Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 June 4 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 no consensus. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests (2005) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not indicate notability, trivia, no reliable, published, third party sources. Re: prod removal/talk, see also wp:OSE - notable, sourced guest info can go into the show's article. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-25t05:03z 05:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Notability not asserted. Listcruft. Kiwikibble (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't know what would be needed to "assert notability." More to the point, Jeandré's explanation seems to be flawed. It says that there are no reliable, published, third party sources. In fact, as I explain in the article's Discussion, the whole list is sourced to the Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! website. As for "notability": why would this article be less notable than List of Monk Episodes, Bewitched DVD Releases, or List of Two and a Half Men episodes? Wait Wait...Don't Tell Me! has had an impressive variety of guests, including Patrick Fitzgerald, Dave Barry, and Jim Webb, in addition to many others. To me, that indicates notability. Wikipedia performs a useful service by collecting the guests together in an easily accessible list. There would not be room in the Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me! article to include a list of all guests over the 12-year history of the show.--HughGRex (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
    • A third party source means it's independent from the people producing it, NPR is not a third party to an NPR show.
    • wp:OSE: "That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed". Lots of vandalism/trivia/copyright violations exist for instance, that is not a reason to keep other vandalism/trivia/copyright violations.
      • Such articles are very common in Wikipedia, because they perform the service of being an easy source of information that some people apparently find useful. Those who seek to rid Wikipedia of such innocuous technical violations of a rule that they hold dear will find themselves very busy indeed, having volunteered to play the role of Sisyphus.--HughGRex (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A blog may be a better place for this than an encyclopedia if there is no significant coverage in reliable, published, third party sources. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-27t12:26zv
      • Please note that these articles' raison d'etre is that they were requested by editors to the Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! article. See [1]. If these articles are deleted, we will thereby open up the same Pandora's box of worms that these articles were created to close.--HughGRex (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - there is a source. I'm not sure whether the lists really are notable enough to keep (as long as we delete or keep all of them), but precedent with television episodes would seem to imply that the article can be kept. (N.B: HughGRex posted a deletion notice on my talk page with a statement opposing deletion, but I don't think it was excessive, and it did not influence this vote) Bart133 t c @ 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I disagree. I think that the argument can be made that if there is a page like this for The Colbert Report with NO third party sources, then there is room for a Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! page like this. If you want to delete this page then you'll have to delete this one: List_of_The_Daily_Show_episodes and all of its sub-pages. each of those appearances, by your measure, is not notable. Most guests appear on The Daily Show without "credible news articles" being written about it, but they go on that page with no source listed. At least I bothered to give a source when I started the ones for Wait Wait. The only difference is that this is a very popular radio show instead of TV and you've never heard of it yourself. That's no reason to delete these articles. If this article exists: List of MXC episodes with no sources, I think Wikipedia, as a community, has come to the decision that these sorts of articles are OK. At any rate, the info on these pages is correct (except for 2003 where someone reposted 2004, i'm in the middle of fixing it as we speak) and it does not harm anyone. It's not spam, vandalism or overtly non-encyclopaedic. In fact it's perfectly mainstream. The only difference is that it's one of the first radio shows to get this treatment and I think that that's why you are treating it this way.
We are not saying keep this article because there are others like it. We are saying keep this article because there are many, many like it which are much more high profile and much more visited and are generally accepted. This is not the same as saying keep this vandalism because there is other vandalism. In that case, we can all agree that vandalism is bad and few will ever argue with you for taking it down. But in this case, just go and try to delete the obsessively detailed, completely unsourced List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005), and see what happens. The backlash you would receive is there because these types of pages are accepted by the community, whether they adhere to its strict rules or not.
-The Talking Sock talk contribs 01:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[2] -- The Talking Sock talk 02:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unref tag put on List of The Colbert Report episodes (2005), List of The Daily Show episodes#cite_note-0 is an USA Today ref and I put a Morefootnotes tag on it, and an Unref tag on List of The Daily Show guests (2005). All of these very likely has reliable, published, third party sources. If anyone thinks there aren't any RP3 sources for these, they're free to nominate them for deletion.
    • I've proposed the deletion of List of MXC episodes because of its lack of sources and all the red links on there - there probably aren't any RP3 sources for it. If that also leads to deprodding, AfD, discussions without any RP3 sources being added, it should also be deleted. wp:v: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
    • These non notable articles can harm people when they're vandalized with libel but no one spots it. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-29t07:22z
      • This last is either an implausible or an irrelevant argument in the current case. The idea that someone might be libeled because their name appeared on a list of Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me! guests, sourced from the show itself, requires quite a confluence of imagination and ignorance of what constitutes libel.--HughGRex (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was in reply to Sock's "it does not harm anyone", but non notable article not sourced to reliable, published, third party sources harm people all the time. This is one of the things I do here: in response to complaints to the foundation, I try to remove the libel in unsourced and/or incorrectly sourced articles that aren't watched because they're not notable enough. wp:v's "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." trumps the wish to turn the encyclopedia into a blog with millions of non notable articles. -- Jeandré, 2009-06-01t05:35z
  • Delete. Nothing makes this concept notable. If someone's appearance on the show is relevant to their life in any way, it can be mentioned in that person's article. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subjects of the list are not notable because of their appearance on the show, so the subject does not inherit notability from the guests. Malinaccier (talk) 23:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for any list of The Daily Show guests, but those pages exist and are accepted by the community. -The Talking Sock talk contribs 04:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This is a bit like lists of episodes articles. I think it's a reasonable fork from the original page. Shadowjams (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tan | 39 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the guests pretty much define each episode, this is essentially equivalent to an episode list.--RadioFan (talk) 03:33, 4 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) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unity party uk[edit]

Unity party uk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonexistent or wildly non-notable party. Difficult or impossible to find in Google web or news search. Seems to be little more than a student club or figment of someone's imagination. They do have a website, but the website says "At the moment there is nothing planned for the 2009 elections as we are not running in it, but we will do in the following one." Hairhorn (talk) 23:38, 3 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) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Common Agenda for Health and Environment[edit]

A Common Agenda for Health and Environment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced unencyclopedic coatrack for an organization. Alexius08 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article is biased (a coatrack). It presents an example of generational goal setting as an approach to public policy-making. In my edits to address others' comments I have added, in my opinion, sufficient detail to show that the Common Agenda is a reputable document and a new idea for the online community to consider. Again, I welcome specific suggested improvements.--Toward tomorrow (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as spam, even though I keep thinking about the children and what are the six goals? "....six Generational Goals to be achieved within one generation that will leave our children a healthy world full of hope and possibility." Drawn Some (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is my first voyage into wiki and I'm learning as I go. One reason why there are few links to other pages is because generational goals is such a new idea. I had planned on making a generational goals page as well, but it would also have few links to other pages and sites. Really, only Sweden has used this policy approach for their Environmental Quality Objectives, which outline 16 generational goals for improving the quality of Sweden's environment.

Please advise on how to improve this page as I believe it is an important concept to introduce to the public, but is fairly uncommon and therfore, not linkable. --Toward tomorrow (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have addressed Drawn Some's comments by adding the 6 goals and their objectives and priority actions. Have also addressed Alexius08's comments by adding content as opposed to organizational information. On what other grounds should this page be deleted? --Toward tomorrow (talk) 11:52, 5 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. Stifle (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric[edit]

Lukaszyk-Karmowski metric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  • Not notalbe
  • Conflict of interest
  • Self promoting

--Memming (talk) 22:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A bit too early, perhaps? In response to Memming's editor assistance request, I tagged this article for expert attention and mentioned it on the talk page for Wikiproject Mathematics, but that was only a couple of hours ago.

    Still, now that we're at AfD: I agree there's every indication of a WP:COI author. He's apparently named the metric after himself, and I know of no indication that anyone's cited this paper, which is apparently the author's PhD thesis. So I think Memming's nomination is absolutely correct as far as it goes.

    For AfD to consider here is the tension between WP:N, which this fails (contrary to what I said earlier, but I've looked a great deal more critically now, as I should at AfD), and WP:PRESERVE, which I think enjoins us not to delete scholarly content. I would therefore be looking for an outcome of trim heavily and merge; this should probably be a small section or footnote of some broader article (and hopefully a mathematician will come along to suggest which).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion on how to make an AfD nomination, you've skipped 2 of the 3 steps. Hairhorn (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ops. I'll fix that. --Memming (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My name is Szymon Łukaszyk I am the first author of this article, which I initially created as probability metric to disclose the concept that was developed in my PhD thesis and enable its further development according to Wikipedia standards (cf. Notability_issue). I feel like changing the article's name to include my surname was a trap set by Memming, who first alleged its WP:NOR (Lukaszyk-Karmowski_metric#Original research?) than switched to WP:Notability but after being unsuccessful in his efforts to prove that this concept is any kind of plagiarism or wrong in its essence behaves - as I see it - overemotionally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guswen (talk • contribs) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never suggested to change the article name to include your name. I never said it was a plagiarism. --Memming (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My general feeling is that research mathematics concepts can be kept if there are three or more independent groups of mathematicians working on them, a pretty low standard. In this case, Google search finds only the author's paper, with zero citations. MathSciNet finds the paper but declines to review it and also lists no citations. This is not enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not get side-tracked by accusations as I think everyone is trying only to be helpful. It is difficult to judge from very little background but I think it might be the case that work by "Guswen" is concentrating on is a special case of a "Karmowski metric" idea (where the special case is "independence"), in which case it would be best to have a "Karmowski metric" article, with the present article supplying a useful basis for illustrating a special case. Melcombe (talk) 09:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable subject as per wikipedia guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, move article to editor's user-space and move back to mainspace once this has gathered more independent attention. There is a lot of content here, so I wouldn't want to lose it if it may be useful in the future. I also like the idea of using this as the core of a more general article, as suggested by Melcombe. Tim Vickers (talk)
  • Delete, based on the above, it doesn't appear to be a particularly notable or widespread concept within mathematics. No objection to a userification so that the article can be preserved in case it does become a more notable concept. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:23, 11 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbados–France relations[edit]

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

Another non-notable set of relations: OMG, french companies buy shit from barbadian companies! Hold the press! They don't even have embassies dedicated to each nation. Another Country X-Country Y relations page. No notability here, and nothing to justify a seperate article - they don't even have embassies with each other, although diplomatic missions are stationed in nearby nations. Ironholds (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Hint Barbados has diplomatic ties with 103 countries around the world yet there's no way they support 103 embassies. There is something called Foreign accreditation. It is the same thing the U.S., Britain, and Canada does in the Caribbean. The have a single embassy or high commission that also concurrently administers other areas. The "No embassy is there" is a weak argument. CaribDigita (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With some weariness, I want to note that I could probably predict the names of a dozen people who'll take part in this AfD and I can predict how they'll !vote, too. I also want to note that I'd expect a somewhat more collegial tone to the nomination from an editor of Ironholds' experience, though I sympathise with his apparent frustration with this article series.

    I think there's insufficient material here to justify a separate article, and I don't believe an in-depth treatment of this subject could be written given the very limited sources available, so I'm going to go with delete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah, I think that came out a bit ruder than I intended, I simply meant sarcasm rather than highly offensive sarcasm. I'll redact. Ironholds (talk) 23:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep unlike some other articles of this set, this one seems to show real, referenceable relations between the two countries. This google search shows third-party discussions of some tax treaties between France and Barbados. Additionally, France has a long history with many Carribean nations, and not just its own colonies. Unlike some of the other random possibilities (like, just for kicks, lets say "Bhutan - Suriname relations" or something) this one has at least minimal potential to meet WP:N criteria. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had a quick look at the Google search posted by Jayron32 and failed to find third-party specific discussion of tax treaties between these two countries. I accept they exist, but until sources are posted to verify the notability of the relations, the best strategy is to delete this stub. If sufficient material is found to justify an article on the relations between Barbados and France, another article can easily be created (but perhaps it should be about relations between France and the region?). The current article includes "The bilateral relations and trade between the two nations remain very modest." Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You'll not find anything at search engine. Most of the Caribbean newspapers have added their newspapers to the exemption list of Google robots. CaribDigita (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - Is there a specific policy or guideline of what constitutes notability for these kinds of articles? At first I was going to vote for delete (that is not a vote), but considered that students, for example, often have to write essays detailing trade and other relations between two countries. If the information is of the kind that people may want to research, that speaks to an inherent notability. Matt Deres (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only applicable guideline is the general notability guidelines. Wikiproject Foreign Relations also has its own guidelines here, but these have not been approved by the wikipedia community at large (as far as know). Yilloslime TC 00:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above box is not a template in normal use, and was added by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ).
  • Keep and cleanup a bit. I will help. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is no present policy--we are making it by our decisions here. I think that any relations between France and any Caribbean nation is notable, because of th historical connections. DGG (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The original wording of the nomination should have been sufficient. The relations are unremarkable, and in some cases of the text, not even relevant, as they involve talks between two blocs of countries. No overview of the article topic's notability provided. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The presently applicable policy is the general notability guidelines which require a topic to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" before WP can have an article on it. At present, this sources cited in this article are 2 government websites which fail the "independent" part of the GNG, and 6 articles that discuss multilateral relations between Caricom and the EU. The only mention of Barbados-France bilateral relations in all those articles is this: "The Government of Barbados will, however, continue the negotiations already underway with the Government of France to conclude an agreement which would remove the visa requirement for Barbadians traveling to the French territories in the Caribbean."[3] This is hardly significant coverage in multiple sources, and the source actually Barbados Ministry of Foreign affairs, so it's not even independent. I've looked for sources on my own that would satisfy WP:N and not found anything. Yilloslime TC 00:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the attempted plot by one Barbadian and a group of French mercenaries during the 1970-1980s to overthrow the Government in Barbados and form the country of "The Commonwealth of Barbados and Dominica".(Tull: Tell us about coup rumours, NationNews, 04 October 2006) The U.S. CIA I believe disrupted the plot. CaribDigita (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there is an evolving guideline for this stuff, and this is clearly below threshold. Eusebeus (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTCASE. With nearly 200 countries in the world, you are looking at nearly 20,000 such articles. Sebwite (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy keep. Failure to follow WP:BEFORE before considering deletion. -- Biaswarrior (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checkuser confirmed sock. J.delanoygabsadds 19:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, Above users only edits have been to vote "Keep" on AfD's, and remove ProD's. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 19:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to quote the article "The bilateral relatoins between france and barabados remain very modest." The next sentence goes on to note that french companies have at times exported electronics and paper to barbados. Not even an ambassadorial exchange here.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't recognize the need for a de minimis relationship, only a notable and verifiable one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even the article itself calls the bilateral and trade relationships "moderate". Moderate isn't notable. Moderate is run of the mill. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 10 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) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keita Goto (soccer)[edit]

Keita Goto (soccer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

PROD removed without any sources added to indicate footballer has played in a fully-pro league; fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Jogurney (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is contracted to Kashima Antlers, but there is no evidence that he has ever played in a league or cup match for them. Being a non-playing member of the squad isn't enough for notability. Jogurney (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability at WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he ever makes his debut in a fully-pro competition. --Jimbo[online] 12:39, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Takkle[edit]

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

Non-notable webforum. A db tag was downgraded to a prod, which was removed by the article's creator without explanation. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Though there are many GNews hits, they all seem to be from Sports Illustrated, which (although it is unquestionably a reliable source) according to the article had much to do with Takkle's creation. Besides, they all mention TAKKLE only in passing. Quantumobserver (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine minutes after the first iteration went live, the page was inundated. Do you shoot newborns when they don't pass the SAT? Regardless, check alexa or quantcast as this obviously does substantial traffic. Point taken on need for further content, context, and links. It is editable, collaborative and evolving. Just asking the gleeful vultures to show just a bit more judgement before marching off to the guillotine. ChillPill77 (talk) 01:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — ChillPill77 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment: nothing happened nine minutes after article creation. Eleven minutes afterward, though, {{notability}}, {{uncategorized}}, and {{unreferenced}} tags were added, which call for help improving the article. None of them call for deletion, though the notability tag does mention the eventual possibility of later deletion. Quantumobserver (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 21:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete RS above are just puff pieces and do not establish notability. Eusebeus (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the reliable sources provided appear to not directly cover the subject. Other sources I could find did not look especially independent. Fails WP:WEB, I believe. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:26, 11 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 00:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Duffy[edit]

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

Professor does not meet notability standards for academics. Closest he comes is his editorship of a journal, but I would not call it a major, well-established journal (yet). Doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria. References are scant. Google turns up little relevance. (Contested PROD.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Seems to fail WP:BIO. South Bay (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He has many noteworthy accomplishments, but nothing to distinguish him from many other professors. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets WP:PROF - almost 800 Google scholar hits, full professor, editor of a major journal, teaching for almost 20 years, $Millions in grants; not by themselves notable, but together meets the standards. Bearian (talk) 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am curious whether the first two people commenting "delete" above are even aware of the existence of WP:PROF. Even if they were not, "many noteworthy accomplishments" usually does translate-- for anyone-- into "notability." As for the nomination, with respect to the journal being well-established, it's been published for over 31 years [4], by BioOne, a major biological publisher. Not a very well written article, and it needs expansion, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But can the journal be considered major? Longevity does not necessarily confer such status. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Full professors at major universities are often found to be notable, after our editors have time to dig up material on them. University of Hawaii is not podunk, and a 'David C Duffy' search in Google Scholar gets 42,000 hits, of which I think he deserves about 30% since other people named Duffy also show up in the list. (I used a different search string than Bearian; not sure which is best).
  • Here is one paper that got 132 citations in Google Scholar: "Recording devices on free-ranging marine animals: does measurement affect foraging performance?". Ecology. 1986.
  • Here is another that got 128 citations: "Diet studies of seabirds: a review of methods". Colonial Waterbirds. 1986.
These results suggest that when someone has time to do a proper writeup, there should be no problem finding notable work to mention in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 4 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) 00:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Houseman Youth League[edit]

Peter Houseman Youth League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A football (soccer) league offering under-9 to under-16 competition in one county of England. Only significant content was added by two editors who made precisely one edit each, use of "we" in the history suggests COI. Tagged for notability for well over a year, nothing has been forthcoming and I could find no reliable significant coverage. Obviously an admirable endeavour in helping the kids of Hampshire get into sport, but not notable enough for WP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Agree with the sentiment, but this is not a charity aiding kids football development (much as I like to see such organisations). Non notable kids football tournament with only claim to fame taking its name from a former professional --ClubOranjeT 09:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable tournament. --Angelo (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; non-notable. GiantSnowman 11:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Youth leagues aren't generally notable, and unfortunately this is no exception. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 18:42, 9 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 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Coleman[edit]

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

Likely a self-written autobiography of a possibly notable orchestrator. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Extremely weak keep - Some evidence of notability, but more in the way of referencing is needed. Little has changed since I nominated it for speedy deletion earlier today. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The version of the article which was nominated for deletion is a copyright violation lifted from [5]. However, a self-identified work colleague of the subject has now replaced the copyvio with a new version, three sentences long. Sarah 03:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on his bio. And the fact that AFD per policy is never supposed to be clean-up. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate this to clean it up, I nominated it based on the fact that it's likely a self-written autobiography of a possibly notable orchestrator. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 18:02, 4 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) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Thom[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, creater's (who has a WP:COI) only claim is that the subject won an award from a regional business publication ccwaters (talk) 20:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Passes WP:BIO under the WP:ANYBIO clause. Was published in a magazine as part of a continual historical record. Also promoted by peers in the field, and selected as business person of the year by business professors part of the University of Minnesota school system.Promixluvr (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Quote: "Since 1994: The Magazine for Growing Businesses in Southern Minnesota". I doubt that it's very widely known IN Southern Minnesota outside the ranks of "Growing Businesses" there. Te subject here one of a set of articles recently uploaded. I looked closely at All American Foods and their product Pro Mix, and decided they passed muster - just. Jeff Thom is fairly certainly doing his job well, but is that notable? Does he merit a separate article? I think not. A merge of any useful info from here into the company article should suffice. I would raise a possible concern about the picture used, too. It's the one used in the Connect article. Has there been a release of copyright from whoever holds this, or does it come under fair use? Peridon (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Point on the photo. It was removed. It still falls under WP:ANYBIO clause, in a published magazine. I think published is the key word. Thanks for your interest Promixluvr (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable. Being called "2008 Business Person Of The Year" by a trade publication dedicated to "Growing Businesses in Southern Minnesota" does not confer notability. User is also a persistent self-promoter: see All American Foods (from a previous username), Pro Mix and various edits. Hairhorn (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN, fails WP:BIO, an award by a boutique magazine in a large field doesn't qualify. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regional notability isn't good enough for us; part of spate of similar articles edited heavily by Promixluvr, likely a block-evading sock of now-blocked Aafinc. Daniel Case (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN.    7   talk | Δ |   13:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course Promixluvr is a the same user as Aafinc; but Aafinc was only blocked for having an inappropriate username; user just seems to have created a new account rather than go through the name changing process, this is a permitted way around this sort of block. However, this user is doing nothing but promotion. Jeff Thom can go, All American Foods can easily get cut down to a stub, and Pro Mix really needs to be merged into it, or come up for its own AfD. It's unsourced and notability is not certain. Spammy behaviour all around. Hairhorn (talk) 21:05, 4 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 blatant advertising and no claim of notability. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankel Corporate Consulting[edit]

Frankel Corporate Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined A7 speedy, because the page's author does show evidence of potential notability on the article's talkpage. However, nothing tells me that the organization is truly notable per WP:CORP. I see hardly any other reliable source coverage to meet the "significant" part of that guideline; Google News shows 1 item and Google Books turns up nothing. A general search only reveals basic company profiles. Jamie☆S93 20:27, 3 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 Scandinavian migration to the United Kingdom. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Swedish[edit]

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

Only contains links to other articles. Topic already covered by Scandinavian migration to the United Kingdom. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 3 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. Icewedge (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darcy White[edit]

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

I've tried fixing this up, but to no avail. A number of editors have attempted to insert this artist's name in a number of articles. The main problem is this: there are a number of grandiose claims made, and few actually check out. If you look at this version, you'll see claims to having exhibited at Moscow Biennale, Manifesta and The Museum of Contemporary Art Belgrade Serbia. The provided references do not support this, nor do searches of the respective sites. Claims to having collaborated with Joan Jonas and being written about by Douglas Crimp was referenced with a print source, but it should be noted that google, google books and google scholar come up with nothing for Darcy White + Joan Jonas and Darcy White + Douglas: Crimp[6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Likewise, just "Darcy White" comes up with nothing that links to this artist. I'm wondering if this is just a young artist attempting to beef up their profile hoping no one will check, or perhaps he's somehow connected to some or all of these institutions and individuals, but not as an artist (as a tech perhaps?), but in any case, there is no evidence of notability, except for two exhibitions in Canada. freshacconci talktalk 20:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment It should also be noted that there are no less than 6(!) new editors who worked on this article on June 3. I have no idea what this means: 5 socks or meatpuppets, or just 6 strangers with a passion for young Canadian video artists. freshacconci talktalk 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comment All but one of these 6 has worked either only on this article or only on this and Artopia, an article created on that day and itself proposed for deletion, about a magazine published in Toronto, where Darcy White is said to work. I think "6 strangers" is improbable. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Who looks to have covered it pretty thoroughly. Setwisohi (talk) 21:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing on Google... can only find a graphic designer in Texas. Hairhorn (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator has done a good job of showing lack of notability. Edward321 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have checked each of the web pages given as citations: not one of them even mentions Darcy White, so I have deleted them. Also I have made web searches for numerous combinations of names and "facts" referred to in the article, and found no evidence to support any of them. In short, I can find no evidence of any notability at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The [12] Webpage where the original editor claimed he had a solo show has no records of Darcy White. (sources that don't check out are reason for a speedy delete: G3 "blatant hoax") Enki H. (talk) 03:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see anything notable here and looks like a hoax. Artypants, Babble 17:51, 6 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) 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale[edit]

Rupert Mitford, 6th Baron Redesdale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gah, I'd withdraw if I knew how. Passes GNG, no problem here from me. Ironholds (talk) 00:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

see the others. Haven't I said something about the queen?Max Mux (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I replied to it. Ironholds (talk) 20:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything I'm saying on the other disc belongs heere as well!Max Mux (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The inherent notability rule WP:POLITICIAN refers to "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." It doesn't say anything about how they got there. It doesn't matter whether you think the House of Lords should be part of a national legislature. Britain can run its government however it wants to. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I know, I'm British, and I don't know why you took this to be some kind of attack against the political system. Members of Parliament can be expected to have coverage - people certainly don't pay as much attention to the hereditary peers, which strikes right at the base of the reason we have notability guidelines in the first place. Ironholds (talk) 21:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then show us the guideline that says the rule only applies to members of the House of Commons. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't one, but the guideline is there based on the idea that there will be some coverage of the elected members, either through their election or their work in the Commons. There is no reason to suggest that these guys would get coverage for uhm, being born, and google seems to agree on this point. He helped set up a company that has some brief coverage, but that's it. Ironholds (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that makes no sense. I agree that they shouldn't have a seat but nonetheless they are relevant.Max Mux (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. If the nominator believes existing notability guidelines should be changed, Afd is not the place to do it. Edward321 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete > there's a severe lack of reliable sources (the only one listed is self-published) to establish any sort of genuine notability. Also, though less importantly, he seems to have had a singularly boring and uneventful life, and I don't see how or why any Wikipedia reader should be remotely interested in him. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:24, 4 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) 00:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Cole Mager[edit]

Jason Cole Mager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was tagged for WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, and I agree with that tag — the article in its present state does not make a clear assertion of significance that would pass WP:ARTIST. However, the authors requested more time to find sources, and in an attempt not to WP:BITE them I declined the speedy and tried a prod instead, which would have given them a week to make the article acceptable. Within less than a day the prod has been removed with no improvement to the article, so I am taking it to AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks like a delete at the moment. Only the first two sentences are about the subject of the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fails WP:N. South Bay (talk) 21:43, 3 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell[edit]

Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With statements like that you can delete the article about the queen for examble. Its not an argument here to say "XY has not done anything important"Max Mux (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, because the queen passes our basic requirements for notability. It is, actually, an argument, because people are included on grounds of notability. For you to show that this person is notable, you must show that they have been covered in reliable, independent and third-party sources. The queen has, these people have not. Ironholds (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read that and there it is; members of the legislature on a national level! The House of Lords is part of it.Max Mux (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the Lords does not. The spirit of the policy refers to elected officials. This is because the idea of "built in notability" is that to become members of the legislature, they have done something important. The Lords were simply born, hardly an achievement. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still don't get it. If something has helds an important office (a notable one) that tell us he or she is important. I say it again

example 1 (according to you): The President of Germany Horst Köhler held other offices before and was elected therefore he is relevant. The queen haven't done anything influential and wasn't elected but is head of state. So she is not relevant.

  • No, I do get it - read what I wrote. The queen passes WP:BIO. She is notable. She is NOT notable under the special criteria you found, because that criteria isn't meant to be used for unelected officials. If you want these pages kept you need to show how they pass WP:BIO, because the special criteria is for elected members. Ironholds (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are don't getting anything here and that's not meant as an offense. You clearly don't understand anything I said. Do you know the differences? There are different kind of members. 1) Bishops (all relevant) 2) Life Peers 3) elected hereditary peers 4) law lords (highest judges)

Max Mux (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do, actually - I'm a law and politics student. A law and politics student in the UK. A law and politics student in the UK with an intense fascination with the peerage. Oh, and you forgot the archbishops. The life peers, law lords and bishops are all inherently notable - they've done something with their life. The elected hereditary peers are not, they were elected via a poll of 800-odd lords, not by the public in any kind of directly democratic way. Ironholds (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my goodness.. Only people who are elected by the people are notable? You seem to contradic yourself. PLease explain your reasoning.Max Mux (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I will again. Notability is based around the finding of reliable, third-party sources for the subject of the article. The automatic notability for Members of Parliament, specifically MPs, comes from the idea that there will be some sources out there. Their election was a notable event, their actions within parliament must have got some media coverage, so on. Things are different when we are talking about a hereditary peer. A member of parliament is not given automatic notability because they're MPs, but because the idea is there must be some reliable sources out there. For hereditary peers, this may not be the case. A hereditary peer joining parliament is not a notable event, because the only thing that happened is his father died. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should delete Stalin as well? Max Mux (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. Maybe you should see my point on your talkpage about incivility, treating Wikipedia as a battleground and making deliberately twee comments. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just another hereditary peer; nothing notable about this person aside from his (inherited) title. An inherited peerage does not carry inherent notability. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Eligible to vote in the House of Lords until 1999? Sounds like a member of one of the houses of the British Parliament to me. Mandsford (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course right but some people don't get it.

  • all members of the nobility were. 1999 was the act which removed their automatic right to sit. Ironholds (talk) 21:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all. All in the peerage of UK.Max Mux (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. If the nominator believes existing notability guidelines should be changed, Afd is not the place to do it. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which points of WP:POLITICIAN does this person meet? PeterSymonds (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "People who have held national political office", surely.

