Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 4

< 3 March	5 March >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. ... discospinster _talk 23:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Morgan[edit]

Griffinofwales (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth L. Ton[edit]

The subject was a high school drama teacher, like thousands of others across the country. There is nothing noteworthy enough in his background, career, or achievements to warrant his having an entry in Wikipedia. Allowing this article to remain could be perceived as an invitation to create articles about every beloved teacher everyone ever had. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nothing about this biography seems to meet notability criteria, and the footnotes seem to be an attempt by an experienced wikipedian to make the article look legitimate on the surface. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject is not distinguished and the references aren't reliable. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. The article has no real references, or notability. I agree with Literary Maven, with respect to high school teachers, most don't have enough notability to meet WP:GNG. FingersOnRoids 20:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence that the subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 09:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. In addition to the points already made above, there is no trace of scholarly impact, and independent news coverage of the subject is nonexistent.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Galen Marshall[edit]

There appears to be nothing notable enough about this individual to warrant his having an entry in Wikipedia. His only claim to fame is his founding of a college chorale, an accomplishment no doubt achieved by hundreds of other people across the country but hardly noteworthy enough for them to receive mention in an encyclopedia. If he is allowed an article, then how about all the others with similar backgrounds? Clearly this could get out of hand if every person who ever started a school chorale gets an article written about him or her. LiteraryMaven (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition, the article appears to be entirely WP:Original research. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. The article doesn't list any reliable references and the article for Masterworks Chorale was deleted. If the chorale he founded doesn't deserve an article why should he? 67.79.157.50 (talk) 14:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's no evidence that the subject meets the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Nuttah (talk) 09:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Live action role-playing game. The consensus seems to be to redirect to live action role-playing game; this makes sense whether it's a poorly defined variant type of game, or an alternate term. DGG (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live action gaming[edit]

Article describes a variant of live action role-playing game with no evidence of the notability of the variant. The name of the variant appears to be a neologism. Previous versions appeared to promote a group called "Live Action Gaming" for which there was likewise no evidence of notability, but the promotion of which may explain why this article was created. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to live action role-playing game. It might be a neologism, but for people unfamiliar with RPGs and LARPs it is a reasonable search term. A redirect would also mean we'd get the additional advantage of making recreation less likely. -Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MacGyverMagic. A redirect would be a better solution than a delete in my opinion, because it is plausible that someone would use the search term when trying to find the main article. FingersOnRoids 20:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no problem with a redirect, if it's estabished here that an article under this name is not warranted but it's considered a plausible search term. However, as someone well-versed in larp, I've never heard "live action gaming" used as a synonym for larp and don't see any reason to expect it will be used much as a search term. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was going to say redirect to the correct terminology, but as an avid LARPer half a world away from Ryan Paddy I have also never heard this usage. The revision history statistics confirm that very few people (possibly all of them editors) are searching for this string. Of course, redirects are cheap. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per MGM, just to be safe... -Pax85 (talk) 07:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Early delete as the article meets the criteria for a speedy deletion. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tait Pollack[edit]

Questionable notability and autobiographical, contrary to WP:YOURSELF JGHowes ^talk 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete most notable for getting a photo into his school art show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable; not speedy though -- asserts notability but fails to establish it. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI autobio that doesn't meet WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Speedy delete lack of supporting evidence suggests lack of notability, article contrary to WP:YOURSELF. Appears to be about a photographer who has just completed graduate college and uses his photographs in his own company, Dilate clothing. DiverScout (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Christopher[edit]

Unsourced, non-notable BLP. Filled with rumors and lacks encyclopedic depth. MBisanz ^talk 22:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-"Notability" is not a policy but a "guideline," I oppose deletion for "notability" which is a nebulous concept here. Time should be given for the material to be verified.--JRiverton (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis would you propose we keep articles? Delete them? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lack of sources is a problem but notability is clear if the statements in the article can be validated. Looie496 (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be notable in his line of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources verifying the assertion of notability are found and included. X MarX the Spot (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep lacks sources, looks okay though. Versus22_talk 10:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Subject might be known to some fans of gay porn but that doesn't make him notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. 67.79.157.50 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:PORNBIO. The person in question has not met the requirements. FingersOnRoids 20:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:PORNBIO on all 3 counts. Outsider80 (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Flied Lice Twice is a dead giveaway.). Regent Spark (crackle and burn) 03:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faloola Chong[edit]

Hoax article, grotesquely over-hyped, about a Youtube "celebrity". Just plausible-enough looking, I regretfully suppose, to avoid a speedy WP:CSD#G3; but this "international superstar" gets 330 Google hits, from the likes of last.fm (which says most of the "20 million sales" of her album came from Cheadle), moopy.org and Facebook. 200 million Youtube views are claimed: Youtube itself shows a total of under 1,000. None of the claimed awards are true; the 2009 Grammys for instance, don't have a "Best Looking Female" award. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - This should have been A7'ed, so I tagged it. Claims to notability are a valid block to CSD, as long as they are not ridiculously bogus to begin with. §FreeRangeFrog 22:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 says: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." Depends what one considers credible: maybe because I am not familiar with that "scene", the claims seemed to me suspicious but not immediately absurd; it took me some research before I was sure. But I shall have no complaints if your speedy is upheld. JohnCD (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The operative phrase here being credible claim of significance :) §FreeRangeFrog 23:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism. Only claims of notability are extremely absurd. 20 million copies worldwide? Bullshit. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- hoax, but the hoax spreads well beyond Wikipedia. Looie496 (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. X clamation point 03:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool "Disco" Dan[edit]

It's an article about graffitti, it hardly seems notable. The Cool Kat (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Non-notable person/ artist. Tagged. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the tag. He was a visible, frequently mentioned tagger who got written up in the press on various occasions. I'll do a little research for sources, but I just wanted to mention this in regard to my deletion of the speedy tag. —Largo Plazo (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as above. Grafitti artists can be notable under certain circumstances. Taggers? Not so much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks WP:N, WP:V. Versus22_talk 00:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Looie496 (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Sure as heck is notable locally. I added some info and references. There are plenty more mentions in the Washington Post over the years, as well as in the Washington City Paper, particularly during the Borf episode a couple of years ago, when people were drawing comparisons between Borf and the character that preceded him, Cool "Disco" Dan. Even recently, the City Paper web site had a blurb exhorting the new president to buy himself a piece of local lore—a CDD poster. That said, I leave it to the rest of you to opine on whether his local notability taken with any possible mentions in non-D.C. sources reaches the level of WP:N. —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is an argument for a Washington, D.C., graffiti scene article, rather than lots of tiny articles about non-notable vandals. THF (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trivial mentions in the sources added, and the trivia and WP:PUFF added to the article do not add up to notability. THF (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the fact that that one particular person is invoked by separate people in different contexts to convey a sense of the scene in Washington, D.C., implies his notability. It certain implies an assumption of recognizability. I also don't think that multiple, lengthy articles about the person in a major newspaper over a period of years are "trivial mentions". I'm not saying any of this means he's important, but importance isn't a factor in assessing WP:Notability. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Washington Post article runs to over 4000 words, and is completely about the subject. How can anyone call that a "trivial mention"? Easily passes notability guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hoo boy. Err on the side of Keep. Do we still not have a WikiWho for things like this? Ventifax (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article in the Washington Post, work in the permanent collection of the Corcoran.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient reliable source material to meet wikipedia requirements. Ty 17:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems sufficiently sourced..Modernist (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gore[edit]

Former college football player who was cut even before appearing in training camp with the Dolphins, no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE as he didn't play a game in the NFL Delete Secret ^account 20:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Parslad (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frankston Iced Tea[edit]

Delete—This topic is not notable; Google main turns up only wikipedia articles, and news searches turn up no hits. I can't think of a relevant CSD code for it, however. →If you have questions, please leave a comment on my talk page (JakeBathman) 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V and WP:N. Procedural note: The AfD should run now, but in future you could use {{subst:prod|fails [[WP:N]]}} in cases like this.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, I'll keep that in mind next time.→If you have questions, please leave a comment on my talk page (JakeBathman) 01:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detele: non-notable drink receipt, completely unsourced. ww2censor (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, no sources specified, Googling shows nothing. Looie496 (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge with Long Island Iced Tea. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC) I've been bold and merged the text. Close early? Bearian (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 20:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dołęga-Zaleski and Dołęga-Mycielski[edit]

