. Hopefully the discussion below can continue there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic Pro-life movement[edit]

Roman Catholic Pro-life movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this article is unnecessarily narrow; its content can and should be incorportaed into the existing wider article Christianity and abortion The Sage of Stamford (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No eligible reason for deletion has been given. AfD is not cleanup, merges do not need AfD. Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. I presume that this is not a specific organisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - entire books have been written about the Catholic Church's positions on abortion and the related history. The article, however, should be renamed "Roman Catholicism and abortion" to be consistent with the main Christianity and abortion article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a section in the Christianity and abortion article for the Roman Catholic position, as for many other branches of Christianity. Do we need separate articles on the Baptist position, Quaker position etc? One comprehensive article addressing all stances would be preferable.--The Sage of Stamford (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment concept is notable, this article is probably not the proper way to start. The article conflates Pro-life and Anti-Abortion. Pro-life is also against capital punishment, which the article asserts without sourcing has always been the position of the Roman Catholic Church. Hmmmm... The Inquisition and executions in the Papal States come to mind... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very good point. The Catholic Church's pro-life positions extend well beyond abortion, thus it would be inappropriate to merge the article with Christianity and abortion even if there was insufficient source to support a separate article (which is not the case). Needed to be rewritten is not a valid reason or deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • If kept, this article should be renamed Roman Catholic Church and abortion (as some others have proposed, and one has withdrawn) because as today's featured article Ten Commandments in Roman Catholicism clearly outlines the Church's position on pro-life which goes well beyond this selective handling proposed in scope by this article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Or, alternately, expanded to include information on the church's position on all aspects of the "pro-life" movement. Certainly, I can easily see how there might be room in the article for the addition of at least some additional content. :) John Carter (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no need for this spin out article (POV fork). With a large amount of catholic content already in articles such as Consistent life ethic, Culture of life, and Christianity and abortion#Contemporary Roman Catholic views, I don't see how this article is needed. It clearly doesn't go into more detail than those articles. Furthermore, as the article is currently titled, the sources do not establish notability of the "Roman Catholic Pro-life movement", if such a thing even exists. While a renamed "Roman Catholic Church and abortion" article may be better titled, it wouldn't match up with this articles content, nor would we need to spin out a whole new article from the "Christianity and abortion" article yet. As it currently stands, I would delete this article, and possibly redirect the Roman Catholic Church and abortion to the Christianity and abortion article. -Andrew c [talk] 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The pro-life position is a fundamental aspect of Catholicism, on which popes have written encyclicals, and the Church's heavy emphasis on the issue and high-profile efforts in the area have led it to be closely and uniquely associated with the pro-life movement.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The fact that the article is currently in rather unimpressive shape is not sufficient reason to delete. The topic of the Catholic pro-life movement is an extremely important one within the Catholic church, more so than in most other churches, and it is reasonable to spin out content that will overwhelm a parent article. Having said that, I would not object to merging back into another article at some point in the future should the article show no significant improvement in a reasonable time. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as needless POV fork - and salvage any material not covered elsewhere into main articles on this topic. Springnuts (talk) 07:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. At the very least this is a reasonable redirect to Christianity and abortion. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 close. The first two paragraphs of the Creative Commons license aren't a deletion rationale. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ang Mo Kio Bus Depot (SMRT Buses)[edit]

Ang Mo Kio Bus Depot (SMRT Buses) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

THE WORK (AS DEFINED BELOW) IS PROVIDED UNDER THE TERMS OF THIS CREATIVE COMMONS PUBLIC LICENSE ("CCPL" OR "LICENSE"). THE WORK IS PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT AND/OR OTHER APPLICABLE LAW. ANY USE OF THE WORK OTHER THAN AS AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS LICENSE OR COPYRIGHT LAW IS PROHIBITED.

BY EXERCISING ANY RIGHTS TO THE WORK PROVIDED HERE, YOU ACCEPT AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE. TO THE EXTENT THIS LICENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED TO BE A CONTRACT, THE LICENSOR GRANTS YOU THE RIGHTS CONTAINED HERE IN CONSIDERATION OF YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Re-reock (talk) 19:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Black Kite 21:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The g1[edit]

The g1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-sourced, nonsense entry mhking (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsourced, probable crystal ball or advertising. JIP | Talk 17:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be deleted it is almost random information placed on a pageEtineskid (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. WP:SNOWBALL. Even if the video turns out to be a fake "unverifiable video by an anonymous anti-government user of a social networking site", it is undoubtedly notable -- the coverage is not limited to a few fringe publications or one day. No need to keep showing an ugly deletion notice to thousands of Wikipedia readers. utcursch | talk 02:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neda (Iranian protester)[edit]