    I wrestled with this one for a while, because I can see both sides of it. On balance, I don't think we should have a separate article on this guy because there simply isn't enough sourced material on him for an article; but I'm not convinced by the case for outright deletion because I think some reference to a peer of the realm belongs on Wikipedia. Surely there's got to be a list in Category:Lists of peerages we could usefully merge him to.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability is not inherited, even if peerages are. I would be a lot more open had the House of Lords retained its smaller size from the early 1800s (when it was somewhere around 100 members in size), but there were a lot of members who never did anything. Some members were notable, but there are a great many peers who are notable only for having been born into the right family, and who well may never have actually sat in the House of Lords (in the sense that while they had a seat, whether they even showed up was often in question). I would also say that this particular issue is a part (mind you, only a part) of why there was pressure to get rid of hereditary peerages.Tyrenon (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the point. Anyone belonging as above stated to the national legislature IS relevant.The only answer that makes sense is a strong keep!Max Mux (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete > there's a severe lack of reliable sources (the only one listed is self-published) to establish any sort of genuine notability. Also, though less importantly, he seems to have had a singularly boring and uneventful life, and I don't see how or why any Wikipedia reader should be remotely interested in him. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • People involved in this discussion may be interested in my proposal at the talkpage of WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(The link to Ironholds' proposal is here as well as the discussion. Mandsford (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable peer.
    ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 00:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clearly notable as above stated Max Mux (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that not the point! He had the right.He was a memberMax Mux (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm changing my vote. I had wondered how it could be determined that someone had not participated in the House of Lords, and the link to Hansard's answers my question. I guess "eligible to vote in the House of Lords" should have been a giveaway. Normally, the presumption would be that if one was entitled to appear in a legislature, he or she did so. I'm sorry, but if you never participated in a session and never voted, then you have not served in your nation's legislature. Mandsford (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Any material on him can be added to the Baron Herschell article. Tryde (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a member of the House of Lords. It does not matter how a country selects its legislature--whether by democratic election, heredity, -- or even political connections or appointment by a dictator or bribery. Once they are there, they are notable. The House of Lords had and has a notable role in the UK government -- even when the members were almost all hereditary. It's the role in government not the election that makes members of a legislature notable. DGG (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand on the article from his obituary. The article is just a stub now. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is an entertaining account of a conversation with him here. And lots of duller in entries in Almanacks. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alas, unless more can be dug up, existance does not mean notable. King Pickle (talk) 00:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable as member of legislature very strong keepMax Mux (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been told, self-published sources are not reliable. Please stop adding them in. Ironholds (talk) 06:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a very brief biography of him at the Baron Herschell article. Tryde (talk) 05:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) By this I was trying to show how articles on non-notable peers can be merged into the article on the peerage they held. Tryde (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They ARE notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have to be so unhelpful? ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say so?Max Mux (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That you're unhelpful? Because we tell you things aren't acceptable and you keep using those things over and over again. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have also done much that is not acceptable.Max Mux (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing my behaviour here, we were discussing yours in response to a question you posted. If you have a problem with my actions, post a detailed and reasonable opinion on them on my talkpage and I'll respond as soon as I can. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 10 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington[edit]

Rupert Victor John Carington, 5th Baron Carrington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm no expert on British politics, but is there anything in the article that says he was a member of the House of Lords? Was there a "Baron Carrington seat"? If not, I'd say delete. Mandsford (talk) 21:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the nominator believes existing notability guidelines should be changed, Afd is not the place to do it. Edward321 (talk) 22:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Serving in the House of Lords auto-qualifies per current notability guidelines. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Did he sit in the House of Lords? Do we have evidence that he actually served as a member of that house, or only that he may have? Was that barony even granted a seat? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 6th Baron Carrington was far, far more notable as he served in Thatcher's cabinet. I do suspect that a revision of this guideline is in order (if only a minor one) to deal with members of hereditary legislatures.Tyrenon (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Member of a national legislature indicates he is clearly notable, based on Spaceman7Spiff's explanation. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The problem with hereditary legislative houses is that while one may have notionally had a seat, whether one ever actually took it (as in whether one ever actually sat in the seat and voted) is often a fair question. There's another debate on this topic up tonight, but I lean against the automatic inclusion of hereditary members of the House of Lords on the basis of the inherited title alone.Tyrenon (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the same argument for life peers but if they attend is not the point here. They are members of the legislature on a national level and therefore relevant for wikipedia as it is clearly stated in our guidelines. If some people think they should do it otherwise out of a habit they are violating these rules.Max Mux (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very clear keepMax Mux (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max, could you ensure that you don't just vote, but actually provide a rationale? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tyrenon, basically. There's a severe lack of reliable sources (the only one listed is self-published) to establish any sort of genuine notability. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 08:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable peer.
    ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 00:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Any material on him can be added to the Baron Carrington article. Tryde (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same as the others: it's not the election but the role in national government that makes members of a legislature notable. DGG (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What role? People who played no part in the government and never turned up to legislative sittings have a role now? Ironholds (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get that it's not the point at all!Max Mux (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, it was the point of his argument. Ironholds (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I meant that that's not the important thing here. A king for example who never rules himself is still notable. A high judge is notable if he has done important things before or not.Max Mux (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A king or "high judge" has done something to achieve that position. What has the great-great-grandson of a notable person done that is so notable? Ironholds (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, but how can someone be so dumb? 1) A king has done nothing to archieve this position. 2) A member of legislature is according to wikipedia guidelines notable. It is not importan HOW someone get to that position (well personally I'm generally for completely elected parliaments but that's not the point). When someone belongs to a parliament he has a relevant position and is therefore relevant himself.pS: Do you think most of the life peers attend regurarly?Max Mux (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the hint given by me and two or three others - avoid personal attacks, or you'll be blocked. A life peer has done something notable to become a life peer - you don't just give a peerage to Mick the Bricklayer from number 32. You're saying "X is a guideline, therefore it doesn't matter why the guideline is there or if it should be changed - its a guideline". That isn't how policy and guidelines work on Wikipedia - consensus determines what guidelines and policies are. Ironholds (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't change it only becaus we are against the sitting of hereditary peers. And not every important person has endless media reports.If we delete anyone we don't like there would be enough people here.Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Mobutu, Göring, Mugabe, Gaddafi...Max Mux (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not debating deleting people we don't like, and we aren't saying we want to get rid of hereditary peers on en-wiki because we don't like them - read the proposal. Actually, every important person does have reports in the media or in other reliable sources - it's how, on Wikipedia, we determine their importance. Notability is based on verifiability, verifiability is based on references. Ironholds (talk) 06:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then look again at the links. They show that he was a member and therefore notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We know he's a member. Nobody is questioning that he's a member, we're questioning whether or not WP:POLITICIAN is meant to be applied in that way. From the wider discussion I've been having I can see several who believe the current policy is being misapplied and many more who believe the policy should not cover hereditary ponces. Ironholds (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should not be judged with prejudices. I'm against the monarchy but that don't mean I try to delete the article of the queen!Max Mux (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it being judged with prejudice? Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By you.Max Mux (talk) 06:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't answer the question. How am I judging it with prejudice? Do you think I'm doing it because I don't like hereditary peers? What is your evidence for that being my motivation for doing this? I don't like hereditary peers having seats in the Lords, but targeting peers who have been dead for sixty years and denying them a Wikipedia article is an odd way to go about changing it, don't you think? People who feel fervently enough about something to do something about it normally go out onto the streets, not try and have an article deleted. Please stop accusing me of things with no evidence to back up those accusations. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But how do you explain your behavior ? It certainly looks that way!Max Mux (talk) 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I nominate something, I'm biased against it? No. If my normal attitude to articles had been swayed as a result of me dealing with this, that would be biased. Take a look at my AfD record, see what I normally do with unsourced articles about unimportant twonks, and then apologise. Ironholds (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You better should apologize yourself.Max Mux (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Have I insulted you? No. I've not made any personal comments despite being accused of being "dump" "stupid", "sick", "mad", having a "bullshit" opinion, talking nonsense and destroying wikipedia, I've kept my head attached firmly to my shoulders. I've warned you repeatedly against making unfounded personal accusations, and yet you persist. Find me something I've done that I need to apologise for, and I'll do so. You, on the other hand, are edging closer and closer to a block. Ironholds (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have spoken about "unimportant twonks".Max Mux (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, referring to the peers, unimportant being the operative word. Unlike me being called sick, stupid, dumb, mad and nuts, my comment wasn't directed at you and thus unlike yours wasn't a personal attack. Ironholds (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Again, looking for something notable beyond "because he is". I need to see something he has done, or represents, beyond just existance.King Pickle (talk) 00:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was a member of the legislatureMax Mux (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Records you yourself provide show he never even spoke. You've been told not to use the peerage, and I'm not sure why you've added quasi-inlines all over the place. Ironholds (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


It is not important if he have spoken or not. What do you mean with "qusi-inlines"? Max Mux (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the little [1] [2] you've put in even though they're not linked to any references. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will see after that later. I'm looking forward to hearing from the House of Lords.10:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Max Mux (talk)

You've emailed them? About what? Ironholds (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the peers peers, who were mebers. For example Carington and Herschell.Max Mux (talk) 12:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting additional information? Information has to be verifiable, so findeable. If the information is "here's a link to a good source", fine. If it is "here's an email full of info" it wont be useable. Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added a brief biography of him at the Baron Carrington article. Tryde (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC) By this I was trying to show how articles on non-notable peers can be merged into the article on the peerage they held. Tryde (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He IS notable!Max Mux (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not helpful. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 16:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But some of the people here seem to be blind.Max Mux (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you before about making personal comments repeatedly. This is your final warning - keep comments about editing only, or I'll report you and have you blocked. You've been told repeatedly that your comments aren't helpful, yet you keep making them - that is editorial blindness. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying people are blind is, as Ironholds points out, not nice, and basically incorrect. But even if it were OK, you're still not being helpful. What you're doing is like telling a blind person, "There's a beautiful building in front of you." You should describe it, give details, give input, illuminate people.
Or just keep quiet. But making unsubstantiated statements like that will always be unconstructive. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 21:06, 10 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 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe[edit]

Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable individual. Having a peerage is enough of a claim to notability to pass A7, but not enough to pass WP:BIO unless they have done other things with their life. While members of the House of Lords are Members of Parliament, the idea that MPs are automatically notable applies to commons members, since those people have done something with their life other than get born. Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

same as the othersMax Mux (talk) 20:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't see anything that says that he's a member of the House of Lords. He may have inherited a title in 2007 that was an automatic seat prior to the 1999 reform, but he doesn't get a free pass. Mandsford (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. He hasn't got a seat.Max Mux (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Pre-1999 there would be the "seat in the national legislature" argument (which is based on implied notability...which is another issue altogether), but after then that doesn't exist. Thus in this case this article fails WP:BIO.Tyrenon (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tyrenon and Mandsford. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 08:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • People involved in this discussion may be interested in my proposal at the talkpage of WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 09:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable peer.
    ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 00:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. Any material on him can be added to the Earl Jellicoe article. Tryde (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Earls in particular are sufficiently high members of an active nobility to be always notable. (unlike, say baronets, and unlike members of nobility whose titles are no longer officially recognized). DGG (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should they be "automatically notable"? If the individual isn't active, then all your point says is that his grandfather was sufficiently notable. Ironholds (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has absolutely nothing to do with being active in some way.Max Mux (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we, and lots of other people, think that it does. Would you explain in your own words, ignoring policy for the moment; a purely "moral" argument—why does this person deserve an encyclopedia article just because one of their ancestors was mildly interesting? ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 19:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't have anything to do with "being interesting". The UK is a monarchy and Jellicoe has one of the highest titles. Therefore we should include him and other peers such as Dukes, Marquees, Earls and Barons.Max Mux (talk) 08:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UK is a constitutional monarchy - the queen is almost entirely without power, those powers she does have are exercised by the PM. Senior members of the nobility who are not life peers have not necessarily done anything notable per se - their achievement was being born. Ironholds (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are people of the public life. For the 100ist time I tell you that the powers someone have is not the only important thing. People who are DOING nothing notable can despite that be notable! Please tell me what has the queen done before becoming queen.Max Mux (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like Ironholds, I have never understood why people should be considered notable merely for having been born. Although I'm not fascinated by royalty-- it's like saying, "You're better than me because you're royal and I'm not"-- royals get covered in independent and reliable sources. I think Mux will concede that Elizabeth was noticed by the media between 1926 and 1952. On the other hand, I see nothing that would justify a similar entitlement to members of the nobility. Earls, dukes, barons, lords, etc., can earn themselves a place like anyone else. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm against monarchy and such things but that doesn't influence my opinion here.Max Mux (talk) 14:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obviously not. I've explained a dozen times that notability is based on referencing. The queen has been covered by the media, so references are available, so she's notable. Please stop bringing this up over and over again. Ironholds (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are links in the article, you know.Max Mux (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been mentioning them, you've just been going "the nobility are notable, just look at the queen". Of the four links you've provided, two are not reliable sources, one confirms he once spoke at a meeting and one confirms his father was notable. Ironholds (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are still not completely understanding! Max Mux (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains even less information on him than the Earl Jellicoe article! Tryde (talk) 13:31, 9 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. Jamie☆S93 19:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeamViewer[edit]

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

Seems to be a non-notable software product. The only source beyond the company's own Web site is a review of a beta version; TeamViewer does not seem to meet the criteria for notability. It is also rather promotional in tone, including a how-to section for establishing a connection and a section describing the pricing model. —Bkell (talk) 19:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TeamViewer is one of the widest spread remote control tools worldwide with many million users so it shouldn't be at all irrelevant. TeamViewer was reviewed by the most influential IT magazines and is a state of the art tool for desktop sharing. If you think this is non-notable then please check here Comparison_of_remote_desktop_software to find some non-notable companies as you put it . So where should we start deleting articles?
I will put some third party citations to the article which will prove its status in this field and will edit it from the ground. Let me know if you should have further suggestions. Altalavista (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete all but the first two paragraphs, the rest is all marketing, promotional and advertising using mainly blogs as references. The main contributor also has a clear conflict of interest. TeapotgeorgeTalk 08:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teapotgeorge, thanks for you comment. Lifehacker, Downloadsquad and CNET (CNET is actually a IT news platform) are some of the most recognized IT-blogs worldwide and have more readers than lots of magazines or print publications. A lot of users contributed to this article as you can clearly see in the history, so I'm not the main contributor but the initiator. Contributions from my side are mainly the citations as one of the critics was that TeamViewer is a 'non-notable software product'. This shouldn't be an issue anymore. Please also help to contribute to it where you think it might be biased. Altalavista (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now that is has improved. Garion96 (talk) 08:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep thanks to improvements, and I hope more improvements will follow. German sources are also allowed, so if there is German press coverage or awards then those should be added. Verbal chat 12:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The software seems to be adequately sourced to satisfy WP:N.
Relevant search results:
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/software/programming-software/softpedia-teamviewer-314840/review
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/159331/teamviewer_desktop_collaboration_app_now_maccompatible.html
http://www.macworld.com/article/138757/2009/02/teamviewer.html
http://www.macworld.com/article/133663/2008/05/teamviewer.html
http://www.webuser.co.uk/products/TeamViewer_review_4811-7428.html
http://news.softpedia.com/news/TeamViewer-Full-Version-Is-Free-Download-Here-90156.shtml — Rankiri (talk) 15:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because of Rankiri's find. Plenty of coverage of it. Dream Focus 18:21, 10 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 00:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beatrice Beckett[edit]

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

Notability is not inherited, and it is not married into. I feel that the best place for this would be a subheading in Eden's entry, perhaps as "personal life" (as this is basically a regurgitation of what is already there), but this is largely a stub on the spouse of a politician who divorced him before he became PM, and who isn't notable for anything else in particular other than possibly parentage. Tyrenon (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • She was the wife of the British Foreign Secretary (Aussenminister, Secretary of State or whatever) during what many British like describe as their finest hour. In fact, the period 1939 - 1945, which for (us) Brits is the period covered by the Second World War, is the only bit of history they teach in many schools here as far as I can make out. The semantics of wiki-notability go on for ever and can be argued all round the houses if you've nothing better to do, and often are. But in terms of making wikipedia a useful source, if someone has come up with a question along the lines "I wonder who she was?" (which I just did) then there's a prima facie case for an entry that answers the question. By kicking off the entry from a respected source, I hope to encourage others better imformed than I am, in due course to add to my knowledge. Nominating an entry for deletion within twenty minutes of its commencement does not reasonably test the issue of whether anyone else knows. Or (possibly more importantly) cares.

    Of course, if I'm the only wiki-user to wonder about the wives on non-American politicians, then maybe he thing deserves to be deleted! Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • My response is that I've never wondered who Henry Stimson's wife was (or Cordell Hull's, or James F. Byrnes), and I'm an American. Spouses of PMs are something of a different story (owing to the nature of the PM's post), but she was his spouse some years before he became PM. Hillary Clinton's spouse wouldn't be notable except for having been President of the US and Governor of Arkansas (not to mention his spectacular escapades), and she's in the equivalent position here. However, I do think that "Wife of the Foreign Secretary(or Minister, depending on the country)" falls a bit short. The content has a place, but that place is in the article of the primary figure unless the spouse is notable on their own. Tyrenon (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep spouse of a PM of a major state at any time is enough, since she will be covered in a substantial way any major biography of him. DGG (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither Tyrenon nor Charles01 are addressing the Notability of the subject, which is governed by the existence, depths, and provenances of sources, and are erroneously presenting their own subjective opinions of significance, which is not notability. Neither Tyrenon nor Charles01 have even mentioned sources. DGG is the only editor who has done so here. And what xe surmises turns out to be almost the case. This person is covered in biographies of Eden, but it is fairly incidental coverage, that really says very little about her. She garners a whole six sentences, on page 4, of Victor Rothwell's 298 page biography of Eden, for example. ISBN 9780192804761 page 47 devotes one sentence to her, telling us that she was one of several people photographed for a photographic exhibition, and goes on to talk about the exhibition and the photographer. She is documented, again with one sentence, in the "Anthony Eden" entry in ISBN 9781576070437, on page 113.

    The sources are simply not in depth coverage. This person is only documented by the world at large in the context of Eden, and we in fact have her documented in Wikipedia in exactly the same way, at Anthony Eden#Early career. This is a sub-topic that is only documented by the world at large in the context of an overall topic. Per Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for? and User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing with non-notable things, redirect to that overall topic. Uncle G (talk) 23:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep Nominator seems to be proposing a merger. Deletion is not required for this - please see WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 9 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. Alexf(talk) 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ballies[edit]

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

obvious WP:MADEUP WP:BOLLOCKS. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 3 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 00:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blu (Software)[edit]

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

no assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as claimed, not notable and not claimed to be notable, and not referenced to sources that show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 00:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Twitter Account of Blu is followed by more than 1500 users worldwide (that means at least that much user uses this). This figure is quite good than most of the other Twitter clients - so if they have no problem having a place in wiki, why should we remove this one? And as of Notability, just think about it guys, how many users use Mozilla Fennec or Google Android in comparison of Opera Mini or Symbian? Does that number make the product to be termed as NOT-NOTABLE !!! – Deb ‖ Poke • EditList ‖ 07:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    None of that is evidence of notability. I have explained to you twice before - the article needs to pass WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 09:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous comments. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:20, 5 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 per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thre3[edit]

Thre3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. The author admits ([13]) to having written the book as part of a college project, and then written the article as part of another college project to "get noticed". Several speed delete tags (including a {{db-userreq}} incorrectly placed instead of a {{db-author}}) resulted in an admin declining speedy. So here we are at afd. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:12, 3 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. Discuss a potential merger elsewhere. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Hear Me Now?[edit]

Can You Hear Me Now? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The Deep (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
You Only Die Once (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Time's Up (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Down the Rabbit Hole (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Boo (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Commuted Sentences (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Buzzkill (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
One Wedding and a Funeral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Thing About Heroes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Child's Play (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Happily Never After (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
All in the Family (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Playing With Matches (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
DOA For a Day (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Right Next Door (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Like Water For Murder (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Admissions (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Personal Foul (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Taxi (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hostage (CSI: NY episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

None of these episodes asserts any form of notability. The articles consist entirely of an overlong plot summary written in informal prose, and have been lacking reliable sources at least since 2007, judging from the tags on two articles. Not one single episode in this series seems to be notable, and the (mostly unnecessary) qualifiers in the title make them unlikely redirect targets. At least one also has a trivia section. I'm going with these since it's the first batch I found, and indeed believe that almost all of the episodes from this particular series should be deleted, as they have a very high potential of the redirects being undone by fans. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm going to go with delete before too long, but is there a CSI-pedia for all of this stuff?Tyrenon (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Putting aside the inherent problem of having so many AfDs batched together (extreme complications of "keep a, d and q but delete b, g and y" scenarios typically abound), just be being internationally released episodes of an extremely popular television series is an assertion of notability. Just because sources haven't been inserted into the articles yet doesn't mean they don't exist. Wikipedia has no deadline. There's a lot of work involved in articles like this and unless there's something slanderous or dubious, there is no rush to have a completely sources article. --Oakshade (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm more concerned about the lack of notability through in-depth coverage in reliable sources than verifiability itself based on the unreliable references used. Wikipedia is not a directory and these articles have no potential of being anything but directory entries without violating some principle such as no original research. If MASH episodes aren't appropriate, these certainly aren't. I don't have a problem with the group deletion, it makes perfect sense in this situation. If any one is notable, speak now or forever hold your peace. I also agree no need to leave redirects, delete totally and absolutely. Drawn Some (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to an episode list. Edward321 (talk) 23:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. An episode list with a one or two sentence summary and an outside link is fine. However, I oppose the inclusion of rafts of non-notable episodes with their own pages.Tyrenon (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete See my comment under AfD "To Market To Market (M*A*S*H)." Or don't. I don't care. I just get tired of a) uberfans creating pages for every episode, and 2) the debate over which episodes are noteworthy enough for their own pages and which aren't. If it's a good enough show, it should have its own Wiki, and leave this one out of it.PacificBoy 09:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
basically you are saying that for the good shows, we should eliminate the material because it will be covered elsewhere. (I doubt you mean we should contain only the poor ones that nobody has devoted a wiki to) On that basis we could delete essentially every topic in the encyclopedia; come to think of it, every topic, because if it is not covered elswhere it should not be covered here.DGG (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and decide separately about merging in a proper discuss with more general notice; it is fundamentally a matter of style. What matters is that we should have a reasonably full description of each of them. If the combined versions are teasers, it's no good; if the separate ones are excessive, also no good. I agree that MASH episodes will in general be more notable--and in my opinion, for very good reasons. If we have unfortunately deleted some of them; we shouldnt compound the mistake by deleting everything else. DGG (talk) 03:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to an episode list as per the usual standard for such things. CSI is not such an amazing or perfect show that it deserves individual articles for most of it's episodes. Jtrainor (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I checked out the first of these and had no difficulty finding sources. Just the usual case of WP:NOEFFORT which we do not address by deletion, per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:38, 9 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) 00:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Harris Cape Town South Africa[edit]

Roy Harris Cape Town South Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Removed prod. Article is a resume for a non-notable religious leader in South Africa. There are no indications that this person meets the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:N or WP:BIO. This was a speedy (declined) and a prod was removed by a new user who I can only assume is a new account created by the person who originally created the article, or at best is an associate or friend of the person that created the article. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:53, 3 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. hoax GedUK  19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Bites![edit]

Computer Bites! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax. A Google search returns nothing about this film. The IMDb link in the article is to a different film. Cunard (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. I was willing to read it as an utterly unknown film rather than a hoax, until I saw two the two fake IMDB links and the author's talk page, which does little to establish credibility. Google also shows nothing. Hairhorn (talk) 19:01, 3 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 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alo Photo Scan[edit]

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

Non-notable editing program created by non-notable company. A Google News Archive search returns only one source, but clicking on the result returns a blank page. Cunard (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author, Marco.Carboni (talk · contribs), has also placed the following comment on the talk page:

Cunard (talk) 18:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's specific to closed industry (jewellery), no independent sources, not even web forums. Even if all New York gem traders had it installed they'd keep their mouths shut. NVO (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not only can I confirm the negative result from a Google News Archive search described above, but even when I tried more general web searches I was unable to find any independent coverage, only commercial plugs etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was looking for "actual size pictures" from within the wikipedia search engine. The only result that answered my question was alo photo scan. That's the only solution that natively creates 1:1 actual size shots. I think this is an important information for anyone lookingfor how to easily take 1:1 pictures for his products (this is a common need, not only a jewelry need). It's a commercial solution, yes, the authors did work hard on that. There are not many forums about it 'cause it is a 3 years old software. If you want to delete it there is no problem in that. I just wanted to express my point of view. Thank you for your time. -- marco.carboni (talk) 22.36:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable, independent sources that I can find, lacks notability, and reads like an advert. I also did some general web searches, and all I found are what appear to be marketing sites/videos/etc. likely made by the developer. --Transity (talk • contribs) 14:20, 10 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) 00:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W.A.X.[edit]

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

The article claims that WAX is an ethnic slur -- "an abbreviation that means "White Asian 'Cross'"." There is a resounding lack of commentary on the term on the internet ... which seems particularly odd for a slur. Does not seem a common enough term for Wikipedia, or even Wiktionary. Sixtysixstar (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteNon notable, doesn't even appear on urban dictionary [14]. Acebulf (talk) 20:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article claims the term is uncommon. It is so uncommon as to be unverifiable -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 4 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 Islam in Singapore. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Pork No Lard[edit]

No Pork No Lard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

seems like a neologism to me. Prod removed and 2 unreliable sources added. Ridernyc (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These signs are apparently somewhat controversial since they imply that even though the eatery isn't certified, that it's OK for Muslims to eat there. I don't see major news coverage though (at least not in english), it seems to be a local issue in Singapore among the strictly religious. Gigs (talk) 18:44, 3 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, author request (G7). Jamie☆S93 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan Robertson[edit]

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

Borderline speedy - originally tagged as such : The sole purpose of the article is to promote a nn candiate for the upcoming EU elections. I except we will get a lot more of these over the coming days. Passportguy (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Box Network Services is a publicly traded international company and one of the largest providers of telephony and networking equipment in the United States. Scottel, founded by Duncan Robertson, was one of the largest providers of telephony equipment in California. The news of the Black Box acquisition of Scottel was of considerable interest to the telephony and data networking industry in the US. In addition, Mr. Robertson is the only independent candidate running for European election and as such, is of considerable interest as an exceptional case. Diarmishere32 (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.11.109.98 (talk)

  • Weak Keep Article makes no use of reliable sources, but a quick search at google turns up a few references on the wire services (reuters and the like). Its not much so far, but it does turn up enough to indicate that a more dedicated searcher than I may find more if we look. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was useful for me in understanding who the candidate was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.14.34 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note The author blanked the page today. Looks like Mr. Robertson didn't do well in yesterdays elections and that that there is now no longer a need for this advertising page. Tagged as db-author. Passportguy (talk) 18:27, 5 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) 02:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squeegle[edit]

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

SoWhy declined the speedy deletion of this article claiming that it isn't patent nonsense (as I so tagged it), but...how isn't it? The only Google hits I found were Urban Dictionary and a whole bunch of unrelated links. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. It's not nonsense, it's a slang name for the Palate, which, contrary to the article's assertion, is a well known term - if not "roof of the mouth". Aside from that, I've never heard the term "Squeegle" used - I'm gonna call this a terminal case of madeupinschoolitis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:DICDEF. "Patent nonsense" is for incoherent text like "sahr8waherawpeahjgaewg", not for the coherent sentences in the article which "make sense". Cunard (talk) 18:01, 3 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. Per A7. The claims are probably all fake but it sounds more like a real person's inventions. SoWhy 18:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica frank[edit]

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

Another nn/prossible hoax. Google turns up no hits for "Veronica Chih Ming Frank", nor for her purported "best-selling children's series" "Kyra: Soccer Supperstar" (also checked Superstar) Passportguy (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G3 per nomination. Already tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as vandalism. I cannot find any sources to confirm the information in the article. FWIW, I've removed some WP:BLP violations in the article. Cunard (talk) 18:03, 3 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. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacTalla Mor[edit]

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

Non-notable band with few claims of notability. Article also has some COI problems, as evidenced here. Google news only gets one hit, and MacTalla Mor is just mentioned once in that article. CyberGhostface (talk) 17:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MacTalla Mor is notable.. They are recognized as one of the leading Celtic Roots bands in America. Among many other notable events, they were recently chosen to perform at the British Memorial Garden in NYC for a major Tartan Week event attended by the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament Alex Fergusson and were the only Celtic Fusion band choosen to appear at this years Clearwater Festival celebrating Pete Seeger's 90th Birthday (http://www.clearwater.org/festival/). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) 05:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Nothariseldon (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)— Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are numerous similar articles about less notable Celtic bands which have not been considered for deletion. While the notability of MacTalla Mor has been questioned, no one is questioning the expertise of the examiner to judge such notability. And there is no democratic or academic means to question the arbitrary claim of non notability.

....one knows that it was invariably left by either an Admin or a member of some squad or cabal, some officiating technopriest of the Cult of Ignorance....

It is all done in the name of a representation of a majority and culture for the masses. The unassailable mediocrity of the entries is the credo of Wikipedians, enshrined in a new ideology, sans-party, the cult of the NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The NPOV is supposed to be the result of the checks and balances of community participation in the Wikipedia project. But that's baloney - since the community effort is an exercise in power by the new cyber-bureaucrats that go by the name of Wikipedia Administrators, and the power-play in which the "house always wins" specializes in optimizing the degradation of information to fit it into premade slots. It is more an axiomatic of overcodes by voluntarily enslaved cyberbureaucrats, than a party-police machine. Yet, it functions with a hardline reminescent of fascism red or black, and deploys a thought-police filled with policies and procedural guidelines, as these excerpts from Requests for Adminship so well relate:

What Wikipedia is not, is an effective repository of the best in knowledge - or even, much more modestly, of actual, factual and adequate knowledge. Instead, Wikipedia has become a forum for an officiating falsification of knowledge, a system for disinformation and an assurance of misinformation. Backed by cabals of administrators and bureaucrats, Wikipedia features the raw, unfettered and exhibitionistic domination exerted by ignorant and fascist bullies. It is easy to see how a few - ignorant and stupid ones - can, in the name of a 'democratic access to knowledge', establish the worst kind of dictatorship: the fascism of the expression, the fascism of the most mediocre and most ill-digested of commonplace notions. It is easy to see, because, in fact, our most public institutions are now subject to just that same kind of fascism - the diffuse fascism of unquestioned majorities represented by groups of loudmouths manipulated by bully boys...... From: Wikipedia A Techno-Cult of Ignorance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) 05:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Sheesh; what is your problem? If that's the way you feel about Wikipedia, then why are you here? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 06:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Backed by cabals of administrators and bureaucrats, Wikipedia features the raw, unfettered and exhibitionistic domination exerted by ignorant and fascist bullies." Wow, this must be one helluva band. Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by PacificBoy (talk • contribs) 09:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Love it or leave it"? How about. "I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right." Classic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Nothariseldon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - I can find many mentions in concert announcements. They certainly make many apperances on the Celtic festival circuit based on the number of announcements found. However, i am unable to find a siongle article written about the band itself. -- Whpq (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a quick search I found these:

Palm Beach Post http://www.palmbeachpost.com/entertainment/content/entertainment/tgif/epaper/2009/03/13/tgi_irishfest_web_0313.html

The Tribune Review Pittsburgh http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/ae/music/s_586069.html

Celtic MP3s Magazine (http://www.celticmp3s.com/magazine/2007/07/new-colossus-by-mactalla-mor.shtml) Luxury Experience Magazine (http://luxuryexperience.com/music_scene/music_artists/mactalla_mor_-_piping_hot_and_jacob%27s_ladder.html)

News-Times "Celtic Christmas Spectacular" search MacTalla Mor in archives www.newstimes.com

CBS Ch 3 Eyewitness News Joy For the Kids Concert December 2006 http://www.wfsb.com/riseandshine/index.html

Celtic Radio Music Award Roots Traitional 2008 (http://www.celticradio.net/php/celtic_radio_awards_archive.php?year=2008)

Brookhaven Lab News http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/PR_display.asp?prID=07-17

Times Heral-Record by Sandy Tomcho November 19 2007

Celtic Band Celebrates Its Roots by Rachel Collins :Southampton East; :Nov 16, 2006; :Arts & Living; :B3 Taconic Press Arts Entertainment

Interviews and broadcasts on WFUV, WBAI Pacifica Radio —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asa Erikson (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Asa Erikson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep - Maybe not notable enough for Wikipedian's but notable enough to appear again in a few weeks at Clearwater Festival with legends like Taj Mahal, Arlo Guthrie, Richie Havens, The Persuasions, Pete Seeger and have song from "The New Colossus" featured on Clearwater Festival's website.( Nothariseldon (talk) 05:34, 10 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 however you please. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Mines[edit]

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

Hmm. Article claims that "Kingdom Mines today is one of the largest sapphire mines in the world.", however they apparently don't even have enough money to pay for their own website and have to rely on free webspace providers to host their website. That certainly doesn't indicate that thi company is nearly as large as the article claims. Google doesn't have any relevant hits either as I can see Passportguy (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Overly promotional; non-notable; irrelevant links make it look like the author is just trying to drive hits at his various websites. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. According to Google, this company does not exist. The information on "the official website" makes me strongly suspect that the article is a hoax used as a part of a fraud-based scheme: "An order is placed with the mine by sending an email" and "For those collecting the gemstones in person in Singapore, please note that all dealings will only take place in a public place such as a cafe, the lobby of a bank or the lobby of a hotel. This is done to provide security for our staff and customers." — Rankiri (talk) 17:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • G7 Author blanked. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Can go G3 (Vandalism), G12 (spam, using this to hedge promotion to their company), or G7 (blanked page). Take your pick. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:40, 3 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) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cllr Kevin Byrne[edit]

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

Non-notable local councillor, election spam Passportguy (talk) 16:34, 3 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aviation regulations[edit]

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

Article last edited June of last year, Fails Wp:N and Lacks Sources.--SKATER Speak.