Bottom line, those two families of Polish nobility don't assert their notability nor cite any reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a genealogy of family history nor a host for non-notable people or families. I am listing those two families at AfD because the prod nomination on their pages was removed. For further details, see archived discussion on notability of Polish families at WikiProject Poland and the new proposed guideline to what makes a family notable at list of Polish nobility. PS. I am not including the Dołęga-Ossowski article in this nomination;; while I still dispute its notability at least it has some content..._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The basic factual information in the articles, that the Dołęga-Zalescy and Dołęga-Mycielscy families were once Hrabia (Counts), is not disputed by the nominee. IMO, that means they were notable once, and notability is timeless. I could also be slightly concerned if the nominee is on a personal mission to purge info from Wiki based on self-made notability criteria, for which (in my interpretation) there is no obvious [1] consensus. Earlier deletion discussions [2] seem to have been based on genealogy concerns (difficult to say now, when the article is deleted), but I see no such issue here. The articles are mere stubs, but this is not a valid reason for deletion - it could be a reason to demote the information to a List of Hrabia though. The verifiability issue is not an acute or critical problem here - the Dołęga, the Mycielski and the Zaleski ([3]) (in various transliterations) - can be verified, so I would give them the benefit of doubt, if verifiable sources could be found for articles. Online verifiability of families of old Counts is expectedly difficult, but a manual check at the Polish National Library should be a relatively simple task, and that would settle the issue once and for all. [I'm personally frustrated with these notability discussions, which I consider inherently subjective.] I'm probably leaning heavily on WP:NOTPAPER in my support, and I may be a minority around here. I would like to laud the nominee for an overt and transparent nomination, thanks for alerting me to the issue on my talk page. (added links) Power.corrupts (talk) 09:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to be an inclusionist myself, but I draw the line at articles which state little but: "This family existed." Unless it can be shown that this family was notable, it has no place on this project, I am afraid. Did it have several notable members? Did it influence the history or economy of the region (or the country)? Unreferenced claim that the family had a title of a count just doesn't cut it, I am afraid. PS. Polish Wikipedia has a list of Polish count families (pl:Lista polskich rodów hrabiowskich); Zaleski family is there, but not the Mycielski. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided I have found nothing regarding Dołęga-Zaleski in Google-Books, and I have found nothing of any value on the net, the names seperately do appear in Boniecki's work but are not listed together. It appears to me that the articles are probably meant to be Zaleski family, part of the Dołęga clan/Coat of Arms. Same goes for Dołęga-Mycielski, although one relevent google book result pops up for Dołęga-Mycielscy, though it is only a snippet. I will check more source material before coming to a conclusion. --Milicz (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep if we're taking about the Zaleski's and Mycielski's of the Dołęga clan. The Zaleski family is notable under the Polish wikipedia guidelines, the Zaleski's of the Dołegą coat of arms are written up by Niesiecki (available in Google Books). [4] Same goes for Mycielski [5]. "Kronika żałobna rodzin Wielkopolskich od 1863-1876 r" By Teodor Żychliński writes about the Mycielskich quite extensively and both noble families have plenty of source material to rummage through. Clearly the articles need to be sourced, but the families are notable as Zaleski and Mycielski. --Milicz (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no problem with stubs but even stubs should contain enough info to allow determining if the subject is notable or not. — Kpalion^(talk) 18:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete depending on the meaning of "Count" if it was one of the lower levels of the nobility, the family is not notable. (just like English baronets are not)DGG (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the information about them being counts was even referenced... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H. H. Holmes: America's First Serial Killer[edit]

Article was deleted through a prod last year because it has no sources, no indication of notability, and the article was created for self-promotion purposes by an account that did nothing but make articles about films created by this person and adding links to these articles in other articles. For some reason I do not understand, an admin restored it today thanks to a request by a single anon IP user months later and says an AFD is necessary instead. DreamGuy (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think articles deleted by a prod are always restored upon request. It is treated the same way as a contested prod, where no reason needs to be given (at least that is how it seems to be handled from what I have seen). Calathan (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd to me, but oh well. I can certainly file an AFD if I need to... and I did, obviously. DreamGuy (talk) 22:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in addition to the Screamfest award, it seems to have been somewhat widely reviewed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to being an awarding winning film [6], there at at least 17 external reviews found on-line[7] as mentioned above. Article meets the General Notability Guideline requirement "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." The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking, specifically the Screamfest Horror Film Festival award for "Best Horror Documentary" in 2004. Esasus (talk) 23:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fick Mich... und halt Dein Maul![edit]

Per request of new user Steffengr: "One of the most irrelevant articles I've ever seen! Its an almost unknown german rapper. And there isnt even a german article about this!" (see: [8]) --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability: one hit via Google News, that's it, and it mentions the record only in passing. That the German Wikipedia does not have an article on this is not surprising, and does not bear on whether the English Wikipedia should have one. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence this ever charted, even in his native Germany. WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Album does exist but, as shown there, was not notable. Esteffect (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the guys this "porn producer" has worked with have some dubious fame in Germany (due to extremely bad taste), but I've never heard of him at all. No charts, no media coverage, since it's banned in Germany and probably not known outside the country.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Outdatedness of Human Beings[edit]

Rejected speedy deletion. Doesn't come under A3, which it was tagged for, or A7, which it wasn't. Doesn't seem to meet the notability criteria as no relaible soruces can be found to back it up. Patton^t/c 19:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A Google search for "The outdatedness of human beings" returns precious few hits, but a search on Google.de for "Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen" yields much more information. The book seems to be notable, at least in the sphere of the the German language. The author is also quite notable in Germany. §FreeRangeFrog 19:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BTW, the book is also highly quoted in German literature. §FreeRangeFrog 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Rename to "Die Antiquiertheit des Menschen" which is the actual title of the book (ISBN 3406476457). Keep the stub as a rather notable philosophical work.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with current title. Not many hits on Google books but the ones that do result list it as a significant work. Please use English, or we'll end up with article titles written in Arabic and Chinese. More importantly this translated title is used in some the academic literature. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 21:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per frog and Marshall--but I agree with Marshall's suggestion for renaming. Lawyer, maybe a redirect is in place, but that this is English Wikipedia does not mean that book titles need to be translated, esp. if the book hasn't been translated. Some literature may refer to a translated title, but surely their bibliography will have the correct and proper German title. There is no requirement for such translation in WP:USEENGLISH; WP:USEENGLISH#Include_alternatives and WP:USEENGLISH#Divided_usage support a redirect, in my reading of it. But that should be an English redirect to the article and its German title, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As for the title, as the book has not been translated into English, the title must be the German title--we cannot make up translated titles for ourselves when is no standard English form of the title. It has been translated into French as "L'obsolescence de l'homme, sur l'âme à l'époque de la deuxième révolution industrielle" and Italian as "L'uomo è antiquato; considerazioni sull'anima nell'era della seconda rivoluzione industriale." I am not in the least convinced, however, that it is appropriate for a separate article unless there is something to be said. That it would be notable enough to justify an article does not mean it must have one, unless someone is prepared to write more than a single paragraph of content. About 150 US libraries have the German, btw, & the existence of the French & Italian translation implies a considerable importance. My own University's copy though is in storage, not having been used in many years. I note that the German Wikipedia does not have articles on this or any other of Anders' individual books, & I respect their judgment. DGG (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I usually agree with DGG, and I'm surprised to find myself disagreeing now. In this case I disagree that we need "more than a single paragraph of content", because I think stubs have value, and I don't feel the German wikipedia's decisions should influence ours.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Others have good comments above. Here are my opinions: (1) The title should be in German if no English translation exists and can be verified. If we translate the title, that would be akin to original research. (2) The existence or lack thereof of this article on dewiki is completely irrelevant to a deletion discussion here. The German Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are significantly different from (and stricter than) the English Wikipedia's criteria. (See also WP:NOTDE) (3) This book appears to be notable enough for its own article. The fact that it is currently a stub is largely irrelevant, unless it is determined that there is not enough material to ever expand it, but remember also that there is no deadline. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move w/ Redirect Keep this as a redirect to German title, for now. Ventifax (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G7. Frank | talk 12:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Schuler[edit]

Delete unsure if he meets WP:ATHLETE, being 17th in a competition that our article describes as follows: "The cup usually consist of juniors, or jumpers who are fighting for a spot on their nation's World Cup team" Seems like an Olympics trials sort of competition and generally, those competitors who don't qualify aren't considered notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see why 17th place in anything at all should confer notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 17th place in a contest below the highest level definitely does not pass WP:ATHLETE. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rikki Sylvan[edit]

No notability established for this individual separate from the band and an editor is reverting when this gets redirected to the parent article. Sources are bad, just to one main site (which even there refers to the band and not the person) that seems to be a mirror of the content in an external link. Yet another case of an article that was prodded and had the prod removed without any reason that fit Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a merge with Rikki And The Last Days Of Earth is a possibility here, but there's enough solo work outside that band, including working with Gary Numan and William Orbit, that an article is appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So... do you have independent, reliable nontrivial sources documenting that the work outside the band rises to a notability level that would earn someone a full fledged Wikipedia article? DreamGuy (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google brings up a book called The Dark Reign of Gothic Rock, ISBN 190092448X. Allmusic also has a full bio. I suspect there's more though, as the UK music press of the 70s and 80s is presumably not necessarily available online in searchable archive form. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge with redirect. Notoriety as a horrible band [9] is notability. Ventifax (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Non-admin closure of speedy delete by User:TeaDrinker §FreeRangeFrog 00:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life in south edmonton[edit]