Neda (Iranian protester) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:ONEVENT. Óðinn (talk) 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep -- She is the subject of 59 articles in Google News already because of the international attention paid to her death. Peterkiesler (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Give these people a voice. Give this woman the voice that she gave her very life for!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.123.147 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- I can't help but think that those who are denying the reality of this gruesome act and suggest deleting it have some despicable agenda. To those who deny this video's circumstances, I say that I have see the video that shows Neda and her father right before the shooting peacefully watching the events in front of them. The video shows the yelling and screaming and police fighting the people. It's shameful to suggest that she does not deserve to be a permanent entry in Wikipedia. She is an important part of the history of Iran struggle. Tyrion18 (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Let's keep updating and improving information as available and verifiable? Lenny Zenith —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyborgnyc (talk • contribs) 00:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Neda has become the personification of the protest movement in Iran. This is living history. How could anyone even consider deleting it? Tim New
  • Strong Keep -- continue to update as new information becomes available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caulleys (talk • contribs) 00:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- and improve as information becomes available. Rabourn (talk)
  • Strong delete --unverifiable video by an anonymous anti-government user of a social networking site - hardly qualifies as a reputable source. The mainstream media coverage is all secondary to this one source. Little Professor (talk) 23:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE. We are posting information as quickly as we can get it and are working to verify the sources. Please do not let her deathe be in vain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.224.84 (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Do not delete." -- She had a name, a passport and the facts of her death which have galvanized a nation and saddened the world will be verified. Document history; do not erase it." LisaHenderson06 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Do not delete. -- i believe it is very important to keep this entry. 1) this is verifiable; once media is allowed in again, her father and other witnesses can be interviewed, etc. 2) this is a very important event in a larger important event. encyclopedias document important events, deleting this entry would serve no purpose. due to the nature of Iranian traditions for mourning (3rd, 7th, and 40th day after death, info from time.com) there will probably be more events related to what happened to her. Also, her name "Neda" has become a rallying cry. We dont know what might happen 10 years from now, but there's a possibility that she will become a relatively important figure. Students writing reports over this "green revolution" may want to refer to information about her. Do not delete this entry. 17:40, 21 June 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.19.125 (talk)
  • comment - "Neda" is a likely search term. How about merging the content to 2009 Iranian election protests and preserving some useful redirect? Tom Harrison Talk 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete. I'm stuck in two minds about this... on one hand, it is a BRDP1E, however, it is quickly becoming symbolic of the election protests... I'd edge towards a weak keep, however, I would not be adverse to a merge to 2009 Iranian election protests. Sceptre (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for a couple of reasons. First, considering the topic, it will simply be recreated again regardless (then deleted, then recreated, etc...). More importantly though, this is part of a larger event. What's occurring in Iran right now is very likely going to turn into a revolution... or, it won't. Regardless, right now it's simply too soon to make any rational decisions. Even if "Neda" is only in the spot light for a very short period of time though, it is a notable event.
    Regarding merging with the Iranian protests page, that is a really bad idea. That page is going to need break-outs really soon now as it is, so adding more material to it is the wrong way to go.
    — Ω (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- The information is verifiable, and the story is notable, so deleting it would be detrimental from an encyclopedic standpoint. I don't know if it does warrant its own article though, so a possible merge with either the article on the protests or a spinoff article would make sense, but that's an editorial discussion, not a deletion discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an aside... I don't know how many of the people here have seen the video of her death. If you haven't, its... haunting. Its something thats going to stay with me for a long long time. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, the Iranian protests page is already over 110k. A merge there is a very bad idea, and I can't imagine anywhere else that it could be merged into. Believe me, I thought about it immediately after the page's creation when I stub-sorted it...
      — Ω (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ps.: I requested for a semi-protect for this page a couple of hours ago. It really does need it to prevent IP edit warring and vandalism.
      — Ω (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but not averse to a merge. Basically, I concur with Sceptre. She's drawn a lot of media and public attention, which I think merits mention in the 2009 Iranian election protests at the least. The question is how temporary or long-lasting her death will be in the public eye. If the attention fades dramatically within a few days, then merge would be best. If she continues to be a rallying point (internationally and/or inside Iran) for a longer period, then a separate article would be appropriate. But I'd lean toward keeping it (rather than going back and forth) to see which way it develops. --JamesAM (talk) 17:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm not hugely opposed to a merge, but I do think we should be careful not to treat non-Western events considerably differently from western events. For example, I could see the same argument for merging the four deaths in the Kent State shootings into the main article, instead of having separate articles for Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Scheuer. Wikipedia can't be 100% consistent on every subject, of course, but I think we should make some effort to avoid regional imbalances. --Delirium (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , has become a phenomena, with even the national Dutch condolence register having opened a register for "Neda Soltani, died 20 June 2009" --86.93.230.182 (talk) 17:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - she is not the first and, sadly, probably not the last casualty, whose death was recorded. The only thing that sets her death apart from deaths of other protesters is the resulting media frenzy. Let us not fall victims to that. Perhaps the situation may become as iconic as that of the Tank Man, but this falls into the realm of WP:SPECULATION. Óðinn (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an iconic victim who will come to be the visual symbol of this event, much like the aforementioned images of the Tank Man. To delete this entry would be simply foolish. Hishighness420 (talk) 18:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep important symbolic figure. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep subject has reached iconic status after viral coverage and coverage by traditional media. -- Alternativity (talk) 18:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold - Iran is in the midst of a press blackout, we have no means of ascertaining reliable facts as per normal Wikipedia standard. I believe we'll have better grounds to discuss this in a week or so, once the fires die down. --88.192.229.39 (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this girl has become a voice of this movement and the world wants to know more about her. She needs her own page. She is effectively, as another user noted, the Tank Man of this uprising in Iran. Leonffs (talk) 19:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a big story and there will be continuing interest in this girl - it's obvious. A merge is underestimating the size of this story, even if it doesn't continue to grow her face and name are already being used as symbols by protestors around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.145.133.114 (talk) 19:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, simply because the trajectory of events in Iran suggests that Neda will become more, not less, of an important symbolic figure. Should the Green Revolution fail, we may want to revisit that, but should they succeed, she will certainly merit her own entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfeek (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 18:26:32
  • Keep, As per talk above, this girl is an important factor in this protest. Also the fact that news coverage have referenced her time and time again. Knowledgekid87 16:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it has become one of the central pillars of the Iranian movement. It explains the brutality of the militia force in Iran in a way which simply no word can do. If there is a concern about the name "Neda", change it to "Neda Soltani". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolgharni (talk • contribs) 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She is only notable (and we're stretching even that word) for WP:ONEEVENT, and her death and name can never be legitimately confirmed. Bsimmons666 (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds exactly like the Unknown Rebel, KEEP. -Lapinmies 20:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur, Strong keep. Flex Flint (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for now at least. At present she is extremely notable. Determining whether she will continue to be so is pointless. If it turns out that her name is wrong, the article can be moved. If she proves to not be as pivotal to this movement as she currently appears to be, then the page can be deleted. Wikipedia should be providing verifiable information about what people are trying to find out about. Right now, Neda is extremely notable and significant and people are coming here to look her up. --Aranae (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this tragic event established its notability almost within minutes of its occurrence; it's all over the world media. As it stands, she is notable as a person slain during the protests; if she later is subsumed into a larger historical event, we can always move the content then. Antandrus (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is the Crispus Attucks of the current demonstrations. She will long be remembered and her name invoked by the Iranian protesters.Dogru144 (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This young women deserves to be remembered and deserves for her story to be told, this should be edited to a complete article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.87.168 (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely Keep - Wikipedia's standard response is to recommend articles for deletion far too easily, which is sad. The is report today as national news in Britain - definitely do not delete. I can only imagine this recommendation for delete was posted too early - otherwise I cannot see the logic of it. --Robinson weijman (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, people will want to know who and why they are hearing Neda on tv, twitter, and other media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.3.238 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 20:55:11
  • Keep, but probably more appropriate to merge into the protest article. She is indeed becoming a symbol of the struggle. 128.42.162.96 (talk) 21:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, high-profile deaths in political controversies, where commented on significantly by multiple reliable sources, are a generally recognized exception to ONEEVENT. See: Benno Ohnesorg, Jeffrey Miller, etc. --Delirium (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is notable... in the context of the event, which is on-going and unlikely to resolve quickly. Nephron  T|C 21:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, it is notable, high profile and well referenced. Knowitall (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* - The alleged video was posted by an anonymous anti-government Twitter user, the video itself is showing neither the location nor the shooter and can not be verified independently. It does not meet the Wikipedia quality requirements as it can't even be told if the video is fake or not, or when or where it was filmed, who it shows and who shot the alleged victim. Wikipedia is and should stay a non-politic platform and not be abused by anti- or pro-government-agitators. Either reduce the Wikipedia entry to the mere facts that can be shown in the video (Unnamed woman with the alleged name of "Neda" dying by unknown wound allegedly afflicted by unknown shooter), or delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.219.223.237 (talk • contribs) 2009-06-21 22:27:39
    • Comment - Neda is notable not as somebody who was shot, but as a meme and a rallying point for the protesters. Restricting the article to the facts of the video, and ignoring everything that came (and was published in credible sources) after, would make the page useless. --HBK|Talk 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what its worth, there's at least two videos, not one. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep there is already talk in newspapers all over the world (i.e. Time, Spiegel) that the short film of her death could change history- therefore snowball keep! --noclador (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* - Definitely delete it for now. Neda is certainly notable and worthy of entry, but information regarding her is altogether far too speculative at this point to meet wikipedia's standards. Later, when there is some certainty as to details, the article can be added again. If it is to stay, then her speculative last name and any details other than the impact of the video should be omitted.--24.18.104.25 (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The criminal Iranian government is doing enough to censor the voice of people who just want their vote be counted. No need some Wikipedians to cooperate with the Iran regime to shut down the voice of this people. Neda is the symbol and voice of Iranian people. This voice should be heard by all the world--Where is my vote? (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Information is somewhat speculative at this time, but new information will surface and this page can be edited at that time. The topic matter seems too important to simply throw away. In the mean time, a note about the more uncertain facts should be helpful. That is, be honest about the strength of the information, but let people make up their own minds. Mundhenk (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aside from the snowball effect of this story, the video itself (and there are two) show the same thing, in addition there is one showing the man in the striped shirt with her before hand and you can here her name said in the video of her death. Due to the iconic nature of the information compared to all who have been injured or killed, it should be kept and updated as new information becomes available.(SSJPabs (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep. As the guideline states, ¨as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified.¨ She certainly has met this. --Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.If the Unknown Rebel can have his own page, then Neda deserves her own page.--Lan Di (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Notable and high profile event. The name and the image already has special significance in and outside Iran and might well become the historical iconic 'Tank Man' that comes from the mess over there. Just a reminder, we never did learn his name. Rooker75 (talk) 23:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Sourceless yet still very significant. Binarypower (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per nom Bigglovetalk 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Yug (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, for the same reasons we have an article on Phan Thị Kim Phúc. We can determine later whether it will keep a similarly iconic status, but in the meantime this is a subject people are likely to want to know more about (to the extent there is more to be known). —David Eppstein (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Will be recreated, and doesn't fail ONETIME due to her being a rally cry right now for the continuance of the protests. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 00:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Revise later as necessary.JimC1946 (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's all covered above. Shadowjams (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This can be a turning point in the Iranian and possibly middle east history and as she is turned to a symbol of cruelty of the Iranian government as well as a public figure in Iran, there should definitely be an entry for her. Of course, the page can be revised to always show the accurate content. Verification of the facts is not an issue in the long run, and is not a good alibi for deleting the entry altogether.--Persiboy (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is a huge symbol of the current conflict and is notable enough to deserve her own page. --Cajolery (talk) 00:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I count about 40 keeps and only a few deletes. Can we remove the deletion tag? 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. Maybe merge later, depending on how iconic she is. -- Avenue (talk) 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Sitethief~talk to me~ 00:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep She is a huge symbol of the current conflict and is notable enough to deserve her own page. --NuLL3rr0r (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep She's in a similar position as Tank Man and I would say that no one has ever come up with a confirmation as to his identity either. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.232.238.182 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep According to WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Neda has been covered by Time, CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera, and quite a lot of the foreign press. Even in the absence of further biographical information, I think this article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and should remain unmerged for the time being. -emk ✆ 01:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • snowball keep - due to the impact of the video and the alleged identity, she will merit an entry under the name of 'Neda' even if the original information proves to be correct, or the video proves to be a hoax. My impression following the coverage is that there *have* been multiple claims of identification of her and especially her philosophy professor. As the information is developing and the article does not meet the criteria for a hasty delete, there seems little point in discussing whether to delete or merge the information mere hours after her burial. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep'The face of Neda is etched into my mind and anyone who watched the video forever. If there are inaccuracies in her bio they can be corrected in the coming days. Her face has become the face of freedom and the price it takes to achieve freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.168.47.25 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - There seems to be some evidence of the subject's notability. Right now it is a current event, with new information to emerge, and it will be difficult to decide at the very moment, whether the subject will warrant it's own article or not. So I propose for now it be kept on the basis of WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia, and that we review in 15 to 30 days, to decide if delete or merge is warranted. --Mysidia (talk) 01:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Meets WP:N. At the moment this is the number one searched for page on Wikipedia.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Mysidia. As with many deletions based on WP:NOTNEWS, it's too soon to tell. cab (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Have you no heart? JCDenton2052 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] Please be civil. There are/were valid concerns over how verifiable this information is. That was even more true at the time this article was first nominated for deletion. A vote for deletion is by no means an attempt to belittle a person, life, or movement. That said, it may be time to accelerate the process of closing this nomination. I think there is a very clear consensus for keep - even if one were to only look at the discussion by experienced editors. --Aranae (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a snowball keep at this point--- if any admin agrees, please close the discussion now. Shii (tock) 02:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. No participants could find any usable coverage to demonstrate notability of this organisation. ~ mazca talk 23:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty and solidarity[edit]