  • Delete unless radically improved. Unecessary list/synthesis. Hairhorn (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The subject is notable, it just needs a little expansion.--Sum (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - general legal articles are almost always notable. Bearian (talk) 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge I generally agree with Bearian that general legal articles are almost always notable. But why would we have distinct articles for "aviation law" & "aviation regulation?" If aviation law is USA centric, can't we rewrite the article? Agradman (talk) 01:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge to Aviation law. Fences and windows (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Aviation law. Both articles are too short to stand alone, and the merger will help alleviate the US-centrism of the latter. bd2412 T 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep with rewrite. All nations have aviation regulators. To this end I suggest a renaming to "list of aviation regulators", with a list of the regulatory bodies for each nation. I can start work on that this evening if anyone has a problem. Ironholds (talk) 09:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List already exists: List of civil aviation authorities. NVO (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, List of civil aviation authorities has the names of the authorities, it needs to include the name of the published regulations. Btw, regulations and laws are not the same thing.--Sum (talk) 12:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely! national govts are different, but then we shouldn't try to fill many fields in the table: they might be incompatible. I don't think that publications can be easily fit into a one line, one entry format. Is it really important to the topic? p.s. cool username :)) have a good summer :)) NVO (talk) 12:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete plus add a redirect I would've said keep, but the article's subject already exists at List_of_civil_aviation_authorities and is far more developed there. Now that the existence of this other article is known to everyone here, do those who previously said keep or merge elsewhere, still believe that it should? There is nothing to merge, the information already at the other article. Dream Focus 18:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Dream Focus' plan, struck my previous comment. Fences and windows (talk) 22:51, 7 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 The Phantom Tollbooth. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The island of conclusions[edit]

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

Not significant enough to merit own article Cybercobra (talk) 16:06, 3 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 My Name is Rachel Corrie. I can't enact my close here, but I will review this article in 7 days, and force redirection at that time - merging can still take place after that, but it will be easier if you get it done soon Fritzpoll (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances[edit]

List of My Name is Rachel Corrie performances (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list is a rather odd one. We have an article on the play itself (My Name is Rachel Corrie) that has extensive mention of the more notable of the stagings of this minor play. A list of every single staging of a play, major or minor (think of the nightmare List of Hamlet performances would be), does not make any encyclopedic sense. It's indiscriminate, directory-type information with no context. To the "but it does no harm" folks, I would disagree. "Merge" is also a bad result here. The major stagings of this play are already covered in the main article -- a regurgitating of every minor staging of this play is trivia of no rational use to a reader. If wikipedia aspires to be an encyclopedia that has some discrimination, clutter like this does harm over time to the project as a whole. After deletion, would have no opposition to a redirect to My Name is Rachel Corrie.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Bali ultimate (talk) 15:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • So Rachel Corrie is an ultimate threat to all wikipedia project, because it lists songs about Rachel Corrie or stagings of My Name is Rachel Corrie right.
  • And even List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" deserves a space in Wikipedia after multiple reviews, and is considered not trivia, but staging list of an international theater production is trivia.
  • 'All the productions are verifiable, and the list build upon that references. Some stagings, especially the first ones has more coverage reasonably. Theatre reviewers don't write separate critic for every other theater's staging, notability guidelines doesn't require separete notability for every single piece in an list. Like you don't have to find separete notability reference for an albums each song.' Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would quite like to see a list of the major productions of Hamlet somewhere. Citius Altius (talk) 16:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, major might be doable, though of course one would have to define "major." I'm guessing a reasonable standard would lead to 20-40 -- obviously the premeir, Olivier's first performance, stagings that broke new ground in one way or another. It would also require extensive scholarship. My bet is hamlet's "major stagings" would be doable, given all the ink that's been spilled over the play for centuries.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a real nightmare for people who actually afraid of gathered encyclopedic info based on extensive research like the list of plays. So instead not reading them, they would nominate it for deletion possibly.
I don't know if you ever watched a theater. But theater productions are localized, unless it travels through cities on tours. Most of the plays and theater's in the list has enough notability and coverage in the first place. A theatre is not a movie, they don't play every play, they judge it then play. My Name is Rachel Corrie play is already notable, and got reviewed by multiple sources including NY Times, Guardian and so on you cannot expect big theater critics to go every single staging, and write a new critic separately. Requiring high coverage in internet for every theater staging is not reasonable.Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Incapable of easily being sourced, and why can't people grasp that "is" is supposed to be capitalized in titles? They never do that with other two- and three-letter words like "my". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand your deletion reason at all. Kasaalan (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:LISTCRUFT. Play is notable, list of performances (including those that got canceled!) most definitely isn't. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually checked the refences at all, because you claim non-notability of some high notability references. Kasaalan (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as a "notable reference". References are either about notable subjects, or they are not. The quality and number of references can indicate the notability of a subject. In this case, however, this is a list of performances. There is nothing notable about a list of performances. Individual performances may be notable, but there is no reason why such performances would warrant their own article. Sorry, but there is no reasonable rationale for keeping cruft like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are twisting the case. The article is about stagings of My Name is Rachel Corrie and most of the staging info is based on reliable sources (published newspapers and leading review sites) so the notability of the subject is high. The list of performances article needs verifiable references, and in this case the staging info is verifiable. "Individual performances may be notable, but there is no reason why such performances would warrant their own article." no they don't have their "own" article, this is a collected staging info article like any other table articles, such as List of performances of French Grand Operas at the Paris Opéra in Category:Opera-related lists Kasaalan (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep and build and develop. Notability of this list in how many times the shows were cancelled specifically because of conflict over the political issues involved. If it is trimmed down or merged than something specific should be mentioned of how many times the show was cancelled because of the conflict about the controversial subject matter. Peace, rkmlai (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For all the commentors I completely revised the references and named all of them instead numbers, so people can check better of the notability of the references. Kasaalan (talk) 21:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listcruft. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I disagree with Scjessey. If "Individual performances may be notable, but there is no reason why such performances would warrant their own article" then a list is precisely where they should go. Of course completely non-notable performances should be removed. Citius Altius (talk) 22:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They claim non notability for the performances, but most of the performances already referenced by newspapers and reliable theatre critic sites. I am not sure if delete commenters did check the reference list, but after they commented I fully named the reference list, so it is easy to tell the references are mainly above average quality, so no need to delete the article at all. You may check mostly high quality Article References yourself. Kasaalan (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of these performances don't seem notable. This looks like listcruft to me. AniMatedraw 00:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the theaters (especially international ones) the stages the play are notable themselves in the first place and even have devoted wikipedia articles, also lots of the references are based on published international or local daily newspapers and leading theartre review sites. Did you actually count before claiming "most" or just figuring and rounding them out according to your own like. Kasaalan (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you really sure what you try to claim. "list of performances" articles in wikipedia result 49354 pages. There are countless articles on lists of performances under various titles. List of performances on Top of the Pops, List of performances of French Grand Operas at the Paris Opéra, List of Judy Garland performances, List of tournament performances by Tiger Woods, List of Barbra Streisand tours and live performances, Cocteau Twins performances, Fred Astaire chronology of performances, Vivien Leigh chronology of stage and film performances, List of performers at the Metropolitan Opera the list goes on to near 50 k articles. Kasaalan (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory clearly refers: "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contribute to the list topic (for example, Nixon's Enemies List). Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. Merged groups of small articles based on a core topic are certainly permitted. (See Lists (stand alone lists) - appropriate topics for clarification.)" Kasaalan (talk) 07:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main play article. a list of performances may be useful there and let them weed out which ones are noatable or not. That article is small enough that having a list is fine. No need for deleting when merge will do. -- Banjeboi 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge per Benjeboi. Jclemens (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Striking. See more detailed rationale below. Jclemens (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge And maybe a list of performances of "Much Ado About Nothing" might be next. PacificBoy 09:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of adaptations of Shakespearean plays perfectly fine article. Kasaalan (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a really good article on this topic is Hamlet in performance. However, these playwrights aint shakespeare, this play aint hamlet, and there is nothing that establishes independent notability for every time this play has been performed. There is a rather vast recounting (past all due weight, but whatever) of stagings of this play in the "Other stagings" section [15] of the My Name is Rachel Corrie article and this is an indiscriminate content fork at best.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So it is not a nightmare, but a good article then. I created the list of performances article to leave only most important stagings in play page, and rest here, the recounting plays you referred were not added by me anyway. Also, people claimed in the past, the play is not notable at all or no good references available on staging performances, so I created a list of them in relevant discussion pages, then converted that info into an article. We can merge the content, but coming here telling references isn't good or most of the stagings isn't notable is like a true joke. Most of the theaters are notable themselves, and theaters are not movie theaters, they pick plays, evaulate them, study them then they perform them, as I clearly showed in Article References most of the stagings have enough notability to be mentioned anyway. So you should make some effort and mark which stagings you find not notable in the first place. Kasaalan (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five of those mentioned in the My Name is Rachel Corrie article are the notable ones. I won't bother to edit the rest of it out of that article as i don't see it as a point worth fighting over.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are just admitting you didn't even bothered to check the two articles. Much more than 5 plays are notable by solid references and in any means. Even more than 5 international plays were staged in highly notable theatres. Kasaalan (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I most certainly checked out both articles. All i'm admitting is that i have much higher standards in regards to notability than you do. Yes, i find "The Kitchen & Roundhouse Theatre in Silver Spring, Maryland, staged a one-time performance on July 21, 2007. It was directed by Lise Bruneau and featured Mindy Woodhead as Rachel" to be the height of trivia. I understand you disagree -- but our disagreement says nothing about what i have or have not read or considered.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You reversing the case. You claimed only 5 plays were notable so I claimed you didn't check the articles correctly, because there are definately more than 5 plays staged in highly notable theatres. But now you claiming some plays are not notable, that is only twist of words. Kasaalan (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That you don't understand the meaning of the word notable has nothing to do with my "twisting" anything.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure the "high notability" which you don't require for rest of the 50.000 lists in wikipedia, that you ask when it cames for Rachel Corrie has nothing to do with twist. Kasaalan (talk) 12:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are you seeking here? You keep hurling accusations at me ("didn't even bother to check" "only twist (sic) of words") when in fact we simply disagree. I believe an indiscriminate list of every performance of this play (as i would even for major world plays like, as we discussed, hamlet) fails the GNG and a number of things that wikipedia is not. I understand that you disagree. I certainly believe that many of the lists on wikipedia are inappropriate for inclusion; many are also appropriate for inclusion. They need to be evaluated each on their merits. This one, which we are evaluating here and now is, in my analysis, a clear fail. I think merger is a bad idea since, after all, 850 words (yes i cut and pasted into Word and counted) in the target article (My Name is Rachel Corrie) are already devoted to various stagings -- at least 16 of them by my count. I would go on to further argue (or "twist" in your view) that mentioning 16 stagings of this play in the target article is already past all due weight. This list we are evaluating, as i have argued already, is at best a content fork from the main article on this minor play.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the stagings are in international notable theatres. Actual theatres are not movie theatres, they select plays by jury and perform them after long time preparations. So your claim fails on "notability" in the first place. Also most of the references and critics I provided are from daily printed newspapers and magazines. List articles has other "notability" guidelines, and the notability guidelines you refer are actually for "seperate page" articles. In a list type article, not all items should have "seperate high notability". That is why there are near 50 thousand list articles in wikipedia as I listed above. Throwing guidelines and actually referring them are 2 different issues. Kasaalan (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide a link showing that "list articles has other notability guidelines?" I understand the guidelines for what makes an appropriate list, but you seem to be referring to something else.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't make any edit in neither of the theatre articles List of_My Name is Rachel Corrie performances history, My Name Is Rachel Corrie history nor in Rachel Corrie history Rachel Corrie article but 2 reverts and a discussion about nickname. For assuming good faith, you should have bother to tag the article for improvement or at least make an attempt to discuss it before you swiftly nominated it for deletion. So it is interesting that, just after I began to improve references in the article, you nominated the page which you haven't even bothered to edit once, but tracking page (or my edits), and out of sudden before trying to discuss it in talk page nominating the article for deletion. Sure expect good faith by difference in views, but some editors share their views in discussion page beforehand and make some effort to improve articles, before taking last resort measures like deletion nominating. Kasaalan (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of parks in someplace, doesn't need seperate wikipage or notability for every single park, the city's and some parks notability is enough to build a list. Like every single song in an album does not require notability to create an album's list. Kasaalan (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOT#YELLOWPAGES. This information belongs at http://www.playbill.com/index.php, not an encyclopedia.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, doesn't need separate article, will likely never need one. IronDuke 21:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with both of the comments above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge, at any rate a list of performances of almost any dramatic production is unnecessary - we don't keep schedule records here.) Nathan T 23:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (first choice) or merge/redirect (second choice). Wikipedia is "not" the Internet Broadway Database, and it certainly is not the Internet off-off-off-Broadway database. (Actually, I don't think even the IBDB lists every performance, and that is for plays and musicals that someone other than Wikipedia readers ever heard of.) What's next, an article listing every time a TV station has rerun The Trouble with Tribbles? 6SJ7 (talk) 00:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments clearly false. Even second-season episodes of Star Trek: The Original Series called "The Trouble With Tribbles" has its own seperate article along with Category:Star Trek: The Original Series episodes, yet a collected list of My Name is Rachel Corrie do not according to your argument. Try to think a bit more neutral to the case. TVs, or movie theaters are not actual theaters, so being shown as a movie, and being staged as a theatre play are completely different you should know that clearly. Theatres has artistic directors, spent lots of months to stage a play which actors and other backstage artists involved. Kasaalan (talk) 09:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also Internet Broadway Database used in 2227 different wikipedia articles as a reference. Kasaalan (talk) 10:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think 6 has a point. He wasn't talking about not having an article at all for Trouble with Tribbles (that argument was lost long ago), just having an article for every airing of it. And in fact, for those who care about such things, "My Name is Rachel Corrie" gets 49K+ ghits, whereas "Trouble with Tribbles" gets over 2.6 million ghits. We don't need a list of all the performances/airings of either one. IronDuke 15:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are wrong. Both "My Name is Rachel Corrie" and "Trouble with Tribbles" has 8 pages long google result, when duplicate results omitted. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 773 already displayed." star trek episode is more "famous", because its results get crowded by duplicate-similar entries, about "how to download" episode, or tv guides, or just "fan quotes" etc. Also comparing one of the most famous TV shows on earth, with a notable theater play, and comparing TV airing with Theatre staging, are completely illogical. So he has not a point. Kasaalan (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thumb|"Mister Kyle, please transport this article into space!" I'm not getting the same Google result -- perhaps you're handier with it than I. Can you link to your results? And comparing the two does make some sense, even if they are not exactly similar. That ST is so famous just makes 6's point that much more german. Illogical? This fellow begs to differ. IronDuke 17:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you are getting same results. Just go to the last page of google. It should be around 800th internet adress, if you have 100 pages per list 8 pages, if less more. Google lists all pages that contain the term. Yet omits rest of the pages other than 800 because they are "similar" or "duplicate" ones. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omitted results The link to the Omitted results, at the end of the last search results page, show the URLs that were judged to be very similar in their content to the ones already on the list, thus excluded in the first run. You may click on this link and see the full list of every matching URL for a certain query, and will find that it's a useful way of grouping multiple similar results from same domain, to occupy less space on the result pages, thus provide more options and variety.

So raw numbers not matters much more than a repeated number of the title of the star wars episode. Even someone's signature on forums get into that list. that 2.6 results are actually has "troubles with tribbles" that 2.6 million result is overstuffed. Kasaalan (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think what you're seeing there is that the search engine is just conking out around a set number of entries. Try "Barack Obama" and you'll get the same result -- but it is highly unlikely that there are the same number of unique websites for all three topics, no? Maybe I'm missing something, and anyone else here who has good Google skills please weigh in, if you like. IronDuke 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have a point. My argument not completely true then. Kasaalan (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think each airing of a Star Trek episode very much resembles the previous ones, for example the cast changes very little between broadcasts. Citius Altius (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that's entirely true--I think they are cut differently, so the cast could conceivably change during some broadcasts. And in any event, this list doesn't tell us how the cast of MNIRC changed, nor is it, in most cases, notable that it did change. 17:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Why not? Citius Altius (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it fails WP:NOTE and also WP:NOT. IronDuke 18:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability guidelines clearly refers to requirements for separate articles, not to every single entry in an article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we really got an answer here, so let's try again: why do these cast changes fail WP:NOTE and WP:NOT? Citius Altius (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a random agglomeration of information. Would all of these stagings - would most of them -- merit an article themselves? IronDuke 20:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am in favor of keeping all staging info collected in 1 article. That is why I build a list article, and not separate article for all notable plays separately. But people even try to get deleted collected list. Kasaalan (talk) 21:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is all fair enough. And I think some people would agree with you that a list like this has a place here on WP, a not automatically unreasonable premise. I just don't happen to agree. IronDuke 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've given up on trying to apply policies then? Trying to follow your logic I think we got as far as "cast changes are not notable because they don't justify a whole new article" or something along those lines. Citius Altius (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"You've given up on trying to apply policies then?" I wish I had thought to put my own position as succinctly as you did. Yes, I have given up on applying policies, sorry I didn't mention that right out of the gate. Any other questions? IronDuke 21:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well all this WP:NOT and WP:NOT stuff had me confused... thank you for your frank confession. Citius Altius (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome. (And I already sensed you were confused ;)). IronDuke 21:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is the guidelines are interpreted by users, and they actually vastly subjective. Notability for example. I just proved most of the plays were sourced by reliable secondary sources newspapers, magazines, a book, which proves enough notability for me. But some other editors might also disagree, however I really suspect everyone voted here actually checked the references 1 by 1 like me, especially after I fixed the reference layout and added more reliable sources into the "weaker" plays. On the other hand, notability and famousness is not directly related. A theater play will be less popular, than a movie or a tv drama for obvious reasons. Notability has something to do with quality, while famousness has something to do quantity. Kasaalan (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have it exactly right, K. It's very subjective. Some people honestly believe one mention in one RS (or even not so R of an S) = notability. I don't. I think WP blows up to a hugely unweildy size if we allow that. IronDuke 22:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm confused again. Ironduke appears to think notability has something to do with mentions in RS's, and this does indeed have some relation to policies like WP:NOTE... unfortunately it seems we can't just examine the quantity and quality of sources to determine the notability of these stagings, because of Wikipedia's size limitations or whatever. Citius Altius (talk) 03:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it technically possible for you to be confused "again" when you have ostensibly not recovered from your earlier confusion? "unfortunately it seems we can't just examine the quantity and quality of sources..." Unfortunate, yes, but I'm not sure what the word "we" is doing there. If you wanted to rephrase it as "I, Citius Altius" you'd be much nearer the mark. IronDuke 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partial merge of events, held or cancelled, for which reliable secondary sourcing documents the controversies, into the play's article. Yes, there has been some controversy surrounding the stagings of this play, and that should be preserved. The rest of it serves no encyclopedic purpose--it's schedule data, and there's no reason for this to exist as a separate article. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes exists with Title, Original airdate, Stardate. Again arguments are false. Kasaalan (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It is not about 1 mention thing. People just don't bother to check notability or research and help the article.
    • We can easily check. For example Countdown to Zero staging supposed to be a "non-notable" one.
      • Conversation starter 'Rachel Corrie' play-discussion opens political series by Lisa Bornstein, Published in Rocky Mountain News daily newspaper September 24, 2007
      • My Name Is Rachel Corrie A dead reckoning in Gaza A Review by Juliet Wittman published in The Denver Westworld Magazine on October 02, 2007
      • Brian Freeland of Countdown To Zero by Tasha King decider.com June 5, 2008
      • `My Name Is Rachel Corrie' Plays In Denver Colorado Progressive Jewish News
      • Review: "My Name is Rachel Corrie" critic of the play by Bob Bows in The Denver Post daily newspaper 10.04.2007
      • Actress embraces soul of the controversial Rachel Corrie by Ollie Reed Jr. in Alberque Tribune Friday, February 15, 2008
      • “My Name is Rachel Corrie” Staged In Des Moines, Iowa by Michael Gillespie published in Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2008, page 58
    • It had actually no secondary reference before, now I searched and found reliable sources covering the play. So any article needs time to develop further. But all people do is complaining, and ordering deletions while they don't bother to try improving the article at all. So it had enough coverage by some research. Kasaalan (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Collected Replies for Deletion Arguments[edit]

You may read rest of the answers by clicking blue button. Kasaalan (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For layout reasons, I moved my nearly all answers as a defense for various claims by deletion voters. Kasaalan (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also the number of references doubled and number of reliable secondary party references more than tripled since the deletion nomination started. Kasaalan (talk) 00:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the number of sources is relevant. A list of performances, particularly of a production that is itself marginally notable, is non-notable trivia, regardless of how well-sourced. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability isn't in your head or pocket. You cannot claim 1 play is not notable, when there is enough second party coverage in reliable sources. I provide reliable source for claiming notability. You provide your own thoughts for claiming non notability. Trivia is your own claim. Kasaalan (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong delete obvious each public performance of a show will have some trivial reference: the show is notable. Adding them up together does not make each performance significant, or even a list of them either, especially when most of those listed seem to be either single performances or mere readings. I've strongly supported some of the breakout articles on Corrie. This is going much too far. We could conceivably have such a list--many thousands of items long in many case of every provincial and amateur production of many famous shows. Even for the most famous, that's a directory, not an encyclopedia. Of the examples given above, most are very different, because they are either of a famous star, or the production of parts of mass media to be shown repeatedly. (the Cocteau Twins list is my my opinion the closest, and it should be deleted, as an equally bad example) Bluntly, this is not Hamlet, nor is like to be. DGG (talk) 03:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your logic appears to be "every performance has some trivial reference, therefore all such references are trivial". Citius Altius (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing is, even the "amateur" theaters you refer, are actual theaters staging in actual stages. Also since the play is banned in broadway after oppression, some other local theaters come out and staged the play. Again as I said, most of the theaters are notable already. Only some additions to the list are not. Also you claim wikipedia is not a list, but can you explain why wikipedia has tens of thousands list articles in the first place. (Wikipedia is not a directory guidelines refers to minority type articles like list of small chest models not list of a notable plays staging". And you are not Shakespeare or theatre critic, nor likely ever be. Claiming the play is not Hamlet also interesting, comparing a notable play with world's one of the most famous theatre play or TV series, is not logical. Then there would be no article in wikipedia but a few. The article already lists notable theaters with addition of a few not-that-notable theaters. But you stick out the "weaker" ones as a reason for deletion. Kasaalan (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of Canadian plays, List of fictional plays, List of plays of Dorothy L. Sayers, List of films based on stage plays or musicals, List of plays and films about the American Revolution, List of plays with anti-war themes, List of plays made into feature films, List of plays and musicals set in New York City, Shakespeare's plays, List of Sophocles' plays, List of plays produced by the Shaw Festival, List of one-act plays by Tennessee Williams, List of Doctor Who audio plays by Big Finish, List of Noh plays: A-M, List of Noh plays: N-Z, List of X-Play characters, List of musicians who play left handed, List of actors who have played the Doctor, List of actors who played Santa Claus, Broadway theatre#List of Broadway theatres, Guthrie Theater production history, Claudette Colbert chronology of performances, List of the longest-running Broadway shows, ...
List of theatres and concert halls in Barcelona, List of theatres in China, List of theatre directors in the 20th-21st centuries, List of theatre personnel, List of theatres and opera houses in Paris, List of movie theatres in Mumbai Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of theatres in Mumbai, List of Norwegian theatres, List of theatres in Bangkok, List of London venues, List of national theatres, List of fictional theatres, List of theatres in United Kingdom, List of theatres in San Francisco, List of Theatre Communications Group member theatres, List of improvisational theatre companies, List of Cineplex Odeon theatres, List of English Renaissance theatres, List of theatre managers and producers, List of Asian American theatre companies, List of Irish theatres and theatre companies, List of Las Vegas Academy theatre productions, List of movie theaters and cinema chains, List of entertainment venues and cabarets in Paris, List of films broadcast by Cartoon Network, League of Resident Theatres ...
"Wikipedia is not a list", "Wikipedia not a directory" sure. Kasaalan (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really should slow down Kasaalan. Walls of text aren't convincing. At any rate, I clicked on the blue links List of Sophocles' plays up above, because i was planning on using it as an example of a good list (he didn't write that many plays, and those that have survived are landmarks in world literature). At any rate, it's simply a "redirect" to Sophocles. I have no idea how many others of those are redirects. Do you?Bali ultimate (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I do. I checked each of the page before I posted. Having a list within a page, or as a separate page not matters, since you vote for delete not merge. Dont try to create an illusion of pages are redirects, only 2 pages Broadway theatre#List of Broadway theatres and List of Sophocles' plays are redirects into main page yet a huge part of the main page. But again by "coincidence" you came up with it, so all the examples should be "redirects", don't they, especially if you don't bother to check them in the first place. If you want to prove me wrong, you can always check them. Walls of text are for deniers. Kasaalan (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest Kasaalan, i don't really care about those other lists. At a glance, some of them seem appropriate to me and some seem highly innapropriate. So what? The list we are evaulating is this list. I'm not interested on this AFD page in discussions about other really, really bad lists. For what it's worth, were wikipedia to have a separate article listing all of Sophocles plays, I would be highly supportive of it. Were wikipedia to have a separate article that sought to list every production of, say, Oedipus at Colonus, i would argue for its deletion on the same grouns i'm arguing for this list's deletion. I hope you can understand the difference in these two positions.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People chanting "wikipedia is not a list or directory" so it is a clear reply to them. I don't care what you care or not, that is your own issue.
And to be honest, "at a glance" comment or vote approach is not much useful
If someone share his time to create such a list, I would support it, too, however its length. Possibly you wouldn't understand but Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, which doesn't have length limitations like a regular printed encyclopedia.
So even the concert tours of "notable" pop culture singer brats has separate articles, list style articles, but stagings of theatres, even when they are notable, do not deserve a page, extremely good personal policy, but where did it ever written in the WP. Kasaalan (talk) 15:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a list that seeks to list every production of the play? Citius Altius (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Every "stage" production list article (as a separate page) for any notable theatre play, would be useful. And if you chose not to use it, well you can always ignore. Movie theatre and actual theatre are 2 different things. Being played by a theatre is an international criteria, while being screened in a movie theatre is not. As far as I am aware 3.000 movie theatres exist in America. [16] Kasaalan (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any notable performances to My Name Is Rachel Corrie, and then redirect the article there. It's ludicrous to suggest that every performance of this play is notable, and I don't see the encyclopædic value of enumerating so much information on what is, to be honest, a fairly minor play. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a drama almanac, nor the yellow pages. Second choice is redirect to the play. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go ahead and directly contradict policy, I guess that saves time trying to apply it Citius Altius (talk) 14:49, 11 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) 18:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy olsen[edit]

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

Likely hoax - Imdb [17] which usually has almost any actor only has an Ivy Olsen from way back in the 60s playing in Italian films - obviously not identical with this purported 14 year old Passportguy (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as hoax. If indeed she had guest starring roles on Nickelodeon and Disney Channel she would be listed on IMDb. Recommend redirect to Ivy Olson as plausible misspelling. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • …I would do the redirect myself but would like to see more responses on the hoax claim first. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax or unverifiable, take your pick. Hairhorn (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as obvious hoax. And for God's sake, Dolly freakin' Parton sang "I Will Always Love You" first. She only charted with it three times, you know. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for CSD as blatant hoax. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:18, 3 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 00:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coriole[edit]

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

Neither the article itself nor the sources establish notability as per WP:N BodegasAmbite (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I don't see that claim being made in the article. It it were to be made it would have to be very well referenced, more than just a quote from BarrelsandBottles (an online wine vendor) which is itself unsourced.
  • Keep - appears to be a well-known winery and organizer/sponsor of a well-known music festival. There are plenty of good sources available for article improvement out there: [18]. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Numerous mentions on Google News, Google Books and Google Scholar suggest notability.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nUvA6tXHtYcC&pg=PA61&vq=coriole&dq=Coriole — Rankiri (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, have you actually looked at those mentions? Over 85% of them don't actually have anything to do with Coriole and the ones that do have only brief, one line mentioned. Nothing that satisfy WP:CORP or WP:NOTABILITY requirement for multiple, non-trivial mentions. AgneCheese/Wine 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've actually checked all of the so-called references provided: half are not available for viewing (you have to pay or subscribe) and the other half are passing mentions in related fields (tourism, cuisine, etc) Not a single source has any actual content, let alone notable content, which is what is at issue here.
Also, over at WikiWineProject, we believe its not the number of hits that come up on Google, GoogleNews, etc, but their quality and content. The issue here is Notability as per WP:N. As it stands, there is nothing in the article itself or in the references provided that shows notability.
  • Comment I didn't know there was such a thing as a "speedy keep". And I'm not sure that dumping a dozen general newspaper sources in a non-standard "format" into the article convinces other editors otherwise. Tomas e (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: All of the sources I looked at contained a passing mention, and nothing else. Nothing to establish notability. Weak delete because there is a possibility that someone could persuade me to change my mind. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 15:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "keep" arguments above don't hold water, as far as I can tell. Being a sponsor of a local-interest music festival doesn't make a company notable. In the "lots of sources" cited, none of them seem to profile this winery, but rather the region, with mentions of the wineries in it. Google hits don't confer notability, the quality and content of the sources do - so where are those sources? The numerous sources listed in the article barely mention this winery. There is nothing here to establish notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Neutral'Weak Delete Keep (changed after looking more closely at the weak referencing) (Now that the Sangiovese claim has been properly referenced, notability is established.) Pioneering Sangiovese in Australia would be a notable accomplishment but the link to a wine retailer is distinctly not reliable. If a true reliable source is found for that, I would support keeping this article. Right now the article has a litany of faux refs of trivial mentions or from advert sites. Nothing to truly establish notability. AgneCheese/Wine 16:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that I've logged in and gone through all the subscription service refs, I have to say they are extremely weak referencing with just passing trivial mentions in articles about the region. It like an article on the city of Paris, Texas making a brief, one line passing reference to a local pizzeria. Would we honestly consider that one line passing ref an inference of notability on that local mom & pop pizzeria? Now there is still hope for notability if any reliable source can found regarding pioneering Sangiovese in Australia. So far I haven't been able to find it and, admittedly, seeing the extremely weak referencing that has turned up so far is diminishing my hope. AgneCheese/Wine 16:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. The Penguin Wine Guide is not notable, so winning an award from that is just as notable as my roommates homemade wine winning an award from a national home winemaking magazine. The same with the olive competition. The competition has to be notable before winning an award from it is. While the Music Festival may have borderline notability, that doesn't confer notability to the sponsor. Each year we have some team win the Little League World Series and they almost always have some local sponsorship like Crazy Dave's Tires. Is Crazy Dave notable because he sponsored that local team that went on to win the LLWS? The 30 second wine adviser is a blog entry, of which there are numerous blogs about non-notable wineries and restaurants. I can create a blog in 10 minutes on any non-notable topic you would like but that still wouldn't merit a Wikipedia entry. So again, we're grasping at straws trying to establish notability here when the one truly notable fact-pioneering Sangiovese in Australia- doesn't seem to have any referencing support to prove it is true. AgneCheese/Wine 16:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well first of all, WP:GNG does require the coverage to be about something you consider notable to count - it only requires non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. (I've learned this over time myself after often arguing that coverage was of something not important.) Second, the 30 second win adviser page is not just some random blog - if it was it wouldn't be linked to in the Google news archives. Blogs (and I don't think this is actually a blog anyway) aren't automatically out, they just generally don't count b/c they generally aren't reliable. Blogs can still be used as sources if they have earned a reputation for fact checking (same way a regular source gets to be considered reliable). Finally, here is an industry publication that says they pioneered Sangiovese in Australia: [19] --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral There's currently little in the article to indicate that it's worth keeping, since it is in a sorry shape and wasn't helped by one editors dumping into the article of a dozen references, none of which are typically considered WP:RS to establish notability of wineries. However, I notice that a large number of their wines have been reviewed by The Wine Advocate and some have been given high enough ratings for the winery to be somewhat internationally established (non-free content, so I can't give you the link). Tomas e (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the state of play so far. There would seem to be two possible claims to notability: the Sangiovese claim and the reviews in the WA. All the rest is clearly not notable and/or irrelevant. So while the sources and refs to these two claims are being clarified, I'm changing from Delete to Neutral. The Sangiovese claim is impressive and if it were shown to be true beyond doubt it would be enough for a Keep (IMHO). It would need more than just a ref in Winebiz.com though. (i haven't had time to investigate yet). Secondly, what to do about the WA reviews? If they can't be referenced, they don't count, no? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free sources can be used if necessary, they just should be replaced by free ones when possible. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've done a bit of research in Google and I'm now convinced that Coriole were indeed pioneers in the introduction of Sangiovese in Australia, which is notable enough for an article as per WP:N (IMHO). I've found quite a few references, all wine-related sites which seem reliable and independent to me. The one that clinched for me though was Jancis Robinson's webpage - I think there can be no doubt about her reliability or independence, what? --BodegasAmbite (talk) 08:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, BodegasAmbite, you are the deletion proponent, you created this debate. If you have changed your mind about the article, do you want to close this deletion discussion? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A nomination can only be withdrawn when no other editors have !voted delete, which is not the case here. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of the news articles linked to, gives more than a passing mention of Coriole, commenting on their achievements to the Australian wine community, introducing Sangiovese, etc. Dream Focus 18:27, 7 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Kenyan relations[edit]

Greek-Kenyan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination. Greek foreign ministry notes no one higher that a foreign minister has visited. The 'economic and trade' description is incredibly vague with no actual numbers for trade. [20] There was some incident in 1999 and another "cooperation' agreement reported in the media but not much else. LibStar (talk) 14:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No special significance here at all. Collect (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The incident involving Abdullah Öcalan and the Greek ambassador to Kenya George Costoulas has been well covered by the press. Greece and Kenya also have a number of bilateral treaties, one dating back almost 100 years, not to mention the multilateral relations.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
can't that be covered in Abdullah Öcalan LibStar (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule that information has to exist in only one place in Wikipedia. That is why we have the Main template. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lists various unrelated facts (but Wikipedia is not a directory). Reference to the Ocalan affair sounds interesting, but investigation shows that the issue was about Greek–Turkish relations (someone wanted by Turkey was harbored by a Greek diplomat in Kenya). There is no indication of notability in this article. In case readers wonder how I came to that opinion, the answer is simple: my opinion (and yours) does not matter. The disparate facts are not notable until a reliable source says they are. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have signed some bilateral treaties, they are members of the World Trade Organization, and Greece has an embassy in Kenya. It's notable. --Turkish Flame ☎ 14:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
simply being members of the World Trade Organization is not evidence of actual bilateral relations. precedents have shown having an embassy is not necessarily evidence of notable relations, can you provide any evidence of significent coverage? LibStar (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference better, the relationship is verifiable and meets the Wikipedia standard or notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per User:Cdogsimmons. Exceeds WP:Notability. T L Miles (talk) 21:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A couple of treaties and belonging to the same club doesn't make the relationship notable. Treaties exist between countries about all sorts of things. That's the normal course of govt. business. That is pedestrian, not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since there is no in depth coverage of the topic of this article, anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:18, 10 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. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philomena, duchesse de Vendôme[edit]

Philomena, duchesse de Vendôme (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested with the statement "I am pretty sure all nobility are considered notable," but in a look through relevant WP guidelines I can find no evidence that this is so. Myself, I doubt that inherent notability attaches to the wife of a person in one of the several putative lines of succession to a monarchy that no longer exists. The only sources about her that I can find deal with her recent engagement and marriage to Jean, duc de Vendôme, and the article does not state that she's done anything else that might satisfy WP:BIO. If her marriage alone is enough to establish notability, I'm in error here; but I'd like to see the relevant policy or guideline. Deor (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unambiguous candidate for deletion: the article does not mention anything which could constitute notability, and no sources are given, reliable or otherwise. I have also done an internet search, and can find nothing indicating anything notable about her: the only reason she gets a mention at all is that she has married someone who claims to be the heir to a non-exixtent throne. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps not all nobility are notable, but this particular lady is a scion a wife of the foremost pretender to the (admittedly nonexistent) French throne.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(later) — I've added two three of the references the previous debate participants couldn't find, and I'd invite them to repeat their searches more thoroughly, because there are certainly others.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said I couldn't find any sources that weren't about her marriage, and—what do you know?—you haven't managed to find any, either. Furthermore, she's not a "scion" of any "foremost pretenders" to anything, since she wasn't born into the nobility. Deor (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is your case then based on WP:BLP1E?

That's a fairly republican view of noble titles, but I'll concede it's probably defensible. I'd be prepared to support a redirect to Jean, duc de Vendôme if that's the consensus.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that scion means "descendant"; do you have evidence that she's descended from any pretenders to any throne? And, no, my case is not based on WP:BLP1E. It's based on the lack of reliable sources supporting a claim of notability. Whether her marriage to a nobleman is sufficient to establish such a claim is a question I raised in the nomination and is, as I see it, the crux of this discussion. Deor (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for correcting me on that. Let the record show she's a member of that family but not a scion.

Which two of the three sources I've cited do you feel fail WP:RS? (If two of them survive, then the GNG is passed).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this one more time in a different way: Your sources don't fail WP:RS, but all they establish is that she married the guy. I'm suggesting that her marrying the guy does not establish her notability. Is that clear enough? Deor (talk) 19:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm obviously having a dumb day, because I'm still not getting it.