Per PROD, which was (surprise, surprise) removed without explanation by the article's creator. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 19:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax. Not a single Google hit (unusual to the point of impossibility for a TV series) and the "official site" link goes to an unrelated software company. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that didn't even occur to me, but now you mention it, the actors' names have no Google hits, either... ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 19:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Website points to Lucas Software Engineering, and a search on CTV brings zero matches for something that's up and coming. As such, no assertion of notability. --Sigma 7 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I cannot believe this is anything but a hoax; CTV just doesn't work this way. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete blatant hoax Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Non-admin closure of speedy delete by User:ST47 §FreeRangeFrog 03:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Upatyaka[edit]

Delete no indication that this radio station is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for lack of context. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On Demand Analysis[edit]

Article was speedied once under WP:CSD#G11, then re-created, then tagged for speedy again, which was declined and replaced with a PROD, which was then contested, with the reason given being the company's client list. News mentions on "On Demand Analysis" are sparse and mostly made up of press releases. The refs given are hardly reliable at this point. As with most company profiles on Wikipedia, this is essentially an advertisement in the absence of some superlative attribute, which seems to be missing. I do not believe this company meets WP:CORP at all. §FreeRangeFrog 19:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Association with notable companies is never grounds for notability on Wikipedia. All references are the company's own website apart from two references that list pretty much every software product and company going. Neither of those count. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails corp. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:CORP; tries to puff itself by listing clients, but notability is not contagious. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star_Wars:_The_Old_Republic#Other_media. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: The Old Republic, Threat of Peace[edit]

Non-notable web content. Unreferenced. --EEMIV (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is now refrenced and is notable web content as it is published by darkhorse and has over 10,000 readers (numbers are unkwown, but are expected to reached almost 100,000 before game release). Alexsau1991 (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wars: The Old Republic, where it's already covered. Online comic to promote upcoming game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Is this web-content or physical content? The article speaks of a tpb being published. I don't want to get into semantics too heavily, but one thing I've always held in common with other people who used the term tpb was that it was a physical object. Has that changed? Hiding T 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 11:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to Star Wars: The Old Republic. Does not currently warrant its own article. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a total of three pages for the webcomic. Dream Focus 02:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. WikiScrubber (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bel-Air Patrol[edit]

Not notable, not verifiable, blatant advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MassivRestarter (talk • contribs) 2009/03/03 01:25:30

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - was tagged as {{advert}} and other tags, tags removed without good reason. Blatantly aimed at promoting company. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--wow, that is blatant. At the risk of making the nominator's case less clear for those who come after me, I'm going to remove a couple of the spammiest claims for the article, since it's a bit embarrassing to have WP be a billboard. Revert me if I go too far. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even after the worst stuff was removed, it's still a pretty blatant ad, plus it doesn't indicate notability. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatent spam for a non notable company. Nuttah (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Tone 21:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Coleman[edit]

An unreferenced article, I can find no independent third party sources. One album, self published. Fails WP:MUSIC. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 14:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no notability whatsoever, let alone anything even coming close to passing WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. "His own label" gives the game away a bit. And A9 speedy delete that album too. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Zainab Tari[edit]

Contested prod/prod2, tags removed with explanation. Unlike most AfDs, I don't have any major concerns with notability. However, this article is horribly horribly unencyclopaedic for all sorts of reasons, the worst two problems being total disregard for Wikipedia's policies on neutral point of view, original research and ownership. If anyone wants to fix this article, I will withdraw this nomination, although this bio might be better placed in the Sumra Dynasty article. However, this article needs a fundamental rewrite to be anywhere near Wikipedia's standards, and I'd rather not do it myself if it means an edit war. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is asserted amd several print sources are listed. This is not the forum to deal with problems with article ownership. Edward321 (talk) 06:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And looking at the article's edit history, there is no article ownership problem either. The only edit the article creator made after creation was removing the Prod. Edward321 (talk) 06:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem wasn't so much that, it was the header and footer on the original page [10] that heavily implied the the article is meant to be attributed to the original author. And, coupled with the big problems on original research and non-neutrality, and the possibility that this would fit better in a larger article, I wasn't sure whether it was worth bothering to try salvaging anything. If people would rather it was salvaged, I'll do that when I've got the time, but my quick assessment it that they'll be hardly anything left after the non-encyclopedic content goes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is asserted and several print sources are listed. I know nothing about the subject, but I've removed the author's commentary and the worst POV/OR stuff, wikified it a little and added tags for improvement. Deleting the article would lose the information which is there and would not stop an edit war as the article could be recreated. Edgepedia (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a thought, the article does need to be moved to Zainab Tari.

Withdraw. Clearly there is a will to salvage this. Unless someone else wants to do this, I'll get to work later removing all of the unverifiable/disputable stuff. Feel free to put back anything you think I snipped over-zealously. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm closing this as no consensus, and as an article I can perhaps see clearly because I do not care very much about either about the subject or the specific question at issue. I don't really see any agreement, and I think both a keep and delete result would be defensible. I suggest that when the current season is over, and Manchester United either does or does not achieve the necessary victories, the situation about the article will be clearer, there will be more sources directly on point, and it will be time for another debate. DGG (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Quintuple[edit]