Liberty and solidarity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

May fail WP:NOTABILITY. Colds7ream (talk) 16:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Brooklyn College. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tanger Hillel at Brooklyn College[edit]

Tanger Hillel at Brooklyn College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Single building on a campus with no apparent notability. — Coren (talk) 15:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of member states of the European Union in the official languages (2nd nomination)

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 22:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GHIBL Vernon Hornets[edit]

GHIBL Vernon Hornets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined prod: Non-notable baseball team that is associated with a baseball league that is red-linked. A Google/Google News search indicates to me nothing that would make this team hit the General Notability Guideline. NW (Talk) 15:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Ho[edit]

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

Contested prod, I will point this out again like I pointed it on my PROD: Appears to be created by a WP:SPA user which I suspect is in fact a WP:COI user judging by the state of edits; lacks any reasonable WP:VERIFY other than promotional sites. Also fails WP:ARTIST. Donnie Park (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete as self-promotional advertising of nonnotable individual - The prod had been on the article for the required length of time for deletion, but it was deprodded by a sockpuppet of a banned editor shortly before the prod would have expired and before the sockpuppet investigation caught up with him. If this hadn't been listed for AFD the deprod would have been reverted (edits of block evasion banned editors are not valid -- I'm doing clean up after the sock right now) and the article would already be gone right about now anyway. Not sure if that's a speedy delete, or revert the AFD and go through with the prod delete or what, but the AFD should never have been necessary... on the other hand a consensus to delete through AFD is a good thing to have to prevent people restoring it later. DreamGuy (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sega Revolution Games[edit]

List of Sega Revolution Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Almost definitely a hoax, searching Sega Revolution on google and google news turn up exactly ZERO hits, no rumors in gaming publications, no press releases, NOTHING. Article creator has been warned repeatedly for inserting unsourced information regarding a new Sega console into other articles. - 2 ... says you, says me 14:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Agree with nom. Also, the only non-video non-blog results I could find are along the lines of what would be included on the Nintendo Revolution's Virtual Channel. "Revolution" was the development title of the Wii. (Also, if Sega were to return to making consoles, the chances of a Mario title appearing it are less than zero.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google News returns no hits, and Google returns mainly forum speculation and MySpace videos. If the Sega Revolution existed, it would have been covered in at least some mainstream sources by now, meaning that this page appears to be a hoax.--Unscented (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - obvious hoax, so tagged. Why would Nintendo release a Mario game exclusively on Sega's console? Why would a multi-platform Rock Band game be called "Sega Rockband"? Why would a Batman game be released exclusively in Japan? Above all, why would Sega use a name for their console which Nintendo had used only a few years earlier? Nothing adds up here, not at all. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoaxes don't technically qualify for speedy deletion. But damn, you stole my remark. Delete this article, in any case. —harej (talk) 01:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they're sufficiently obvious hoaxes, then they qualify for speedy deletion as vandalism. Exactly what qualifies as "sufficiently obvious" isn't clear, but it's my personal opinion that this one is - especially given that it's sourceless, and there's no article on the Sega Revolution. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. does not belong at AfD DGG (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quaysides[edit]

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

Redirects to a page that is not globally represented. //Melonite (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Michael Jackson's Moonwalker. Black Kite 21:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Video Game[edit]

Michael Jackson Video Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Untitled future video game, only a single, blogish, reference with scant information. May be notable once released or information appears in reliable sources but right now it violates WP:CRYSTAL and perhaps WP:HAMMER RadioFan (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure what the point would be of contacting Sony. Even if they do respond, any information you get from them would most likely violate WP:OR and WP:VERIFY. Anyway, as far as waiting, this deletion debate should remain open for at least a week. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources are considered reliable per here. Salavat (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. No sources could be found to verify the article or demonstrate notability, which is particularly unacceptable for a WP:BLP. ~ mazca talk 23:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michoel Schnitzler[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP of a non-notable individual, per WP:MUSICBIO. Prod was contested, so bringing here for discussion. I agree with the original prods, as there is not "significant" reliable coverage; Google only shows a few reliable results, and Google News shows a good example of 2 hits that are "trivial" mentions. Jamie☆S93 13:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The first 100-150 Ghits indicates that it will be difficult to meet WP:BAND. The deprodding editor seems to have confused this artist with a namesake chamber music artist - acting in good faith, but mistaken. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the admin that PRODed it. لennavecia 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to notability as a artist in the Chassidic Jewish community. My challenge to this is that I haven't found any verifiable sources to this. If no one else can that I'll toss my hat in with Delete. Unfortunately but such is the way of the Wiki. Joe407 (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cool3 (talk) 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Millson[edit]

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

Contested prod. This footballer has only ever played in the 8th tier of the football association - wp:football states that this is not a professional league. There is no assertion of notability outside football. 2 of the references in the article are from the club's web site the 3rd leads to the wikipedia article on his high school. The user who contested the prod quoted another reference from the local Skegness paper which is a summary of one of the references from the web site. Porturology (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - I contested the PROD, but I appear to have misread something when I did. I was under the impression Boston United was part of Football Conference, but that is not actually the case. Many players in that league are notable, but few in their actual Northern Premier League are notable. It could be argued that Millson technically meets the GNG with these sources: [3][4][5] plus being part of numerous team articles (including being one of only 3 players kept at the end of the season). If any player on the team is notable, it is probably Millson, but I am doubtful that any player is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - playing for a football team at this level doesn't make you notable enough for an article automatically, and there are no sources showing he is notable for a different reason. He is still only 19 though, so he could become notable later in his career, but WP:CRYSTAL applies until he actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual does not appear notable. rmosler (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acquired Death Aversion Deficiency syndrome[edit]

Acquired Death Aversion Deficiency syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism, sources appear to be self published or irrelevant. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 10:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Never Ending Realm (N.E.R)[edit]

The Never Ending Realm (N.E.R) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable computer game. Not even released yet. May become notable after release, but not yet. No secondary sources available. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I agree, it is non-notable, and being developed by an equally obscure games house. If every potential game be given a wikipedia page off this precedent, there would be a lot of stubs about games that very few people have heard of. On the other hand, should this game, on the offchance, become immensely popular, I would have no qualms about its sequel being given a Wikipedia page. However, that notability does have to come first, and at the minute, it has little to none. --[[User:It's-is-not-a-genitive|]] (talk) 11:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muses Review[edit]

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

Non-notable American magazine. I couldn't find enough coveraqge from independent reliable sources about it. Algébrico (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muses Prize[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable prize. I actually couldn't find enough reliable independent sources about it. The only sources are from the website of the magazine which created this prize (the magazine itself seems to be also non-notable). Algébrico (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 12:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mythili Kumar[edit]

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

Not sure this meets the general notability guideline for biographies. No sources, only one mainspace page linking in (a list), couldn't really find anything reliable, substantial, or notability-indicating online at a cursory glance. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 00:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JUPITER trial[edit]

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

Articles on individual trials are usually unnecessary, unless individual trials have secondary sources that support their absolutely earth-shattering relevance. While the JUPITER trial is interesting, its findings have not even been included in clinical guidelines. JFW | T@lk 10:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — — CactusWriter | needles 20:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (article creator) I'd argue that large-scale clinical trials such as this one are actually a great type of article for Wikipedia. There are a number of trials in Category:Clinical trials that explain the research protocol, clinical relevance, and media attention--I'd argue that good-quality lay explanation of relevant studies is directly in-line with Wikipedia's goals. (incidentally, JFW authored these two clinical trial articles) :) This article is highly sourced and the subject was featured in multiple major news outlets, currently with citations from the medical literature, the Los Angeles Times & Reuters. I'd argue that the results are still being analyzed and discussed in the relevant literature: PMID 19329822 is a new analysis of JUPITER (published 30 April 2009) that shows a reduction in venous thromboembolism, a potentially novel effect of statins (PMID 19505206). These are new sources I'd consider adding[6][7][8][9]. Finally, there is some precedent for keeping a similar article with substantially less content, too. — Scientizzle 19:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As said by the nominator, it is an interesting topic. More importantly, it appears to be well cited in other papers, and it has good references in clinical journals (Endrocrinolgy Today), national newspapers (LA Times) and even financial news (Reuters). Seems to be a solid article. — CactusWriter | needles 20:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't understand something: JFW, why did you create the tiny ASTEROID trial article about a clinical study of the same drug, and yet you find the larger, more solidly referenced JUPITER trial to be less noteworthy of an encyclopedia article? Can you clarify this? — CactusWriter | needles 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because I've changed my mind, and now think that these trials are not encyclopedic. I'll happily send the ASTEROID article to AFD as well if that is needed to lend weight to my opinion. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd rather see ASTEROID trial expanded, personally. — Scientizzle 00:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, JFW, thanks for your explanation. I see no reason to delete that study -- there appears to be plenty of sources to allow expansion. I'm uncertain about Verbal's suggestion of merging the trials -- but I do think we should have better links or referrals to these pages in the Rosuvastatin and Statins articles, so that readers can find this information. These articles can only provide a more complete picture of the topic. — CactusWriter | needles 05:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, creator, and other !vote(s). Perhaps JUPITER and ASTEROID should be merged and redirected to "Statin clinical trials" or "Clinical trials of statins"? Verbal chat 20:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some single studies are notable - this one was widely reported and discussed. Merge w/ ASTEROID may be OK —G716 <T·C> 05:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good article about noteable study. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cool3 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Williams, American counterfeiter[edit]