She's got significant coverage in two reliable sources. How then does she fail WP:N?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources do is say who she has married: how on earth can anyone call that "significant" coverage? She has no significant coverage anywhere. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read them, thank you.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read them. As far as I can see the only thing any of them tells us about her apart from her title and the circumstances of her wedding is that she was 31 years old. If I am mistaken please tell us what else they tell us: that would be more constructive than simply saying "please read them". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Same reasons as S Marshall. Sigh. Here we go again. --Thorwald (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to her husband. No evidence of independent notability, but redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Redirects may be cheap, and one would certainly be better than this article, but is there any reason for one? Is there any reason why we should think people are likely to search for this non-notable person? JamesBWatson (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can make out, none of the sources say much beyond that she married this prince, with varying degrees of detail about the wedding. That doesn't seem like significant coverage of her in her own right. Why do you disagree, Marshall? Olaf Davis (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the sources are mostly focused on her wedding (which is why I asked Deor about BLP1E earlier). I think there's also biographical coverage of Philomena herself tacked on, though.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think there is? Can you tell us what biographical coverage is tacked on? As I said above I can't find any: can you? The sources are not "mostly focused on her wedding": they are about her wedding and nothing else. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:11, 10 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) 02:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Camp[edit]

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

Speedy declined, thus listed here. Non-notable group that organizes workshops/events at a Burning Man. See also discussion with author at User_talk:Passportguy#Welcome_Camp, although be careful not to confuse the notability fo Burning man with that of this group, especially when it comes to membership numbers that are claimed. Passportguy (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable group of people who get together at a notable event. Good luck to them, and they may yet become notable, but they aren't right now. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what I do here but I guess I stated everything on Passportguy talk page. When you talk about confusion of membership numbers, I feel you are saying this because I am purposely trying to confuse membership numbers. I am and have not tried to do so. The membership of this theme camp is right about 50. That is 50 members of the theme camp. Burning man has 50,000 participants. They buy tickets not to see our theme camp but to come to the event and participate in MANY theme camps. We have thosands of visitors to our theme camp during the event. There is no way to prove this because we do not sell tickets to our camp. We have picutes of the events, community murals that are contributed to by thosands of people, emails from hundreds of people that felt they needed to tell us how they enjoyed our camp and want more information on how to join and just general information.RACESV (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and I guess it is worth noting that since a portion of this page was deleted by someone, that I have just started this page. Once it was up the other members, that is some of the 50, and perhaps some of the thousands of visitors would begin to edit this page and provide more information and provide notability and eventually be a place for people to come gain information about the theme camp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RACESV (talk • contribs) 18:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


no⋅ta⋅ble  1. worthy of note or notice; noteworthy: a notable success; a notable theory. 2. prominent, important, or distinguished: many notable artists. Synonyms: celebrated distinguished great illustrious noted preeminent prestigious These are things that only people that have been to Camp Welcome or Welcome Camp would be qualified to answer. For someone to say that it is "Non-notable" I would ask that person when they had visited the camp. I believe anyone who may attend Burning Man and visits this camp would agree that it is all of these things including notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.104.215 (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — 71.9.104.215 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I dare say. But notability in this context means something quite different: it's a requirement that articles have sufficient, reliable third-party reporting about them, amongst other things. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:17, 3 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. Withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IText[edit]

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

All references are to the software's own website. Notability not established. Stifle (talk) 13:04, 3 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 Xpdf. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poppler (software)[edit]

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

No third-party references to show notability. PROD contested. Stifle (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 14:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Xpdf (from which poppler is a fork) is probably the oldest free pdf software and used by a lot of software; poppler is increasingly used instead.--Oneiros (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge (probably to xpdf, but with mention in evince and okular too), but that seems less than ideal. This is a backend to multiple notable products & is a fork of another notable product that has become more popular and better supported. I don't know whether this can be speedied: Stifle's claim that this lacks sources is legitimate. But the article should be kept and improved. There are hits on google scholar and news (no links; as I can't figure out, off-hand, how to include spaces in URLs--HTML-encoding changes results & tinyurl is blacklisted. Please search for "poppler xpdf OR evince OR okular OR vindaloo OR ePDFView"). There are incidental mentions of it in multiple books. The news hits do include a few exclusive articles in sources such as the german Linux Magazin, but most are mixed coverage of multiple free pdf tools and/or libraries. As an aside: libraries are unsexy in general & even more widespread libraries such as DirectSound have sources that are far from exclusive. I therefore would err on the side of thinking that many of the above links are more than trivial. --Karnesky (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Xpdf. I can't support keeping an unsourced article, and it does appear to be unsourced and unsourceable. And I can't support a merge because there's no sourceable content to merge.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know why Karnesky can't paste search results, but the google news search he describes gets no hits, and, of the hits on google scholar, most are - as Karnesky himself points out - incidental mentions only; they do little more than verify that a library of this name exists and that it has something to do with rendering pdfs. These are exactly the sort of non-sources the "significant coverage" requirement of the general notability guideline excludes. In particular, just because someone forks notable software, that doesn't make his fork notable.

    Only two hits, http://is.muni.cz/th/143058/fi_b/bakalarska_prace.pdf and http://students.mimuw.edu.pl/~jw209508/papers/thesis/thesis.pdf, seem to mention it in any detail at all, and as I speak neither Czech nor Polish (and machine translation is worthless for papers such as these), I can't properly assess them.

    Should not be redirected; disambiguated redirects usually have very little use. I'd say to just mention it on the Poppler disambig instead, but if Poppler (software) goes away, it should itself turn back into a redirect (to The Problem with Popplers, I suppose, as the original target's been deleted, but that's a matter for Talk:Poppler). —Korath (Talk) 07:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor point, but that google news search you used only shows results from the last month. If you search all time periods you get 41 hits. However those are mostly comments on a handful of source articles, and the mentions of poppler are fairly incidental. Bazzargh (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an external source and asked on the librarie's list; the response from the maintainer sums up my response to these discussions: "Not that I care much if Wikipedia decides the leading free software for rendering PDF is notable, it's their loss, not ours."--Oneiros (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is really the opposite of WP:INHERIT. Multiple PDF programs are notable & they all use poppler for the actual rendering of the PDF. Does that make poppler notable? Thanks for adding the search: I had URLs with spaces & forgot I can change them to pluses. --Karnesky (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:N recognizes not only sources as evidence of notability, but also "published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." Unfortunately, Wikipedia:Notability (software) never gained consensus. It'd certainly meet it: popcon shows that poppler is installed on over half of Debian-based systems that run that tool. It is a core library of many default PDF viewers in various distributions of Linux. I don't think we need exclusive coverage of a subject in order to keep any article. The sources for this one, in particular, might be borderline. But they seem reasonable enough in the context of other software libraries we have chosen to accept in WP. --Karnesky (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clean up[edit]

I made the article readable and added sources to quite a few things, can someone make a check to see if this needs more cleaning?

if more cleaning is required can you tell me what exactly is required for this page to be kept. Please leave a notice on my talk page if you respond --Gnepets (talk) 05:11, 11 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 History of Western fashion. Cirt (talk) 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medeival fashion[edit]

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

Prod contested - Unsourced OR article whose content can be found in much more (sourced) detail at Medieval_clothing and subpages Passportguy (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT#OR ("Weird Facts and Rules") and per the fact that any information here that could be sourced is already covered elsewhere. Unnecessary duplication. Deor (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Medieval clothing. A plausible misspelling. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medieval clothing is itself a redirect. Deor (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, redirect to History of Western fashion. The author apparently didn't notice that the subject was already covered. Perhaps he'd like to work on the "$TIMEPERIOD in fashion" articles? --Kizor 15:28, 3 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 16:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamas–Russia relations[edit]

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

totally random combination with non resident embassies. any useful info can easily be contained in Foreign relations of the Bahamas. only coverage is of 2004 diplomatic recognition otherwise multilateral. [21] I think these 2 countries only meet at UN meetings? not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No reliable sources adress these non-notable relations in any detail Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Russia is represented in the Bahamas through its embassy in New York." Russia doesn't even have an embassy in New York. It has a mission to the UN and a consulate-general but the embassy is in Washington, D.C. There are direct flights from New York to the Bahamas daily but I don't think that constitutes bilateral relations between Russia and the Bahamas, either. Drawn Some (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't relevant, the US and Cuba don't have embassies or direct flights. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete given the absence of reliable sources that address this topic and the lack of interest the two states have with tending a bilateral relationship as demonstrated by the absensce of ambassadorial exchange.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No plausible reasoning to connect the two. Collect (talk) 15:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bahamas, strictly speaking, are still within top ten or even five "investors" in Russia, but don't ask me where they've got the moneys... I'd suggest redirecting it to Corporate inversion, a perfect example, however, this article only considers tax issues which are not the case here. NVO (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article only has some announcements of diplomatic contacts. It needs some notable treaty or relationship to be kept. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have now added references and additional information at the article to address the issues listed above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of that the topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and therefore it does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Yilloslime TC 06:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Topic entirely fabricated by creator and "rescuer(s)", from a random collection of factoids. Nothing there is validated by outside research, just random news items that happen to mention the two countries. Awful editing, contrived rationale, absurd inclusionist agenda. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia and factoids are not Wikipedia concepts. Wikipedia recognizes information from reliable sources. "BT MyPlace is a service that dynamically delivers content and information to people, based on their personal preferences and location." and "Dante María Caputo (b. Buenos Aires, 25 November 1943) is an Argentine academic, diplomat and politician, who served as foreign minister to President Raúl Alfonsín." are random facts. I used the random article button to collect them. Can you discern the difference? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe I have answered to this style of faulty analogy and special pleading too many times by now, Richard. Seriously, I'm tired. Dahn (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But, okay, one last time: water is notable, and its existence documented; so is mucus; so are bilirubin, fat and several other things, all of which are likely to be found in one of my stools. Should I proceed to write an article about my stool? As for factoids etc. and how they relate to wikipedia rules, you were many times pointed to to WP:N (and WP:GNG), WP:SYNTH and WP:NOT. It's all there. Dahn (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not having seen previous discussions being referred to, I am running a risk of repeating the arguments, but I'm gonna try anyway, as I believe it is Dahn's analogy that is faulty. No, you should not write an article about your stool. We should, however, have an article about stool in general.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:32, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
No, the article corresponding to stool in general would be this one. I usually put some thought into my analogies. Dahn (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like US-Canada relations are the only ones that can barely hope to survive these ridiculous deletion sprees these days. The recent expansion is more than sufficient to keep this article, even though it may not yet be developed up to its full potential.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:41, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
So you're basically telling us that the article should be kept because others exist. Dahn (talk) 15:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am basically trying to say that the article should be expanded by people who know the subject, not deleted by folks who don't know squat about it. Since when has going on deletion rampage become the ultimate solution for quality improvement? I see it only as ignorance trying to undermine the encyclopedia. Lame excuses do not help either.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I get it, you're one of the users who think that, once the article exists, it should never be deleted. Because it exists. And, if you want to talk about what's "ignorant" and what's "lame": copy-pasting google results that match two terms is not only not a substitute for research, sourcing, or coverage of a real-life phenomenon. Dahn (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's you who doesn't get it. Once the article exists, it should be carefully reviewed (note the emphasis) and considered. Yes, it's possible the article could be started as crap, but it's not a reason to send it straight to AfD without even attempting to investigate if the subject has a potential or any salvageable pieces. One, of course, cannot be an expert in everything, but that is exactly why we have all those WikiProjects available—one can seek all kinds of help there. It's obvious that some bilateral relations are more notable than the other (and I myself voted "delete" in some instances—a shocker, eh?), but submitting an AfD based on a gut feeling and the results of a few google hits (you knew I was going to pass this one back to you, right? :)) is nothing short of wikisabotage in my book. Just so you know, when I say "keep", I don't mean "keep forever", I mean "give it a chance for expansion", because, based on what I see, the expansion potential is out there. What the reason you folks want to get rid of these articles as soon as possible and not a moment later is, I have no idea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:19, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
One thing: the burden of proving notability rests with those who support the article, not with those who contest it. Placing trust in some speculative future is not only ridiculous, it is detrimental to the project. The only "gut feeling" here is that of those "keep" voters who have not only claimed sources are bound to show up around the corner, but who have effectively attempted to manipulate the other editors by synthetizing a flood of mind-numbing nonsense and presenting it as effective "rescue". That is what I would call "wikisabotage". And, once more and hopefully for the final time: in the unlikely and speculative eventuality that some of these topics turn out as "important" under transparent and proper definitions, the articles can be revived from redirects or even thin air. As for your final assertion, two can play at that game: I can't for the love of me imagine what reason there is behind seeing these nonsense articles surfacing and proliferating. The only justification I keep hearing over and over is the question "why not?", which was shown to be invalidated by several guidelines, and which is the staple of an untenable inclusionist agenda. Dahn (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot speak for every person, obviously, but for me, personally, the first most logical place to look up information about the relations between countries X and Y is, you guessed it, the article titled "X-Y relations". When I started planning a Cyprus vacation for my relatives in Russia, one of the first articles I looked up was Cyprus–Russia relations. What I found was this pitiful stub, yet it still proved a surprisingly useful starting point for further research (and, incidentally, it was the first article where I learned of the bilateral relations article deletion carnage). For the love of cheese I can't fathom why anyone would want to deny this information to our readers. Even if the relations are minimal, informing readers of this fact is still of benefit. Notability issues seem to be the focus of each and every one of these AfDs, and by now it is bloody obvious that there is no consensus on whether these articles are notable or not (good arguments have been presented by both sides). In such a situation, it is obvious to me that we should err on the side of benefeting our readers and keep the articles. To you, however, it is a conspiracy by damn inclusionists who want to "keep stuff" for reasons you can't even explain.
On a different note, it is true that the burden of proof lies with the authors of the article, yet it is also true that these authors or other people interested in the subject should be given a chance to provide such proof. Yes, it's possible to resurrect an article from redirects or thin air, but the very fact the article had been previously deleted could be a sufficient deterrent to do so (if only out of fear of having one's work deemed "useless" and "unnotable" once again), which is a huge impediment for further development, editors retention, and overall progress of Wikipedia. Which brings me back to the definition of wikisabotage.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:56, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
Are you asking me to tell you again why I think x article should be deleted, or are you asking me to tell you why you "can't fathom why anyone would want to deny this information to our readers"? Because, in either case, you're dragging me as respondent and others as readers around in circles. If you can't see it, you can't see it, and that's that.
And do excuse me if I don't spend time worrying about those who may find urge to revitalize these articles in (I'm repeating myself here) the unlikely and speculative eventuality that proper sourcing, which has so far admittedly eluded any "rescue" attempt, is made available. I think we all have better things to do than worry about that. Oh, and: the "Cyprus-Russia relations" is still, well, nonsense; it's just that the "rescue" posse has turned it into convoluted nonsense from stubby nonsense, as has happened in about a million cases abusively cited as "the work of research". Dahn (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me for not accepting this "explanation". It makes no sense to me at all; I have tried. End of circle.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:58, June 9, 2009 (UTC)
And the need to move past this apparent blockage in communication is what the AfDs stand for. Dahn (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, the Bahamian GG once "greeted" the Russian ambassador (care to tell us what suit he was wearing, or the duration and firmness of the handshake?), the Bahamian Red Cross (32 years before independence) once sent "aid" to "Russia" (care to specify the precise number of bandages, and how long the shipping took?), the two have a relationship based on "peace and international law" (that sounds familiar), and "since now" (does time stand still in this universe?), Bahamas "hopes to have a closer collaboration with Russia" (I'm sure Her Majesty's Bahamian Ministry has many "hopes" - shall we perhaps start a list of Hopes of the Bahamian Government?) -- but what this collection of trivia cannot mask is the utter lack of multiple, independent coverage accorded to "Bahamas–Russia relations". Fails WP:N easily. - Biruitorul Talk 15:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument again is "relative importance" instead of notability and verifiability. I am sure we all agree it is not in the top third of press coverage, but its is still verifiable and notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:08, 10 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 Area 51. I've taken the nominator's endorsement for this suggestion to be a withdrawal of the deletion request and so I'm closing this early. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Groom Lake Road[edit]

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

The road is non-notable; the one reference used is not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the road has been known as for years, even Google earth refers to it as this and The articles surrounding Area 51 also use this name LordNatonstan (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Area 51. That already has more information on the road than the current article. Quantpole (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right. Redirect! Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 3 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. An early closure, as this falls squarely under A7. Content has been userfied as requested (User:Billcheese1/Guards on Duty) Marasmusine (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guards on Duty[edit]

Guards on Duty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable web forum Passportguy (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Passportguy, I understand you have to maintain Wikipedia's credibility and cleanliness, I am the writer of the Guards on Duty article, and I understand that you may think it is "non notable," for it is a smaller site. But I believe all sites start somewhere and cannot always contribute or be nationally recognized without gaining some ground first. The site aforementioned offers insight into various medias and personal reviews. Whatever you decide is fine, but if you do decide to delete it, I would like it to be userfied, or whatever the term was, to my talk page and/or emailed to me. Thank you, Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billcheese1 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billcheese1, we understand that the article may grow in importance in the future. But until it gets reliable sources and is verifiable, we can't consider it notable enough at this stage. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, it's our policy to delay articles about such future successes until they indeed become successful. Whilst it might deserve an article in the future, it might not. And, as you seem to understand, it doesn't really deserve one at its current swtage. Thanks for being a good sport about it. Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 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. Happy to userfy to be worked on prior to a mainspace return under the usual conditions, but consensus at this time is that this article is not suitable for Wikipedia Fritzpoll (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic original research and synthesis. Most of the quotes do not explicitly claim that that these cultures are patriarchal. They offer one ethnographer's (quite possibly biased, but that's a different issue) observations on practical actions. Furthermore, there are no references citing who claimed these cultures were matriarchal. (The Iban, Iroquois & Tlingit descriptions cite Wikipedia as a source?!)

So this article could more aptly be titled "List of cultures we have claimed are patriarchal and which we claim have been claimed to be matriachal"

Even if one ethnographer has claimed explicitly that they were patriarchal, a better title would be List of disputes about the patriarchal or matriarchal nature of certain cultures. Why would the first ethnographer to record details automatically be correct? Ethnographers can and do make mistakes... see Social Darwinism.

TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the objection to having a List of disputes about the patriarchal or matriarchal nature of certain cultures? Citius Altius (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The page history is fairly complex, but revealing.

    It seems this page was originally called List of patriarchal societies, and indeed that link now redirects to the title in question. In other words, this was once a perfectly encyclopaedic list. But then, for reasons that stretch my comprehension, a discussion at patriarchy led to the List of patriarchal societies being given this new, and totally unencyclopaedic, title.

    The problem here is that there aren't any sources that discuss "patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal" as a topic in its own right.

    I recommend that what we do here is simply to reverse the rename/move and return this to its correct place, as a List of patriarchal societies.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. The article was originally a template, and I think the name List of patriarchal societies was only used due to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the template by the person who originally moved it from template namespace to article namespace. I think the purpose of the template/article has always been to list societies that were claimed to be matriarchal. Calathan (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I saw that, but I agreed with moving it from a template into the article space. The point I wanted to wind back to was the moment when it was renamed to List of patriarchal societies.

My basic point is that a list of patriarchal societies seems encyclopaedic to me, and the current article title just isn't. I feel that we need to WP:PRESERVE the sourced content here, but to do it in an encyclopaedic way, so I remain convinced that a rename is the way forward.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you are mistaken. My understanding from reading the templates for deletion discussion, article talk page discussion, and edit summaries, is that the original template was created from a list or table used in the articles patriarchy and patriarchy (anthropology) (which have apparently since been merged), and that the point of the template/article is to help show that no society has ever really been matriarchal and every society has been patriarchal. Naming the article List of patriarchal societies suggests that not all societies are patriarchal (otherwise the article would just be named "List of societies"), when the whole point of the article is to show that all known societies in human history have been patriarchal. While I think this current article is misguided, if it is true that all societies have been patriarchal, I don't think an encyclopedic article on List of patriarchal societies could be written, as it would either need to include all societies, or select the "most patriarchal" societies by some arbitrary criteria on what makes a society patriarchal enough for inclusion. Furthermore, I don't think the rename would help preserve the content as you suggest, as the societies listed in the article seem to have been selected based on being mistaken for a matriarchal society, not based on being any more patriarchal than any other society. Calathan (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's true (and I'm far from qualified to decide if it is), then I certainly agree with you that it's hard to justify this article at all. Wikipedia shouldn't be trying to "show" anything; encyclopaedias report sources, they don't present proof.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All societies, including current ones, are patriarchal according to anthropology (and form the rock solid raison de être of feminist theory: men will rule everywhere unless something is done about it). However, of thousands of known societies, only a couple of dozen have ever been proposed to be anything other than patriarchal. These societies are important in documenting the criticism of the empirical datum of the universality of patriarchy (and of the criticism of the criticism). The now well established consensus is this universality of patriarchy (and hence, a raft of legislations in the contemporary West to redress the "glass ceiling" by "positive discrimination").
It seems odd to attempt to remove the empirical basis of feminism and of objections to the universality of patriarchy. Is the proposer suggestion there is no glass ceiling and no doctrine of positive discrimination? Should those articles be deleted also? Or is the POV nomenclature a redeeming feature of those ideas?
The proposal can be thrown out, since it is simply unencyclopedic and original research: the proposer's inexpert opinion of ethnographers and the reliable secondary sources that evaluate them. However, presumably the proposer is left in ignorance because the list has been moved out of the context of the patriarchy article, where the major secondary sources that cited the works listed (and identified the quotes) used to form part of the text. These too have been repeatedly removed by editors unilaterally and over protests.
I think there really is a problem here. The data is notable, neutral, reliable and relevant: we need to place it somewhere. However, the problem is: where? It is absolutely notable even in its own right, but needs to be readily accessible from the patriarchy article. But if added to the patriarchy article, it takes up space and makes that article long. A long-time stable solution was having a collapsible table at the patriarchy article. That way, all the people who don't want to read or see it don't have to, but anyone who wants to doesn't even need to leave the page they're on.
We've tried it as raw text in the article, we've tried it as a template, we've tried it as a list. In all three cases people object both to the content (which has been established to be an invalid objection already) and the placement. I don't think there is a perfect placement, we've given everyone's alternatives a run. Let's decide, once and for all, which location the list lives at: mainspace, list space or template space. I recommend the last: collapsible and collapsed. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some extra sources for the skeptical (there are hundreds or thousands of sources, but these are just a few of those that are online):
  • Feminism says: "If patriarchy is defined as male control of women's economics, legal status, and sexuality, and matriarchy is the opposite of patriarchy, then it appears that there has never been a matriarchy."
— Winnie Tomm, Bodied mindfulness: women's spirits, bodies and places, (Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1995), p. 289.
  • and Lerner, Cantarella and Hoberman agree: "Lerner writes that there is no evidence of any society where women as a group ruled men, suggesting that in the strictest sense, there has never been a matriarchy, and Cantarella concurs."
— Ruth Hoberman, Gendering Classicism: The Ancient World in Twentieth-century Women's Historical Fiction, SUNY Press, 1997), p. 24.
  • Psychology says: "In his book, The Inevitability of Patriarchy (1973), Dr Steven Goldberg marshals much persuasive evidence to support his thesis that male dominance is a manifestation of the 'psychophysiological reality' of our species. In addition to advancing the genetic and neurophysiological evidence relating to the biology of sexual differentiation [see also Gender taxonomy] already summarised above, he observes that 'authority and leadership are, and always have been, associated with the male in every society, and I refer to this when I way that patriarchy is universal and that there has never been a matriarchy.' Patriarchy, it seems, is the natural condition of mankind. 'There is not, nor has there ever been, any society that even remotely failed to associate authority and leadership in suprafamilial areas with the male."
— Anthony Stevens, Archetype: a natural history of the self, (Routledge, 1990), p. 188.
Then there are endless refs like: The Persistence of Patriarchy: Class, Gender, and Ideology in Twentieth Century Algeria. These things do not form the basis of what is reported in popular media or education, except in so far as individual or collective achievements by women, that seem to suggest something new or different to the norm to this point in history, are considered newsworthy. In fifty years time we may achieve our goal, but at this point the sources say it is a work in progress. Given that our aims do not yet meet reality, reader surprise in engaging with sources on this topic is something of a given, certainly editors (like the proposer) seem surprised. It is quite understandable. Alastair Haines (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to Alastair Haines. While Alastair Haines clearly cares greatly about this subject, I think he is incorrect that this complete list needs to be presented together (whether as a list or as text). I do not think that having at one point been mistaken for a matriarchy is a good criteria upon which to group societies into a stand-alone list, as it doesn't really have anything to do with what those societies actually are. These societies may be no closer to being a matriarchy than many other societies, but just had an ethnographer make a mistaken claim about them. I also don't think that this list has any place in another article, such as the patriarchy or matriarchy articles. Both those articles already establish with citations that no society has ever been found to actually be a matriarchy. Presenting a full list of all the societies that anthroplogists considered in determining that no matriarchy has ever existed is unnecessary and unencylopedic. Which societies were considered is unimportant to understanding the conclusion that was reached. If anyone is interested in how the anthropologists reached that conclusion, they can read the books and research papers in which the conclusion was established. I suggest this be userfied since this article contains information that could potentially be used in other articles, for example in the individual articles on each of the societies in the list. Calathan (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this opinion appears to be superseded by a later one by the same editor. Bongomatic 13:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know what "userfy" means. I expect it's a good idea, but please explain. Additionally, I don't actually have any feelings regarding this list (as a list in list space). If it's deleted as a list, I'll simply restore it to its natural home at the patriarchy article, no worries. I thought creating a separate list wasn't such an obviously good idea as the user who did actually did it. I'm glad others are seconding my opinion now (but see below).
User talk at patriarchy frequently has people dropping by to say such and such a society was matriarchal. They typically mention one or another of the societies on this list. The mandate for having the list at that article is also already well established, not just from the talk page, but from the previous deletion discussion.
The only final suggestion I'd have, though, is that there's nothing to stop us retaining the list in list, template and article space. Diskspace is no concern. The list is frequently cited in literature regarding patriarchy, which is relevant to many top-level articles: patriarchy, matriarchy, feminism (and many lower level ones). By having list, template and article space covered, those articles can take their pick of which way they give access to interested readers. We put power of choice in the hands of other editors and of readers.
While the MightyQuill clearly cares a lot about keeping this information off Wikipedia, we're not in the business of censoring the consensus of reliable scholars on topics of significant interest to readers. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Userfy" means the page would be moved from being an article to being a subpage of your user page (i.e. it would be at User:Alastair Haines/List of patriarchal cultures that have been claimed to be matriarchal). If the page is deleted, it becomes unaccessable to non-administrators, which would make it hard to reuse any content from it in other articles without retyping it. Having the page be userfied makes it no longer an article in the article space, but keeps the content around so that it can be accessed and improved or used elsewhere. Calathan (talk) 02:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, userfy is obviously not the solution then. It's just an attempt to remove standard material on the topic from Wikipedia. You'd need a valid reason to do that, which to this point hasn't been offered. On the other hand, given the wide relevance of the material, a range of different ways of providing access to it give a lot of people control over just how they make it available: text, template or link.
The decision here seems pretty clear. The proposer simply asked if the material was backed by reliable secondary sources, it's clear there are endless such sources available from all points of view. There are no grounds for deletion, and many for providing multiple versions of the material. I think we have an outcome: keep as list and template for ease and flexibility of access depending on the needs of the many articles that can use the information.
The proposal needs something like either of the following to stand a chance:
  • an example of a matriarchal society claimed by sufficient reliable secondary sources to represent a not-unduly weighted scholastic point of view OR
  • an example of a reliable secondary source that offers a different argument, other than the key evidence in the list, for the universality of patriarchy
Last time this was done, the proposer (and all observers at TfD) were offered a month to find such sources. I think it's fair Calathan and MightyQuill have the same opportunity.
Good luck. :)
Unless the above can be found, I've changed my mind to the following:
  • keep: as both list and template for ease and flexibility of access depending on the needs of the many articles that can use the information. Alastair Haines (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this opinion appears to be superseded by a later one by the same editor. Bongomatic 13:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edit break[edit]

Question: Are there only two alternatives for a culture (i.e. patriarchal or matriarchal)? It seems to me that what Editor:Haines is conveying is the third option...cultures that were thought to be one but in actuality were the other. His inclusion of referenced works should also discourage any further comments about un-encyclopaedic or levels of scholarship. We are editors. Lets work at renaming the article, if that is the consensus, rather than destroying it. It is sourced, notable, relevant to the pat/mat discussion, informative to our reader, and is certainly superior to many other Wikipedia articles. Keep......--Buster7 (talk) 06:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlistify, rename, and expandDo not keep (either distribute the claims to the respective articles or publish this as OR in a peer-reviewed journal). Lists should be of things where inclusion doesn't need demonstration beyond a wikilink to the article for each entry—the claims in this so-called "list" need extensive referencing and context—this may or may not constitute OR or SYNTH, but even if not, these claims and references in support of them belong in articles (note: probably not "an article", but the articles on each culture), not in a list. If each culture has properly referenced, non-OR non-SYNTH, NPOV and not UNDUE summary of of (a) the patriarchal nature of it; and (b) the previous claim (that is, uncontroversially, no longer accepted) of matriarchy, then a list with wikilinks (preferably to the appropriate sections) would seem reasonable. Bongomatic 08:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry man, you missed the info above, don't know what you're smoking ;) most of this list was published 35 years ago. It belongs together, that's what the sources cite. I'm not convinced lists have to be as pure as you suggest (see List of sovereign states, List of United Nations resolutions concerning Israel, there are other, more complex lists). But I like your main point: the info should be in all the society articles as well. Looks like we have an addition to the solution. The list needs an article, a template and a collapsible table in the patriarchy article. Plus the relevant source material should be added to each respective culture. That way we get all the reliable info out to all the places that can use it, with maximum flexibility for ease of use across a range of articles. What we're looking for now is the best name for the list. How about List of alleged matriarchies? Alastair Haines (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is clearly notable, it is useful in a single place, and the research appears sound (I'm not an expert and haven't chased down the source material) if not—as claimed—obviously from a single source where it lies together. However, I maintain that the need for extensive citations and explanations merely to demonstrate list membership makes the items not well-suited to list format. Rather, I would think a full-blown article (a companion to the matriarchy article) entitled something like The myth of matriarchy (if that doesn't sound too essay-like) explaining the origins and debunking of claims to matriarchy general, and then, using the citations from this list, going through each alleged matriarchy in detail. If a list is still deemed useful, it can be a single unreferenced list with a few columns (possibly fewer than now, perhaps by grouping by region and eliminating that column), without the need for the "List of ethnographic references for the table" section as those would have been adequately covered in the article. Bongomatic 12:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great minds (not mine) think alike. In this case you seem uncannily like many published reliable sources:
Sample text @ New York Times site, with pay-to-view review link.
I do take your point about complicated lists, once again. Yes, when there is too much information on members, especially proving inclusion, we might as well cross the line into a simple article, with subsections indexing what would otherwise be a list. Taking your advice here would mean renaming the current list and expanding it to be an article, cross referenced to patriarchy, matriarchy and various articles on books like The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory and The Inevitability of Patriarchy. The sources to cover this are endless, but the core work has already been done. Phew!
So, yet another change of mind on my part:
  • Unlistify, rename, and expand. Renaming and changing this to a non-list article, with more information on the topic seems reasonable to me. However, if it would take a while to change this into a non-list article, I still think it should be userfied. Being userfied doesn't mean that the content is gone from Wikipedia for good. You can always copy it back into the article space (you don't even need an admin to do that). Calathan (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But I want both courses of action to occur. They aren't mutually exclusive. Calathan (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: we still need the name. Although Myth of matriarchy has a ring to it, it'd p me off somewhat were I not used to the idea. Can we have mercy and go for the tame Alleged matriarchies? Less reader surprise, more neutral, more nicely boringly encyclopedic.
<tongue in cheek> I'm not sure Calathan's "voted" twice, cause this isn't democracy is it? He's multiple-strands-of-advice-to-consider-incorporating-into-consensus-outcome-ed, not voted as such. But I'd like to see the userfy struck. That can't be done (at my user space anyway) without my consent, and I've not been bribed enough yet to give it. ;)
Name options please friends! Alastair Haines (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sticking with my "rename", but I don't know what to call it. The name given should be whatever name your sources use.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, in that case, we probably go back to very close to your first suggestion, based on the word patriarchy rather than matriarchy: the sources speak of the "universality of patriarchy". It's listed in Donald Brown's Human universals (cited in Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate). Steven Goldberg appears to have coined the term in The Inevitability of Patriarchy (though he doesn't actually believe patriarchy is inevitable, just empirically universal). Many ideological books (and a host of websites) bemoan or celebrate "the universality of patriarchy" (36,200 hits at Google, 23,800 at Scholar), many (if not most) of these are feminist sources working on exposure and practical solutions.
There are other relevant terms in the literature, but all things considered, I think Marshall's original "list of patriarchies" is, translated into "source speak", "universality of patriarchy". The article simply addresses the counter-examples that have been offered, those who proposed them, and the consensus that has rejected them. Done. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, after hearing back from Calathan and Bongomatic, should they support us, I'll volunteer to execute a draft of our decision. I've access to a host of sources and have read a fair few too. I think a couple of societies are currently missing, and a couple have rather more interesting discussions associated with them than others. It is very well that we have come to this decision, because we can do more justice to something readers have been demanding. Thank you all.
Rename to Universality of patriarchy. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Universality of patriarchy sounds like a fine name to me. I'm against any name with "myth" in the title. Calathan (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Universality of patriarchy.--Buster7 (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem is more than renaming. This article represents SYN and OR, and POV, and should be delated as such, without prejudice to doing it properly. --The rename is equally inherently POV. At the very least the evidence on which the societies has been called matriarchal most be included, with quotes. The actual way a society conceives itself in this regard, and the often different dynamics of the actual operation, are each of them not easy to summarize in a single word. The articles should be written by someone not trying to prove a theory. DGG (talk) 04:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair Haines seems to be stating that:
  • there is authority on the proposition that all claimed matriarchies are in fact patriarchies (not just one-by-one); and
  • that there is uncontroversial authority that every originally-claimed matriarchy has been commonly agreed to be a patriarchy within the profession
If this is so, then I don't see the OR/SYNTH/POV problem. I'm not an expert in the field (perhaps you are) but without seeing the article (which should obviously include alternative viewpoints, even if outside the mainstream), I don't think it is ripe for a deletion opinion. Bongomatic 04:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"AH seems": Bongo has understood and represented my summary of hundreds of sources precisely and concisely. Alastair Haines (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alastair, I suggest (a) making sure that the authorities are clearly identified as supporting the propositions in the first bullet point above; (b) making sure to give airtime (not UNDUE, but due, anyway) to dissenting views; and (c) getting to work in the article! Bongomatic 16:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article without WP:SYN would rely primarily on sources trying to make that general point. Instead, this article pieces together bits of information from a very wide variety of sources to counter unsourced claims to matriarchy. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though we all agree then. The problem is that the list should not be a free standing list, it needs to have the context of an article. (I have argued the same for two years now.) Freestanding, the list is a "trap for mature players": immaculately sourced as it is, the criterion for inclusion is obscure and convoluted, and there is no space for adequate presentation of the reliable sources that compiled (and add to) the list. The experienced Wikipedian's instinct sees the tell tale potential for synthetic original research. A subject area expert may be able to verify, but how can the general community verify, fresh additions from anyone-can-editors?
Listifying introduced potential for Synth OR, agreed by all (I think). Solution: delistify, articlify and renamify. Oh! And deletify the evidence of the original listification to protect the well intentioned but guilty: i.e. good-faithify. Hmmm, all this ifying seems a bit ify to me, but it's fun. I'm learning Wikipediese. :) Err, not 'pedifying myself though. <blush for that one> Alastair Haines (talk) 00:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy And let Mr. Haines work on it a bit bwfore placing it again in mainspace. Collect (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above, I've declined to host userfication. However, what I can do is accommodate this proposal into our consensus by accepting nomination to take responsibility for maintaining the article on our behalf. I'll add the maintenance tag to Universality of patriarchy, so parties interested in expanding the article can contact me for sources. Alastair Haines (talk) 04:06, 10 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) 00:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Silah Sulahian[edit]