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

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

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

Not an established term but a neologism. Sources have not referred to it as a capitalised "The Quintuple" and mention winning five cups as a quintuple only numerically (similarly we do not need an article on quintuplets). No team has achieved this feat and the idea is merely the media's prospective forecast for how Manchester United's season could theoretically turn out, thus breaking WP:Crystal. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - regardless of any club fortunes (United or otherwise), winning the quintuple has been clearly defined and discussed in numerous notable media sources and is clearly possible both in England and worldwide. The term has entered the lexicon of English football. 'The Quintuple' may be defined - in the same manner as The Treble or The Quadruple (which by WP:NEO would also have to be deleted as per arguements above) - as winning 5 top-tier trophies in a single season (excluding Super Cups and Charity Shields in the same was as those trophies are exculded by consensus from other trophy multiples). It could not be won before 2000 (and until 2005-present) since the FIFA Club World Cup did not exist, hence it is difficult for any club to have won it given the timescale. The concept itself is seperate from any 'crystal-balling' of United's fortunes in this season and is/should be kept so in the article. Jw2035 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This is getting silly now. IMO, we should only have articles for The Double and The Treble, with any further multiples expanded upon in the Treble article. Otherwise, in countries where, for example, they have seven or eight competitions to be won, we could end up with articles for the "Septuple" or the "Octuple"! – Pee Jay 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which countries, with notable media coverage, have 7 or 8 top tier league and cup competitions in football then, not includign super cups, charity shields or the like? Jw2035 (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was using it as a deliberately silly example to show how these things can get out of hand. However, IIRC, in Wales there are six competitions available to some teams in the North, creating the possibility of a "sextuple". Either way, I think it's daft. – Pee Jay 18:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not top tier if they're only regional. and questionable notability if they're localised to north wales. i see your point on it being daft, but surely The Quadruple and The Treble are equally daft! Jw2035 (talk) 18:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO would only apply if somebody here had invented the term in response to Man United's season so far. The term is being widely used in the media. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard it used for Chelsea in prev seasons, need to track down a few sources though - particularly after the abramovich takeover 129.11.77.197 (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NEO. Just the media's lazy way of referring to a club (possibly) winning five trophies in a single season. And let's face it, the FIFA Club World Cup is hardly a top level competition, it's more like a pre-season friendly tournament. If Man United were to lose at Fulham next weekend, we'd probably never hear the phrase again. Black Kite 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse Cup is here by the way. 'Pre-season friendly' my foot, and since when do your personal opinions count over notable, well ref'ed media? and if you believe this is WP:NEO, why not The Treble or The Double? Jw2035 (talk) 18:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Man United were to lose at Fulham next weekend, we'd probably never hear the phrase again - that is WP:CRYSTAL. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Jmorrison230582 above, you're the one crystal-balling Jw2035 (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to be humorous, but you're also missing the point. The Double, and to a lesser extent The Treble, are well known, referenced, defined and discussed terms. This isn't. WP:CRYSTAL is irrelevant to my Fulham comment, the point of which was that the term could well disappear as quickly as it was coined. This is because as a neologism, it isn't defined - "Quintuple" is only being used in those sources as an alternative phrase for "winning five trophies". Certainly nowhere is it defined as the those trophies which the article defines it as, which also makes it original research. Compare The Double, which in England has for many years been defined as the League Title / FA Cup. Black Kite 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the event is so rare that the term may be equally rarely used at times where such an acheivement is not possible. This does not make it a neologism. How many times was 'treble' (let alone 'The Treble') used between '77 (liverpool) and '99 (united)? It is clearly defined - even the bookmakers define it - in numerous sources (...nowhere is it defined as the those trophies which the article defines it as... - perhaps try actually reading the citations of which there are a half dozen!). Further, please find me a cited article in The Treble or The Quadruple that goes into in-depth discussion purely on the topic without discussing any team that may, has or could win one? Jw2035 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the citations. Nowhere is there a source which states that "The Quintuple is when a team wins trophies A,B,C,D and E". The word is merely being used to indicate that Man Utd could win five trophies this season, which just happen to be those five. To give an example of how it isn't defined, what would've happened if Man Utd had dropped into the UEFA Cup at the group stage this season, and then won that? Would that still be a Quintuple? We don't know, and that's because the term isn't defined or discussed - it's merely used as a media shorthand. Black Kite 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and The Treble' isn't? I've never seen the Sun headline 'X wins three trophies!'. You've obviously not read hard enough - i'll let you in on a few more: http://www.skybet.com/skybet?action=GoEvEv&id=11667149 defines it, http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/league_cup/7917973.stm in the first 2 paragraphs and http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/leagues/premierleague/manutd/4927009/Manchester-Uniteds-quest-for-quintuple-What-are-the-chances.html lays it out in detail wrt United in it. Perhaps your objections are more down to the number of Leeds United articles you edit than anything real? Jw2035 (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe my problem with the article is that I support a different club, there seems little point engaging with you any more. I note that you've engaged in this type of incivility before. I think the point is made, anyway. Black Kite 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, any past disputes i've had in the heat of the moment are nothing to do with this debate. I've made my point, and with the last I seem to have hit the nail right on the head. Jw2035 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Timbouctou (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NEO there need to be reliable sources that are substantively about the subject, not just sources that use the word. There do not appear to be sources that are about "the Quintuple" so there should not be an article.Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree, a number of the available articles fully discuss the composition of a quintuple and discuss the subject in context Jw2035 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with Jw, enough sources 129.11.77.197 (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC) This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and PeeJay. Giant Snowman 21:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Otto4711 King of the North East 21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also didn't Man U lose in the 2008 UEFA Super Cup meaning that they have already failed to win The Sextuple? King of the North East 21:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, since as per consensus on The Treble, The Quadruple and The Double, Super Cups and the like do not count towards any multiple trophy win. And as per WP:NEO as argued above they will have to be AfD'd after this one. Jw2035 (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that nominating either The Double or The Treble at AfD would be regarded as a rather WP:POINT move. Black Kite 23:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply stating that these as as much covered by your arguements as this article. I am making my point through discussion as per WP:POINT Jw2035 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - well known, well covered terminology in English football (plus used in FM!)81.96.246.118 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC) This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- as per WP:NEO In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. This topic is a)notable, b)cited numerous times in reliable sources, c)for which no other acceptable description fits. It is no more a neologism than The Treble, Group of death, Midfield Maestro or any others under Category:Football (soccer) terminology. There are also sources which both use (in discussion, or for gaming purposes - bookies) and which are about the term in describing what the quintuple is, both of which meet WP:NEO. Further, even FIFA uses the term on it's own website as per cited refs. Please consider further before voting for deletion. Jw2035 (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or maybe merge into a suitable Man U article. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:CRYSTAL prevents any merger into a United article Jw2035 (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what does that say about the article's content? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying merging into a Man United article would be crystal-balling, the article itself need not be any more connected to United than The Quadruple need be connected to Glasgow Celtic Jw2035 (talk) 12:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that all the sources do not discuss "The Quintuple" but rather Manchester United's possibility of winning five trophies this season. That is what should be in that article (i.e. "The press noted that the team could possibly finish the season with an unprecedented five major trophies, but manager Alex Ferguson downplayed the idea."). That is what this article boils down to; that sentence sums up the article's content. I suggest a merge. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have been a lot of press coverage on it, not sure if it could be merged into another article? seems useful anyway Kevr22 (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC) This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until/if a club actually manages to pull off the feat. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - possible even if has not been won, also art. on trebles and doubles 91.121.156.130 (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)— 91.121.156.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep* [Until Manchester United loses in a competition in 2009, they are playing for a 5-throphy haul, i.e. The Quintuple. If and when they lose, this should be deleted. Until then, definately keep.] unclewiker 5/3/09— 66.216.159.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. King of the North East 22:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Def Keep - come on united! Xxm85064 (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2009~~ (UTC)— Xxm85064 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with above, but article shoudlnt be all about man yoo 129.11.77.197 (talk) 21:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)Already commented. 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC) This vote is a WP:SOCK John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question It has plenty of sources; why couldn't it be merged somewhere? After all, we wouldn't delete quintuplet if it were an article right now. I can't suggest a good target, as I know virtually nothing about English football. Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe it could be placed in the Carling Cup section of Manchester United F.C. season 2008–09, stating the press reaction to their victory (i.e. the possibility of a quintuple victory) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The subject of the article doesn't relate any more to Manchester United than it does to any other club that could potentially be in the same situation. The article should just be deleted. While rare, there is nothing special about winning five trophies in one season. – PeeJay 04:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please see my comments above. I think that the article topic matter is misrepresented—the press coverage is about MU's current season, not "The Quintuple". Sillyfolkboy (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it really doesn't "exist"... It's just now talked about it... But it's really just an expression instead of "X are going to win five titles this year", also, just personally I would consider the club world cup (and the community shield) more related to the last season, rather than this, but that might just be me and Liverpool have already won f i i v e (<-the real and only quintuple in my heart!) in a year! c h ¹⁰ · 12:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Very easily meets WP:N. Just look at the number of references to this in the media - [11]. There are literally 1000s of articles relating to this in the last few weeks alone from major media outlets all over the world. I can't see any basis for this article not being here, without also deleting The Quadruple, The Treble, or The Double. Nfitz (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is, those are long standing and in common usage, they have all been achieved whereas this "Quintuple" is highly WP:NEO and as many have said, it's rather taking a quadruple and sticking on a micky mouse cup (a cup imo, having more to do with last season than this, seeing it wont be all won in one year but two). c h ¹⁰ · 05:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is extremely specious and POV. To refer to the FIFA Club World Cup as a micky mouse cup shows extreme Euro-centric (as well as displaying ignorance about the origin of the term "micky mouse cup" - see Mickey Mouse cup) bias; dismissing the highest level of international club football violates WP:BIAS. The argument that it has more to do with the previous season makes no more sense than saying the Champions League is related to the previous season - as it is; and even if it was true that it belonged to the previous season, that that only changes the definition of "Quintuple", it doesn't have an relevence to the validity of the page itself. Finally you claim that it is highly WP:NEO, however the widespread use of the term in secondary sources would suggest otherwise. Nfitz (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT#NEWS. This term itself has to be analyzed in order to appear on Wikipedia, it cannot be namedropped and get an article. Themfromspace (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G4 Tone 21:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FreeOrion[edit]

Non-notable, unverifiable. Bdb484 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - recreation of a previously deleted article. DreamGuy (talk) 19:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) as blatant recreation of deleted material. MuZemike 20:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is subject is not notable per guidelines. COI has no role in this as it could be overcome if the subject were notable. StarM 12:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jae Bryson[edit]

Non-notable author. Only 820 google hits, which is low for an author, and doesn't seem to meet any of the notability criteria for authors (Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals). Prodego ^talk 17:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is mostly about books he did not write, or has not yet written. One book only, a very mild success 129 copies in WorldCat libraries. DGG (talk) 19:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only reliable nontrivial independent source I saw was a local media mention of him participating in a local business, which doen't rate an encyclopedia article. DreamGuy (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not established, and while the number of Ghits is low, the number of GNews archive hits is way lower at 14. To me, that is more an indicator of lack of notability. Lack of Google hits doesn't deny notability, although it often correlates; but if there are few or no GNews hits, it indicates that there are few or no articles in independent, reliable sources that constitute coverage of the topic or individual. Even if there were tens of thousands of hits in Google, the real scarcity of independent hits in news archives shows lack of suitability. Also, only four hits in GBooks, and only one of them is a book written by Bryson. (Not intending to use a reverse-WP:OSE point, but we did speedy the article for Chuck Hustmyre just a few months ago and he has authored at least five books.) Frank | talk 21:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only one book published. Does not meet threshold of WP:CREATIVE Unionsoap (talk) 14:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Mild success, huh? So, what is the threshold number of google hits for an author? What is the threshold number of books written -- that are published by a major publishing house? Is there a directive NOT to mention projects that didn't come to fruition? And, how many other published authors' entries are being considered for deletion today? Honestly, thank God for Uncyclopedia. I am appalled at the arrogant and pedantic nature of the so-called Wiki contributors. Though I was warned it would be a nightmare dealing with this group, I ignored those warnings.Brrryce (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about notability, not "everything and everyone that ever existed". Perhaps the reason you were "warned it would be a nightmare" is because when people try to add articles about themselves and/or people they are close to, it often causes hard feelings. That's because if a topic is notable, usually someone else will create an article about it. If nobody else has done so...that in itself is a decent indicator that sufficient notability simply isn't there.