Arthur Williams, American counterfeiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable per WP:BIO. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly fits within the basic criteria of WP:BIO. I really don't know what you're talking about.69.134.48.10 Alexandergreenb (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

  • If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.[6]
  • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."
Arthur Williams adequately fulfills this criterion: he is the subject a book-length biography written by a third party. The depth of coverage is substantial, as it occupies the entire book. The book was published by Gotham Books, a subsidiary of Penguin. The book has been reviewed and the author interviewed on a number of radio programs, television programs, and in newspapers and magazines. I don't see how he could possibly fail to meet the criteria in that sense. Alexandergreenb (talk) 19:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Babu Sassi[edit]

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

At the moment it is hard to tell if he is an actual person, most references to him are repeated versions of the same story from a single source. See this. Wongm (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Article contains no assertion of notability — Coren (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Moses[edit]

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

This article has been speedy deleted 13 times in 2 years, mostly for copyvio but also for lack of notability. The copyvio problem has been resolved with permission to use the subject's personal web page. However the only references in the article are to this site and IMDB - neither could be classed as impartial or reliable. A web search does not show many references and none of a non-trivial type although there are a number of sites attacking Billy Moses. The article itself reads like self-advertising hype. If the decision is to delete, i think it should be salted in view of the past history Porturology (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Those arguing for the deletion of these article make a valid point with regard to WP:ATHLETE. On the other hand, a very plausible case under the general notability guideline was presented by those arguing to keep the articles. A similar number of people supported each of these positions (particularly if the "per noms" are excluded). Thus, there is clearly no consensus to delete these articles. It is also very difficult to consider the notability of 6 different people under the GNG in the same AfD, so it would be best if any future nominations were made separately for each of these individuals (it seems looking at the articles and sources presented that some may be much more notable than others). Cool3 (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Angeli[edit]

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

Non-notable soccer player who has no senior international caps, appearances for a professional club, or Olympic experience, thus failing all points of WP:FOOTYN GauchoDude (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Kelsey Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ashlyn Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amanda Poach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Michelle Enyeart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lauren Fowlkes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep all - For starters, WP:FOOTYN is an essay, not even a guideline. Second, it says (in bold) "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." All of these people have played for the U-23 or U-21 US national team, which by itself is a very strong indication of notability. Additionally, several of them have won nationally recognized awards. I did Google News searches on them all and all were covered in 50+ news stories. Yes some of that coverage is game reports and such, but every lady mentioned here had at least 3 stories that were about them rather than about a game they played in. --ThaddeusB (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all WP:FOOTYN may be an essay, but WP:ATHLETE is not, and they all appear to fail it as none of them have played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: per nom. WP:FOOTYN is an essay, you are correct. An essay that "may be consulted for assistance during an AfD discussion". And sure, people could be notable without passing those criteria. Maybe they wrote a best selling book before they took up the sport. That would make them notable without passing WP:FOOTYN. Niteshift36 (talk) 11:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are correct, they fail WP:ATHLETE - I should have made that clear before. However, this is an inclusion criteria, not an exclusionary one. Someone can be notable under the GNG even if they are an amateur. 98% of amateur athletes are not notable - these ladies are in the 2%. All of them have major accomplishments (such as playing for the US national team) that have been documented by multiple reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • They have not played for the national team, they have played youth internationals. There is long-standing agreement that youth caps do not confer notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And there is an even longer standing guideline that non-trivial coverage in multiple RS confers notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Jordan Angeli easily meets the general notability requirement WP:N with numerous articles in major publications. [11], in which I can quickly see one of the other nominees mentioned. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • FYI, that link is not an article about Angeli. It is a match report which mentions her by name. пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was one of many - and probably not the best one, it looks like someone has done quite a good list below. She easily meets the general notability requirements. Nfitz (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, as non-notable. GiantSnowman 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom Knowitall (talk) 22:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's start over. I obviously didn't explain myself well to begin with. According to Wikipedia:Notability (people)

It then goes on to list some guidelines to help judge whether someone is likely to be notable. One of these is for athletes, commonly referred to as WP:ATHLETE which states that professionals at the highest level of their sport are normally notable. As current college players, none of these women meet that criteria. However the document in question states:

It baffles my mind that people can effectively say "all pros are notable and no amateurs are." This is absurd, as the top college players are (barring major injury or personal choice) sure to have professional careers that are more significant that the bare minimum "1 minute on the field in 1 game" criteria.

All of the players nominated here are in top couple % of all college players as evidenced by the significant amount of coverage they have received in reliable sources. The following is a representative (but by no means exhaustive) list of sources for each player:

Jordan Angeli
Kelsey Davis
Ashlyn Harris
Amanda Poach
Michelle Enyeart
Lauren Fowlkes

Obviously each player has a different level of notability, but all appear to have sufficient coverage to warrant inclusion. That is unless one is arguing that no college player can ever be notable, regardless of sources/accomplishments. I would appreciate it if future comments talked about the individual players instead of just saying "delete all - only pros can be notable." --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, clearly fail WP:ATHLETE notability. No real coverage except for trivial sources, so they fail WP:N. Youth caps, winning awards, being named player of the match, being named in an "All-American" team etc etc does not confer notability as it's on a semi-professional or amateur level. --Jimbo[online] 13:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain how being the the sole subject of an article represent "trivial coverage." --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial in the sense that they're going to get a bit of coverage for playing a nn level. The few articles linked that the people in question are "sole sbjects" are subjective to WP:NOTNEWS anyway. 212.85.13.114 (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If they were notable aside from their athletic achievements then I'd argue for inclusion. But the only notability claims they have are for playing soccer, and we have a standard for that at WP:ATHLETE. It has been argued that these players are "sure to have professional careers"; that's all well and good, and when that time comes they'd clearly satisfy WP:ATHLETE. I'm not convinced that the amount and nature of coverage for these athletes is sufficient to warrant an exception from our athlete notability standards. -- Atamachat 17:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The list of coverage in reliable sources given convinces me that the athletes satisfy the general criteria of WP:BIO. Further the All American mention qualifies as a notable award for me that satisfies WP:BIO. The additional criteria of WP:ATHLETE is not an exclusive criteria. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, what part of being named "All-American" satisfies WP:BIO? --Jimbo[online] 21:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Look at WP:ANYBIO. I consider All-American designations to be notable awards. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I don't see how the award can be notable when there isn't even a consensus on which publication or list is the premiere authority. While it's a decent gauge to start, it definitely does not automatically confer notability. GauchoDude (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I can't see how winning an award in a league that doesn't make you notable in itself (as it's not fully-pro as WP:ATH states) passes anything. --Jimbo[online] 07:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • By that logic, winning an award can only make you notable if you are part of a league that already makes you automatically notable. Thus, winning an award is always meaningless for establishing notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 12:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Exactly, that is directed at people who are not athletes, otherwise people who win awards in amateur/semi-professional leagues such as the Essex Senior League or Kent League would become notable. Hence, why WP:ATHLETE is the criteria set for athletes. --Jimbo[online] 13:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Failing to meet one of the additional inclusion criteria (such as ATHLETE) is not an automatic disqualification. WP:Notability (people) makes this clear: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". Additionally, the awards line is found under the heading "Any biography" It doesn't say "any one who isn't an athlete" it says anyone who "has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" is notable.
                • At least according to the plain language of the document, playing 1 pro game is an automatic qualifier, but not playing 1 pro game is not an automatic disqualifier. Clearly there are many editors who feel no one can ever be notable for amateur athletics. That is perfectly legitimate opinion to have; however, our notability guidelines do not support that opinion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - There is no pyramid system in American soccer, and the professional leagues draw from college players. Comparing with soccer/football systems elsewhere in the world is a false analogy. Players meet WP:GNG, which supersedes WP:ATHLETE anyway. Strikehold (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Just because, according to you, there is no pyramid system does not mean Americans get to dodge the rules set in place. There is, in fact, a pyramid system, however it is not continuous between the leagues (therefore no promotion/relegation). When the players in question become professionals, then create the article. Simple as. This argument is re-done every year with the MLS draft and is getting very old. GauchoDude (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There is, in fact, a pyramid system, however [there is] no promotion/relegation." QED. That is not a pyramid system. Every sports-related AfD people toss around WP:ATHLETE without regard to WP:BIO and that is getting very old. Strikehold (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all news coverage does not automatically confer notability, especially when such coverage is trivial and does not discuss the subject in a minimum required amount of detail. And all these articles are a clear example of what I am saying. --Angelo (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of which can be found at WP:NOTNEWS. --Jimbo[online] 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTNEWS is intended to prevent the coverage of news events that have no lasting importance (such as individual sports games). Game coverage doesn't make an athlete notable, but articles written about them should. If athletes can't be notable for being in the news, then almost no athlete can ever be notable (ignoring that pros are automatically notable.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - by Wikipedia's definition, news coverage DOES confer notability. The links provided show that these players have clearly achieved the necessary notability by the primary criteria. matt91486 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All they all basically have potential notability but do not requirs articles until they are actually notable--AssegaiAli (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All and recreate the articles once they have each established themselves as a professional player. MacMedtalkstalk 02:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 03:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadia Khamlichi[edit]

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

The subject is a co-CEO of Motion Investment Group along with the other two nominations. The company is likely notable as a co-producer of many films, but there's nothing to prove notability of the three co-CEOs. Mentions are trivial in the context of the company being a co-producer of movies or attendances at film events. None of the three pass WP:N. All three pages were A-7ed once. Delete. SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

Jeremy Burdek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Adrian Politowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi[edit]

Ryan Higa and Sean Fujiyoshi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Same reasons as last time. ÷seresin 05:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Being the second most subscribed YouTube channel is pretty darn notable, as even several of the deletes agreed last time. This time around there is plenty of sources available to back this up.