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

Reasons for deletion:

This article had been deleted twice before on questions of notability. [22] [23]

The topic still does not meet the standards of notability. [24]

Sources and citations were requested but never provided. There has been no "significant coverage" or reliable and independent sources at all. The article's creator, rovasil, is biased in that he is Lucy Sulahian's son, Robert. [25]

This appears to be a vanity page and does not warrant inclusion here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by XenoJov (talk • contribs) — XenoJov (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 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) 02:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Solis[edit]

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

Lack of notability. This is a reporter for a local ABC affiliate. Nothing notable about his bio. Nothing that seperates him from the thousands of other local reporters on local affilates. This would have been handled with wp:PROD, but an IP editor removed the tag, not to contest it, but to put a tag in about American English. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete. I can find plenty of stories he's reported, but I can find no sources about him - with the exception of the New York Times coverage of his wedding here [26]. That's not enough to build an article on. Unless anyone can provide further sources to show notability, this should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless if something else is found that further distinguishes him from other people. LovesMacs (talk) 11:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly merge. Local news reporter with insufficient notability as a person to have his own page, any pertinent info should be merged into WABC-TV. In addition, the creator of the page seems to be a banned user, so this may qualify for a speedy delete under WP:CSD G5 Btw : there a quite a few other pages on reporters that have been created by same user and his sockpuppets, blocked for uploading copyrighted material & introducing delibrately false information. Passportguy (talk) 12:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried speedy delete first, but an admin refused is becuase there might be notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of sources about him equals the lack of notability. Should he become notable for at least one big event, (and his wedding doesn't count here), a new article about him could be drafted. Although I'm not opposed to merge some of the content as suggested above.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sockpuppet originator. If he really is notable, someone who can prove it will recreate it.Jarhed (talk) 04:55, 4 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 16:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 1726[edit]

Northwest Airlines Flight 1726 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a one time event that really isn't all that notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. This one isn't sufficiently notable as an event. If we kept a record of every bruised head on here, no one would be able to find the really notable accidents. Passportguy (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article doesn't even give a date or place for this minor incident. . .Rcawsey (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not very notable and this Milwaukee to Detroit to Buffalo flight is still being flown. The incident happened on Jan. 21, 2007 in Milwaukee. LovesMacs (talk) 04:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor event. Wikipedia is not a directory of every time a plane skids. The article exagerates the news coverage from 2007 from the facts stated in the news story, changing a "blown engine" or "engine failure" to an "exploded engine" and "one person reporting a sore back" to "a back injury," when the news story does not report anyone was hospitalized. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would actually interpret "blown engine" to mean "uncontained engine failure", which is technically an explosion (although not normally of the flames and smoke variety). It is a bit ambiguous though; I wouldn't draw any real conclusions for actual use in an article. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: I won't withdraw the nomination. I did that recently on another nomination, but this one is clearly not notable on its own. The info can easily be added to another article without a redirect. Do you really suppose it is that common that people look up a specific flight number of a mishap that didn't even have serious injuries? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I transfered all the information into General Mitchell International Airport with a {{anchor}} tag, so when a merge and targeted redirect is made with this title, it'll redirect straight to that section of the article. Even though the majority here are deletes, I feel it is better to merge/redirect, because the information, is there, and there is some guideline for inclusion of the material, just not in a standalone article. Sebwite (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment following the merge and redirect suggestions above I've looked at both articles again and I stand by my "delete" vote - i.e. I do not support a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to agree with others here and oppose a redirect or inclsuon of the info on another page. This flight is not notable. There are litterally thousands of minor incidents each year and if we include all of them even pages will end up getting cluttered. Just today there was another incident of this magnitude [27] and that equally does not deserve a mention. Wikipedia is not a newssource - and that goes eually for seperate pages and for content in articles. Passportguy (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Take a look at this page and see just how many such minor incidents there are. Note that the more seroius entries are all apdates on other events, but the minor ones listed do not get updates and instead they are all one-report-only items. I too stand by my view favouring deletion. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:20, 10 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) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Observation of a Waiter[edit]

Observation of a Waiter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable film, possibly even a hoax as I get zero hits on google for "Observation of a Waiter" which for an existing or even planned film is highly unusual. Passportguy (talk) 20:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Going with WP:CRYSTAL on this one, bad case of it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my simul-PROD: WP:CRYSTAL, future film by non-notable film maker, stars haven't even been signed, candidate for speedy deletion. (Furthermore, a Google search on the director shows nothing notable, I doubt the intended stars have ever heard of him.) --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with salting the page. It is possible that someone, sometime, somewhere, may use the same title for a project that on completion will satisfy the usual requirements for verifiability and notability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for many reasons: short film, production not yet started, starring celebrities who have not agreed to act in the film, and may not even know about it. Hairhorn (talk) 17:56, 3 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 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cowboy (Australian Circus and Freak show performer)[edit]

Space Cowboy (Australian Circus and Freak show performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable circus performer. A search for results is going to get confounded with at least one Hollywood film, but I think this falls short of WP:N. Also, though I'm not willing to outright declare a hoax at the moment, this at least feels like a Tall Tale. Tyrenon (talk) 19:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not delete this; this person is already referred to in the Disambiguation page for "Space Cowboy" but unlike the other entries there he does not have a page. He is Notable in that he holds several world records, competed in Australia's Got Talent, and has a notable collection of freakshow material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnicyclingJugglingGOD (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep - Wikipedia guidance on Notability includes the following criteria for Notability for Entertainers:
"Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.....has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment."
Without a doubt the Space Cowboy can be said to have a significant "cult" following (as evidenced by 2,970 friends on his Myspace site) in a specialised and often dark area of the entertainment world. He has also made many "prolific and innovative contributions" in his field:
1. He has assembled a collection of historical and unusual 'freakshow' material that is Notable in its own right.
2. He has won the Street Performance World Championship three years in a row, the most of any one person or group.
3. He has broken three world records.
4. He has many "world firsts" such as first double sword swallow, first sword swallow underwater, and the "The Black and Decker Digestion Wrecker" a power drill with sword attachment which he swallows.
5. He has performed in 30 countries around the world.
This is even without his performance on "Australia's Got Talent", for which appearance on such reality shows seems enough to gain Notability and a Wikipedia page for other people (e.g. Susan Boyle, and the even less significant "performer" known as DJ Talent).
Peteinterpol (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide references for these? There were three refs on the article when I looked, all largely the same - 2 were pictures of him sword swallowing, the 3rd went into more detail (The PDF stated "Australian sword swallower 'The Space Cowboy' attempted to break the current Guinness World record in Dublin yesterday by swallowing 27 swords decorated with the flags of each of the countries in the EU to mark the vote on the Lisbon Treaty"). The latter strikes me as most useful: if he broke the record that seems (to me) to imply notability. If you could provide refs for the other 2/3 world records he's broken, and maybe some of the "firsts" he's achieved, then I'd be happy to !vote keep on the basis of notability. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defence of this page

I would argue for retaining this page. I have been considering starting a page on this person myself, particularly since his fame in his native Australia after appearing on Australia's Got Talent. Even Susan Boyle has her own page after appearing on the UK version of the show but with fewer other claims to Notability.

This is also not a Tall Tale or hoax. A search of Youtube will reveal the veracity of the subject.

Peteinterpol (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There are claims of notability. More than Susan Boyle probably. (Not having TV, I couldn't say how good she is/was but on the whole don't regard performers on these programmes as being anything more than moths passing a window - until they actually do something more.) I'm intrigued by the idea of him travelling in a tent.... Peridon (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Susan Boyle's notability isn't derived from performing on Britain's Got Talent, it's derived from the international media exposure she subsequently got. Performers on Britain's Got Talent wouldn't normally satisfy notability requirements for their own article. No comment on Space Cowboy's notability, except to say that I'd normally expect it to extend beyond Australia's Got Talent to justify an article. I've not yet looked at Space Cowboy in any detail though, so not !voting at this stage. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Striking part of comment, because I've started to look at Space Cowboy and it looks like notability could be established. Need more refs, however. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's useful This flag was once red. Interestingly though, the following former Britain’s Got Talent contestants all have Wikipedia pages despite not having had amything like the media coverage that Susan Boyle has had:
Connie Talbot , Damon Scott, Jake Pratt, The Bar Wizards, Escala, Charlie Green, Andrew Johnston, Kate and Gin, Faryl Smith, Greg Pritchard, Julian Smith, Hollie Steel, Shaun Smith, Shaheen Jafargholi, DJ Talent, Neil Horan, Manjit Singh, Mr. Methane.
These are hardly household names. It seems their apprearance on Britain's Got Talent is the sole criterion for Notability used in many if not all of these cases. If appearing on Britain’s Got Talent” is not sufficient grounds for Notability, these people’s pages should also be deleted.
Peteinterpol (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point - some of those are fair enough - Connie Talbot, for example, was a finalist, if I remember correctly. Others... not so much. My point was more that Susan Boyle satisfied notability requirements, not that some other contestants didn't deserve to be WP:AFD'd into touch ;-)
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, noted.
Cheers
Peteinterpol (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue for the retention of this page because he has broken possibly 5 world records, is one of the last remaining sword swallowers on the planet and the media has spent over 325,000 australian dollars on him. He is founder of one of the last, perhaps even the only legal travelling freakshows on the planet. He is extremely famous at festivals, for instace the Edinburgh fringe festival, he has performed there 13 years in a row. He has won Street Performer world championship 3 times in a row. He is so famous and intriging that someone got a permanent tattoo of his wings and the words "space cowboy" on their leg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UnicyclingJugglingGOD (talk • contribs) 16:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Citations for World Records

The following refers to a Guiness World Record he broke in 2008:

http://www.swordswallow.com/records.php

Where it states that:

"Chayne Hultgren, the Space Cowboy of Australia holds the official men's * Guinness World Record for swallowing 17 swords at once at Calder Park in Melbourne, Australia on March 28, 2008"

Will see if I can find a copy of the Guinness book itself.

Peteinterpol (talk) 18:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) (I just fixed this comment Drawn Some (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]


  • Comment- I've made a change to the layout only to change its format, not its content, since it was messing with the AFD log. I have no vote on this issue. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have added a citation on the page from the Times demonstrating his popularity compared to other street performers.

Also a citation referring to his being the first person to ever swallow a sword in a tank of live sharks.

Peteinterpol (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the article needs some cleanup but the topic is notable. I base this on the sword swallowing record and many small writeups combined with this more substantial item. -- Whpq (talk) 16:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Whpq. Peridon (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I have now added a citation for a second world record, heaviest weight lifted while swallowing a sword - 22.4kg

Peteinterpol (talk) 21:40, 4 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, edit the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine[edit]

Traditional_Chinese_Veterinary_Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

As far as I know, we (those who have contributed to the creation of the wiki page Traditional Chinese Veterinary Medicine) have 5 days to debate the deletion of this page.

I was the main writer and creator of this article. I simply want to delete because I feel we can all write and create a better article for this subject. It will be simpler to delete the page and then start over, rather than try to edit, change and add to the present article.

I feel this subject is important, relevant and compelling, and it deserves a better article than the present one on wiki.

To the other 2 persons who have edited it and to all who are interested, please feel free to add your comments to this discussion.

As far as I know, only a Wiki administrator can actually delete an article.

Thank you.

relax777 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Relax777 (talk • contribs) 2009/06/01 03:08:37

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:07, 3 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. Very few, if any, "votes" are policy-based, and as such I can see no clear consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Pritchard[edit]

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

WP:1E and WP:NOTNEWS, also fails WP:MUSICBIO. Otterathome (talk) 12:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Yet another article about a Britain's Got Talent contestant who is known only because of that show. I42 (talk) 17:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree. --haha169 (talk) 19:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pritchard is now well known for being a countertenor male soprano which is rare LeahBethM (talk) 23:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only arguments that will hold water and be effective here are sources, that document this subject in depth and that are written and published by people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy. So follow Colonel Warden's (first) example and cite them. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not because Pritchard is now well-known as a youtube star (3.8 million views+2.3 million views=more than 6 millions views) for singing a cantor tenor rendition of Nessun dorma, but rather because he is a rare male soprano whose multiple performances have sparked worldwide interest far beyond the intended U.K. viewing audience of BGT 2009 as mentioned in 3-party sources like this one. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't count views.--Otterathome (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not calling you a liar, but you should definitely read that more carefully. What you've linked to is only talking about page views of wikipedia. Poor wiki-lawyering is not helpful to AFD discussions. --Firefly322 (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not really, it shows two sections of how using page views to show how notable something is, is useless. You failing to tackle the nomination reason at hand doesn't help AFD discussions.--Otterathome (talk) 05:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It took just a few seconds to find a source which comments on the YouTube success of our subject. The matter is therefore notable, just as it was in the case of Susan Boyle. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you read the article it only says how Americans can watch the show, and doesn't say anything about him being a 'YouTube success'.--Otterathome (talk) 11:49, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firefly322, I think you may have read the section headed "Pageview stats", but the link was to the section headed "Arbitrary quantity". The discussion in your rationale about the number of youtube views is almost identical to the third example shown there (but this does not counter your argument, of course, because that was explicitly presented as not the reasoning for your !vote) I42 (talk) 06:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Substantiated by which WP criteria? The assertion is that there is no independent notability as defined by policy and you have not demonstrated otherwise. I42 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per the well-established guideline of WP:N, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • So where is this coverage of Greg Pritchard that is not related to Britain's Got Talent? I agree that Britain's Got Talent is notable from the coverage it has received, but no evidence has been presented to demonstrate that Greg Pritchard is independently notable. I42 (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The early life bit about Italia Conti and the bit about him working as a waiter. Spiderone (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • But those are not notable events in themselves, and the references which substantiated them are from profiles of the Britain's Got Talent contestants. So there's still no independent notability. I42 (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, these details are notable by virtue of their coverage by relaible independent sources. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without in-depth discussion by intellectually independent sources, there is nothing on which to base an encyclopedia article. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: A requirement of "Intellectually independent sources"? That seems extremely unrealistic and inherently subjective, especially for a project with the wide range of user-generated content that has always been and I hope will always be more than welcome on wikipedia (if not no more donations from anime fans. :-) ). For example, should the whole category of Category:Video games based on anime and manga be AFD'd because some academics would find them to depend on sources that are reliable yet nevertheless somehow less than "intellectual"? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I just mean not directly related to Pritchard. In the video game analogy, a press release from the designers would not qualify, but a review from a gaming magazine would. Here, though, the bigger problem is depth of coverage as opposed to passing mentions establishing little more than that he exists. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a poor analogy, as our issue is not whether or not the sources are primary/secondary, or whether they are "intellectual" or not (I think there is some misunderstanding about the use of that term here) but whether they concern Pritchard, or just his role in the show and the hype surrounding it. Is Pritchard a viable artist in his own right? No. He's "that guy from Britain's Got Talent with the cape". J Milburn (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not an "unrealistic requirement" at all. It's a sometimes, but not often, used paraphrase of our Primary Notability Criterion, and not only a realistic requirement but an oft-applied one, that we have long accepted as a criterion. The PNC requires independent sources. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until we have any evidence of notability outside the show. Again, I loved him, but an article documenting his show career can just be linked back to the article about the show/the series/a list of contestants. As soon as he has any independent notability, it can be recreated. J Milburn (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Commment Why is it being argued that an appearance and semi-success found on BGT are reasons to delete? Being on American Idol was never a reason to delete, at least based on the number of articles found in Category:American Idol participants. Sigh, I think there is anti-European/anti-British bias in AFD's related to BGT. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After Britain's Got Talent: After his first appearance on Britain's Got Talent, Greg Pritchard was signed up to perform at the official party to tee-off the Welsh Golf Open in June 2009. The glitzy bash takes place at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, South Wales — where Greg Pritchard once worked as a waiter. http://www.mmail.com.my/content/new-%E2%80%98got-talent%E2%80%99-shocker LeahBethM (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: LeahBethM (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
    • A private party? Try again. J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a private party - it is a public function for which tickets are £195/head. Try again. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Focus! What the party is is irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part is the source cited — via the external hyperlink in what LeahBethM wrote. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's notable 83.70.77.209 (talk) 09:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Sigh. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Greg Pritchard is notable for being the only person that ever sang on TV (perhaps anywhere in a public performance) both the male and female parts of the song Barcelona.LeahBethM (talk) 06:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: LeahBethM (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
  • Delete Not every person that has participated in a TV show is notable. If he remains famous then he should have an article, otherwise this is a WP:ONEVENT Passportguy (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is not obscure enough for deletion. --Da Vynci (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when has how obscure the subject is been a criteria for deletion or retention? J Milburn (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obscure as in "not notable".--Da Vynci (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The subject is not not notable enough for deletion. Normally, we work the other way around. Is the subject notable enough to have an article? J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The title reads Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Pritchard, so I guess the discussion should be adhered to the topic, which is about the DELETION. As you appropriately put, the subject is not not notable for deletion. --Da Vynci (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, no. We do not have an article on every subject in the world, and delete all that we believe are not notable- we start with articles on nothing, and create those we believe are notable. Are you going to argue that the subject is notable? Basically, your argument seems to be just yet another "he's notable. I don't really care how or why, he just is". J Milburn (talk) 18:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, u got it wrong. I am saying he is not obscure (as in not notable) enough to be deleted. --Da Vynci (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Could "u" answer my question? Do you believe that Pritchard is notable enough to be kept? I can't see where you're going with your argument. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Could "u" read the title of this article, it reads "Articles for deletion". Strictly speaking we are discussing whether or not the Pritchard is not notable for deletion. Not the other way round. --Da Vynci (talk) 18:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Stop it. This is a discussion of whether the article should be deleted. Playing silly word games like the above does not advance that discussion one whit. Please stick to applying policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability, to the article and stop playing silly word games to confuse and bait other editors. The closing administrator is within xyr rights to completely ignore a rationale that is obviously intended as tomfoolery. Uncle G (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Completely agree, I'm just trying to clarify whether this "not non-notable" bullshit is actually an argument, or whether it is just a "he's just notable" assertion. Seems it's the latter, only on a slightly weaker level. J Milburn (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Britain's Got Talent (series 3)#Semi-finalists per WP:PRESERVE. There is no reason to delete sourced content. A paragraph in the Britain's Got Talent article is the best alternative to deletion. Cunard (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even now there's over 100 Google News hits referencing this guy, many of them dedicated. -- samj inout 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What an interesting first article experience this has been. A friend and I joined here recently to edit some work-related articles. A few days later, I searched for some info on Greg Pritchard on Wikipedia since it's more helpful for popular culture than just Googling and getting a bunch of blog garbage. When I didn't find much, just a redirect page, I figured I could add the few news articles that were out there, lend a hand to the next person who came along and searched his name, and learn more about Wikipedia. Had no idea Wikipedia invested so much energy in deletion of referenced content - I guess there's a shortage of electrons. As for the work-related articles, we experienced having links to government scientific sites being deleted due to claims they were commercial websites while people's individual rants on a controversial scientific issue were kept as good content. I learned a lot about Wikipedia.Pritchardfan (talk) 04:58, 10 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 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasse Felix[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability as per WP:N; articles reads like self-promotion as per WP:ADVERT, and article author's edit history shows other self-promiting edits to related articles BodegasAmbite (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Halliday is as big as it gets when it comes to Australian wine journalists/critics. He should definitely be considered a reliable source. Camw (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Stefan. Oz Clark confirms it is "one of the original wineries responsible for rocketing margeret river to fame in the 1970s". To be honest, given the very extensive professional and amateur literature covering wine production, I suspect a valid claim to a sufficiency of non-trivial coverage could be made for very many wineries. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the article doesn't establish notability it should be improved rather than be deleted unless the subject is determined to be not notable (and this determination should be done before the nomination for deletion). If it comes off like a promotional article then it should be changed as long as there is enough to work with, rather than be deleted. The above comments show that a fair claim to notability can be established, so keeping the article is reasonable. Camw (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the article has been referenced to establish notability. Though I do disagree with some of the comments above. If the article doesn't establish notability, then....well it doesn't establish notability and encyclopedic worth. Those article provide no benefit to the readers or the project and should be deleted until someone has the desire to write an article that does establish notability and encyclopedic worth-something that contributes rather than detracts from the project. Also, WP:WINEGUIDES aren't good indicators of notability since local Mom & Pop Pizza Shops can achieve the same amount of coverage from local blogs and media. While wine is awesome, it production by itself doesn't convey any special notability above what the production of pizza conveys. AgneCheese/Wine 16:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The very first point in the section "Before nominating an article for deletion" states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." - This page did merit improvement and it should have been done via the regular editing process. It is not spurious to suggest that taking an Article to AfD is not the appropriate way to improve an article and that articles on notable subjects should be deleted until they are of a particular standard is something I (and I believe our policies regarding deletion and notability) disagree very strongly with. Camw (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the internationally most well-known winery of Western Australia. Tomas e (talk) 20:41, 7 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) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States government electronic data provider[edit]

United States government electronic data provider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

My vote is Delete. I am behind the deletion of this article. User:ZabMilenko tagged this article for deletion claiming I do not see an actual article here. To be honest I don't know what this is about and I almost tagged with hoax. However, even if not a hoax there is nothing that constitutes a full-on article.

I also propose its deletion because it appears to lack:

  • Being notable
  • References
  • External Links

I say the article is meaningless. --Sky Attacker (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I do not see a way to improve it as an article and there is nothing useful there, but I already voted when I added the prod. Zab (talk) 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZabMilenko 10:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Polemic Neologism. --Pgallert (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No content in the article, just several wikilinks.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what little there is! Eddie.willers (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no problem with it. I think it would be useful to see a list of sources of electronically published information from the US government, but it makes sense that WP may not be the place for such a list. RayKiddy (talk) 05:47, 6 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) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carlie Beck[edit]

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

Woman who gained media attention after she was fired from her cheerleading coach position at a high school for posing in Playboy Cyber Girl. Outside of that there is nothing notable about her. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Showtime2009 (talk) 10:00, 3 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. Nja247 10:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Physics of the Impossible[edit]

Physics of the Impossible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a book, which does not meet WP notability criteria, WP:NB. In particular, Refs. 1=11, 2 and 12 do not qualify for reason 1. As to reason 5, even if the author was a prominent scientist (which is a separate issue) it does not mean this book is notable. Materialscientist (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At least one necessary mention of this book conveying notability would be its coverage on BBC Radio 4, Start the Week, 1st June 2009 Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient notability.--Vejvančický (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The German translation, "Die Physik des Unmöglichen", was book of the week in Die Welt and subject to hundreds of newspaper articles. --Pgallert (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Book fails to meet WP:BOOK; the article is padded with inappropriately extensive recounts of two pieces of media coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #1: There is serious discussion of this book in at least three major news channels (NYT, Seattle Times, Radio 4). Just why isn't that conferring notability on it, according to WP:BOOK #1?
Comment #2: Lousy article, padded like crazy. So we fix that by editing, it's no grounds for deletion.
I heard the Radio 4 broadcast, didn't like this book and hated Michio Kaku as an interviewee. That's all just WP:IDONTLIKEIT though, and we should be careful not to go there. Clearly some editors don't want this article, but I'm not seeing strong policy-based arguments for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The press coverage section is a problem that seems to have resulted from a newbie misunderstanding of how an article establishes notability; in that respect it's no different than assorted random stubs that start with the language "X is notable because...". That part is fixable. Moreover, I've seen additional press coverage of the book that could supplement the coverage already mentioned (the author was doing the rounds of the morning shows at one point). However, the present article does have a problem of focus; in particular, discussion of the "impossible" concepts in the books is being used as a platform to argue for the importance or plausibility of concepts discussed in the book, which is inappropriate. My opinion of "keep" is contingent on the absence of such material. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Obviously notable, a quick google search turns up extensive writing about the book. [28] [29] [30] To the nominator... there is no need to extensively quote policy, a link to WP:NB is plenty. I hope you don't mind that I did so. Gigs (talk) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has been significantly improved since its nomination for deletion. Gigs (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A New York Times bestseller, #10 in its category [31], with lengthy reviews from several reliable and independent sources. Satisfies WP:N. Satisfies criterion #1 of WP:NB. Edison (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Good work, Gigs. It's had a significant amount of press coverage. Fences and windows (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and snow I am starting to notice a trend lately of lots of articles being taken to AfD that are patently invalid candidates that a two second search would reveal. This is enshrined Relatively new user and those not very familiar with deletion process may not be aware that in multiple policy strongly recommends that users look for sources first before taking an article to AfD, e.g., from AfD: "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." Articles taken to AfD are often improved by the process, though a better way of cleaning them up is through normal editing processes AfD is not an article cleanup brigade and this is a waste of everyone's time. We look first—not at what's in the article but what's in the wider world before nominating. This AfD is a sterling example of why that should be followed. The subject here is patently notable as a quick search of easily accessed online sources shows. For example: 101,000 web hits for the name in quotes and the author to avoid false positives; 14 other books discussing it when it only came out in 2008; 71 Google news hits; 19 articles in the New York Times where it is a bestseller; #881 at Amazon (that is astronomical). If this doesn't meet WP:BK I don't know what does (and I wrote WP:BK). This meets WP:BK in spades and should probably be snowed as there no reason to keep it open longer than necessary simply for processes' sake.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be patient to others' mistakes, we all learn from them. You did not have to waste Your time here. IMHO, quality is what WP is still lacking. The quality of the discussed article has been drastically improved since nomination, thus the efforts were not in vain. One reason for Afd to appear was the authors could not explain why the article is notable (if you look around, most still can't). Materialscientist (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was too harsh in my tone. While I stand by the thrust of what I was saying, I apologize for my manner of saying it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These responses from Materialscientist and Fuhghettaboutit reminded that I want to propose that there be a set of notability requirements, at Wikipedia, for non fiction books, in the popular science category. I can't speak for other disciplines, but non-fiction science rates some sort of notability category. For example, who is going to make a dramatic feature film from popularized non fiction physics books. And, these science books are probably not going to end up in a literature course at a university. There is no plot to summarize, and is not likely to win a major literary award, etc., etc. I am surprised that this has not been brought up before. The current notablility guidelines are stacked against these types of books. On that note - if anyone has any ideas about what these proposed notablility requirements should be, I am open to suggestions, so I can present with something in hand. Feel free to leave suggestions at my talk page. Ti-30X (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BK is intentionally written in the disjunctive, i.e., the criteria are prefaced by the language "one or more of the following criteria".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. thanks. So, you are saying there is no need for such guidelines. Got it. Ti-30X (talk) 05:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This book is a valuable contribution by communicating current physics and technology to the general reader. And second, for all the reasons stated in the previous post. Ti-30X (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Largely as above. This looks like a good article for WP, and I don't think it should be deleted. A.C. Norman (talk) 16:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Highly notable article. -download ׀ sign! 03:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The AfD nomination is "less than perfect", as it squarely concerns if notability was established in the article, not if it reasonably could be established, for instance carrying out some background searches to reveal any potential. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another example of why we should require WP:BEFORE. DGG (talk) 04:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under what, threat of blocks? As near as I can tell, it's already required from a community standpoint. People who ignore it get strong rebukes, just as this AfD drew. Gigs (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, the AfD circuit is often overloaded, with limited participation, and few people willing to actually improve articles the way you did. AfD is simply not a good venue for article improvement. Power.corrupts (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see the Physics of Impossible talk page here for more evidence of notability. Ti-30X (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable book by a definitely notable physicist. -- œ™ 09:11, 10 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 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genevieve Hannon[edit]

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

The article seems to fail WP:BLP. GNews returns nothing relevant for at least a couple dozen hits (all hits involve mix-and-match names or unrelated people), while nothing leaps out on Google. IMDB offers one unnamed part in one movie which appears to be an indie production and nothing else. The IMDB links provided mainly link to other actresses. In short, I suspect we may have a complex and decently well-orchestrated hoax, but it isn't blatant enough to pull a speedy. Topping it off, I also now see that the editor who made the article has an ID rather similar to the article's title, suggesting WP:COI also comes into play here. Tyrenon (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Conflict of interest or nonnotability, perhaps, but that does not constitute a hoax at all.Edison (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Genevieve Hannon is a well-respected and known voiceover artist and actress in New York, a client at one of the leading talent agencies in the country and has earned a six-figure living as a full time actor and voiceover artist for over a decade (remember: 3% of actors are working actors, and she is among them). She has held leading roles in dozens of national ad campaigns for companies like Wendy's, Burger King, Verizon Wireless, Morgan Stanley, and has performed over a thousand voiceovers for television and radio, including for networks like MTV and Lifetime. She is a recognizable actress, both by look and sound, and has a solid reputation in her industry, as evidenced by her income, her reviews and her professional reels on her website and other databases and voice banks. When using the Google test, with quotation marks, she turns up 331 results, most of which are professional theater reviews, databases, voice banks containing her professional voiceover reel, and professional websites. The film listed on IMDB was written and directed by one of the head writers of one of the most watched TV shows in the country, The Daily Show. IMDB is not the Bible of the acting industry. Do your homework. Look a little deeper. It is possible you aren't familiar with the acting and voiceover industries, Tyrenon. She is not only notable for her professional achievements in a highly competitive field, but she is relative to a historic figure and has worked professionally with many people with Wikipedia pages. This is definitely not a hoax, and should be considered as a notable living person, and not subject for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevievehannon (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

— Genevievehannon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ENT, one role in a film of questionable notability and assorted uncredited guest roles. The article doesn't help either, providing numerous links for friends and relatives, but nothing conforming to WP:RS for the subject, making searching for references extremely difficult. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't fail WP:ENT See following: Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions. 3 major TV shows, 3 notable plays/musicals with reviews from major publications Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Prolific: over 30 national commercials and over 1,000 voiceovers See other notable Voiceover Artists like colleagues Blaze Berdahl and Sarah Hamilton —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genevievehannon (talk • contribs) 09:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Genevievehannon, could you please sign your comments? To do that, use four tildes (~) in a row after your comment, the Wikipedia automation will add your name and other info. As for the article, making a living as an actor is respectable, but not necessarily notable. There's no real evidence here that Ms Hannon is notable according to any applicable standards. Delete Kate (talk) 14:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't fail WP:RS either. See 17 references and 6 external links, including the New York Times, Time Out NY, Artezine, IMDB, Voicebank, all surely "Reliable Sources". What more does one need to show to be defined by Wikipedia "critics" as "Notable" for an entertainer who is clearly prolific and has had several significant roles in plays reviewed by the NY Times and other notable publications, and has been a leader in her field of voiceovers, holding national ad campaigns for Wendy's, Verizon Wireless, Gillette Venus, etc? I highly disagree with the negative speculation and question if those who are commenting truly understand the business of acting in advertising or the voiceover business. Again, see other "Notable" colleagues making a living as actors, Blaze Berdahl and Sarah Hamilton, who have had far fewer notable works recorded yet have Wikipedia pages.--129.85.25.133 (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)— 129.85.25.133 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ENT. One ref is just to a society listing of a wedding where she took a picture, and sources like blogs or IMDB which do not appear to satisfy the standards for reliable sources. Many of the references are about her relatives her schools, or her teachers, and do not mention her: in Wikipedia , notability is not inherited. Not seeing multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of the career of the artist. There are links to many reviews of plays she says she was in, which do not even mention her. The article says her appearances such as an elf in a Wendy's commercial are her biggest achievement, but no references are provided. One review makes a reference to her "in the background" as an Andrews sister, but a brief reference does not establish notability. (All that said, I think her voiceover collection from commercials sounds good, especially where he says "Is that a tablespoon?" and she says "Um, that's a fork." A good voice for commercials. Keep up the good work. Get a publicist to place a few interviews in a newspapers/ magazines, or get longer reviews or bigger theatrical parts in reliable sources.) Edison (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no coverage in reliable soruces to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not agree with Edison on comment about references. As a casting director for national commercials for 20 years, I have to say that there are very few references to actors featured in individual commercials unless an actor is featured in series of spots for a single capaign such as the actors in the currently running Progressive Auto Insurance ads (ie, actor Stephanie Courtney). To date Hannon has been principal actor in over 30 national campaigns and I am well aware of her work as a leading actor in the industry. Commercial actors generally do not get reviews and their spots are open for watching mostly on advertising websites available by subscription, and even there the actors' names are not listed normally. Judging from her profesional resume distributed and stamped by her agency (which is one of the leading talent agencies in the U.S.) and her reel, she is most certainly a leading actress in tv commercials and voiceovers. There is no resource to back this up other than Voicebank and CESD's website, plus some ad industry websites showing her spots. She should list these in external references. I see she already has Voicebank. Besides her acting and performing in dozens of commercials since 1996, and voiceovers since 1999, she has had a legit acting career but no fame (kind of a blessing for actors to work steadily but retain anonymity). Her refernces do in fact mention her and are reiable sources. She is mentioned in Theatre World 1997-1998 for her role of Young Elizabeth in ""Richard III"". She is also mentioned in Artezine's review of her performance as one of the Andrews Sisters in ""Angel Mountain"". The critic wrote, "In the background", which doesn't translate to background actor, but instead refers to the physical position of the actors on the stage - they performed on their own stage to stage right of the main stage where the play was enacted. I saw the show in its run off Broadway as did roughly 1600 theater goers in its 16-performance Equity run. The critic goes on to remark after indeed listing Ms. Hannon as one of the Andrews Sisters, "They are wonderful, capturing the swing style of the '40s' music without outright mimicry, a real ""coup de theatre"". NY Theatre did not mention the actors' names individually, but critiqued their performance to write that their singing sets the period and, "I liked having them perform a few songs in the lobby, before the show proper begins". Gothamist also does not spell out the actors' individual names but describes the Andrews Sisters as sing at the side of the stage and wavered between appreciating it and seeing it as gratuitous period color. These are all well-respected and reliable sources for theater goers in NYC, and I would be careful to understand this article does not in anyway fail the Source Reliability requirement I would also be thoughtful to decide Ms. Hannon's notability as an established and prolific commercial actor and VoiceOver artist. --Publishernyc (talk) 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC) — Publishernyc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia and Papua New Guinea[edit]