This is a discussion. If notability can be shown, then the proper course of action here is to simply show it. Many times these discussions seem to be going one way and then turn around when enough people find enough information to support a different conclusion. Frank | talk 17:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank God for Uncyclopedia, where people like you can go with your tomfoolery and leave the people who want to build an encyclopedia alone. Why don't you do that instead of wasting everyone's time with frivolous admin recalls? JuJube (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a comment best left on a different page, JuJube, not on an unrelated AfD, as it does not help. --64.85.217.174 (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete – notability not established. Article seems to plainly be a vanity piece (which is ironic via the comment regarding the "arrogant and pedantic Wiki-contributors" comment). MuZemike 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable vanity piece. Rklawton (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Frank. Notability not established; article lists one book he wrote, one he contributed to. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't meet notability criteria, also written by subject (see WP:COI). NawlinWiki (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:N due to a lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. The book which was "as told to" him by the two football players, got several reviews, but probably not enough notability for its own article. Bryson himself got a bit of coverage in the Minneapolis/St Paul papers as publisher of his local "One Nation" newspaper. Edison (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question I know this may be pure coincidence but is User:Brrryce related to Jae Bryson in some way? Knowing one way or the other would strongly inform my decision. - Dravecky (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A: They are related, have a look here where Brrryce filed a admin recall against User:MBisanz. In the filer section he identifies himself as Jae Bryson. Oli ^OR Pyfan! 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should be about the article, period. WP:COI is not a reason to delete an article. Frank | talk 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI alone may not be a good reason, but it does cast a light on any possible POV, promotion or spin. It could also suggest a WP:SPA or WP:POINT when combined with the editor's other contributions. So it is definitely a valid concern for this AfD. --64.85.217.174 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, COI isn't a reason to delete, and it really isn't useful in this discussion. That the article is almost certainly written by its subject is not really in doubt, but it is also not relevant. If the subject is notable, we can take care of COI later. If not, we delete, and then COI doesn't matter. That's the only thing this discussion is about. As for WP:SPA, again - it doesn't apply; the question is notability. And WP:POINT most certainly has no place in this discussion; nobody is disrupting the project to make any points here. The process is running its normal course. Frank | talk 14:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete certainly not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Really ought to be speedy deleted under criterion A7... Oli ^OR Pyfan! 00:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Pyfan. JuJube (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as while his book was negatively reviewed by USA Today, he drew some attention for reporting on the I-35 bridge collapse, and he ran for office in Minneapolis so verifiability might be achieved but it just doesn't quite reach the notability threshold. The COI issue does erode some of the good faith I would normally assume here but the simple fact is the subject is currently insufficiently notable. - Dravecky (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - At least he had the good sense to escape from Davenport, Iowa. That ought to be worth something. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey now, Davenport is my second-favorite of the Quad Cities (I'll always love you more, Rock Island, Illinois!) and there's no call for snark in the AfD process. - Dravecky (talk) 09:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the Rock Island Line, she's a mighty good road... Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability demonstrated. Chillum 15:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Did not demonstrate notability. -Pax85 (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't care about the Google hits, but I can't see the evidence of notability we normally seek: multiple non-trivial references in reliable sources. In the absence of this verification, deletion is the only option. --Dweller (talk) 11:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noe Serrano[edit]

Contested PROD. While the content is rather subpar and fansite-like, that can be fixed. The issue is that I cannot find any reliable third-party sources that could establish notability under WP:CREATIVE. All the reviews I can find are tied to galleries and auction sites that handle the artist's work for profit, or happen to be on non-notable blogs. This person does interesting work to be sure, but I do not believe his notability extends beyond the niche art scene of a few Spanish cities. Further, the creator seems to be an SPA tied to the commercial gallery where Serrano's work is shown and sold. News articles are also limited to local scope, always including the subject as simply one of multiple artists involved in exhibitions (e.g., here and here). §FreeRangeFrog 17:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All third party sources seem only to just mention Serrano as part of a larger group rather than focusing on him. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:CREATIVE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Wind: The Fight for the Future of Power in America[edit]

Non-notable movie. Google returns few results, most of them on AOL, MySpace, Facebook and blogs. Fails WP:FILM. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FILM and WP:V. IMDB states that the film isn't comming out until next year, so barring third-party non trivial sources, this also fails WP:CRYSTAL. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Any coverage in reliable sources may have enabled a merger to Cape Wind, but at the moment the article's placement here is premature. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Indian_name#Geographical_distribution. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ticku[edit]

The name may be common enough, but there is no assertion that anyone notable has that name. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Was going to !vote to Merge into Indian_name#Geographical_distribution, but I just went ahead and did it... Arakunem^Talk 21:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ticku as a family name is alive and well within the Indian Kashmiri Pandit community. These are the official North American Kashmiri Pandit organization websites. Please see http://koausa.org/koa/ and http://www.koacanada.org/

You can reach me at [email removed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.5.47 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Non-admin closure of speedy delete by User:ST47 §FreeRangeFrog 03:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renegade 6.0[edit]

Game tournament at a single university. No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely a gaming tournament at a university is in no way noatble. Spiesr (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable web content, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eliot Prince[edit]

There is no evidence or published works describing this person. Aaron carass (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a WP:HOAX: there is no such player on the Chelsea F.C. roster. Some kid dreamed this up, but it's vandalism: he or she should do well to pay more attention in English class as well. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wishful thinking by user:Princeeliot. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ray Brown (Magician/Illusionist)

Notability not established. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party references. Appears to be a local personality at best. Appears to be autobiographical.Rtphokie (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Even if the claimed media mentions are legit, it's all local stuff. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; pretty clear-cut case of a vanity page ("living the dream"...) for subject without notability. I've notified the author of this AfD; nominator, please do that yourself when you nominate articles. Drmies (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An award from an The Society of American Magicians would obviously be notable, but I'm having trouble verifying it. I'll see if I can get someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Magic to dig up a source to back it up. - Mgm|^(talk) 20:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find this award either. (The Young Magician link at http://www.magicsam.com/press/index2.html doesn't work for me. Stage magic is a notoriously hard area to get success in. Someone still at high school is unlikely to be sufficiently notable - and independent sources for notability seem to be lacking. While I wish Ray all luck, I feel the time is not yet for this article. Peridon (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also wish Ray all the success in the world and hope he'll find the fame he's working towards that will make notability a no brainer. I've tried improving the article myself, wikifying the references, cleaning up the prose, etc. but without significant 3rd party coverage this article still isn't up to WP:N standards.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable biography as it doesn't have the coverage required by WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per themfromspace. Antics don't help. -- samj _in ^out 15:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please make it vanish, or I suppose, delete. I can't find anything that makes me believe that this is more than a local reasonably talented kid. I suppose it isn't speedyable? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Not yet sufficiently notable. Give him a few years and then maybe. Thelongview (talk) 15:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. 129.88.65.39 (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PediaPress[edit]

Fails general and specific notability guidelines, the coverage by third party sources is minor and concerned exclusively with the partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation, making the creation of a substantial article satisfying NPOV and V impossible. Additional concerns of undue promotion due to the presence of PediaPress all over the site. Cenarium (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with complex rationale. I don't often cite WP:IAR, but I think this is one of the rare cases when it applies. -- I do acknowledge that by strict application of policy, this article should be deleted. According to WP:WIARM, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." In this case, Wikipedia's objectives as a free, online encyclopaedia and its open source philosophy are supported by the Wikimedia Foundation and Pedia Press directly and financially. Let's not bite the hand that might feed us: I think it behoves us as Wikipedians not to delete this article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. Received two paragraphs worth of notice from The Guardian; no opinion on whether the other sources are reliable or not. The article is written in good English and does not contain puffing that goes beyond what the sources support. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep based on S Marshall's rationale. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking "weak" based on the references Drmies added. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep even without Marshall's rationale! (But good call, SM ;) There are plenty of sources available in German and English (via Google News) to establish that this is notable well within the rules, and I've added a few to the article. Hey, we get 10%--I can't wait to see my first check. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, effectly works as a commercial, good example of WPPOV (articles about Wikipedia, Wikimedia and such given undue weight and importance). /Grillo (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Grillo, have you looked at the references? Surely you agree that the Guardian, the (German-language) PC World, and the Berner Zeitung are reliable sources, and that they do more than mention PediaPress in passing. Drmies (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely they are. But all of them are mentioning Pediapress in reference to "now it's possible to print Wikipedia articles". This could be mentioned in Wikipedia, not more. /Grillo (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is somewhat self-referential, but it doesn't make any sense whatsoever for Wikipedia to put a "create a book" box in everybody's sidebar by default, and then declare the organisation behind this "non-notable". There might have been a case for moving the article to the Wikipedia namespace until the whole things gains more momentum; but as it's already received coverage from the The Graudian and others I'd say this case no longer exists. If the article violates the letter of any notability rules (I don't think it does), let's ignore the rules' letter in favour of their spirit. Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Google/the sources mentioned on this page which seem to assert notability requirements in my eyes. FunPika 18:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was close early per WP:SNOW and delete. Obvious racist hoax. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rican Shits[edit]