I count 7 main stream news sources, which should be more than enough to establish notability as follows:

Additionally, LA Weekly reviewed their film. There are also countless semi-reliable source reviews of their work that aren't part of the mainstream press. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Being the second person to have more than one million suscribers on YouTube is pretty notable. Clem (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability established through the third-party sources listed above. It looks like the AFD last month came to the wrong conclusion, but that doesn't mean we should repeat their mistake. Robofish (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean-up. Certainly notable and sources do seem to also exist. See Chris Crocker (Internet celebrity)#Selected videography for ideas on how youtube videos can discussed and how to source the stastistics. -- Banjeboi 12:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep not because they're the x'th most popular user and has x views on youtube, but because of the sources User:ThaddeusB has brought in above. They certainly aren't notable enough for separate articles. The current state of the article makes it look delete-worthy, so according to WP:BURDEN it is not at all suprising it was nominated for deletion, and rightly so. The article was deleted before because it was only about one of the individuals of the duo. It only just avoids a WP:1E because half of the sources are about the movie. Oh and would the keep voters above read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Really.--Otterathome (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that the article was in better shape before someone came along and added a bunch of original research. I am about to go back and re-clean it up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just went and checked Fred's page, which has eight sources verifying notability. Seven should be enough to warrant the keeping of this page. Clem (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both because they are the second most subscribed on YouTube (with no indication of cheating) and because of the news coverage presented. That an article is short is not a reason to delete either. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Parker[edit]

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

I'm not sure how notable being "one of the first" people tested for a particular gene makes a person. Possibly fails WP:N. Nominator is neutral, as I am unfamiliar with notability in terms of medical testing, but I believe a discussion should take place. Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. WP:SNOW PeterSymonds (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy King[edit]

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

An editor is insistent that the article is not notable, and wishes to keep the "Notability" tag. Others feel that it's already makes clear notability. Rather than a permanent "Notability" tag, or edit warring over the tag, we should decide here if it's notable, and if it's not, delete it. Rob (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Her notability is shown by the sources provided which include reviews of her book and interviews by the BBC and major newspapers. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to have made enough of a splash outside academia (cf WP:PROF point 7). Disembrangler (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Existence of numerous sources such as BBC speaks volumes about subject's notability. --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability clearly established by multiple sources. Esowteric | Talk 11:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the previous arguments. Notability established by reliable sources. Englishrose (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notability established, repeatedly adding notability tags to this article is just disruptive. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable reliable sources in the reference section. Dream Focus 21:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep Easilly passes WP:N with multiple reliable sources running dedicated features on the subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Seriously, this is a bit ridiculous. I've even heard of her and I know almost nothing about her specialty. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Instead of all the people claiming she's notable, how about someone come up with an argument that actually meets our notability guidelines and change the article to reflect that? She wrote a book, she's been interviewed about a single topic... none of that shows notability for a separate article. The people who want to remove the notability tag should actually try to document notability instead of removing it, and putting it up for AFD with a lot of WP:ILIKEIT votes is not a substitute for actually improving the article to demonstrate notability. DreamGuy (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:N says the primary notability criterion is: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". She appears to have that. Note, the "significant coverage" doesn't have to actually exist in the Wikipedia article, it just has to exist in reliable sources. You seem to feel she doesn't warrant significant coverage in reliable sources, but don't seem to deny she has received it. --Rob (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides being noted for her controversial book on the Elgin Marbles she is also noted as a conservative blogger and a conservative supporter of Obama in 2008. If she was not notable why would a major political magazine (The New Republic) report on her political opinions? (p.s. I can easily understand why some people find her annoying. :-) )Borock (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong ang speedy keep. Clearly notable per WP:BIO and WP:PROF. ukexpat (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep. Obviously notable and sourcable. -- Banjeboi 09:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If this thing snowballs as expected, I hope that if the notability tag returns anyone who removes it can just point to this discussion. To answer DreamGuy, the article has multiple sources that are reliable (BBC News, The Independent, CBC News, The New Republic, The Guardian) and give substantial coverage (the BBC News article is pretty long and wholly about her, The Independent and The Guardian reviewed her book in-depth, and CBC News quoted King throughout the entire article about the Elgin Marbles). I would say that satisfies WP:N well enough. -- Atamachat 22:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Born & Raised (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Born & Raised (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL WP:HAMMER WP:N fail all around. JBsupreme (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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, nominator withdraws nomination with the only contributors wanting to keep the article (non admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 11:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legend of gatorface[edit]

Legend of gatorface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No asserted notability in article or in some (admittedly cursory) searching. Seems to be a real movie (though the proper title is "The Legend of Gatorface"), but not one with any substantive background. - Vianello (Talk) 03:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --  pablohablo. 13:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as Vianello states, if kept, this should be moved to The Legend of Gator Face.  pablohablo. 13:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and rename the now improved article, as it meets the inclusion reqirements of WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The New York Times and Rotten Tomatoes both thought it notable enough to have reviews for it. Dream Focus 21:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (reversal of previous stance). This has been substantially improved since its initial submission and notability has been clearly asserted. I would like to restate my stance as being that this article should be kept. Hats off to the clean-up crew on this one. - Vianello (Talk) 03:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And hats off to you Vianello for changing your view in the Face of new evidence! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Interstitial Scan[edit]

Electro Interstitial Scan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Product placement, possible copyvio, and OR. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week Keep or Merge : ROFL, this is funny. The one credible citation to IEEE probably just discusses an electrode in a salt solution, relevance to product would be tenuous at best. A section on questionable devices that generated rebuttals from credible sources may consider including this. Clearly as written it is a how to use guide on an unproven device. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads like an advertisement or product website, cites Wikipedia extensively; even if it is a notable topic, it needs to be totally rewritten from scratch. By the way, the article had severe overuse of non-free images, none of which had fair-use rationales or any description of why they were necessary; I went ahead and BOLDly deleted them all. The uploader doesn't appear to have any understanding of our image policy, so I didn't see a need to wait around for improvements. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - already deleted a few months ago at AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro Interstitial Scanner. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like the article's not quite written exactly the same, so we can wait out the AfD (not that it matters, this is obviously going to get deleted anyway). Incidentally, I should point out that MBisanz apparently forgot to delete all the orphaned non-free images when deleting the article (there are CC tags on them, but that's obviously a lie, and there's no source information), so I'll go in and delete them now. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 copyright infringement.. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Option A nutrition anorexia nervosa by Jongchan[edit]

Option A nutrition anorexia nervosa by Jongchan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

In a nutshell: Original research. See also a previous discussion. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would've let the PROD expire, but it's been recreated and deleted in many versions recently. Leading me to believe that there are good chances that this would've been de-prodded and would've ended up here anyway. Also PRODs don't reveal problematic editing patterns like AfDs do, nor do the get much attention. The trail of evidence is also harder to follow if everything was deleted through prods, making which administrative action (if needed) to apply harder to determine, and much harder to review (for non-admins) in the case of a screw up. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 (non-admin closure).

Orish Grinstead[edit]

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

Non-notable person; subject was in the musical group 702, but the group's notability in not inherited. A target of WP:BLP issues. I had originally redirected it, but my edit was reverted, so AfD is the next step — Σxplicit 02:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. — Σxplicit 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Talk:Orish Grinstead, which neither of you have edited, is the next step. You have an ordinary editing dispute that will be resolved, in either direction, by the use of the ordinary editing tool that you both possess. An administrator exercising the deletion tool forms no part of making this be or not be a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. I was too hasty with this nomination, and I apologize for that. I'll withdraw this nomination to for the alternative step. — Σxplicit 21:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rodger Koopman[edit]

Rodger Koopman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Unremarkable city councilor, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Very little independent referencing. WWGB (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article meets Wikepedia guidelines under these criteria:

1. Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion,

===> as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city. Raleigh is one of the fastest growing cities in the US and often referenced in national newspapers.

1. Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article."