Indonesia and Papua New Guinea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This doesn't fall under any clear CSD criteria, so I'm just punting it in here. There are articles on both countries, etc.; it looks like a new user putting their feet in the water, but I don't think it quite meets with the "test page" guidelines. Tyrenon (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, in its current form, while thanking the editor for his or her contribution. The editor appears to be a newcomer, that article being only their second edit. They should be made to feel welcome, encouraged to familiarise themselves with Wikipedia and to continue contributing. An article on bilateral relations between PNG and Indonesia would be most welcome (Indonesia is the only country bordering PNG, they share the New Guinean landmass, whose indigenous inhabitants have similar cultures, there have been occasional border controversies, and PNG has at times faced the issue of Indonesian refugees crossing over; PNG's position on the Free Papua Movement, which it does not openly support so as not to antagonise Indonesia, would also be relevent to note). But the article in its current form should, alas, clearly be deleted. Aridd (talk) 11:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Misguided attempt. The topic should be approached from the articles of each country (that is, find a logical place to expand discussion of relations with the other country). Johnuniq (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No, actually, bilateral relations between PNG and Indonesia are clearly notable enough to warrant an article of their own (see above). But not in this form. The article we're voting on doesn't actually mention their relations. Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand about the proximity, and the potential importance of this case, and that an article of some kind is needed. I still think that the correct approach is via developing the articles of the countries involved. Certainly a list of arbitrary facts is not helpful, and this particular article is definitely misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this article needs a lot of additions, the matters specific to the Indonesian claims on New Guinea are real and significant, and definitely affect PNG as well. The fact of UNTEA intervention also impacts both nations. The article is almost worthless as is, however. [32] and other sources [33] indicates the concern of the Papuan people over Indonesian rule of "West Irian." This is, amazingly enough, worth fifty of the permutation bilateral relations articles. Collect (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see my comment in response to Cdogsimmons below. Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No encyclopedic content here. It is just a random linking of two countries. (Where have I heard that that could lead to 20,000 robostubs?)Edison (talk) 16:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (per Collect) and improve, which should be easy because these countries border each other. If I ever wanted an argument that these international relations articles were poorly researched before being nominated for deletion, I just found it. Here's an extensive third party source on the issue. [34] It was the first result on a google search for Indonesia and Papua New Guinea. I urge the nominator of this article (as well as those voicing a call to delete) to review the policies regarding Afds at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Nomination.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not disputing that there should be an article on bilateral relations between Indonesia and PNG. There definitely should be. There would be quite a lot of relevent material to put in such an article, as I indicated above. But the article in its current form is essentially worthless (no offence intended to its creator, who was making a laudable attempt to contribute). At best, it should be turned into a redirect once an article on PNG-Indonesia bilateral relations has been created. (Which I would create myself if I had time to go looking through all my collected data on the Pacific, but I haven't.) Aridd (talk) 22:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As has been discussed often before, it is not customary on Wikipedia to have articles titled "A and B" referring to two separate subjects, especially when each one is notable enough to have its own article. (This does not include cases when "A and B" is the actual title of something, refering to a single subject, e.g. Bosnia and Herzegovina). But this article is more like writing one called USA and Canada. Countries are obviously notable enough to have articles. Since there is so little information in this article, and there is no way to fairly determine which country to redirect this title to, it makes better sense to transfer any good information to the articles on the respective countries, then delete the title. Sebwite (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're actually quite right. This article should be moved to Indonesia-Papua New Guinea relations]]. That's what I think the creator meant. No need to delete. Just move.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment intriguing how it brings out the bilateral relations warring parties - a 2 line edit by a 2 edit new user :) and how long it took for someone to add the Indonesian project (btw fellow eds there is a Papua New Guinea project too) - what a brilliant red rag for you all - as an Indonesian project ed with many of the Papua New Guinea articles on watch I am intrigued by the general conversation above SatuSuro 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Expand it could be a very useful link into the maze of current Papaua New Guinea and Western Papua articles SatuSuro 00:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, move to Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations and improve The article is awful, but these countries share a long border and it should be possible to write something worthwhile on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to New Guinea There is not much here but I guess the author was making the point that Indonesia and PNG are the political entities on the island of New Guinea. This is already well covered in the New Guinea article
  • Keep and expand. Retitle to r=Relationship between Indonesia and New Guinea. considering that the existing title could be used as a starting point, it seem like going through unnecessary hoops to go to the work of deleting it, when it just need be added to.
  • Keep Two nations that share a border, and have killed over that border in recent times, is notable. Dream Focus 11:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article originally nominated has been renamed Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations. This is confusing, people are debating if Indonesia and Papua New Guinea should exist...which is now Indonesia–Papua New Guinea relations. LibStar (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep nominator is not exist for a deletion, they have a strong relationship and neighboring nations like France and Germany and Australia and New Zealand. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend AFDs, DRVs, and creations of X-Y relations articles. The discussions are driving people into entrenched positions from which few are willing to retreat at risk of losing face. The current situation of having discussions decided based on how many from each side show up, followed by automatic DRVs because of disagreeing with the closure (and that is what's happening) is poisoning any remaining relationships between each side, and putting at risk any chance of coming to an agreed position. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no need to suspend nothing. This article really, really sucked when it was nominated. And it still kind of sucks. But this is one of those clearly notable bilateral relationships (i would argue this is one of only 4 such for PNG, but that's another matter). I doubt anyone with the language skills to do a job on this will bother (i sure won't).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as they border each other and therefore have a notable relationship for which I even have discovered serves as the subject of at least one thesis (I have noted this work in the article). Bravo to everyone who has helped improve this article rather than only comment in the AfD. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Yes, surprise, I said keep. Most of these "relationship" articles are filler. This one actually makes sense. It needs help, but the countries have a notable relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to New Guinea. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:10, 11 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. Nja247 10:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Acid Christ[edit]

Velvet Acid Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not appear to meeet Wikipedia standards for music notability as described in WP:MUSIC. A proposed deletion tag was removed by a user who argued that they know of and like the band and thus it should not be deleted; however this in no way addresses the notability concern. This article's sources consist primarily of links to the band's webpage and fan pages. Drelusis (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are individual album pages, none of which seem to meet notability guidelines. If the vote is to keep the main article, these should each be merged into the main page as they are generally only track listings:

Velvet_Acid_Christ_Vs_Funker_Vogt:_The_Remix_Assault (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lust_for_Blood_(album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Neuralblastoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Church_of_Acid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Calling_Ov_the_Dead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fun_With_Knives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Twisted_Thought_Generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hex_Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Fate_(Velvet_Acid_Christ_album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dimension_8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Oblivion_Interface (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


To add the text I put on the article's talk page as a response to the user who removed the prod tag:

Notability standard #1 for musical acts is the only one that would seem to offer any possibility for this band. However, this page consists primarily of material sourced from the band's own pages. The only two external sources are 1) "Last Sigh Magazine," which seems to be online only, and whose reviews page was last updated in 2000 and interviews page, in 2001, and 2) "Sonic Boom," another online-only source that published e-mail interviews from 1995 to 1998. I believe neither of these sources qualify as "reliable" according to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources or non-trivial, and may qualify as self-published sources. Unless reliable, non-trivial sources of coverage can be accessed, that would leave this band without a notability leg to stand on as far as I can tell. If the article is not deleted, it needs a major re-write as eliminating all information from the band's own website would essentially leave it without content.Drelusis (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Have you tried searching for the subject using a search engine?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I see no reason why they do not meet notability standard #5. They have released material on Metropolis Records, who certainly have a roster of notable bands. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 10:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Easily passes WP:MUSIC with multiple albums on Metropolis. To be honest, whilst I'd heard of the band, I had no idea how big they appear to be. A Google Books search reveals lots of hits. The article clearly needs work, but it doesn't look like sources will be hard to come by. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. A notable band that easily passes the "heard of them before reading a Wikipedia article" test. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed - Google News (e.g. this) and Google Books searches strongly indicate notability. Some of the coverage is in languages other than English but as far as I can tell plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources exists, not least this Allmusic bio and two reviews ([35], [36]), and some of these may also be acceptable sources: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].--Michig (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Allmusic bio and other sources given by Michig demonstrate that WP:MUSIC is met. sparkl!sm hey! 20:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep as they clearly meet #5. Not sure what's going on here. I've also declined the {{prod}} that the nominator has put on Bryan Erickson (musician). – iridescent 01:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of Michig's sources appear to be blurbs from music blogs, I would prefer to see more from bigger magazines and newspapers and such. I don't really consider Allmusic to be a good source of notability, as they have pretty much anything. --AW (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misunderstanding – it's not that a mention in Allmusic demonstrates notability, but that it demonstrates that they have the "two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels" which means automatic notability in Wikipedia per WP:MUSIC #5. – iridescent 15:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On these sources: Neither side-line, Re:Gen, nor inmusicwetrust are blogs - all three sites have a staff as listed on those sites - whether all are acceptable as reliable sources is debatable. Release magazine is a web magazine that previously also appeared in a print version [44]. Allmusic, contrary to what many believe, does not have coverage of every band in existence - many bands have nothing there whatsoever, and plenty of notable bands have nothing more than an index entry with no bio or reviews. A band that has a substantial bio and two substantial reviews at Allmusic is going to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article.--Michig (talk) 15:56, 4 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 per WP:CSD#A7, new organization with no indication of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redwood Amateur Radio Club[edit]

Redwood Amateur Radio Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

CSD moved and contested. May as well get the nomination over with: It's a local group with no particular notability asserted. Fails WP:ORG. Tyrenon (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment CSD is still active, just a hangon tag in place. This shouldn't come up for AfD just as yet. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply My bad. For some reason I got the impression that once someone threw up a hangon tag, the CSD was blocked a la removing a Prod.Tyrenon (talk) 07:31, 3 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 with rename. Fritzpoll (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Seems that there are no issues after renaming anymore. Tone 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Shaanxi dog massacre[edit]

2009 Shaanxi dog massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No English-language sources are provided. While this does not mean that the incident in question is not factual, it does make verifying it exceedingly difficult. The term "2009 shaanxi dog massacre" turns up a batch of hits on Google, but these primarily stem from various terms combining with discussions of the Nanking Massacre. Furthermore, the article is exceedingly poorly written and seems to have a definite bias against the government's actions. At the very least this article needs a massive rewrite and the provision of a more NPOV title, and even then I'm not sure if a government initiative by a single county in China meets with notability. Tyrenon (talk) 07:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That seems like a better article title. "dog massacre" may come across as POV. If the government is handing out vaccinations for pet owners, and culling stray dogs, it is a "cull", not an "extermination" or "massacre", regardless of the numbers killed, and as per WP policy, regardless of popular branding and what the media says. Such words can be taken in the wrong way; it would be like comparing the incident with the Nanking Massacre. There is no wrong in culling if it is done in an appropriate manner, refer to the 2009 Canberra, Australia Kangaroo culling. Also, be wary of exaggerations and personal influences in media sources. It is best to refer to a report which provides the information without a strong POV. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with User:benlisquare, the title and the text in the article give the appearance of op-ed and not NPOV, so the article needs editing, but as far as the AfD goes, it's a keep. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice is to rename to something more neutral, because it's questionable that the term "massacre" meets WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & rename If rabies is the most deadly thing going, then this needs to be reported like the swine flu. Now I am not saying it doesn't currently sound at least a little biased. It does. But the original articles available yesterday called it a "massacre" in chinese news. Today there appears to be more english sources appearing if you need more references. To make this more encyclopedic, please dig up similar 2007 events. Maybe people should research the national four pests campaign to see how those got started. Please rename the article. Benjwong (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'd agree if it were on more than a local scale. The problem is that per the article (and as I said, English-language sourcing is hard to find Well, we got one source that's solid), it's just one county. Though it is a lot of dogs, this is no more notable than my old neighborhood holding a deer cull every few years to prevent car crashes.Tyrenon (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper. If kept, the POV title should be changed to 2009 Shaanxi rabies outbreak, since the cull was just one measure taken, along with mass vaccination, after 8 people died of rabies in a few weeks. Edison (talk) 16:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Benjwong Ngchen (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to keep, perhaps merging with similar articles (after the Great sparrow campaign I'd presume it happened in other regions of China too). 20 thousand pests in a 4-million city, IMO, don't count as a massacre and the article says that leashed domestic dog were not hurt, so rename as suggested above. NVO (talk) 18:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and consider a rename We cover all major disease outbreaks, but the title is POV. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not about the rabies outbreak but about the killing of the dogs. This happens in China often, not rarely, and the article can be about that. Rabies is endemic in rural China and an article about rabies in China, where fatal rabies cases are traced to dog bites 95% of the time, could be written, even an article solely about dog rabies in China. This article is about the dog killing, though, not about the rabies outbreak. I think it would be better to have a general article about dog slaughters in response to rabies outbreaks in China rather than an article about each specific episode. In Beijing over 200,000 dogs were killed over a period of years in the early 90s in response to rabies cases. "Culling" implies removing something but leaving something behind. As the stated goal of the county government is not to leave any dogs behind it can't properly be called "culling," but must have a title to reflect the killing. It seems like just as much a POV to attempt to call the killing of 50,000 dogs something nice as to call it a massacre. I suggest slaughter. Although usually used to imply both the killing and the butchering, it can also mean just the killing. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of numbers, culling is culling. 4,000 Kangaroos killed in Australia is a cull. 50,000 dogs killed in Shaanxi is a cull. An argument over the English definition of "cull" is null, void and pointless. Culls are any "killing" of an animal in significant numbers due to a credible reason by those responsible. For example, the Department of Defense in Australia culled kangaroos because they were taking up defense property, and that the winter would have killed them off anyway due to cold and starvation. Culls are perfectly normal occurrences when done by local governments. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, discussion about wording meaning when writing an encyclopedia are never "null, void and pointless." While debating whether or not to delete or rename this article is the perfect time to debate and make certain of the meaning of words used in the article. However, I'm not arguing with you. I'm simply offering some points for consideration. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 2009 Shaanxi dog-free zone[edit]

  • Agree: I am supporting this name because that is the goal. If they succeed, every other province will follow them. "Culling" here is a total contradiction. The government is claiming to protect the people. Meanwhile they are sending ordinary citizens out to do the killing, exposing them directly to the dogs. Culling is very systematic, and does not attempt to wipe out an entire species in a region. As a "rabies outbreak", not one source has mentioned bats, wolves, foxes. Is dog the only animal in shaanxi?? This is basically a very cheap extermination process. The government is saying they have free vaccines, but encourage people to go out with bats. While I don't want to see people get bitten, and most netizens are fed up with the process (like another 2006 repeat). This is a less POV pushing name. Benjwong (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still about the killing of the dogs not about the "dog-free zone" goal of the county, and the title should reflect what the article is about. Maybe "eradication?"
China has a comparatively high incidence of rabies bites and deaths, and 95% of the bites are from rabid dogs, and 95% of the deaths due to rabies in China are from dogs. Past campaigns in China that have vaccinated and killed dogs have drastically lowered the death rate from rabies in China. In addition, the death rate has risen coincident with increases in dog populations. I wish some of the articles had discussed the humans handling potentially rabid dogs in this manner, because 2 of the deaths I read about were victims who had butchered, cooked, and eaten infected dogs. Others who ate the dog meat they had prepared did not come down with rabies, just the two had actually killed the dogs and butchered the meat. But I could not find any news articles or sources that discuss the risks associated with handling of dogs while killing them in such a manner. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am just not going to touch the article until there is a final name change. Isn't calling it a "slaughter" abit POV like "massacre". Do you have another name in mind? The article will mention more about the rabies, though that view is coming more from delayed western reporting IMHO. I was thinking the concept of dog-free county is what is unique here to make this notable in the first place. Benjwong (talk) 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page was moved to less POV name 2009 Shaanxi dog-free zone after no more complaints for 3 days. Benjwong (talk) 05:05, 7 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Per A7 - no credible claims of importance or significance. SoWhy 11:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supratalk[edit]

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

Nominated for a speedy but the speedy was declined and objected to. I feel going to a Prod from a speedy would simply result in us being here soon enough, so I'm putting this up now. The website appears to be highly non-notable except as a commercial promotion. As it stands, the supposed footware icon/iconic company does not even have an entry here on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think this may well be commercial spam on top of failing notability. Tyrenon (talk) 06:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment CSD is still active, just a hangon tag in place. This shouldn't come up for AfD just as yet.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Nja247 10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus – Saudi Arabia relations[edit]

Cyprus – Saudi Arabia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination, non resident embassies. complete lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations only multilateral [45]. the only article I found was this which would make an amusing bilateral article. In over 40 years of relations, they can only come up with 1 minor agreement, tells me the governments rarely speak. LibStar (talk) 06:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to not come within six feet of notability. Collect (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relationship as such has not received significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources, so the relationship fails notability. Wikipedia is not a directory or a mirror of the websiteh of a country's foreign ministry. Even if a few news stories are found which show that some trade goes on, or an official from country X visited country Y, those news stories are not likely to have the "relationship" itself as the subject. They are just news. Edison (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no useful content. No sources discuss these relations. Fails notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An uninformative way of asserting nothing in the way of notability. And who put the Canada-stub template at the bottom of it? Unremarkable and non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A country like Saudi Arabia can be expected to have notable relations with even small countries in the general area--and, probably, with any country using petroleum. There will be sources to expand the article. DGG (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please some find some sources then rather than saying there probably will be sources. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 9 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) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stage-Gate friendly organization structures[edit]

Stage-Gate friendly organization structures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research from a student's research paper. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:03, 3 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) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio Torres[edit]

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

Non-notable artist Madcoverboy (talk) 05:42, 3 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. Many of the keep votes simply stated that Mr. Figueroa was notable, yet failed to expand upon why he was. The delete votes on the other hand were much stronger, and examined why the subject failed Criteria 1. There were one or two valid arguments for keeping the article, but not enough to sway the consensus. I'm happy to provide a copy of the article to anyone who wants it after deletion. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 08:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enectali Figueroa[edit]

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

Deprodded, as academic has h-index of 8 or 9, as astronaut "applicant" I am pretty sure he has lots of company. Joey the Mango (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Dr. Enectalí Figueroa pioneered the development of position-sensitive detectors that in itself makes him notable. The thing is that his notability is also backed up by reliable verifiable sources as required by Wikipedia policy. The list of his scientific publications also make him quite notable as a scientic author. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He seems to specialize in "position-sensitive x-ray microcalorimeters". The question is, is that important enough? He is not the first author on the most-cited papers that he is listed as an author on.Joey the Mango (talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So? Being cited first doesn't automatically mean highest credit to the findings. Even if he doesn't have the highest credit, that doesn't mean he isn't the (or one of the) driving pioneers of the field. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 09:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is relevent and the article is not self-serving or vanity by any means. Dr. Enectali is notable for his contributions to science. Failure to recognize his contribution would undermine this site's main purpose of educating and informing the public. Strong Keep!--XLR8TION (talk) 05:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I probably would have my comment erased if I expressed myself the way I feel about this being for deletion here, so I will let you fill in the blank: what kind of (fill in the blank) would put such an important person's article for deletion?? Antonio Johnny Torrio Martin (tell me about it) 07:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be civil, assume good faith, and address the notability of the subject of the discussion rather than making ad-hominem arguments. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am civil. I did not attack anybody, just let others do it in their minds, so the civil argument does not apply here. It's like when one group does not like another, but they choose to be civil and respect their space. That is being civil. I don't see it as being uncivil because for all I know they could be thinking what kind of a SMART PERSON would put the article for deletion. You just seem to get angry at people who don't see it your way ("ad-hominem"). Besides, what do you mean by Ad-hominem?? Antonio Poncho Martin (tell me about it) 08:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good question. "ad hominem" is a Latin phrase meaning "to the man" that is often used in English. The meaning is that argument is directed against the person himself rather than against the argument that the person is putting forward. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        • Thanks, Xxanthippe. That was totally a new phrase to me! One more ?: Since when is articles for deletion not a ballot? If it wasn't, we wouldn't have this page in the first place! (that one is not for you specifically, Xx, but for the person who put the not a ballot template or anyone else who wants to answer for that matter) Antonio The Controversial One Martin (talk) 11:22 AM, 6 June 2009 (UTC).
          • This is a discussion, not a vote, and this is a long-standing principle of AFD. So the closing administrator is with xyr rights to ignore in toto your contribution to this discussion, since you haven't actually addressed the article, and the application of our policies and guidelines to it, at all. I suggest that you do so. Boldfaced words are not the focus here. It is not about votes. Uncle G (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Several degrees, a notable scientific achievement, several awards... whats not notable about him? bahamut0013wordsdeeds 09:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most academics have something like that. What's special about him that allows him to pass WP:PROF when so many other assistant professors don't? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What makes him so special from other assistant professors is that he is a pioneer the development of position-sensitive detectors in NASA and the others didn't. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Every academic is a pioneer in something, if you define "something" specifically enough. If it isn't original research, it shouldn't be enough to grant them a Ph.D. So, please: using citation counts, articles in major newspapers, or other standard measures of notability, please demonstrate through evidence rather than repetition why position-sensitive detection is a subject of sufficiently great import that Figueroa's notability can be WP:INHERITED from it. While you're at it, you might explain why his contribution is such an important one when his name doesn't appear in the top hundred Google scholar citations for position-sensitive detector. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, but maybe his published work:Title: "Position-sensitive low-temperature detectors"; Author: Figueroa-Feliciano, Enectali; Publication: Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics; Research Section A, Volume 520, Issue 1-3, p. 496-501; Publication Date: 03/2004; Bibliographic Code: 2004NIMPA.520..496F; can provide an insight as to why he is pioneer in the development of position-sensitive detectors in NASA. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One paper with a title is hardly more evidence for academic notability than one paper without a title. Every academic has a paper. Most notable academics have many. Most of their papers have titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and close - Meets WP:PROF, and there is clear consensus to keep. Wikipedia BLPs don't weight the importance of a topic but the relative notability of a given person within a topic. Hence being a top dog in "position-sensitive x-ray microcalorimeters" is notable. Not to mention that X-ray astrophysics is were a lot of the discoveries on the early universe are happening and position-sensitive x-ray microcalorimeters are a key part of this.--Cerejota (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please explain which criterion of WP:PROF you think he meets and why. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, PROF #1 is clearly met. Of course, that I need to explain it simply means you disagree, but anyone who knows what a position-sensitive x-ray microcalorimeter is knows who this guy is: he is a bright light in the field. --Cerejota (talk) 12:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and close - clearly notable in an area we lack adequate coverage. -->David Shankbone 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -I agree that Figueroa is an expert in a field little known by the general public. The opinions of registered and frequent contributors of Wikipedia should be valued more than unsourced opinions of persons who appear to have started contributing for the sole purpose of demoting recognition of one living individual's contributions to society! Pr4ever (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article clearly informs of Figueroas Notability, El Johnson (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My nomination is in good faith. I presented evidence that his h-index fails WP:PROF, and that he was not the pioneer of the type of sensor clamed in the article. As "Enectali Figueroa" he has three Google News hits, none of which say much, and as "Figueroa-Feliciano", none. I expected a wave of Keeps when this AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Puerto Rico, and now I hope to hear from the Wikipedia community-at-large. Also, there is a not-vote for deletion on the Talk Page of the article that predated the AfD, indicating that somebody besides me thought this article was questionable. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I question your insistence and motives. MIT Physics Faculty - reliable source; Harvard - reliable source. To single out and insinuate that a "wave of Keeps when this AfD was listed at "Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Puerto Rico" is an insult to the people of Puerto Rico. It seems to me that you are stating that just because a person is "Puerto Rican", that they will be biased regardless if the subject is notable or not. I resent that. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is simply a statistical effect that when a AfD is listed with a WikiProject, members who watch that listing tend to cme to the AfD discussion. It would be the same if it was railroad hobbyists or something. My "insistence" is to have this nomination treated to the usual 7 days of deliberation. Joey the Mango (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't know where all these keeps are suddenly coming from, but I don't see any evidence that he passes WP:PROF. My default assumption is that assistant professors are typically not yet sufficiently notable / have not yet had time to develop the academic impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1. I don't see anything exceptional about this case that would cause it to rise above that default level. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The "keeps" come from established Wikipedians such as yourself who have expressed themselves and therefore, let's respect their opinions as you would expect others to respect yours. To assume that that article was created because the subject is a notable assistant professor is in itself ridiculous. He is notable becasue he is a pioneer in the development of position-sensitive detectors as stated above. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I suddenly see a lot of "snow close" keeps coming from a lot of people whom I have not seen participating before in academic deletion discussions, and who exhibit clear misunderstandings of WP:PROF, it is natural to suspect that some sort of canvassing might be going on. I'm happy to assume good faith on the part of any individual participant, and to assume that the closing admin will look at the strength of the arguments rather than just vote-counting, but I don't think calling attention to the highly unusual voting pattern in this AfD is in any way ridiculous. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agricola44 has explained the case well, but despite that I'd like to add to my comment above, expanding on my reasoning. I think everyone can agree that, if he has any notability, it's as an academic, so clearly WP:PROF is the guideline to use. And he is not a fellow of a national society, president of a university, editor of a major journal, etc., so clearly WP:PROF #1 is the criterion within that guideline that we should look at: has he made a significant academic impact? It's been common to judge this sort of question in similar discussions of other academics by citation counts and h-indices; I'm not a fan of that sort of bean-counting when it can be avoided, but for Wikipedia AfDs it often can't be avoided because few of us have the expertise to judge impact less quantitatively and more qualitatively in specific subject areas. So: he has an h-index (using the Google scholar citation numbers) of 9, good for untenured faculty but not enough to excite me, and he has one paper with over 100 citations and others with many fewer — the 100-citation paper might be enough to convince me of a marginal pass of WP:PROF if I thought it were substantially his own work, but his position in the author list makes it likely that it isn't, and the remaining papers aren't enough to convince me of a pass by this method. However, most of the keep votes in this discussion seem to be focusing not on citation counts but rather on something that can be found in footnote 2 of WP:PROF: "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." I completely don't see the argument here. He is clearly not a pioneer in position-sensitive detection (whatever that is): as I indicated in a different reply elsewhere within this AfD, his name doesn't show up in any prominence when one searches for that phrase. The fact that he has done research in that area doesn't make him one of the prominent researchers in it. And if not that, then what, and where is the part about the significance of the discovery or the majorness of the problem he could have hypothetically solved? Based on this, I stand by my delete vote. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is extremely important and relevant. Why it will be nominated for deletion? Check another similar articles in Wikipedia and you will see that this article is better than other few around. He doesn't need to have tons of information and achievement to stay. His awards, information and achievements talks by itself. Keep it and close the discussion. ~~Io_Wiki2007~~ (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This comment could be copy-and-pasted onto any AfD about any person, notable or not. It does nothing to address the specific question of the notability of Figueroa's achievements. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notability of Figueroa's achievements have previously been mentioned and speak for themselves. I ask myself, why have you taken this so personally that you are attacking the Keep votes as if this were some kind of battlefield? Why not just let it go and let others express themselves which ever way they wish, be it Keep or be it Delete? Tony the Marine (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not all the keep votes I am attacking, just the fatuous ones. But there are unusually many of them this time around. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What was that you said about assuming good faith? You're not. You just seem a bit mad to me that so many disagree with you and I am sure if they voted for deletion, you would not be calling them fatuous. Antonio The Cool One Martin (tell me about it) 08:21, 6 June, 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. First, I think what will be immediately obvious to the closing moderator is the significant canvassing going on here. Most of the "keeps" are simply votes, rather than substantive arguments. With all due respect, these commentators do not seem to understand WP:PROF, which certainly applies to the subject of this article (as he's an asst. prof. at MIT). Let's get a few things straight first: (1) Please do not make any more improper pleas for immediate closure – there's no reason for this article to receive special consideration – it will go through the normal, full debate. (2) Please be WP:CIVIL – some of the above comments are way out of line. Nobody is trying to disparage the subject or his accomplishments. (3) Vague assertions, e.g. "Dr. Enectali is notable for his contributions to science" carry no weight whatsoever – please furnish specifics. (4) Simple statements of credentials, e.g. "MIT Physics Faculty - reliable source; Harvard - reliable source" also carry essentially no weight under WP:PROF, especially at the asst. level – boatloads of profs have similar credentials and these, by themselves, confer no notability.
Now let's take an objective look at matters. The only substantive argument I've seen made so far, albeit without any explicit supporting information, involves his work on detectors, i.e. we are evaluating whether WP:PROF #1 is satisfied or not. Indeed, a cursory glance conclusively shows that none of the other criteria are satisfied – they essentially never are at the asst. prof. level – so, it has to be criterion #1. How do we evaluate #1? In his case (physics), we check his research record – readily accomplished using Web of Science. This will allow us to determine how many publications he has, how significant they were to his field of study (via citations), approximately how he contributed to each, etc. Initial findings do seem promising: 54 articles in mainstream journals, e.g. Phys. Rev. Let., Atrophys. J., etc. A few stand out with 136, 32, and 28 citations, but the count drops off rapidly from there. Now, this would probably be passable, if this were primarily his work. That is, if he were the lab head, principal investigator, sole contributer, etc. But unfortunately this is not the case. When you start checking these articles in more detail, which WoS readily allows you to do, you find that practically all of them are "big science" projects having oodles of authors, with his name mostly not in one of the key positions (7 exceptions, see below). This implies that he, like most of the other people listed on those papers, played essentially a supporting rather than a primary role. Note that these sorts of projects and the corresponding observation I just made are very typical of all the mostly-experimental hard sciences: biology, chemistry, physics, etc. This is an unfortunate aspect of the prevailing "authorship culture", for example it is easy to find research technicians with high h-index. Again, I'm not disparaging his character or knowledge here, but I am critiquing what we can reasonably discern as his contributions (which is what must ultimately satisfy #1). He did have 7 articles where his name appears first. While 5 of these are again "big author list" publications, we can still reasonably assume he made significant contributions. The remaining 2 are sole author papers, so these are entirely his work. None of these are the three relatively highly-cited papers mentioned above. (2 have 7 citations, 1 has 3, 1 has 1, the rest have 0).
The picture that all these observations paint is one of a young, promising researcher, who has done work roughly commensurate with his peers who are also early in their careers. My very detailed, albeit long-winded analysis simply underscores what David Eppstein already succinctly pointed out above. We almost always reach the same conclusion for articles on assistant profs because they are at the "entry level" of the academic profession and simply have not had the time to establish a notable record. In closing, we can all speculate whether he will do so in the future (it's likely he will), but WP is not in the business of fortune telling. I hope this clarifies the process for those of you who are not regular commentators on WP:PROF cases. Again, be assured that there is no intentional disparagement here, but I would say that, given the facts that we now all have, it is likely this case will end in a deletion. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep— Meets #1 of WP:Prof. Also , the subject represents one of misrepresented minorities in scientific research and that’s why NASA is starting to use him as a spokeperson, 1. Now, as a regular participant in AfDs, I object to the comments made about keep votes. Deletion sorting is routine and indented to get interested parties involved in the discussion. So, now because this was listed in the Puerto Rican deletion sorting, the keep votes are biased? Its reminds me of Sonia Sotomayor and the reverse racism allegation! Believe or not, Puerto Ricans are capable of many things, so please AGF.--Jmundo 18:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the matter of trolls, feeding them is not really kindness, nor really necessary.We kindly ask you refrain from doing so.
  • Comment. Sir. First, I'll thank you not to put words into my mouth. "Puerto Rican" and "bias" are your words – your back-handed accusation is way out of order here! The wording of your post suggests you are the one who has WP:NPOV issues. So how about an example of the canvassing I'm talking about. Are you aware that Tony the Marine and Antonio Johnny Torrio Martin are father/son? Their entries create, at the very least, the perception of vote-stacking, i.e. attempting to "sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion". Instead, you are looking for racism in my comments where there isn't any. Please cease and desist. Second, your "keep" also has little substance to it: "NASA is starting to use him as a spokeperson" is speculation on your part. The link you furnish is actually to an article on Brain drain. There are only 3 sentences that actually apply to the subject and the extent of his single actual quote is precisely 5 words, "going into space and beyond". This hardly makes him a spokesperson. Third, your assertion that he meets WP:PROF #1 is WP:JUSTAVOTE, unless you can furnish some actual evidence. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I was responding to this comment, " I expected a wave of Keeps when this AfD was listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Puerto Rico, and now I hope to hear from the Wikipedia community-at-large". My vote is also based in WP:BIAS, "The Wikipedia project suffers systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject." I suggest to take a breather, and stop making accusations of NPOV and canvassing if you don’t have evidence. Comment on content, not on the contributor(WP:No personal attacks).--Jmundo 20:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My apologies, though I will point out that if you follow the convention of responding to specific, earlier comments by placing them within that thread, then we would not have such regrettable misunderstandings. Again, apologies. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Wait a minute User:Agricola44 stop making false accusations or assumptions. I was going to stay out of the discussion until you made reference of my person. Yes, Antonio Johnny Torrio Martin is my son and User: Isabel Santiago is my grand daughter (in case you didn't know), so what? They both are individual people with their own believes and particular way of being. You are stepping out of line making false accusations and assuming bad-faith on my part. Unless you have direct evidence that I am canvassing, I would appreciate it if you showed me some respect and keep me out of your discussions. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please look carefully at my wording: "Their entries create, at the very least, the perception of vote-stacking" (emphasis added). Are you contending that these don't create perceptions? In my experience, when such perceptual risks are possible or are likely to occur, people will go out of their way to disclose/disclaim in order to defuse any subsequent problems, such as we now appear to have. It is a fact that nobody in this discussion, including yourself, did so prior. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Like David Eppstein and Agricola44, I could not find enough to establish notability under WP:PROF. Does not seem to pass WP:BIO either. He has a good chance of becoming WP-notable in the future, under either WP:PROF or WP:BIO, but this is a clear example of a biographical article that was created too early. Definitely a role model for all Hispanics, but not WP-notable yet. Sometimes these hasty article creations for junior academics do more harm than good for the subject, and I think that the discussion going on here is a good example of that.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong Delete Few publications. The most cited paper, "The X-ray observatory Suzaku" in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan Volume 59, Issue 1 SPEC. ISS., 2007, Pages S1-S7 is a supplement devoted to a particular very important spacecraft where he is one of the team involved. Since the authors are listed alphabetically, and there are 140 of them on that single paper, membership on a team like that indicates nothing particular about notability except that he was one of the large group of developers. (there is a problem is assigning importance to people who work only as members of such teams, but that's another matter--this is normally done informally in recommendations by their colleagues). In a situation like that, we have to trust those who are qualified to determine, which in this case is the MIT faculty. It is a very rare assistant professor, even at MIT, who is notable. The position almost by definition is for those who have not yet attained tenure and made their mark in the profession. That they appointed him at all indicates they consider him more than a technician, and that they think there's a chance he might have some promise--which is a far shot from notability. The very few cases in science where an assistant professor is notable is when xe makes a remarkable discovery early in his career. There is no indication of that here at all. Researchers are judged on an objective basis. In this AfD, it is impossible to avoid noticing the manner of discussion, once there has already been the regrettable intervention here of users trying to make this personal. People of any background are capable of splendid achievements in any field, but that is not the same as saying that one particular person has achieved them. I am usually much more ready than most to use somewhat flexible criteria of notability for the benefit of those in disadvantaged positions, but it's absurd to say that a PhD from Stanford on the junior MIT faculty needs special consideration. As for NASA, "starting to use him as a spokesperson" is the typical wording that in any field of endeavor that unmistakably says: not yet notable. . Members of an group do themselves a great disservice when they mistake those in their group who are still beginners for people who have attained distinction. Several people have shown their foolishness in this regard here. I charitably assign it to unfamiliarity with the subject at hand, as shown by their being impressed by the mere titles of scientific papers. The nominator has nominated in a short time a considerable number of slightly important academics for deletion. Some of them are notable. Some are not. I have no bias to following his lead, and I wish he had gone more carefully, but this is one where he certainly got it right. David E is usually somewhat more conservative than I in judging borderline notable academics as notable than I am, but in this case I agree with him 100%. He is not borderline. He is unambiguously not yet notable. DGG (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment "Notable" - He may not be notable as an MIT professor as has been pointed out by the majority of the delete votes here, however new evidence provided by User:Ercheck in his restructuring of the articles introductions shows that Dr. Figueroa had a featured piece on the PBS show NOVA - "Dark Matter" talking about his research. He is also the Principal Investigator on an NSF grant which adds evidence that his research is noted. Updated intro.:

Enectalí (Tali) Figueroa-Feliciano, Ph.D., (born 1971) is an astrophysicist who pioneered the development position-sensitive detectors and is an expert and researcher on dark matter.[1][2] Figueroa is a researcher with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and a professor of physics MIT.[3][4]

  • References
  1. ^ "Dark Matter". NOVA. PBS. June 5, 2008. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
  2. ^ "NSF Award #0847342L Increasing the Dark Matter Science Reach of the SuperCDMS Experiment". National Science Foundation. February 1, 2009. Retrieved 2009-06-06.
  3. ^ "Dr. Enectali Figueroa-Feliciano". Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
  4. ^ "MIT Physics Faculty: Enectali Figueroa-Feliciano". Physics Department, MIT. Retrieved 2006-11-09.
    • I think you misunderstand the use of "award" in the NSF citation; that is a grant of $125k to do some science, not an award for science done. Joey the Mango (talk) 23:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there is no misunderstanding. Nowhere in the introduction is the word "award" mentioned. What you have failed to mention here is that the reference in question "The National Science Foundation" cites Dr. Enectali Figueroa-Feliciano as the "Principal Investigator". I don't really think that the foundation will cite just anyone as such. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. Each of the hundreds (thousands?) of grants issued by the NSF routinely (this is a continuing grant) has a "Principal Investigator" who is the contact person responsible for using the grant properly and who usually plays a large part in the research that it funds. Essentially anybody who applies for a grant and gets it becomes a Principal Investigator. Xxanthippe (talk).
  • Good clarification. Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • grants we have sometimes considered multiple very large grants to be indications of notability . In the sciences, $125,000 is not a large grant, it is rather the grant to a beginner. (In the humanities, alas, it would usually be a very significant grant indeed). He is furthermore not a professor, he is an assistant professor. There is all the difference in the world. One featured piece on a show, even Nova, is not enough for notability. He is one of a specialist team in one particular instrument, not in dark matter generally.

Keep, per Tony the Marine, he has put forward the strongest argument. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:02, 9 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Mexico relations[edit]

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

whilst noting the 2 countries have embassies, there is a distinct lack of coverage of bilateral relations, only in a multilateral and of course football context. [47]. Danish foreign ministry site only really talks about swine flu. There's this article but hardly forms a notable relationship. LibStar (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your are doing the strawman fallacy again, pointing to one article in Google and declaring the topic not-notable. I ran the same search and found enough information for an expanded article. I have to question your skills in research if all you found was an article on Lego. A serious researcher doesn't look at the first 10 of the 13,300 results of a search and declare defeat. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't appreciate your tone. you seem to enjoy doing this to anyone who supports deletion in an AfD. I did find other things but seemed trivial here. My opinion will be considered with all other opinions here. We are here to discuss if people think there is enough coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My job isn't to flatter you, it is to improve Wikipedia. If all you found was the article on Lego, and I was able to find 10 references on state visits, trade statistics, and treaties, then there are two choices: You are skilled at Google but resorting to the strawman fallacy, or your skills with Google need improving because you only looked at the first page of over 10K hits. I have the same tools as you, a computer and access to Google. Cheers.
Yes. Most importantly, in case you haven't noticed, a number of these international relations articles nominated for deletion by Libstar were insufficiently researched and turned out to be worthy of inclusion. (Austria–Georgia relations, Russia–Seychelles relations, Iceland–Latvia relations, Angola–Bulgaria relations) In addition, LibStar has refused to notify the creators and significant contributors of these articles that they are being considered for deletion in accordance with with Wikipedia's policy on civility as explained at Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion, even after being reminded of the issue.[48] The short shrift that has been given to researching these articles thoroughly before nomination for deletion should be enough, but I will also point out that there are many editors who believe that these articles qualify as being inherently notable (something akin to populated places).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
good stuff, cdog simmons, the majority of bilateral articles I nominated have been deleted. care to list those? there's at least 150 of these deleted in the past 2 months, not just nominated by me. you're using the strawman fallcy. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen 150. If you want to list them I would be interested in seeing them. But I will say that pointing out that the four above that I have been involved with in the past couple of weeks show that all these articles should not be nuked by Admin action. Would that really be what you would want anyway LibStar? I've found that you have contributed significantly to several of these articles bringing them to the level where their benefits are quite obvious.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of these were created by an eventually blocked troll. Some x-y are of course notable. What really needs to change is wikipedia's minimum standards for what constitutes a stub (at least 2 reliable sources should be the min for new article creation, but that unfortunately isn't going to happen.) At least you know now how we got here.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One man's "blocked troll" is another man's "martyr to his cause". --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am seeing a sufficient relationship that is notable and verifiable. You can't just look at the stub and declare the topic not notable. You have to perform some due diligence and search in Google. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per excellent additions by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Visits by the heads of state. Fairly significant trade relations. Well cited. Notable.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In particular, commercial relations alone would justify an article like this. it is only to be expected, since all significant countries have significant commercial relations. Probably about half the deleted articles should be reviewed on this basis. It's time we made BEFORE required, which would lead to the improvement of improvable articles. DGG (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lists 12 unrelated facts (but Wikipedia is not a directory). All arguments to keep this article apply doubly to this example (but the example shows that two notable items and a relationship does not necessarily warrant an article). There are 5 million people in Denmark, and 100 million in Mexico, and there are 200 countries. It is therefore inevitable that there will be all sorts of relationships between Denmark and Mexico, including tourism, trade and political visits. It is inevitable but it ain't notable (not until an analysis from a reliable source indicates some notability). Johnuniq (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTDIR prohibits "lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)." This is neither quotations or aphorisms. The article is in prose, and is not a list at all. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By your definition, what would make information notable? The Wikipedia rule is that when the info appears in a reliable source, it is notable. Which of the sources do you think are not reliable? If you go to any almanac the headings for each country are trade, diplomacy, and even sports. How did you come up with "unrelated"? The last time I looked at a directory, a phone book, it was a list of names and numbers in alphabetical order. This doesn't look like a directory at all, it is written in prose, not a table. It looks like a standard almanac entry.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 04:22, June 4, 2009
Facts in reliable sources are verified. To be notable, something extra is needed. Since there is no specific guideline for assessing country relations, we have to rely on WP:GNG. For example, we don't need common sense (aka WP:OR) to tell us that relations between Greece and Turkey are notable because there are plenty of reliable sources that discuss interactions between those two countries – having a secondary source with an analysis of relations between X and Y is evidence that the relations are notable.
Consider countries X and Y: Facts on the relations between X and Y might include the existence of recognition/transport/agreements/visits/trade and more. But such relations apply between the vast majority of countries. They are only notable if WP:GNG is satisfied. If no independent sources have bothered to discuss the relations we should not conclude the relations are notable.
The article we are discussing is a list of facts that mention "Denmark" and "Mexico". There is nothing more because there is nothing notable to say about the relations. Take a look at Cuba – Soviet Union relations for an example of an encyclopedic article (and it could say more, for example, re Cuba's intervention in Angola). Johnuniq (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing subjective importance with the Wikipedia definition of notable and verifiable. It is notable when the media takes notice of it and publishes the account, Wikipedia requires at least two independent sources to be published to be considered notable. What is important to any individual Wikipedian doesn't matter, it is a reference work for all users, not just you and me. I am sure if we were to rank all bilateral articles by their press coverage, Cuba – Soviet Union relations would be in the top third and Denmark–Mexico relations would be in the bottom third, but it is still notable by Wikipedia standards even if not important to you. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia defines foreign relations as "the study of foreign affairs and global issues among states within the international system, including the roles of states, inter-governmental organizations (IGOs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and multinational corporations (MNCs)." This cleary is about relations, even if that specific word does not appear. Any synonym can be used. The article on the War in Iraq contains information discussing the "conflict" the "diaspora" the "sectarian violence" and the "humanitarian crisis", we all recognize that they are discussing the same concept, and no original research is required to connect the dots. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has done a nice job sourcing some facts about the trade between these countries and documenting some state visits, but I'm still not seeing any sources that could reasonably be considered to constitute "significant coverage" of Mexico-Denmark relations. A passing mention that Lego is investing in Mexico doesn't cut it for me. The coverage of the queen's Mexican visit almost does, but there's nothing actually on the countries' relations--it's all about the how the queen went here and Calderon said this... For what's its worth here's an example of news article that I do think constitutes significant, coverage, though its on Switzerland-DPRK relations--I'm just throwing it out as an example. Note that it's non-exclusive but still sufficient, in my mind. One more such source and I'd say Swiss-DPRK relations are notable. (And no I haven't bothered to look). Yilloslime TC 07:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said there was any original research involved. Yilloslime TC 01:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are implying that coverage "isn't significant". The Wikipedia litmus test for that is "original research is needed to extract the content" What original research is required to "extract the content"?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 21:25, June 8, 2009
I'm not implying that the coverage isn't significant, I'm saying that the coverage isn't significant. Here's how WP:N defines "significant coverage": "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.[1]. All I'm saying is that the sources do not "address the subject directly in detail," and amount to only "trivial" coverage. Yilloslime TC 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no concept of trivia. It is a subjective concept. For me all sports statistics are trivia. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. I would say with more than 10 references the topic has been covered in detail, and I do not see any original research. It meets both tests. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since none of the sources discuss this bilateral relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be getting hung up on the word "relations". See international relations for the breadth of topic covered. The word itself doesn't need to appear in a media report, it is the concept. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations, even if we use one of the previous synonyms. The topics covered by the US state department on their website gives you a good idea of the topics involved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Denmark and Mexico have had bilateral treaties between them for at least 178 years. I've added the sources (independent and reliable).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The massive increase in recent years in trade between them, and the fact that Denmark is one of the top ten investors in Mexico, make it quite notable. Dream Focus 20:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interactions between the two are verifiable, but not notable - notability needs to be established through in-depth coverage of the topic, "Denmark–Mexico relations", and that has yet to be adduced. Anything else is extrapolation and violates WP:NOR. - Biruitorul Talk 02:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The usual handshaking, treaties, staged state visits and, ooh, some trade! Unremarkable as a whole and not notable in world context. Notability of the topic is not satisfied, or even hinted at, by sources that don't cover it, only events. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As yet another synthesis of trivia smokescreens hiding the fact that the topic itself has absolutely no notability. Dahn (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sound keep to an encyclopedic and well-sourced article whose real-world topic improves the project and lends itself to a reader's understanding of the relationship. Nice improvements made even after being forced by AfD during the pressure to delete. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the topic isn't "real-world" - no one but a bunch of Wikipedians has actually studied "Denmark–Mexico relations". We have here a synthesis of trivia on a non-notable topic designed to make it appear notable. Surely you can't countenance the blatant WP:PSTS violations that give us raw treaty texts without their relevance being validated by secondary sources? - Biruitorul Talk 19:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a red herring argument. The lack of interpretation of the treaty in a book or journal only means that there isn't sufficient information for a standalone article on the treaty itself. Every article in the bilateral series contains information on treaties, that is the definition of international relations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
you are now asking that the sources need not only be for the topic, but for the exact same way the topic is being presented? There are someways in which Wikipedia presentation of topics is unique--shall we give up NPOV, for example, because we are better at it than almost any print source? If people in Denmark are concerned about their relations to Mexico from their POV , and people in Mexico with their relations to Denmark from theirs, then people are concerned with their relationship between each other, and we collect the two. . They may not have put them together in an encyclopedia, but we do. An encyclopedia is, among other things, a place to gather and collect and organize information. There are many ways to organize it, and if we have people to do it, we should follow as many as possible. The real fault of the making of these articles is that they were made faster than people could properly improve them. If, indeed, nobody had been willing to, there might be a case for rejection. But if enough people are, it builds the encyclopedia. For every person who places an argument at one of these, an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia otherwise has been passed up. DGG (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, what you are proposing is specifically forbidden by WP:OR especially WP:SYNTHESIS. "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." If you search for information about Canada/US relations, there are books and articles about it. If you search for information about Denmark/Mexico relations, there is information on Mexican restaurants in Copenhagen. The topic itself has to be notable. Just because bricks are notable doesn't mean that a particular building is. Drawn Some (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it your theory that no relationship exists between the two countries, and that by creating the article we are synthesizing a relationship where none exists? Then why do reliable sources continue to write about the events, and why are there state visits, and why is there trade between the two countries. Why do Danish companies invest in Mexico and why did President Felipe Calderón "[hail] the fact that Denmark is Mexico's largest investor among the Nordic countries." It is a stretch to call the relationship synthesized by a Wikipedian, and silly to write that no such relationship actually exists. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not my contention that no relations exist between Denmark and Mexico. However, the topic of Denmark-Mexico relations does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, which are consensus. Just because hands and feet and livers and necks exist and are verifiable doesn't mean we can create an article about the body that we might imagine that they constitute if the entire corpse itself isn't notable. Drawn Some (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They have embassies in each others' capitals, their relations were established in 1800s, they have signed some bilateral treaties, etc. It's obviously notable. --Turkish Flame ☎ 06:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a collection of trivial facts that do not establish the notabilility of the bilateralism here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trivia isn't defined by Wikipedia, it is a subjective concept. Things that aren't of interest to you or to me are trivia. All the sources used are reliable sources. The topics covered are the same as those discussed in international relations and in the articles created and edited by LibStar. No Wikipedia rule says that the word "relations" has to appear in the source article, the article is about the concept, not the word. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent reliable sources that provide significant in-depth coverage of Mexico/Denmark relations have been shown to exist. That something exists is not sufficient for it to have an article in Wikipedia, it must be notable. The few verifiable factoids that have been dredged up should be included in articles on topics that are notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of factoid isn't a Wikipedia concept. It is a subjective designation to denigrate what you personally don't have an interest it. All Wikipedia cares is if the information came from a reliable source to be verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite what you seem to believe, we have a higher standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia than mere verifiability, we require notability. You really should think about starting Verifipedia where anything verifiable is included whether or not it is notable. The consensus here at Wikipedia is that topics of articles must be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the reduction to absurdity and the strawman fallacy combined. Please try and avoid logical fallacies and stick to Wikipedia policy. I never said every fact belongs in Wikipedia. Quotes and aphorisms, and lists of non notable names don't belong here. The Wikipedia notability requirement is met with excess. "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a bunch of factoids and synthesizing an article doesn't make the topic of the article notable. Please show significant in-depth coverage of Mexico and Denmark relations. Stuff like this: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32724.pdf or even an oped like this: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dresser11mar11,0,1937443.story Not silly factoids. Drawn Some (talk) 21:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are demonstrating "relative importance" not the definition of Wikipedia notability. If we were to rank all the country relations by the amount of press coverage, Mexico-US would rank in the top third and Denmark–Mexico relations in the bottom third, yet it still meets the Wikipedia requirement of notability and verifiability. The Wikipedia litmus test for notability requires "no original research is needed to extract the content". What original research are you referring to? Is it original research to claim that a relationship exists between the two countries? Is the trade imaginary? The Danish companies non existent, the treaties a lie? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Denmark-Mexico relations are relatively unimportant. Because they are unimportant they do not have significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Because they lack that coverage, they are not notable. Because they are not notable, they don't get an article in Wikipedia. I think you finally understand. Drawn Some (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive" Can you point to the original research in the article? Every sentence is tied to a source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please examine the sentence you have now quoted twice on this page: "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". You have steadfastly ignored the clause I have bolded. You have instead focused your attention on the part that I've put in italics, but notice that the two clauses are joined by the word "and". The argument that I and I think Drawn Some are trying to make is that the standard defined in the bolded clause is not met. I have never contended that OR was needed to interpret the sources in the article, and don't think anyone else has suggested that either. Trying to turn the discussion to WP:OR is a strawman argument. Yilloslime TC 01:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Arthur Norton (1958-, those individual factoids are verifiable but please read WP:SYNTHESIS. Seriously, go read it. It's part of WP:OR. Re-read this entire discussion and try to understand what we are trying to get through to you. If you truly don't understand at this point, I'm afraid I can't explain it to you in any simpler way and you may just not be able to understand this. Alternatively, someone else may have a different way to explain it that you may be able to understand. Either way, don't be too hard on yourself about it. There are some complicated ideas that I don't understand, either, and I accept that everyone can't understand everything and don't beat myself up over it. Drawn Some (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have it says: "Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research. ' and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." Can you please point out the original research in the article text, and tell me the conclusion that was reached. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Country A trades $xxxx annually with Country B. Country A and Country B have a tax treaty. An explorer from the region where Country A is now located made first European contact with the natives of the island where Country B is now located. Therefore Country A and Country B have notable bilateral relations. Drawn Some (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again you are arguing "relative importance". I agree that if we were to rank all the world's bilateral relations Denmark–Mexico would be in the lower third, and Iraq-US would be in the top third by press coverage. But the article meets the definition of Wikipedia notability, in that reliable sources have covered the events and statistics listed to the point that "no original research is needed".
  • Keep - Just because there isn't a strong relation between both countries doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all, or that they won't increase in the future, hence the article should be kept, or should we delete the Sierra Leone – United States relations article just because there isn't a strong relation between those countries? I don't think so. Supaman89 (talk) 02:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin the above "vote" was clearly canvassed [49]. LibStar (talk) 02:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." I sent a neutrally worded message to a nonpartisan. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we're here to assess this bilateral relations on its own merits. LibStar (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Supaman89, since Richard Arthur Norton (1958- specifically asked you to look for Spanish language sources on Denmark-Mexico relations and to comment here, we can take your comment to mean that you, too, were unable to find any? Drawn Some (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the question here is not if a relationship exists but a notable relationship exists. you say "they won't increase in the future", that's WP:NOTCRYSTAL. LibStar (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"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." There are over 10 references in the article. And prophylacticly if you are going to call them trivia per the new talking points, Wikipedia doesn't recognize the concept of trivia. It is a subjective concept that differs from person to person. For me all sports statistics are trivia, yet every team article contains them. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has staying power. I can see it being an article for years and years. That is my criteria for an article.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such concept as quasi-canvassing. A neutrally worded message was left asking to help find references, since he had contributed to articles on diplomacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But there is such a thing as WP:Votestacking, and the above user have always voted !keep in the previous AfDs s/he's participated in. And as far as I can tell, his/her only contributions to articles on diplomacy are vandalism fighting and some minor link fixing.This comment is enlightening. Yilloslime TC 16:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And he should consider starting Viagrapedia for articles with staying power that lasts for years and years because that's not the criteria we use at Wikipedia. We require articles to meet our standards of notability. Drawn Some (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient sourcing to establish notability. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just because they've done the same things that many countries do (sign a treaty here or there or do some trading) that doesn't make it notable. Something needs to stand out to make it notable. I don't see anything here that does. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Relations seem plenty notable to me. Drmies (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break[edit]

  • Keep. 15 good refs is more than enough to establish notability.Biophys (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of references but none of them discuss the topic of the article. Drawn Some (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be getting hung up on the word "relations". See international relations for the breadth of topics covered. The word itself doesn't need to appear in a media report, it is the concept. A state visit, trade, treaties, international crime, kidnapping of citizens are relations. The topic as covered by the US state department on their website gives you a good idea of the types of information involved when describing the US relations with other countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not hung up on the particular word "relations". But I am hung up on topics meeting our notability requirements. The sources can use any terminology or be in any language as long as they provide significant in-depth coverage of the topic of the relation between Denmark and Mexico and are independent. Here are some suggested alternative terms for the topic: [50]. Drawn Some (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am seeing part of the problem here. If there are a lot of in-depth references on football games between Denmark and Mexico, then that is a notable topic. If there is also in-depth coverage of trade between Mexico and Denmark, or even avocado or butter exports in particular, then that topic is notable. If extradition treaties between the two countries have been controversial and have been discussed in-depth, then that is a notable topic. But you can't say, well, all of these little topics are notable so Denmark-Mexico relations is a notable topic. We don't grant notability that way, it's a form of inheritance from the parts to the sum, maybe that is an explanation you can understand. Butter, flour, milk, raisins and baking powder are all notable but that doesn't mean raisin scones or raisin bread are automatically notable. Some of the things you can make from them are notable and some arent' and each has to be judged on its merits, not inherit notability from certain aspects or ingredients of the final product. Drawn Some (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend AFDs, DRVs, and creations of X-Y relations articles. The discussions are driving people into entrenched positions from which few are willing to retreat at risk of losing face. The current situation of having discussions decided based on how many from each side show up, followed by automatic DRVs because of disagreeing with the closure (and that is what's happening) is poisoning any remaining relationships between each side, and putting at risk any chance of coming to an agreed position. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No real progress was made on getting rid of all these articles on non-notable topics. I was for some way of dealing with them as a group but the reality is some of them need to be kept and some need to be gotten rid of and somebody has to decide which ones fall into which category. The problem is that a few people believe anything verifiable belongs in the encylopedia regardless of notability so they try to insist that all 20,000 bilateral relations articles would be notable if any aspect of a relation between two countries is verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had and agreed position (more or less) regarding these articles and their (scant, individually un-notable) information being merged into other articles. Talk to User:Ikip about that. None of it precluded continuing to get rid of what was still poor articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:03, 9 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) 00:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beqanna[edit]

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

Contested PROD, PROD tag was removed by an IP editor with no explanation and no edits to improve the article. Original prod reason: No evidence of notability. A Google search yielded 152 distinct results, but nothing that approaches "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - most of them are internet forums, blogs, and posts at deviantart. The sources provided by the article's author are all internet forums. Nothing relevant in an all dates Google news search. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 04:30, 3 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 NAC Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Rosenberg[edit]

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

While Mr. Rosenberg is associated with the Attica riot, I suspect this is a case of notability not being contagious; at best, it's an instance of WP:ONEEVENT allowing for questionable notoriety; also WP:NOTMEMORIAL seems to apply. While simply being incarcerated for a particularly long time and being associated with Attica IMHO don't convey notability, the other things he has been involved in do combine to grant it. Therefore, this is withdrawn. Tyrenon (talk) 03:23, 3 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 by Dravecky (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a copyvio. Non-admin closure. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sacagawea's people exiled in 1907k (Idaho)[edit]

Sacagawea's people exiled in 1907k (Idaho) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article reads like either an ad or a news release. It's probably a CSD, but I really do tend to err on the side of caution there insofar as I don't know if there's some notable lawsuit or lobbying going on here. As it is, though, I can't really make heads or tails of it. Tyrenon (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, copyvio of [52]. Still not sure exactly what it's saying. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:11, 3 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) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mercury Cycle[edit]

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

Article with same name was previously speedily deleted. This article was prodded but prod was removed by sole author without significant improvement. Author admits COI. This is a non-notable film which is not released. It is the effort of students at Quinniapac University. Porturology (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. The article is not blatant advertising, so there's not a clear speedy category for it. However, it's a non-notable film, and the only sources provided are the Quinniapac student newspaper. Wikipedia is not for things made (up) in school. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand where you're coming from. I have fixed the COI problem. This film has a very unique story attached to it and our efforts and final product are not only notable, they are extraordinary. One of the only ways for us to gain notoriety is for us to be on credible websites such as Wikipedia. What else would you suggest to improve this article? Thank you very much for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlhart (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - By the article creator's own words just above, they want this here to "gain notoriety", thus violating WP:SPAM, on top of the lack of notability. - TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia articles are about subjects that have already become influential in one way or another, not subjects that have yet to become notable. LovesMacs (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable student film. Only sources are the website of the film and the school newspapers's site. Seems to be little more than advertising for it. TJ Spyke
  • I apologize, I meant notability, not notoriety. This is not a class project; it is an endeavor that students decided to take on top of their classes. What else would need to be added to this article for more notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlhart (talk • contribs) 03:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondary sources from something besides the school paper. News coverage. Magazine coverage. Significant coverage in a reputable book. Read WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is a Ebook OK? Unbordel (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the Ebook. An Ebook published by a recognised and reputable publisher might be okay, but not many qualify. Can you link this Ebook?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 11:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, creator gives away his intent with "One of the only ways for us to gain {notability} is for us to be on credible websites such as Wikipedia.", you'll find that once you are notable thenyou get an article on Wikipedia, not the other way around. We are not a place to promote your film. And it would be nearly impossible for you to "fix the COI" unless you promised to never edit the article again. We cannot list every student film, no mater how "unique" they claim to be. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:35, 3 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. Not exactly WP:SNOW but I doubt that someone's going to pop in in the next three hours with a good argument for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of fatalities from aviation incidents[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of fatalities from aviation incidents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Note: User is blocked for 72 hours for abusing multiple accounts. Tavix |  Talk  17:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say no as the list already applies that. For example, List of pigs could have millions of entries, but only the notable ones are listed. Tavix |  Talk  21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just for the benefit of newer editors, the supporting guideline (for my !vote, TenPoundHammer's, and ZabMilenko's) is WP:CLN — which, if the nominator had read WP:BEFORE more thoroughly, he would have found.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This list does way more than a category, which is the only reason the nominator is suggesting deletion. Tavix |  Talk  21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this is why I say keep, the nominator have not stated a reason why this list is being nominated, therefore I assume that this was nominated in a bad faith. If more details can be added in (such as what aircraft they travelled in like on the air display section), I assume that it will be more than a indiscriminate list. Donnie Park (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly useful and informative stats list. Why would anyone want to get it deleted anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful article, with far more detail than in a category list.218.14.48.117 (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer, and the last AfD. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:54, 7 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 per WP:SNOW; probable bad faith nomination. Tavix |  Talk  22:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musaylimah[edit]

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

  • Strong Delete Not noteable person and ridiculous on top Unbordel (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I accidently deleted the header and added it again. Still keep my delete though. Unbordel (talk) 08:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO because the subject's contributions are "...part of the enduring historical record..." ZabMilenko 09:02, 3 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. Nja247 10:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Direct to garment printing[edit]

Direct to garment printing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Spam magnet with only primary sources--no third-party references, no incoming links. I tried to get WikiProject Textile Arts to take this on, but didn't get a response. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete Normal people and the industry call this process screen printing. Someone trying to create a non-notable version of this process and spam it out to the world calls it by this name. Nate • (chatter) 04:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Screen printing is not the same as injet printing with no screens:"Screen printing is a printing technique that uses a woven mesh to support an ink-blocking stencil. The attached stencil forms open areas of mesh that transfer ink as a sharp-edged image onto a substrate. A roller or squeegee is moved across the screen stencil, forcing or pumping ink past the threads of the woven mesh in the open areas." Johnbod (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep interesting content and encyclopedic...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No thirdy part sources and verging on spam dressed as an article. Without third party sources it fails GNG. ukexpat (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mostly out of curiosity, I tried to read up on this. This seems to be a legit subject, definitely different from screen printing, and the term seems to be in wide use. Reliable sources are hard to find, but I think I've found at least a couple.
The article probably needs serious help to be less spammy and better sourced, but I don't think it has any fatal flaws that can't be overcome. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I suggest renaming to Digital textile printing (currently a redirect I just created), which seems to be used a bit more often in "serious" links and less often in spam links. I don't know the AFD etiquette for moving pages during an AFD, and anyway I believe I screwed up the possibility of a non-admin move with my clumsiness creating the redirect, but if the article is kept I'll suggest this at WP:RM. Digital textile printing now has two incoming links, btw, from Textile printing (new link, created by me) and from Dye-sublimation printer, a pre-existing red-link in an established article. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 9 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) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malta–Pakistan relations[edit]

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

nominating a 2nd time because the first time was very borderline. no resident embassies and my own subsequent searches reveal a lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations. [55] There's this meeting with the usual "we'll agree to cooperate" and I note in the first AfD a few others but they're mainly little bits of news rather than real evidence of bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no useful content and very little prospect for development. No sources discuss these relations. Google finds a couple of news reports like "Malta and Pakistan agreed to continue ongoing cooperation between them in United Nations and other international forums during talks", but every country with a working government makes similar statements once a week – there is no source with an analysis suggesting that these relations are notable. There is also mention of human trafficking, but that is a topic for an article on illegal entry to Europe (Malta is just a link in a chain used to shuttle immigrants). There is no reason to believe there are any notable relations between Malta and Pakistan. Johnuniq (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No real content in the article.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still has no valid notability likely to be found, Permutation and combination of all nations, taken two at a time, is not sufficient. Collect (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability due to apparent lack of multiple reliable sources with substantial or significant coverage of bilateral relation as such between the two countries. Also Wikipedia is not a directory of all combinations of countries taken 2 at a time. A few news stories from the previous AFD showed that there was some contact between the 2 countries, but those were not about their bilateral relation as such and do not make a good case for the notability of the bilateral relationship, just as a story that Obama flew from the U.S. to Saudi Arabia to Egypt would not show the "trilateral relationship" of the 3 countries to be significant. Note: there could be even more robostubs about "trilateral" or "quadrilateral relationships" than the 20,000 or so duple combinations of the 200 or so countries. They would mostly be equally non-notable, even though many multilateral trade relationships or treaties could be documented. Coverage of the relationship as such would be needed. Edison (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep You're kidding right. Did anyone read the 1st Afd? There were sources provided detailing ties based on human trafficking and developing trade relations. Try these. [56] [57] [58] [59] Should have been a keep in the first place. LibStar even took part in the first debate, knew of those sources and chose to try to delete it again instead of improve it by adding the sources to the page. This debate is clearly the result of lazy editing (no one chose to actually include the sources) not any underlying problem of notability with the subject matter.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way I've added the sources.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should be careful. Accusing people of "lazy editing" is hardly productive, and while to you, laziness might "clearly" be the root cause of this AfD, that's just your biased opinion. One could just as easily say this debate is a result of people not understanding or choosing to ignore WP:N. And there's nothing wrong with reopening a debate that was closed as "no consensus". No consensus means that there was no consensus, and so presumably with more discussion (i.e. a new AfD) it just might be possible to reach consensus. The closing admin even noted that there was almost consensus ("no consensus, bordering on delete"), and so now that 7 weeks have passed, relisting seems especially appropriate in this case. Immediately relisting an AfD closed as keep would be entirely inappropriate, but this is about as far from that as possible. Yilloslime TC 01:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This debate is a result of the page being nominated for deletion. It was nominated for deletion because it was inadequately sourced. That issue has now been resolved in my opinion. I have no problems with articles being listed for deletion that deserve deletion. The problem with this article is that a bunch of people took the time to debate deleting it, took the time to find sources for the article, but didn't take the time to add those sources. It would have been just as easy to add those sources as nominate it for deletion again. That's the problem. The notability of these relations is not an issue anymore since those sources have now been added.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The notability of these relations is not an issue anymore that is purely your opinion. your "added sources" includes 2 articles with the usual "we want to cooperate" without concrete evidence of notable relations such as significant, trade, investment, actual bilateral agreements. It still fails that in consideration of these added articles. LibStar (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "vows to continue cooperation" are always red flags that not much of substance is going on in a relationship. And indeed, the topic utterly lacks multiple, reliable, independent sources, so we should delete. - Biruitorul Talk 03:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look at the article again. It has multiple, reliable, independent sources.[60][61][62][63][64]. It doesn't lack these "utterly".--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
there's as much text in the references than in the actual article. LibStar (talk) 10:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of in depth, non-trivial covereage of the topic of this araticle anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the sources above. You and I might disagree with the meaning of the word "trivial", but these independent sources thought these relations were notable enough to write about.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the text was bloated by the addition of non-encyclopedic trivia which we simply wouldn't and shouldn't feature anywhere, the core of the article still around the same the same: the two countries exists and have some sort of relationship with each other, a relationship which no one but a few wiki editors have dealt with as a separate topic. The "rescue" experiment is a joke. Dahn (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMHO, Non-notable and unencyclopedic. Yilloslime TC 18:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable trivia. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trade treaties alone do not make for a notable relationship. The human trafficking incidents are criminal matters, not diplomatic ones. Both being members of the Commonwealth make their relations to the United Kingdom significant, not to each other. Still no claim for the notability of the relationship as a whole on the world stage, or compared to any other two countries. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 04:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another article about trivial bilateralism. Eusebeus (talk) 18:25, 8 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 NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of female american guitarists[edit]