Possible hoax. Beyond the obvious derogatory title, there is no evidence of published works describing this street gang. Search engine test finds the Wikipedia entry, a single blog mention, and lots of news articles containing either random expletives or misspellings of "shirt" and "ship". Delete unless reliable sources are provided to establish verifiability. --Allen3 ^talk 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources cited, no reliable ones found. This may be an attack page. JohnCD (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles about street gangs need to be fairly carefully sourced, given that the subject attracts both fear-mongering and swagger. This is not. No opinion on whether this is a hoax or an attack page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources, and all the reasons mentioned above.--E8 (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reeks of hoax, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's simple: The subject has no notability as established and verified by reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the above concerns, any article about a criminal gang that states its origins going back to 1692 reeks of hoax. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of verifiability. For a second there, I thought this was what happens after eating a bunch of Puerto Rican food. MuZemike 17:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm thinking this is an attack page by looking at the title. Just has no reliable sources to prove this is real. Versus22_talk 23:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This is quite obviously made up and as such should be deleted, I'm quite astonished no one noticed this before me. Polystyla (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Kugan[edit]

I declined the A7 speedy on this, because the circumstances surrounding Mr. Kugan's death is covered in general media. Coverage is here and here for example, if the article is kept they may be used to source the article. Nonetheless, I am bringing this to AFD, and recommending deletion since I think the article violates WP:NOT#NEWS. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunate, but fails WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:BIO1E, and possibly WP:SOAP. JohnCD (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I nominated it for the speedy, and i still don't see an assertion of notability, but still, this seems to be a WP:NOT#NEWS and probably WP:1E. --Ged UK 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A7. So non-notable his first name isn't in the article. THF (talk) 14:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet inclusion criteria. Per WP:BIO1E the information should be included in an article about the event. FloNight ♥♥♥ 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce DePalma[edit]

This bio of a quack inventor flunks WP:BIO, WP:ACADEMIC, and any other notability policy. Guy nominated it for deletion in April 2007, but some WP:ILIKEIT votes destroyed consensus, and two years later we still have an unreferenced article that is a mess. Since the prior AfD, Wikipedia consensus has grown for the need for references in biographies, and I believe the lack of improvement in the page in the last two years shows that Guy's original nomination was correct. THF (talk) 14:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article poses an interesting trilemma. You can only choose, which essential guideline to break:

Only write what is or can probably sourced by reliable sources (like the stub on dewiki[12], which will see a deletion debate soon). But then the article cannot assert the notability of DePalma
Take the stuff the self-proclaimed heirs of DePalma's ideas write on their web sites as source, violating WP:RS
Read the stuff DePalma has written himself, brush up your physics and synthetize an interesting article. Would be a nice piece of journalism, but violates WP:NOR here.

So my summary is, to proceed and delete, unless a white knight enters the stage and presents sources which we have missed in our search. --Pjacobi (talk) 16:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Perpetual motion machines are as plentiful as rumors about Paris Hilton, and some of them are notable, and some of their inventors are notable in ways other than idiotically attempting to ravage the laws of thermodynamics and make Carnot and Kelvin roll over in their graves, but neither this guy nor his theories seem to be either. And the fact that the bio has to mention the familial ties in the intro pretty much tells me this was written grasping at straws. §FreeRangeFrog 19:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the previous AfD hinged on people saying that he was notable among fans of perpetual motion ... but since that time, no one has been able to find any independant third party sources to demonstrate this notability. That (after two years) the only reference listed for this article is the subject's website should be a good indication that this guy just isn't notable. Heck, we don't even have independant verification of his being Brian DePalma's brother. HERE THERE YOU GO: www.experiencefestival.com/brian_de_palma_-_director_trademarks Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exists, but lacks in depth independent coverage. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:BIO does it. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I "created" the article long ago because it was unlinked from somewhere - one of his inventions, I believe. Fine with me to delete.--Justfred (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oak Room[edit]

Contested prod about a secret club. Univerifiable, probable hoax. There are zero ghits for "The Oak Room Club", the so-called website is a single page set up a couple of weeks ago with concealed whois info, and there are no other references. Fails WP:VER andy (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. "is reputed to be..." "there is evidence that..." but no source. Probable hoax, certainly fails WP:V - see also the List of Bad Article Ideas #6. JohnCD (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Club isn't prepared to release any more information or formally confirm or deny its existence (discretion gone mad, but there we are), so I'm happy for you to delete this article. Sorry for posting it in the first place, and thanks for your assistance pgrier (talk) 16:39, 4 March 2009 (GMT)

Comment - I recommended on the author's talk page that placing a G7 tag on the article would be a good way to get it removed. §FreeRangeFrog 19:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a hoax. Even if the club confirms it exists. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giuseppe Rotondella[edit]

I cannot find any Google hits for this person which support any of the claims. I suspect it is a hoax, perhaps related to User:Giuseppe509. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as vandalism - look at the author's Talk page! I've speedy-tagged the article. andy (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I considered speedying, but I have found that for some cases of repeated hoaxes/vandalism it is better to have a consensus to point to when G4-ing future incarnations. Additionally, it's not blatantly clear that it's a hoax, and nothing horrible is going to happen while we make up our minds... (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax, mostly copied from John Williamson (geologist) - even the name "Williamson" still appears in the text. JohnCD (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 15:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ashley Tisdale. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Alright It's OK[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Alright It's OK

Never charted. Not covered by multiple artists. Has won no awards. Unreleased. Fails WP:NSONGS and WP:CRYSTAL —Kww(talk) 13:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that article has been renamed since AFD has begun—Kww(talk) 23:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable song fails WP:MUSIC#SONGS. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nominator says it all. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashley Tisdale. The single is going to be released yet and there's no sufficient information to keep the article. But, the single was already announced so the article will be re-created several times, so I think that a redirect would be great. Decodet (talk) 18:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Ashley Tisdale discography, there is insufficient material for a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: notability of song not established WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ashley Tisdale. AshleyMusic.com get for us more informations about this album very soon. It's not necessary delete the article, just redirect it. When sufficient informations to keep the article comes available, we can just revert the redirect. Juanacho (talk) 10:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but it'll be back as a notable article within a month, I'm sure. Esteffect (talk) 16:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Notability is a question of five weeks or whatever. No need to annoy the article creator now. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 06:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the nom pretty much sums it up. Themfromspace (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REdirect as per User:Decodet Power.corrupts (talk) 09:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 both. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Yoga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/It's Yoga

A style of yoga of dubious notability being promoted by an SPA. Also nominating its 'guru' Larry Schultz. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable or redirect and mention in Larry Schultz, if that article survives. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both of them as pure promotion for a subject without coverage, significant or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; notability is not established, and I could not find such in a search of news archive. Frank | talk 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added links to a number of the It's Yoga locations to refute claims of not-notable. This demonstrates market penetration in multiple countries. By the way, It's Yoga is widely regarded as the the oldest Ashtanga studio in the USA. To answer RHaworth, It's Yoga is not a style of yoga, it is a copyrighted type of Ashtanga Vinyasa Yoga. Possibly i have listed it incorrectly here?? Please help. Thank you! Jtyoga (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the articles are listed incorrectly in Wikipedia; that's what this discussion is about. Please read WP:CORP - especially the very first sentence - and WP:NOTABILITY. The existence of a business - even a dozen locations and/or franchisees of it - does not make it notable. Frank | talk 13:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Numerous citations in Yoga Journal yoga industry trade magazine. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22it%27s+yoga%22+site%3Awww.yogajournal.com&btnG=Search and San Francisco Chronicle http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=%22it%27s+yoga%22+site%3Awww.sfgate.com&btnG=Search . Also note AfD Larry Schultz, which is guru for It's Yoga. Jtyoga (talk) 13:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See the following citations showing coverage of "It's Yoga" in literature.

"Yoga School", Cincinnati Magazine, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 151, October 2001

Turlington, Christy (2003). Living Yoga: Creating A Life Practice. Hyperion. p. 276. ISBN 9780786886883.

Sims, Stacy (February 2003), "Winning Yoga", Cincinnati Magazine, vol. 36, no. 5, p. 26

Lowitz, Leza; Datta, Reema (2004). Sacred Sanskrit Words. Stone Bridge Press. pp. Back Cover. ISBN 9781880656877.