===> The News & Observer, Raleigh's and Wake County's main newspapers has written over 100 articles either about this polician or including him as relevant to major policy decisions made by Raleigh's city council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissinclair (talk • contribs) — Chrissinclair (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment The page creator should've been merely reverted for removing the CSD tag. Since no admin declined the speedy... Enigmamsg 06:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original speedy nomination was for copyvio, with content being lifted from [12]. The author rewrote the article so copyvio no longer applied. WWGB (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do that? I tried that once and when I restored it, an admin told me that removing it signified that they contested it. Go figure. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you're confusing CSD with PROD? See the fourth paragraph of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Enigmamsg 07:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MirageOfPenguins[edit]

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

Prod was removed by article creator. This is an article about a hacking team who find cheats for online computer games. No notability at all. Fences&Windows 02:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MAIET, the parent company for "Gunz Online" has no mention outside of their own forum communities - why should they exist on Wikipedia, if not, MOP as well? In fact, every notice for MAIET is off their "company" homepage; I fail to see how MOP differs.
A reminder, even if you aren't logging in, you should sign your talk posts with four tildes (~). Secondly, demonstrating that MAIET should be deleted doesn't demonstrate that this page shouldn't. In fact I'm trying to find English language sources for the notability of MAIET and failing. That article has no sources. It might get nominated for deletiong too. - BalthCat (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point regardless was, Gunz Online and MAIET both have no outside sources as far as forum communities and YouTube goes - if that's how Wikipedia decides if an article should stay or go, those should be nominated for elimination as well. In fact, many online games on Wikipedia are setup in the same format as the articles for MAIET and Gunz; Combat Arms, Addition, Asiasoft, Drift City, NHN, etc. There are tens leading into the hundreds of thousands of articles setup in this manner, that have not been removed, despite occasionally being edited by administrators; why start removing such articles now? ~ WX 0
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We're not talking about other articles; we're talking about this one. MuZemike 18:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I stand by my original statement: this is a prominent business, and as time goes in, it will became more notoriously famous. It serves to provide invaluable news to Wikipedia users across the board. ~ WX 0
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 under CSD A7. - Vianello (Talk) 03:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jessica Boden[edit]

Dr. Jessica Boden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although a very tragic death, the only hits I could find for Jessica Boden are a youtube video and a linkedin profile, google news has nothing. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and even if sources can be located, she would still likely fail WP:BLP1E. - 2 ... says you, says me 02:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sad story, but this isn't the webspace to advertise it :-( Fuzbaby (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hup Kwon Do[edit]

Hup Kwon Do (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is totally without sources and makes no assertion of notability. Fails both WP:ORG and WP:MANOTE. Name got 700 ghits. I reviewed the first 60 and found they mostly sites affiliated with the art, forums or wikipedia/mirrors. None of the first 60 were a WP:RS. No hits on gnews. Absolutely no activity on the article since Dec. 2006. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like a non-notable offshoot of Taekwando, I couldn't find anything of real WP:RS value on it. - 2 ... says you, says me 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree, just another small, non notable kwon do. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete : fails on notability. there's no shortage of 50-something and 60-something Korean fitness instructors using basic "spin control" and a slightly altered name which actually means "Plain Old Tae Kwon Do At More Expensive Rates" to advertise their chain of fitness centers as "new" and "original" and to have some kind of excuse for parading around in an expensive suit and tie trying to look more important than the other Korean fitness instructors they play golf with. This is one man's small chain of businesses and there are no reliable sources cited or easy to find to suggest there is anything warranting an encyclopedia entry. OfficeGirl (talk) 02:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn new art. JJL (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete chop. JBsupreme (talk) 04:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like a non-notable offshoot of Taekwondo, and it just fails on notability. Bloodmerchant (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 as a copyvio of [13] and another, as yet undetermined, site. Resolute 02:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Rangers[edit]

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

I'm having a really hard time figuring out sport this team plays, probably not helping is the fact that the article appears to be based on a poor and only loosely related translation from the German Wikipedia. That being said, I'm also having a hard time believing that the subject is notable, "Massachusetts Rangers" and "Massachusetts Rangers team" only turn up a single related hit on google - this article. From the referenced de.wikipedia article, it looks like the team's only possible claim to notability is that a few of their players played in the 1933 United States team in the World Hockey Championships, but notability is not inherited. - 2 ... says you, says me 01:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. I think no consensus is the only possible close here, obviously therefore defaulting to keep. The !votes below are fairly split, with eight editors arguing for keep and ten for delete. Most who have commented here have provided at least somewhat valid rationales, which obviously is much more important than the number of !votes. The key argument on the delete side relates to WP:IINFO and the idea that this list is just a collection of not particularly notable info. Those in the keep camp argue that NME is highly notable and so are its covers (or at least they have been in the past), and also point to two similar lists (though the latter was only just created). Both of these positions have validity to them, and I do not see either achieving anything approaching consensus in the discussion below. Several delete commenters brought up the issue of sourcing, and while it is important to source each item in this list in some manner (preferably to reliable online sources that can be easily checked by readers and other editors), the lack of references is not a valid delete rationale. Finally, the lack of consensus now does not of course mean there cannot be one later on, and a future trip to AfD if editors still find this to be unencylopedic would not be unreasonable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of NME covers[edit]

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

Never ending laundry list, trivial, unencyclopaedic, unreferenced, does not add anything of note or understanding to the existing main article. Any notable issues are already discussed in the NME article. Wikipedia is not a directory. A similar list, List of Classic Rock covers, was deleted unopposed recently with the PROD: "Completely trivial. While Classic Rock is a notable magazine, a list that describes each of it's covers is not." Artyline (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My view is that that - after a certain point - the notability of a list varies inversely with its length. This looks like wiki-as-web-host. Hairhorn (talk) 03:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Getting on the cover of the NME constitutes major recognition for musicians and this list gives a picture of how the bands that have been considered worthy of this recognition have changed over the years. Critical acclaim and importantce is of just as much encyclopedic interest as commercial success.--Michig (talk) 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Michdig. No different than this list. Lugnuts (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. People want to know what stars were on front of NME. --Flashflash; 08:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, for good or ill, NME is much more notable than Classic Rock or pretty much any other music magazine as a barometer of changing tastes and styles in popular music. yorkshiresky (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with User:Artyline, basically just a never-to-be-complete list with no encyclopedic value to itself. Better served by a category. JIP | Talk 18:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NME is really notable,such historical encyclopaedic information is also relevant Rirunmot (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list fails to provide context or explanation, and importantly no references. As a historical tool it is unreliable. Artyline (talk) 05:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, massive list with no sources, no notability, and per WP:IINFO Knowitall (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Each entry in the list is sourced - the NME is a reliable source and certainly is regarding who appeared on the cover.--Michig (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an awkward one, it's the kind of article where those who don't care about music might say, "What's the point?", but the kind that is of vast use to those who do. The information is useful, perhaps it does verge on cruft, but it's a notable achievement. Esteffect (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable for what? Lots of people appear on magazine covers. This list offers no context or understanding why. Artyline (talk)
      • It is a major achievement to make the cover of NME magazine in the world of music. You reference Classic Rock, which is a far less significant publication and doesn't warrant a list. As I'll noticed below, major magazines in other areas warrant lists, and the NME cover is a big deal in music. It almost verges on having an "award" sort of status, in fact, in recognising that a musician has hit the big time. A small snippet of context I can offer is that a decision in the 1980's to place The Smiths on the cover instead of Kajagoogoo vastly helped the beginnings of the indie genre, and without that exposure that genre may not have broken through as much as it has in the twenty years since. So it's a trend-setting cover (less so now than in the 80's, admittedly) that in the past has had a major impact upon musical tastes - at times its influence has been up there with radio and music television - and thus an archive listing is useful. Esteffect (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, as for the argument regarding references, I think it's safe to say that the reference is the magazine issue of the date stated within the article. I thought that would be pretty obvious. Also, I don't get what you mean by it offering no context. A lack of references isn't a valid reason for deletion, by the way. Esteffect (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My final comment here to justify my reasoning is that NME is to music what Rolling Stone and Time magazine are to their respective areas. Here's the list of Rolling Stone covers, and here's the list of Time Magazine covers. I know my point here could be construed as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I think it's relevant here - It's a big deal to make the cover in the music world. Esteffect (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but your whole argument is just laughable. There is no way that NME is remotely comparable to Rolling Stone or Time magazine. In the 70s and early 80s it may have been, but since then it has completely lost whatever authoritative reputation it may have had. Getting on the cover of NME means nothing any more. And it's simply not true to say that putting the Smiths on the cover helped the indie genre. Indie music had a high public profile long before the Smiths came along, and in any case the growth of indie was the result of many different factors over a long period of time. The decision to place the Smiths on the cover of one issue of one music magazine had nothing to do with it. --Richardrj talk email 15:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to Richard's excellent reasoning, it should be pointed out that many of the covers from 1952 to the early 1980s were in fact ADVERTS, PAID for by record companies - there is no way many of these artists got there on notability alone. They were simply there to push a new product by the label, so they are not indicators of notability. Artyline (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In the 70s and early 80s it may have been" supports my argument, Richardrj. I stated it isn't as influential now, but it definitely was, and by your logic we'd mayswell delete Woodrow Wilson because he's not been alive for ages. I stand by my argument that it's an influential and relevant achievement that is notable and should be documented. Esteffect (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Esteffect, i agree with you that an NME cover appearance means something, but I don't see why that means we need to an article that describes every single magazine cover from the 50s. If what you say about the Smiths and the emergence of indie is true, wouldn't information be better served as a paragraph in the NME article itself? indopug (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, As Britain's last weekly music magazine, NME is vital to gauge Young Britains music tastes. This article is also notable because of the way it illustrates the changing music tastes, giving a clear picture of the changing face of music.
    • The above anonymous vote is users only edit on wikipedia. Artyline (talk) 01:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTWEBHOST. If NME donates money to Wikimedia Foundation I change my vote. Algébrico (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Richardrj talk email 12:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (I had previously tried to PROD it) I realise that an appearance on the magazine's front cover is often the first stab at fame for many an upcoming rock band, but that doesn't justify a trivial list of everybody who's ever appeared on the cover. If the main NME article can have a well-written paragraph about the front page, it'll be of much more value than this page. indopug (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NME covers are the subject of academic study and so are certainly notable. See sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notable covers are already mentioned in the main NME article thus making this list redundant. Artyline (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the main article's section on covers just redirects to this list, like its sections on awards and tours which redirect to similar spinoffs. If this list article is deleted then the data will be folded back into the main article. Deletion is not an appropriate editing tool when dealing with such a family of articles as merger is required to satisfy the licence. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the redirect, I'm talking about the main body of the NME article. Artyline (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is little about the covers elsewhere in the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just how is one page a "family of articles"? I think the truth is being stretched to the max there Col. Cradleofrock (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. NME covers are in themselves not noteworthy. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Completely trivial. While NME is a somewhat notable magazine, a list that describes each of it's covers is not. Cradleofrock (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Argument that deletion is necessary per WP:NALBUMS is clearly rooted in current guidelines and not really addressed by keep !voters. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled (R. Kelly album)[edit]