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

This article is not exactly as advertised. What I think happened, if I might conjecture, is that someone decided to try and dodge the notability requirement by putting in what looked like a list in the new article log. This isn't a list, it's an article on a single person, and there is no particular assertion of notability on top of that. Tyrenon (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If it truly was a long resourceful list, I would be saying speedy keep. But since the page doesn't live up to its name....I'm undecided on the article at this moment. Also, if the nominator knew about Wikipedia policies they would know that Wikipedia is not an advertising website.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply So would I. Were this a list, or even a clear attempt at a list that was visibly in progress, this wouldn't be here (yes, there is stuff I don't put up for deletion from the new article log). With that said, I know Wikipedia is not an advertising website, which is why I put it up here. The only reason a CSD didn't come to mind is that I suspect it would have ended up in here within 20 minutes anyway as self-promoters often manage to fight a self-promotion at least this far.Tyrenon (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • G2/A7 Non-notable. Given the way off-the-base title, I'd say G2 (test page). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:28, 3 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 NAC Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pump Of South Philippines[edit]

Pump Of South Philippines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A CSD was made by another editor and declined. I tend to agree that this is a likely speedy under WP:NOT, but as the speedy was declined, here it is. Tyrenon (talk) 01:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as originally tagged. The person who "declined" the speedy was the creator. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:15, 3 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 A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MATTY CRANMER[edit]

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

While his brother is notable from all appearances, Scott's younger brother doesn't pull in all too many hits on Google, and a lot of those are mostly closely related to his brother. A sub-heading on his brother's page might be more appropriate if anything is, but WP:NOTINHERITED comes to mind here. Tyrenon (talk) 01:04, 3 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 02:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blakey Vermeule[edit]

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

Non-notable professor. Previous prod ignored. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. You should know by now that, if you want support for your proposal, you should come up with Google Scholar and Web of Knowledge (if it is available to you) numbers for this candidate. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. My search of Google Scholar gives 8,8,1,1,1 cites. If that is all then notability per WP:Prof is not achieved. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • google scholar is not a very good source. She's a pretty significant up and coming star in evolutionary psychological approaches to literature (which I have a fair amount of expertise in). If you want to use google, then note that googlebooks has 50 cites for "Blakey Vermeule" and another 26 (no doubt with some overlap) for "Vermeule Blakey." My vote is: keep. Nightspore (talk) 06:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
Thanks for your enlightening contribution. I agree about the severe limitations of Google Scholar. The hits on Google Books would not all be considered to be scholarly citations, but are indeed more than on the former. Web of Knowledge could be better. For the time being I shall leave the discussion to the experts in this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep, actually per WP:IAR. Yes, she's only associate professor, but she has that position at Stanford, and she held a similar one at Yale. Has a PhD from Berkeley. Methinks if she worked for any other university she would be tenured professor by now, passing WP:PROF. --Pgallert (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't associate usually a tenured position, even at Stanford? I know it's not at some universities (JHU) but that's unusual. And being tenured is not the same as passing WP:PROF. I'm prepared to believe that someone tenured at Stanford is likely a star, but it would be good to see some evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Her parents were well-known scholars, and her brother has an article and passes WP:PROF, so I suspect somebody felt that Wikipedia would be complete if the whole family was represented. Imagine her article without the photo. Joey the Mango (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has the same problem as other academic entries: it makes no claims to notability, it's simply a resume. Graduating from Berkeley and teaching at Stanford makes you more notable than other academics, but that alone doesn't put you over the bar of wikipedia notability. Hairhorn (talk) 18:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confirm WoS findings by Joey the Mango. Searching on "Author=(Vermeule E* OR Vermeule B*)", she has 3 journal articles: Phil. Lit. (2006), Mod. Phil. (1998), and Mod. Lang. Quarterly (1998), none of which have ever been cited (by other journal articles). The search lists another 6 book reviews, also none of which have ever been cited. She doesn't seem to pass on journal scholarship. The article lists two books, but this is quite average for the associate professor level in the humanities. Is either one particularly significant? If not, then there's little real notability here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Ramsay Shaw the following comment was made about the deletion nominator Joey the Mango by editor Agricola44: "Comment. Based on collective edits of the nominator in this case, what seems clear is the following: (1) With all due respect, nom is entirely ignorant of academic conventions and standards, especially as they apply to WP:PROF under whose criteria this article is being evaluated..... This discussion is ripe with WP:IDHT, suggesting WP:NPOV concerns. I'm afraid that further engaging the nom in any sort of debate will be a waste of time,...... but you are of course free to do so. ...... understand that at this point, you're no longer trying to convince the closing moderator. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)." I endorsed the above comments of Agricola44. They may be applicable also to other BLP academic/educator articles that editor Joey the Mango has proposed for deletion. Despite this, each AfD should be assessed on its own merits. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • I'm a fast learner, and only prodded assistant and associate professors whose articles made no particular claims of notability, and for whom Google Scholar searches did not show high citation numbers. Joey the Mango (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vermeule is tenured at Stanford. She was tenured at Northwestern before that. This means that she was hired TO a tenured position at Stanford, which is ipso facto pretty good evidence that she is notable. I who am in the field and in the profession can guarantee that she is one of the best known academics in her generation. WoS is better than google scholar but not very good on humanities -- and tends to be way out of date. I don't know why this is, but I can tell you as well that we in the humanities tend not to use it very much at all anymore -- except for science articles when we have occasion to cite them. The absorption of the far better Humanities Citation Index into WoS was a disaster. At any rate, the publication of her second book is eagerly, which the entry mentions but which is still forthcoming, is eagerly awaited. She's not an obscure academic who's published two books. She's a well-known academic who's presented work at conferences and symposia and lectures, work so far cited mainly through acknowledgements (hence the large number of hits in googlebooks), but which is about to come out as a book. I repeat that this book is eagerly awaited by a lot of people. Joey the Mango doesn't seem to know any of this background, but just goes around assimilating doubly tenured associate professors to assistant professors (I don't want to sound elitist, but I guess this is inevitable once you get into a micturation contest about notablity) and makes what seem to be sexist insinuations about photographs, and imagines himself a fast learner. Read a little in the field, figure out who the players are, and then decide. The field is highly notable. She's a big player, and probably among the half dozen best known academics of her generation. I who would certainly pass Joey the Mango's mechanical criteria, applied it seems by a person with no familiarity with the academic world except a vague and somewhat dubious grasp of titles, and I'm certainly less notable than she.Nightspore (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
As I recall, HCI was incorporated intact into WoK. Not that I generally used HCI after the first few tries, for there were never enough references worth the botherDGG (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Agreed. Each case should be reviewed strictly on its own merits. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient distinguished academic record to show an influence on the subject and meet WP:PROF. Being an associate professor a stanford probably makes a person in the top 10% of the professors in a subject. Universities differ. Two books is the requirement for tenure in the humanities in the best universities--most others now accept a book and 3 articles. That she has done this is further evidence of very high quality. I don't intend to second-guess Stanford on the basis of my own analysis. WoS (and Scopus) are worthless in the humanities, because they cite only work published by journals, and most work in the subject is not in journals, but in books, which they do not analyze. I generally don't run these in this subject, as long experience has shown me that the results are meaningless. GScholar is wildly incomplete and inconsistent also, because a great many publishers do not let it scan their current books. There is no adequate database for citation analysis in the humanities. DGG (talk) 01:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the first I've heard of a books-for-tenure rule. How are you supposed to write two books in 5 years as an academic? That's a typical tenure clock, unless you do multiple visiting assistant prof gigs. Hairhorn (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, relatively few people are able to write 2 books in five years --and it's not just books, but books by major academic publishers. That;'s why anyone who meets it is notable in the humanities. The sciences work differently, of course. For data ,see any issue of Chronicle of Higher Education., or better, look at some CVs from the best places and compare them with the CVs at the 2nd rate places. DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, The party of humanity, which is in a relatively narrow area, currently in more than 300 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. COI may exist here, but is not a reason for deletion.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see it. Where's the "significant impact"? Hairhorn (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with reservations of DGG about shortcomings of bibliometric sources for this subject but I do not accept that being an Associate Professor of a university, no matter how distingished, confers notability automatically. One proponent "can guarantee that she is one of the best known academics in her generation". Unfortunately the evidence is not produced. Subject may become notable in time but has not been shown to have done so yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep. Being promoted to a tenured position at Stanford, I agree, would not be enough evidence of notability. Being recruited by Stanford for a tenured position is a whole 'nother kettle of fish, as anyone in the field could tell you, and comes pretty close to "automatically conferring notability," since Stanford noted her and recruited her. And here's where the otherwise empty googlebook stats are useful: the number of acknowledgements that she's received by the authors of the leading works in literary Darwinism shows the "significant impact." These aren't pro forma: everyone in the field sees her as central to it. So anyone coming into the field might well be curious about her, and want to go to Wikipedia to find out more. Look, say you were highly influential in your field through the brilliance and pertinacity of your interactions with the other leaders of that field, every single one of whom acknowledged you in their own writing. Say you were good enough to be recruited by Stanford and other schools in the know on the basis of one book for a tenured job. Say the work that had made you so conspicuous and powerful a presence at conforences or colloquia were now about to be released in a second book. Wouldn't a Wikipedia entry be appropriate? But there's no other evidence that can be adduced here than the evidence already adduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightspore (talk • contribs) 06:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she's important, it's not reflected in the article; in its current state it could easily be an A7 speedy delete for claiming no significance at all. Hairhorn (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the assertion that one has published a single book, of any sort, other than self published, is generally considered enough to defeat A7 speedy. DGG (talk) 09:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree -- it's really more a stub. But that's ok: flag it as a stub. That would be the point. Nightspore (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
  • Delete Clearly not notable by any objective standard that we have here at Wikipedia. All of the silliness about being hired to a tenured position at Stanford etc. is just smokescreen. She's not notable by the general standards nor by any loophole in WP:PROF so now editors are just making up criteria. Drawn Some (talk) 16:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:PROF: "Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." I repeat that there's no question that she meets reasonable criteria: she has a significant impact on a significant field. Those of us in the field, like yours truly, know this. The objective demonstration is the acknowledgement to her that appears in something like 90% of the leading books in the field. How does that not document significance? I'd say at best this is a draw, and that given that fact you should err on the side of the recommendation of the person posting here, yours truly, who is most conversant with this field. Nightspore (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
actually, that's not what we do here. All editors are equal. If you;'re an expert, your arguments will show it without your having to announce your expertise or make personal comparisons. When there are equally supported views on an AfD, we close non-consensus. DGG (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, and so wasn't trying to assert authority, except w/r/t whether WoS was a good source, which it isn't (as you yourself have pointed out). What I can shed light on is why the acknowledgements in so many leading books matter. Who gets to say they're leading books? I guess I could go listing their authors and their entries, but this gets to be a real time-waster. Ok, maybe I will when I get an hour or two.Nightspore (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
  • Ok, an example or two of notability: she was one of the distinguished visitors at the leading institution of Darwinian approaches to the arts, the Center for Cultural Inquiry at the University of Aukland. In his landmark book On the Origin of Narrative Brian Boyd puts her in the short list of people he owes particular thanks to. The vastly unhelpful WoS doesn't have her 2008 piece in the central issue of Style (one of the leading journals in literary studies) in the symposium they published on Literary Darwinism, here; this is right now the single most important published debate on the subject. Denis Dutton acknowledges her in his new and widely cited book, The Art Instinct. She's cited multiple times in Lisa Zunshine's leading critical book Why We Read Fiction. If necessary I'll go on; the point is she's central to a burgeoning and cutting edge field, and widely acknowledged to be central.Nightspore (talk) 03:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
    • Does any reliable source say she is central? Joey the Mango (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, now you're raising the bar pretty high. I think if you listed the profs reliable sources said were central, you'd have a fairly small number. That's not how notability is established, unless you're editing a one-volume encyclopedia, which she clearly wouldn't make. You began, apparently, thinking of her as an untenured associate professor. You said you were prodding associates and assistants. But almost no associates and assistants have the visibility she does -- demonstrated, I repeat, in the acknowledgements and other citations by notables like the blues linked in my last; and demonstrated by appearing in the central or textbook debates that are taught in the field; and demonstrated by appointments at such places as the CCI. So sure, she's not notable like Northrop Frye; but she is notable like say Stephen Burt (Associate without tenure at Harvard) or Mary Baine Campbell; like Burt she's a rising star and therefore likely to be the object of sufficient interest to make an entry on her something that readers will wish to consult and editors to improve.Nightspore (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)nightspore[reply]
        • I never said she was untenured. It is my impression that a lot of academics get acknowledgments, and notability is not inherited. Many famous profs do have reliable sources that say they are "famous", "well-known", "respected" and etc. Being cited multiple times in one book is not interesting to me, and isn't really in the spirit of WP:PROF. Also, I find it difficult to agree or disagree with your claims of "landmark", "visibility", "leading", "burgeoning" and "cutting edge", since there are no sources on this debate (which nobody but the academic participants care about--and I mean no disrespect; how could there be, it's so rarified) on Wikipedia, but I will say this; "rising star" could be interpreted to mean "not notable yet." Certainly you would agree that she has not "broken out" of the world of academia into the broader community yet, right? Joey the Mango (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to agree about tributes of this sort. I consider them puffery, except if in a signed published review. And I agree that "Rising star", though sometimes well meant, is reasonably to be interpreted as "not yet risen". I take a very cynical view of our ability to judge anything except publications, publisher reputation, published reviews, citations, and quality of the university. One book is admittedly borderline. The question is how much to weigh the quality of the university. My feeling is that at the level of Stanford, the judgment that they make in awarding tenure is to be respected. They can evaluate one thing which we cannot, and which does make all the difference: the quality of the work. DGG (talk) 00:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, just to say the field isn't rarified: it's been recently covered in: The New York Times and The New York Times magazine, the Boston Globe, the Nation, LiveScience, and Arts and Letters Daily. It's the going thing right now in literary theory. WP:PROF I repeat says that the bar is set low, because that's the nature of academic influence. She's cited multiple times in multiple books: I just went to the ones that happen to be in my room, so that I could cite accurately. So I acknowledge she's not broken out into the broader world, but she's highly influential in the field, which qua field certainly has broken out, and that does seem in the spirit of WP:PROF. Nightspore (talk) 05:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My view is that it is not necessary for a subject's reputation to have broken out into "the broader world", however that is defined. Certainly not if defined by the audience of popular tabloid media like the National Enquirer or 60 Minutes. Notability can be established within a significant academic subfield like nuclear physics, archaeology, literary studies and so forth. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 10 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) 00:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Παπανικολάου Κωνσταντίνος[edit]

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

Declining speedy; Can't make sense of this (click on "Google translation"), can't say that it's an A7, taking to AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Greek, and don't know how to speak Greek, but I will babelfish it and edit it as I go along. Eurovision 2009 and 2010Sasha SonSakis Rouvas 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done. The article can now be found as Papanikolay Konstantinos and he can now be establised as a notable Greek journalist, so I say keep. Add external and internal links and this could be a really good article. Eurovision 2009 and 2010Sasha SonSakis Rouvas 19:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some copy edits to attempt to make the text clearer. Neutral on AfD though. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the given name is Konstantinis and the surname should be Papanikolaou (this is the only combination/spelling which yields results) Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: needs an expert (and by that I mean a Greek-speaker. I have made some efforts to find sources and have nothing for my efforts (save the correct spelling of the man's name, the fact that he exists and is a journalist). I am loathe to say delete as I suspect Greek-language sources may be available. I cannot read them though and am further impeded by the fact that his appears to be a common Greek name (shared by a sportsman). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest waiting until the page has been fully translated until we reach a consensus. Eurovision 2009 and 2010Sasha SonSakis Rouvas 12:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to RfD since the link is a redirect. The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be pointless. The article the link redirects to is the article which is the subject of this afd. Just because the article has moved, doesn't mean we automatically close the AFD--Jac16888Talk 16:33, 1 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 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I couldn't find an article about him in the Greek Wikipedia.[65]]. A Google news search isn't that promising.[66] A web search is more promising, revealing that he is giving a speech on June 11. It seems like he is nationally notable, as a journalist, but I don't think he meets the Wikipedia inclusion standards laid out here. Currently this article is basically an unsourced BLP and reliable sources aren't readily available, but (Like bigdaddy) I concede that sources could possibly be found. This article was unsourced to begin with and perhaps should not have been translated. It might have been better if it were WP:transwikied to the Greek Wikipedia to give it the best chance for development and then deleted here per A2, with the hope that a better article would come about in the future, possibly based on the one originally submitted here.Synchronism (talk) 04:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Synchronism. Unsourced BLP. Willing to change vote if sources are found. لennavecia 18:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Greek one. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:57, 9 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. Kyle1278 01:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People's Political Power of Canada[edit]

People's Political Power of Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

People's Political Power is another microparty. In this particular instance, the party only nominated two candidates, who received less than 200 votes between them. The party's press coverage is negligible at best, but sorting it out from other uses of the phrase border on impossible (the phrase "People's Political Power" has been used by a number of regimes over the years). In short, though, it's a non-notable party with a minimal electoral showing in a lone election. Tyrenon (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: People's Political Power is another microparty, but it is a microparty that is officially registered by Elections Canada, and is therefore listed as a party on Elections Canada's list of parties, its candidates are identified as representing the party on ballot during the election, and it is eligible to issue tax receipts for donations. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no need to delete this article. Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting an article on an officially registered political party. Ground Zero | t 21:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I honestly disagree with simple registration as a standard. Were the standards in Canada what they were back in the early 90s (where you had to run 50 candidates to retain registration), I would agree. However, the standards being what they are (and being comparatively close to the British 50 quid and 10 signatures) I don't see simple registration as being quite enough. Also, while Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, Wikipedia is also not an indiscriminate collection of information.Tyrenon (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I completely agree with Ground Zero | t Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not makes scene, no reason for this article to be deleted. --Kyle1278 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ground Zero. The reason simple registration should be sufficient is that we're not doing our job as an encyclopedia if the article on the election in which the party ran candidates can't link to any form of explanation of what each and every party that ran candidates in that election is. Bearcat (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Clearly notable as a Registered Political Party in Canada. Varbas (talk) 00:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This account has been blocked as a sock of a banned user - doesn't get to vote anywhere. DreamGuy (talk) 20:05, 31 May 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 00:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't any significant reliable sources on it, just the fact that it is has been registered. 189 people voting for the party really signifies its non-notability: there is barely any followers, the party has no power, so there is no reason for this article being here. Tavix |  Talk  01:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because not covered by secondary sources. The party's own site and government election sites are primary sources.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info on the party could be given in one sentence in the article on the election.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:19, 4 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. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Warren[edit]

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

No reliable sources found, questionable notability. I found this article via a link from 1975 in country music as there is a Canadian country singer of the same name who might very well be notable given that he had a #1 country hit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep There is no shortage of information on this well-known B-movie director. A Google Book search turns up this: [67] and Warren's most famous creation, the cult flick The Wild World of Batwoman (which was the subject of a lawsuit filed by DC Comics), has been covered here [68] and here [69] and here [70]; the film was recently screened in Portland, Oregon, too [71]. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weird, where was all that stuff when I googled? I got like 250 hits on him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: True, there really was not much content when I made it (I know, I should have started it with more), but I have added more since the deletion proposal. He is a rather well-known director of B-movies/cult films, which hopefully is now apparent. Many directors on wikipedia are not as notable as him, if that means anything. I think it might have been prudent to wait a little linger to propose its deletion. Anyway, I hope the added references help clear up his notability. JEN9841 (talk) 06:01, 3 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reform 2000 Party[edit]

Reform 2000 Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another of the numerous minor political parties that I would recommend either be deleted for non-notability or merged into a single article on extremely small political parties in the UK. This particular example ran five candidates for Parliament in 2001, received about 1400 votes, and has not run for anything since.Tyrenon (talk) 07:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While I'm not entirely convinced by this article's notability, this Google search did return some results that I would consider notability-making! JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable minor political party. Note that JulieSpaulding's "keep" statement above is based on a pretty terrible Google search - she didn't bother to phrase-search, so a large chunk of those hits (excluding the Wikipedia mirror sites and empty Mad Libs-style database sites) are for the loony-right U.S. "Reform Party"'s 2000 campaign. Badger Drink (talk) 22:38, 9 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. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rivkin[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Brianga (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've watched this article for a while; it's cleary an autobiography or a very close COI, although neither of those is absolute grounds for deletion. The story of CryptoLogic Inc does seem notable; his leadership of other companies seems less so. So I'm uncertain as to notability. I can say for sure that this page keeps getting POV promotional rewrites, some of which I've tried to edit.
See also Lorne Abony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), another manager at the same company. He's even less notable. Hairhorn (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... I didn't notice the previous AfD when I wrote the above. Can't this be speedy deleted as recreation of a deleted page? Hairhorn (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually didn't notice it either. It probably can, but I'll let another admin do that. Brianga (talk) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some GNews hits, but nothing that could be called a reliable source. Add that to the fact that this was previously deleted by discussion, and I'd say delete. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems promotional, no meaningful sources - Vartanza (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • article author's comment below pasted to bottom of page by me; please don't "top post", it makes the discussion very hard to follow. Hairhorn (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • hey there, I am the main contributor of this article. I am kind of new at writing wikipedia articles but I have been a very close follower of both Cryptologic and Fun Technologies and find mr.rivkin deeply interesting (Crypto basically invented the software that allows for online gambling and he did found the company) . With that said, I would really appreciate your tips and advice inasmuch as writing this article and writing articles for consumption on wikipedia is concerned as I would really like to keep on writing about companies and people that I find interesting and worthy of wikipedia. I have spent considerable time writing this article and I think it is unfair to delete the page based on your arguments.Rhalliworth53 talk
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Company/product may be notable, but this person is not. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable --rogerd (talk) 02:30, 3 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 Boldly redirected to Goosebumps HorrorLand. After two relists, I don't see any objection. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Blood for Breakfast![edit]

Monster Blood for Breakfast! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete fails WP:BOOK Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 May 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 00:05, 3 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) 23:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Svoboda[edit]

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

Delete author, one of whose books won a minor literary prize does not rise to the level of notability; fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:56, 27 May 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, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She has a ton of books, many of which with good reviews (NY Times Review of Books, etc.), besides the coverage noticed by the King, above. The article needs a good rewrite, but the writer herself is notable enough. Drmies (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The subject clearly meets WP:BIO based on coverage in the NY Times Review of Books alone. A stub in need of expansion, not deletion. Vicenarian (T · C) 02:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Expansion I've volunteered to do, assuming the article survives. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:09, 8 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 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whers[edit]

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

This article is primarily original research which can not be fixed since I have found no adequate sources that discuss this. Under our verifiability policy, Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A google search, and a google news search each show a lack of the reliable sources needed to back up the article.

Furthermore, the topic "Whers" doesn't meet our notability guidelines as it has not been significantly commented upon in reliable, third-party sources. Without this we cannot ascertain the significance of the subject matter. This follows from WP:V as it's impossible to have a notable article on a topic which can not be verified.

In accordance with our deletion policy, this article should be deleted because it is an article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it has failed, it is an article whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline, and it is an article with only content not suitable for an encyclopedia (see WP:NOT#OR, and WP:IINFO)

To summarise, this article should be deleted as the topic doesn't meet WP:N and the content shouldn't be merged anywhere unless it has been verified through reliable sources. ThemFromSpace 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this article fails WP:NOT#PLOT as well as all three of Wikipedia's core content polices. There are no reliable sources to verify its content which is filled with opinion about these fictional creatures that is pure original research. This article is basically a content folk, as it provides no real world commentary, criticism, context or analysis that is not already contained in the article Dragonriders of Pern. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [72], [73] are both reasonable references. weak keep with a preference to merge this into Pern or a similar article. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added the review above to the article. I believe its more than just passing mention, but enough information to count as media coverage. And this is a notable aspect of a notable series, they used for various reasons throughout different novels. Dream Focus 11:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The two sources mentioned do not, imo, in depth coverage of the subject. Rather they are reviewing the book in which they appear. Just because the creatures are mentioned does not mean an article is warranted. The context of both sources is regarding Dragon's Kin, which already mentions the creatures. Plot details and so on (which I am not against per se) would be more suitable in the article on the book, not a sub-article like this. Quantpole (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:GNG. No reliable sources providing substantive coverage of the article subject, that I was able to find anyway. HiDrNick! 19:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The "topic" Dragonriders of Pern is already well established as notable. This current article is not a content fork, as it is simply additonal informations whose inclusion would overburden the parent article, making it a proper "spinout" per WP:WAF... which specifically states "when an article gets long, a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary. This is completely normal Wikipedia procedure; the new article is sometimes called a "spinout" or "spinoff" of the main article" and more importantly "usually rely on the coverage of the parent topic, and may lack demonstration of real-world coverage through sources dedicated specifically to those elements" Guideline allows that such spinouts may depend on the parent for their notability. Per guideline, it need not be forced to show it seperately. The spinout passes WP:V and WP:N through correct interpretation of WP:WAF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
The topiic of this article is Whers; as that's the subject. Subjects can only be spun-out if they themselves are notable apart from the parent topic. Notability is not inherited. WP:WAF forbids in-universe plot summaries, which is all that this article is. There is no out-of-universe material to build a verifiable article from. ThemFromSpace 20:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
??? I just read the article 2 more times to double-check, as maybe I missed something the first two times. Nope. Sorry. It not a summary of the plot of either the series or of an individual book. It is rather a spinout descriptive of an important series element. A plot summary would say "Joe took his car into to town to meet Sally. Sally was in a park and Joe did not see her. Joe drove home alone". A descriptive says "Joe's car is blue with new tires and a scratch on the hood". A element descriptive is not a plot summary. They are not the same.
Further, only the article's title is "Whers", as a proper and guideline encouraged spinout from the notable topic of the entire "Dragonrider series"... just as the very first sentence of the article asserts. Stating it is something different from what guideline instructs, does not make it so, and with respects, feels just a tiny bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it makes you happier, you can always discuss changing the article title to "Dragonrider series: Whers" so as to address any confusions of just what is the notable topic of which it is a proper spinout. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the subject of the article is its title which is Whers, there's really no other way you can Wikilawyer your way around that basic fact. Each spinout must have the title be notable per our policies; we could have the verification of a subject to make it a spinout but it must also have notability in itself, as notability isn't inherited. ThemFromSpace 06:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WIkilawyer? Your assumption of bad faith is incredibly incivil. You may retract and apologize. Changing the title is for a discussion on its talk page, not a reason for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the 'parent' topic isn't Dragonriders of Pern, it is Dragon's Kin, which is certainly not overloaded with information. That book is the principal one in which the creatures are involved. The book is also what the sources are talking about. Since we are into quoting from WP:WAF, how about Very rarely should such spinout articles be about a singular topic (e.g., character, plot item); either that topic has demonstrated its own notability, or should be merged into the main article or existing spinout articles. Quantpole (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. A "Wher" or "Wher Watch" is an item that permeats the entire Dragonrider series... and not simply limited to Dragon's Kin. This is made quite obvious by the assertion made in the article's very first sentence. Feel free to pick up any one of the many novels in the series. EACH has Wher or Wher Watch as a major element of the series. This makes the article a proper spinout of the entire notable series, not just of one book. Its existance as a spinout is exactly as guideline instructs and condones. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the official website of the author, they are featured in more than just that one book. The series is parent article, not the book. Dream Focus 22:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they weren't featured in another book, I said that Dragon's Kin is where they are principally found. Just becuase they are mentioned in other books are they even approaching a notable element in them? The only reason you could possibly have an article about Whers is because they are the main feature of this one book. And as such, they should only be 'spun out' if there are good reasons for the info not to be included in the article on the book. The sources that mention the creatures are talking about the book. Why not use those sources to make Dragon's Kin a better article (which can include info on Whers)? Quantpole (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if can be moved to inline citation. Character plot summaries are a staple of Wikipedia, and they are always poorly referenced. for instance the Simpsons characters all have references that are the individual episodes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge after clarifying it , so someone not intimately familiar with the novels will know where it fits. Not rally important enough for a separate article. there is a much higher priority with the Pern articles than these: rewriting the basic ones on the individual novels so they five a clearer view of the plot, and a fuller description of the characters where they matter. Whatever we want to say is the proper fullness for coverage, what we do say should be done right and clearly, so as to be useful for outsiders and casual readers. I don't care a bit whether or not we combine these articles, as long as we do them better. I like to think that its the low quality which helps feed the discontent with them, not the inherent view othat important ficitonal topics are unsuitable. DGG (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or possibly merge notable theme in notable book series, some out of universe coverage. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue to improve as some editors have done since nomination or at worst redirect with edit history intact per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE so that a basis is preserved should additional sources become available. Dori has already demonstrated above that Whers are verifiable in published books. As such, we know it is not a hoax, something just made up, and certainly not libelous, but rather part of a series of many books that have a readership far beyond those commenting in this discussion. Thus, as our project strives to cover human knowledge and serve our readers rather than ourselves (and clearly some of our readers are interested in coming here for this information), we would be doing a disservice by outright redlinking per User:T-rex/essays/the more redirects the better. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those stats seem to show that if you want an article viewed more, just list it for deletion! Quantpole (talk) 18:27, 10 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) 23:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Scouts (band)[edit]

Sea Scouts (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I declined the speedy deletion nomination, so I'm bringing it here for further evaluation. I remain neutral on the matter. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Provided that verifiable references can be found, based on the article, it is clear that it satisfies #4 of the criteria and is therefore notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 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) 23:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Nielsen[edit]

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

Delete fails WP:GNG, nothing to show how she differs from zillions of other freelance artists Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak, weak keep. The King's sources: 1. From the San Gabriel Valley Tribune comes a 1100+ word article on the artist, with interview, and illustration. 2. Some appreciation in The Washington Times (with illustration): "Did any pieces stand out? Is this a joke? Piece No. 45, titled "Savant," shows the determination of artist Terese Nielsen. Could she, through color, lighting and recognizable objects, allow the viewer to enter the world of our heroine, Savant? Sharp reds complement stained glass of vibrant blues and violets as light coming through the panels highlights a woman obsessed with knowledge. Imagine British artist Dante Gabriel Rossetti tickled into a mood by a Sex Pistols album to fully appreciate the Nielsen style." 3. Passing mention in The Denver Post, really: "The studio's art gallery...opened in 1998 and is host to local and international artists such as Terese Nielsen, whose work has been featured in comic books and on 'Magic: The Gathering' gaming cards. Pieces at Dark Millennia run from $150 to $10,000; Nielsen's painting of the comic book character The Maxx fetched $2,600. However, art lovers won't find perky portrait or straightforward still lifes here." Drmies (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She differs from other freelance artists in that she is one of the most notable Magic: The Gathering artists. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 3 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) 23:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable band, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Provided that verifiable references can be found, based on the article, it is clear that it satisfies #4 of the criteria and is therefore notable. Dan arndt (talk) 02:13, 28 May 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, 3 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 NN. Bearian (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Romano[edit]

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

Completing unfinished nom that nobody else could ever be bothered to fix. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is a common name and a search turned up some other people by the same name who are clearly not the same person. However, I can't find anything that is about THIS guy. He doesn't seem anywhere near notable, unless I'm missing something. Cazort (talk) 23:52, 27 May 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, 3 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion besides the nominator but not enough comments to establish a consensus. No prejudice against a speedy renomination (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Are Not Stealing Records[edit]

You Are Not Stealing Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable media/music related article on a record label. Speedy-deleted twice, now a AfD to finally establish consensus. SGGH ping! 10:20, 27 May 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, 2 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.
  1. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_June_3&oldid=1142644332"