Wettreich, Marcos. Manual de Mães e Pais Separado. Ediouro Publicações. p. 162. ISBN 9788500021404. Precogism (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Schultz[edit]

Yoga teacher written up by an SPA. Evidence of notability seems very thin. Also nominating Schultz's school: It's Yoga. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - if (and only if) someone references and establishes notability for the subject before this AfD expires, which might be doable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 17:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous citations on Larry Schultz in Yoga Journal. (Yoga Journal is primary yoga industry trade magazine.) Yoga Journal citations list on google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=larry+schultz&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&num=10&lr=&as_filetype=&ft=i&as_sitesearch=www.yogajournal.com&as_qdr=all&as_rights=&as_occt=any&cr=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&safe=images . Special emphasis/note where Yoga Journal magazine refers to him as creator of Power yoga. Specific Yoga Journal article noted here: http://www.yogajournal.com/lifestyle/1143?print=1 Jtyoga (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of yoga teachers, even ones with copyrights and famous students. Trivial coverage (like the Lesh interview) is not sufficient to write a verifiable encyclopedia entry. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Obvious hoaxes are vandalism. Also note that a substantially identical page had been deleted before as patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pontoon World Championship[edit]

Patent nonsense was speedied before. no instances of it online, besides a refence to the previously deleted article. Refences to Stalin, Big Brother and other made up nonsense. 2005 (talk) 11:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this load of WP:BOLLOCKS.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised. This article seems ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.4.1 (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced and highly fishy-sounding to me. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing to suggest legitimate notability, most likely just a bunch of mates mucking about -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete inside joke among people with way too much time on their hands. Try Geocities next time, kids. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete because obvious hoaxes are vandalism. This is a fairly well constructed hoax. It begins with the plausible idea that there might be a world championship of blackjack players; in insular dialects, the game is apparently called "pontoon". It goes on to describe participating in a blackjack tournament over the phone, and suggests a shadowy council able to monitor every game. At this point it starts to become obvious that your leg is being pulled. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy per Smerdis. Drmies (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tata Young (the album)[edit]

Unverified and there I couldn't find reliable sources available to back it up. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL with no reliable sources to soften the hammer blow. §FreeRangeFrog 17:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of top Bollywood films[edit]

The article duplicates List of highest-grossing Bollywood films which properly lists the net gross in a table so the reason they're highest grossing is visible. The other sections violate the WP:NPOV policy because it is based on personal opinion and otherwise unverified. Therefore, I believe there's nothing salvageable in the article. Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also including List of top Tamil-language films in this nomination because if this nomination succeeds, the critical acclaim sections in this list should be removed and the article renamed to List of highest grossing Tamil-language films. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's a split / rename, neither of which should be at AfD. AND GFDL history requires keeping, so you should just rename the article, and trim it to fit the new subject title. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, it is a split. I'm not arguing for the entire Tamil article to be deleted. I specifically said that it should be renamed and trimmed if the Bollywood nomination succeeds. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Man I really don't want to get involved in afds anymore it was what caused me to retire for 2 years, but Merge. A lot of infomation there no need for dup article. Info does need more citations regardless. Valoem ^talk 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, per MGM and his cogent argument; the basic problem is in the first sentence, "popular and acclaimed," giving no suggestion of who would establish that. List of highest-grossing Bollywood films covers this much better, and I don't see anything worth merging either. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of top Bollywood films to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films as dupe, and likely search term. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename: Since there is already a List of highest-grossing Bollywood films, this article should be renamed to something like List of critically-acclaimed Bollywood films, where only the critically-acclaimed films should be included (like the Films considered the greatest ever article), with references of course. As for the Tamil film article, I think that should be split up into highest-grossing and critically-acclaimed articles in a similar manner. Regards, Jagged 85 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as highly subjective and unencyclopedic. Who are these films critically acclaimed by, and how is "critical acclaim" defined? List of highest-grossing Bollywood films does this better. PC78 (talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV and OR. Important Bollywood films should be contextualized in the article detailing the history of the industry, not editorialized within an article that cannot possibly fall in line with any of our neutrality policies. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of highest-grossing Bollywood films and removed irrevelant stuff that doesn't fit in "top-grossing" category. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 04:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Redundant article that isn't as rigorous as the other and has more original research. Themfromspace (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Cross-reference to later AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Il fantasma ieri — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IL Fantasma Ieri[edit]

The only reference is a supposed review that contains nothing besides an exact copy of the plot section written approx. 4 hours before the Wikipedia article. The rest of the content is not verifiable. Delete. Mgm|^(talk) 10:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable since no references exist to establish notability. Verifiability, not truth. Drmies (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Plot section per WP:COPYVIO, remainder as unreferenced material per WP:BURDEN. Also fails WP:V, WP:N and more than likely WP:SNOW. Also, hi Drmies :-)--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Where the material should be is a subject to be discussed beyond AfD, but there is clearly consensus to retain the article at this time Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Sisters rivalry[edit]

Originally marked with the prod tag by User:Tennis expert with the following reason: "Unnecessary single purpose article that duplicates information already in the Venus Williams and Serena Williams articles." Author removed the prod tag. I agree with Tennis Master that this article doesn't provide anything substantial that the Venus and Serena articles don't already have. Matt (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reduce duplication by removing the material from the sisters' articles and leaving it in this one? RenegadeMonster (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or in Williams sisters ? RenegadeMonster (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI believe that this article, like the Federer-Nadal rivalry one, helps to A)shed light on this historic rivalry without having duplicate info on both pages; B) redirect lists from the already-cluttered Venus and Serena pages; provide a singular focus on a rivalry between athletes and sisters which has been called "historic" and "once in a lifetime". Alonsornunez (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information should be retained in the well- and long-established Venus and Serena articles. The longstanding consensus in those articles is to treat their rivalry there. In fact, whenever anyone has attempted to delete the rivalry information in those articles, the deletion has been promptly reverted. It's important to note that the author of the Williams Sisters rivalry article is now attempting to avoid its deletion by adding POV-filled commentary, and this article is just the latest example of that author's paying lip service to consensus while blatantly ignoring it. See, for example, his attempt to delete 8,000kb+ of text in the Serena Williams article and then flagrantly ignoring WP:Consensus and WP:BRD by repeating the attempt over and over again. This is the same tactic that tennis editors have witnessed before by the highly disruptive Musiclover565, Whitenoise123, and associated IP sockpuppets who, by the way, are still vandalizing Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also this, where administrator AGK was attempting to work out the details of Musiclover565 returning to Wikipedia, an attempt that failed when Musiclover565 decided to forego that route in favor of IP account editing that wasn't as anonymous as he had hoped. Tennis expert (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that because something has long-standing that it is immune from improvement. (That's why I love Wikipedia in fact!) The author has attempted to reach NPOV as much as possible, and welcomes any edits or suggestions on the Talk page. I will avoid discussing issues occurring on other pages; I only wish to see this article, which I see as pertinent, given a chance to develop. The length of Venus and Serena's pages is an issue, as is the understandably overlapping information between them. This Williams Sisters rivalry page would solve both those problems (or at least move towards a solution). Alonsornunez (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of immediately adding a duplicative article to Wikipedia, you should first return to the Venus and Serena Williams talk pages to get consensus for removing the rivalry information from those articles. If consensus develops to remove the information, then it might be appropriate to add a separate article about their rivalry, subject, again, to there being consensus for that article. Tennis expert (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see the article as duplicating anything else. I saw it (in much the same way as the Federer-Nadal rivalry page is viewed) as a chance to expand upon the areas between these two players, and two analyze and inform about the history and dynamics of the rivalry. It seems much more reasonable to me to have a separate page for this than to attempt to split up the information between the two players pages or worse, to duplicate it. Once this course of action was taken it seemed natural to me to move the tables for their head-to-head from their crowded player pages. Alonsornunez (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop misrepresenting history. Your edit history shows that you first attempted to delete the table completely (not transfer it somewhere else). When your deletion was reverted, you did it again and again, repeatedly and intentionally ignoring both WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Then, you created the Williams Sisters rivalry article with just the table. It was only when the article was proposed for deletion that you scrambled to add all the POV-filled text. As I've said above, tennis editors have seen these same highly disruptive tactics before. Coincidence? I think not. Tennis expert (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask that you please stop inferring a lack of good faith. My deletion of the table was parallel to the Williams sisters rivalry, not a precursor. The head-to-head info seems to me repetitive of internal info and overly specific for the two players' pages, and it duplicates itself between their pages. I was working ( via a Word document) on the bulk of the Williams Sisters rivalry text, and as I did so I thought of porting over the table (please note that I did not at this time delete it from either page). Please elaborate on the Williams Sisters rivalry Talk page about any POV issues; improvement of the article is welcome! And again, in the spirit of Wikipedia: Good Faith and believe me when I say that I am not another poster, that I am only myself and that I am here to help make these articles the best that they can be. Alonsornunez (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dishonesty is not going to help your cause. You created the Williams Sisters rivalry article on March 3, 2009. But you deleted the table from the Serena Williams article on February 28, 2009, with this edit summary: "Page is already too long, and these tables/lists are readily available on the WTA page and violate WP:NOT." You also deleted the table from the Venus Williams article on February 28, 2009, with this edit summary: "These tables/stat lists seemed too long and took up too much space for something that is both in violation of WP:NOT and that is readily available on the WTA official site." After having your deletion of the table reverted, you then on March 1, 2009, unilaterally deleted the table again, in violation of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing me of malicious intent. There is none intended. I stated that after I created the Williams Sisters rivalry article I did not attempt to delete either identical table from the players' pages. I agree that I acted to hastily in the second edit, but have acted in good faith and have not deleted them since. I have instead (via the creation of the Williams Sisters rivalry article) attempted to find a different way to shorten the players articles and reduce duplication of the same info across two pages (as exists currently with the table being on both player's pages) Please stop inferring "dishonesty", "misrepresentation" and lying about my identity. As a frequent editor of Wikipedia I would hope my dedication would put me above such personal attacks. Alonsornunez (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frequent or new? You've said the latter several times in the last few days.... Yet, you know enough about Wikipedia to be able to cite obscure Wikipedia policy and the "GA" process. So, I think it's the former. By the way, you are still trying to push a large deletion of material concerning the Serena Williams article (8,000+kb), despite being reverted, despite being asked not to do so, and despite WP:Consensus and WP:BRD. Therefore, it is hard to believe your "I acted to [sic] hastily" statement, above, when you are continuing to engage in the same disruptive behaviors today. Tennis expert (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been a registered Wiki editor for just two weeks now, but have contributed frequently. I therefore use both. I have had to learn Wiki policy rather quickly in order to defend edits and suggestions; I do not believe that anything that can be internally searched can reasonably called 'obscure'. I have asked repeatedly and kindly that you end yoru personal accusations, and I will now stop responding to them. Please enjoy your day. I will not be engaging with you directly on this matter further.Alonsornunez (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's weird. You created your account 20 months ago, not two weeks ago. See this. Which IP accounts have you used? Is 92.4.0.45 one of them? Tennis expert (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you got me. I lied. I meant I've been using my registered account for two weeks. Seriously, though, this is getting a little creepy. I created an account...hold on....Okay, I created an account in May, and posted twice before beginning to seriously post two weeks ago. You got me, I misspoke. I only have one account/IP/whatever; please stop your unfounded allegations. Please? Thanks Mr.Expert Alonsornunez (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your credibility (or the lack thereof) is in serious question. You said, above, on March 4, 2009, "I have been a registered Wiki editor for just two weeks now, but have contributed frequently." Yet, you said on HJensen's discussion page on March 4, 2009, "I'm a new user here at Wikipedia...." You said on the tennis project discussion page on February 25, 2009, "I am new here to Wikipedia...." You said on the tennis project discussion page on February 26, 2009, "I am a new Wikipedia editor....". You said on your own discussion page on February 27, 2009, "Only been doing this for a little while." You said on the tennis project discussion page on February 28, 2009, "I'm new, and unsure how to do this!". Misrepresenting the facts not once, not twice, not three times, not four times - but five times - makes it very unlikely that you innocently "misspoke". Revised by Tennis expert (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks. I am asking as one Wiki editor to another. I created an account in May, used it twice before two weeks ago (please see my contributions); I absolutely consider myself new. I tested it out twice in nine months before starting regularly. I am absolutely a new user! I assume good faith from my fellow Wiki editors, please do the same. Alonsornunez (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a well-known and notable rivalry and the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim of notability. Whatever duplicate content exists in the articles for each sister should be trimmed down and point to this article as the main article. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Keep I think this one should be kept as well as the federer-nadal one because if this is deleted then that sets a bad precedent for that article to for deletion! I think it is always best to keep articles than to delete. This article makes the data more presentable! TennisAuthority 17:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a newly created account whose first substantive contribution to Wikipedia was the above and whose third contribution was the minor correction of a discussion page post from Alonsornunez. Something smells fishy (probably a new sockpuppet of the latter). Tennis expert (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Noteworthy rivalry, and one of the few interesting things like this that we can write about without resorting to OR/SYN (since it's gotten lots of independent coverage, and is not just a random intersection). If it's redundant with stuff at the Venus Williams and Serena Williams articles, that means much of the content from there can be merged here and replaced with summaries and {{further}} or {{main}}. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or merge into Williams sisters--otherwise, it sits in Venus Williams, Serena Williams, or both; which was my first thought, but then it's split up or oddly misplaced. Ventifax (talk) 22:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. yandman 11:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLITHCHRON[edit]