Untitled (R. Kelly album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We don't even know the name of this album. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So the fact that he said he's going to call it "Untitled", saying, "y'all call it what y'all like", is irrelevant (see the MTV link I provided - and I'd certainly call them verifiable). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't questioning the veracity of the link, I'm just saying that according to the guideline there needs to be more than that for the album to qualify for its own article. Cliff smith talk 18:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Frankly I have been into news and issues of internet song leakage, and R. Kelly is no exception. Usually a website that I visit that goes by the name "RnB Music Blog" and many others at times post leaked songs and leaked information (such as where the song really came from or the title of an upcoming album in which the leaked song supposed to appear in). Sometimes someone who has access straight from the horse's mouth should be the only one authorized to write this kind of article (following ALL Wikipedia guidelined as well.) The only reason this kind of information surfaced is because such kind of websites (like the one I mentioned) are being used as a source - those kind of sources actually should be avoided because they don't qualify for any kind of reliability nor worthy of being one.

That's what you get from patronizing leaked material from wherever it comes from - on and offline.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.183.120 (talk • contribs)

  • Merge the salient points to Kelly's article - there isn't enough information about the album for an article yet.--Michig (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 and re-direct by consensus of editors. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academy of Shotokan Karate[edit]

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

AfD last year was a no consensus. The academy fails WP:MANOTE and WP:ORG. Lists 3 references. The first is a bio of the founder, not a piece about the org. The second is offline. I'll presume it was about the org. The third is a link to the bio of an instructor on his schools site, saying he approves of the org. In short, fails the notability requirements I cited above. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not the place to advertise his dojo. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete borderline spam, don't see the notability. - 2 ... says you, says me 02:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • RedirectDelete to Dave Hazard nn small org.. JJL (talk) 03:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The organisation is relatively small because its founder Dave Hazard, a highly respected karateka, insists on highest standards in member clubs. This should not make it less notable than large low quality outfits. Why is a smaller organisation's page spam any more than a large organisation's, or a commercial company or radio station article for that matter. Keep them all or delete them all, but don't discriminate against small jewels in a sea of mediocrity.--Ninja Shewolf (talk) 09:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me try to clear this up. The article on Hazard is not nominated for deletion. Nobody is disputing his notability. This is an article about the school. For a seperate article, the school needs seperate notability. Mere mentions that the school exists are not notable, even in the most reliable sources. I can find plenty of things that say Hazard is notable, but I am not finding anything that demonstrates the notability of the school that merits a seperate article. But his notability doesn't transfer. Just like having a notable musician join a band doesn't make their albumns notable enough for an article. The albumn has to stand on its own. I wouldn't oppose a re-direct to the article on Hazard and merging the info about the school into his article. But as it stands I don't believe THIS article meets the notability requirements. I hope that makes it more clear. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well, why not simply rd to his page, then, and avoid this whole discussion? That would have been a much more useful thing for everyone concerned. Feel free to WP:BEBOLD and redirect things. If someone undoes the rd, then take it to AfD/RfD. JJL (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it as a waste of time. I think the article should be deleted or I wouldn't have nominated it. I just said I wouldn't oppose a redirect. When did showing a willingness to compromise become a waste of time? I favor deletion over redirect because I don't see this as being a likely search term and I don't see the piece as notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have merged the the information of Academy of Shotokan Karate into the Dave_Hazard#Founding the Academy of Shotokan Karate section. jmcw (talk) 10:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thanks! If the nom. is willing to withdraw, we could rd and close. JJL (talk) 13:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Like a Candle[edit]

Burn Like a Candle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the most famous Led Zeppelin bootlegs Edelmand (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:NALBUMS says that bootlegs are assumed to be non-notable until proven otherwise and nothing on this page establishes it to be supremely noteworthy.
"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good sources and seems to be considered important by Zeppelin fans. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are reliable sources cited within the article attesting to the album's notability. Edelmand (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of Led Zeppelin bootlegs. Only a select few have articles on Wikipedia. They exist because they are notable bootleg recordings. And not just to Led Zeppelin collectors. These recordings are cataloged and collected by bootleg traders all over the world and some have even sold enough to rank on regional sales charts. GripTheHusk (talk) 12:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems to be notable to its fan base, and is sourced to indicate that. Fuzbaby (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, non notable bootleg. Artyline (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with User :Artyline: WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The article demonstrates independent coverage of this bootleg in reliable sources, which have been cited. Edelmand (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources discuss the concert, not specifically the bootleg, so notability not established. Artyline (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lewis and Pallett (1997) and Rey (1997) provide commentary on both the concertsand the bootleg. Edelmand (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. ÷seresin 04:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cabala (Led Zeppelin album)[edit]

Cabala (Led Zeppelin album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There are thousands of Led Zeppelin bootlegs. Only a select few have articles on Wikipedia. They exist because they are notable bootleg recordings. And not just to Led Zeppelin collectors. These recordings are cataloged and collected by bootleg traders all over the world and some have even sold enough to rank on regional sales charts. GripTheHusk (talk) 12:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I noticed that you copied and pasted this identical response on several AfDs, including this one. This article has no assertion of notability, no sources or links of any kind, and is barely even intelligible as a list of songs and dates. What is the justification for keeping this article? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NALBUM and the fact that it is very little context. The entire list is essentially a track listing. Tavix |  Talk  04:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a laundry list without context, puffed up with entries that don't even come from the Cabala box set. Notability not established. Artyline (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) MacMedtalkstalk 00:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Badgeholders Only[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the most famous Led Zeppelin bootlegs Edelmand (talk) 01:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:NALBUMS says that bootlegs are assumed to be non-notable until proven otherwise and nothing on this page establishes it to be supremely noteworthy.
"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are reliable sources cited within the article attesting to the album's notability. Edelmand (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of Led Zeppelin bootlegs. Only a select few have articles on Wikipedia. They exist because they are notable bootleg recordings. And not just to Led Zeppelin collectors. These recordings are cataloged and collected by bootleg traders all over the world and some have even sold enough to rank on regional sales charts. GripTheHusk (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, non notable bootleg. Artyline (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with User :Artyline: WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The article demonstrates independent coverage of this bootleg in reliable sources, which have been cited. Edelmand (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources discuss the concert, not specifically the bootleg, so notability not established. Artyline (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lewis and Pallett (1997) and Rey (1997) provide commentary on both the concertsand the bootleg. Edelmand (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) MacMedtalkstalk 00:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to This Eddie[edit]

Listen to This Eddie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the most famous Led Zeppelin bootlegs Edelmand (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:NALBUMS says that bootlegs are assumed to be non-notable until proven otherwise and nothing on this page establishes it to be supremely noteworthy.
"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are reliable sources cited within the article attesting to the album's notability. Edelmand (talk) 10:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of Led Zeppelin bootlegs. Only a select few have articles on Wikipedia. They exist because they are notable bootleg recordings. And not just to Led Zeppelin collectors. These recordings are cataloged and collected by bootleg traders all over the world and some have even sold enough to rank on regional sales charts. GripTheHusk (talk) 13:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, non notable bootleg. Artyline (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with User :Artyline: WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The article demonstrates independent coverage of this bootleg in reliable sources, which have been cited. Edelmand (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources discuss the concert, not specifically the bootleg, so notability not established. Artyline (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lewis and Pallett (1997) and Rey (1997) provide commentary on both the concertsand the bootleg. Edelmand (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) MacMedtalkstalk 00:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live on Blueberry Hill[edit]

Live on Blueberry Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are reliable sources cited within the article attesting to the album's notability. Edelmand (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of Led Zeppelin bootlegs. Only a select few have articles on Wikipedia. They exist because they are notable bootleg recordings. And not just to Led Zeppelin collectors. These recordings are cataloged and collected by bootleg traders all over the world and some have even sold enough to rank on regional sales charts. GripTheHusk (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, non notable bootleg. Artyline (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with User :Artyline: WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The article demonstrates independent coverage of this bootleg in reliable sources, which have been cited. Edelmand (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources discuss the concert, not specifically the bootleg, so notability not established. Artyline (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lewis and Pallett (1997) and Rey (1997) provide commentary on both the concertsand the bootleg. Edelmand (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) MacMedtalkstalk 00:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Destroyer (Led Zeppelin bootleg recording)[edit]

The Destroyer (Led Zeppelin bootleg recording) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of the most famous Led Zeppelin bootlegs Edelmand (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if WP:NALBUMS says that bootlegs are assumed to be non-notable until proven otherwise and nothing on this page establishes it to be supremely noteworthy.
"Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are reliable sources cited within the article attesting to the album's notability. Edelmand (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of Led Zeppelin bootlegs. Only a select few have articles on Wikipedia. They exist because they are notable bootleg recordings. And not just to Led Zeppelin collectors. These recordings are cataloged and collected by bootleg traders all over the world and some have even sold enough to rank on regional sales charts. GripTheHusk (talk) 13:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most circulated bootleg records in the world. Peter Fleet (talk) 23:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:NALBUMS, non notable bootleg. Artyline (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with User :Artyline: WP:NALBUMS states that bootlegs "may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." The article demonstrates independent coverage of this bootleg in reliable sources, which have been cited. Edelmand (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those sources discuss the concert, not specifically the bootleg, so notability not established. Artyline (talk) 23:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lewis and Pallett (1997) and Rey (1997) provide commentary on both the concertsand the bootleg. Edelmand (talk) 02:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuuton: Daitoppa[edit]

Fuuton: Daitoppa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was a contested speedy in Jan. Article has been tagged for no sources and notability since Jan. All the ghits I reviewed were forums, blogs or mirrors to this article. The technique may exist (although over-stated), but I can't see the notability for a stand alone article on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The claim that human breath should be "capable of leveling almost anything in its way" seems implausible, at best. Janggeom (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn (preferably); or, rd to Naruto or a subpage on its techniques [16]. JJL (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 SNOW keep. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of museums[edit]

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

This page is manually duplicating the automated system of Category hierarchy and their generated contents. Oashi (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Oashi (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) This page is placed to the Category:Lists by country, very correctly, OK, following its real content.

1a) But thus its name should reflect this fact: So the rename request: List of museums by country
1b) Rather than lists of each museum one by one, please change this page to be a list of links to the country/city lists: I.e.: List of museums in France. ...however, such page could be argued as well.
1c) If usable, I would expect this page as main page for this Category:Museums by country. But I do not see it usable, see my arguments lower.

2) I am in doubts, why this page exists at all:

2a) This way, on this page, all the data here are doubled, as each country/city offers such list better way. The only result here is redundancy, thus inconsistency.
2b) Instead of bothering local national admins of the country pages to provide their data here, rather we could to push them to update their pages. I.e. there is no such list of museums for the Czech republic: neither on country page (nor on its outline)
...neither or there is no page for the Category:Museums in the Czech Republic. Well, this is not wrong (IMHO): One would not be able to keep such page up to date.
2c) Here, in organizing of the categories, one's effort would be more effective and helpful, IMHO, as content on these 'category pages' is updated automaticaly . So, why to try here to do the same manually?

Instead of wasting ours and theirs energy and time by redundat data on list pages, let's put an eye on systematization of existing pages into categories: comparing contents (chapter structure etc.) of the member pages would bring greate inspiration to the admins (wikipedist) of the local pages (by country, by city). And such effort is really needed as that cannot be done (compared) by bots, human's eye is needed here.

I request to delete all this page. Instead, let's provide inspirations to the local admins.

  • Keep. There are good reasons why we have lists as well as categories. You can put a list on your watchlist, but not a category. Lists can be sortable, but categories are always alphabetical. See WP:CLN for other reasons, and the relevant guidelines.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As for how to organize the list, discuss on its talk page. As for what name it ought to have, discuss there as well. The change to List of Museums by country might be a good one; We might then also have a List of Museums by subject. DGG (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above...needs work, needs commentary on the talk page for sure; but as a list it can serve a useful function as several other lists do...Modernist (talk) 01:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the reasons at WP:CLN#Advantages_of_lists apply in this case. Sancho 07:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Modernist.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 09:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the support for keep already. SNOW!!!!!!!! --The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 Tonymarston or any other user believes that he/she can find reliable sources for this article, I will userify it and help move it back into the article namespace if it is improved. Cool3 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radicore[edit]

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

No sources cited, notability not established, the primary editor (User:Tonymarston) has a clear conflict of interest; quoting http://www.radicore.org/about.php :

Radicore Software Limited is a private limited company [...]. It was established in 2005 to market the framework which was designed and built by Tony Marston.
- The software itself is open source, released under the AGPL, so what is the issue? Tony Marston (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted on WP:PROD, then restored by the deleting administrator following a request[17], then deleted again[18] and now recreated. We need a final decision on this one. -- intgr [talk] 14:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete  : appears to be promotional with no attempt at notability

or outside links. Why is this notable? I've got plenty of cool code myself. If you want to write something self-promotional, try to establish external notability early to save us the investigation time. It would be hard for me to object as I like writing about myself but sanity check your interest against Wiki criteria, I've also shopped "great articles" in the past...

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Why are you seeking out this article for removal while leaving all the other framework articles untouched? It is an open source framework (released under the AGPL) just like other frameworks, so why the animosity? How many of the other framework articles were written by members of the development team? How many of the other framework articles contain outside links? Tony Marston (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I've been going after radio stations and even citing software that I may have written as something no one would not want in an encyclopedia. I've conceded that since we aren't killing trees or constrained by shelf space in someone's den, that inclusion should be liberal. If wiki wants to be a collection of directories, a craigslist with indefinite listing duration, fine. Personally, I would be happy to see chronologies of failed companies as well as success stories and anything which is illustrative and encyclopedic would be appreciated. If you have something notable- an algorithm, unique function, etc personally I would find that interesting. If you have a me too thing and want to put it on a notable list that's fine too. This is really an admin call on what wiki wants... I don't really care one way or the other but if you have an article which is essentially advertising that seems like it may be a distraction to a reader who finds a wiki hit on google expecting to find a factual description of something.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Tony Marston, please see the links I included in my nomination (I believe these were also pointed out to you on the first proposed deletion). Nobody would be complaining about your conflict of interest if it was a well-written article on a notable subject. People make an effort to help you if you cooperated and tried to understand Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. However, the article in its third incarnation still fails to deliver; the main problem is that it does not indicate its notability. You should also make yourself roughly familiar with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. -- intgr [talk] 21:48, 14 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 00:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  : No reliable sources cited. Search on Google News finds nothing at all. Google search finds only the original editor's personal web page and Radicore.org as well as one or two forum posts but those appear to also be by the original editor Tony Marston, the designer and builder of Radicore. This appears to be an attempt at cheap publicity or a vanity page. There is nothing notable about this subject that can be found recognized in independent sources. There is no hope that the article can be improved to meet Wikipedia standards. OfficeGirl (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Weak keep Radicore is well-known, there isn't a total-absence-of-notability situation Rirunmot (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way to substantiate that it is "well known" through independent reliable sources? No one in this discussion has been able to find any. It may be a perfectly good product, but I think we have all tried to find appropriate source material and still have nothing. That's the problem-- that the article isn't and can't be appropriately supported in the way that a Wikipedia article needs. I find the assertion that this product is "well known" somewhat dubious at this point. Sorry.OfficeGirl (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources that establish the notability of this software. -- Whpq (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 01:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Sushko[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:VERIFY guidelines., I don't think it will meet any other guidelines. Donnie Park (talk) 17:47, 6 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) 00:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article does not establish notability. A single RS (AutoWeek) is also not enough to establish notability, as the requirement is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. لennavecia 16:09, 15 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 00:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence that the person meets Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Does not have significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and WP:N--AssegaiAli (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Equipping Force[edit]

Rapid Equipping Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced, promotional, original research  Chzz  ►  18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given that this is a component or task force of the US Army, it is my belief that it already is notable enough to warrent an article, not that the current article isn't in need for a major cleanup, additional citatible references, etc. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. AfD is not cleanup. If you come across an article like this again, please do the work of finding reliable sources and rewriting it rather than sending it for deletion. Fences&Windows 23:25, 15 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as a component of the Army. Don't like the cut and paste job though. Certainly needs help. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For the same reasons I stated last time. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faux keep for the purposes of comment: I would hate to lose the mention of "robots for interrogating caves". Obviously as vital as the robots themselves; the US Army has recently had to give away its supply of the people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, friends of someone who brought the coffee to a meeting an Al Qaida member was at, etc, and needs something new to interrogate. Jargon-filled copy-paste of a training manual with Army Strong (pheeew, who did that) advertising overtones. Civvies don't care. Lifers don't own WP. Anarchangel (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Comment: REF page has been updated on 23 Mar 2011 and subject to further discussion. Any feedback on writing style (tone) and content would be appreciated. Plan to include additional content when time permits relating to past history and present-future actions and operations. Recommend all prior content be removed and move forward with refinement of new content. 15:45, 23 March 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darcy.smith (talk • contribs)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manufacturing & Technology eJournal[edit]

Manufacturing & Technology eJournal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lack of notability. Extent of coverage in secondary sources is local papers citing it as a source. There is no depth of coverage. Novangelis (talk) 15:17, 14 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, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fallin' For You (Colbie Caillat Song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fallin' For You (Colbie Caillat Song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:BAND - unremarkable future song  Chzz  ►  19:17, 14 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) 23:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMK Hub[edit]

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

Unsourced spam; would require a complete rewrite  Chzz  ►  18:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Needs sourcing and cleanup, but as it's a notable place, we shouldn't delete it. Did the nominator attempt sourcing or cleanup? Here's a couple of sources:[20][21]. Fences&Windows 23:37, 15 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) 23:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite per Fences and windows Knowitall (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It appears to be notable, simply poorly written. Rmosler | ● 21:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_21&oldid=1142644432"