Advert for a non-notable, not yet held fest of purely local interest. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G11) as blatant advertisement/processed meat from Hormel. MuZemike 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A grand total of 6 ghits on this, one of which is Wikipedia. No prejudice against recreating the article when and if it actually becomes notable. §FreeRangeFrog 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy G11 or G12. Article is written completely as an ad brochure, the text of which was lifted directly from the website listed, which does assert copyright. If you can get past that, then there's the utter lack of sources to establish notability... Arakunem^Talk 21:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Retro-futurism. I think this is a better target but I would have no objection to it being retargeted to Paleofuture.com (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paleofuture[edit]

I don't think this is a real word, all the google hits seem to be about a blog. RenegadeMonster (talk) 09:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:WINAD (Wikipedia is not a dictionary) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – a lone blog about the subject does not establish notability of this apparent neologism. MuZemike 17:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Paleofuture.com, the article I just created about the blog, which seems to be quite notable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Term itself is non-notable, but the blog appears to be copiously sourced. - Vianello (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, though i am not convinced of notability of the blog, at least with the blog theres a case to be made, no matter how tenuous. no question that this neologism is not notable yet (and i like it personally). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illini Drumline[edit]

A drumline from a college marching band is not inherently notable, and this article makes absolutely no assertions that the Illini drumline has any particularly notability. The article also reads like an advertisement (including a "To inquire about any performances..."), has no references, and has almost zero wikilinks. Evan ¤ Seeds 08:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete student activity at a single school, fails WP:ORG and WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. X clamation point 03:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Don Brad Men (TV Series)[edit]

Prod contested. This is a possible series of 6 short U Tube videos, written, starring and produced by a 14 and an 8 year old. All viewed less than 100 times. This should really have been speedied as non notablePorturology (talk) 07:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-published Youtube material with apparently no indepedent reviews. Concur with the nomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - well done to the kids for putting this project together, but sadly it isn't notable at all (or a TV series, for that matter.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 12:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 as web content that does not assert importance or significance. Clearly non-notable YouTube event as discussed above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Rename the acticle to just The Don Brad Men and then it would be fine for wiki because sorry to tell you: it ain't no Tv series! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragon666523 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user's first and to date only edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete the page, me and me maitz await installmentz of The Don and Brad Men Show and we found the show through random article tab on wiki. its funny and I hope otherz find it to. KEEP THE PAGE! User:TOmO101290
- Above user's first and to date only edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Youtubecruft, clearly non-notable. Possible speedy candidate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 07:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egg Records[edit]

Article on record label, obviously self-created, that provides little or no justification for existence as an article and written like a press release. Releasing eight records in the late 1980s is hardly an indication of being a notable record company, then or now. Neither does releasing 17 CDs since 2003 without indicating any chart action on any national chart. No indication as to why Egg Records was "important" as the article states. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suppose it's possible to argue that this company's activities have some sort of historical value as the bands mentioned there seem to be inactive. However, I doubt that would satisfy WP:CORP (which I suppose it applicable here), and more importantly, these articles are later used to claim notability for obscure artists, and then for the individually obscure members of said obscure bands, and their obscure releases, ad nauseam. §FreeRangeFrog 06:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP. Releasing 8 records (21 songs total) over 5 years, all of them uber-micro-obscure singles that couldn't possibly have sold more than a handful of copies, strongly suggests this was a hobbyist sort of thing rather than a true record label. There's nothing wrong with that, of course, but it isn't up to WP:CORP by a long shot. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CORP. I fully concur with Starblind. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Giant Robot (album). History is intact for merging of material if desired Fritzpoll (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Bucketheadland[edit]

No real reason given for notability. didn't chart or win an award. references give no indication of notability and are not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:~~

Redirect "Welcome to Bucketheadland", "Spokes for the Wheel of Torment", "Botnus", and "Three Fingers" back to the respective album articles. Jordan I feel has independent notability due to its involvement with Guitar Hero II and possibly a mention on South Park. You really, really should reconsider a single AFD and I would consider removing the others and separating them if you can. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also suggesting separating those because they are different cases.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Welcome to Bucketheadland into Giant Robot (album). Speedy Keep of Jordan (song), the other three ~~have independent afds~~ consider independently of this afd, if at all. Spinach Monster (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into Giant Robot (album). hornoir (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you know that only one of the five tracks is off Giant Robot?--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion isn't surprising considering the omnibus afd. Let's separate the songs ASAP and focus just on "Welcome" for this afd. Spinach Monster (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the nominating user seems only to be around once a week([13]), so we can't expect much help from him...--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 03:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so sure. :) Spinach Monster (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I just went to the pages to see how much information there was. I didn't pay attention to what album each came from. Apologies for the confusion. hornoir (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say you discuss at AfDs without looking at the nominated articles first?--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on "Welcome to Bucketheadland": The song is a (if not the) signature song of guitarist Buckethead (former member of Guns N' Roses). It opens his first two solo albums, Bucketheadland (1992, under the name of "Park Theme", see [14]) and Giant Robot (1994, featuring drums by Jerome Brailey) and has been played at about every concert since the early 1990s to e.g. last year's Wakarusa festival where it was played as the last encore (see [15]). A quick Google search brings up more than 16,000 hits and still about 12,000 if you add "Buckethead" to the search string. That's mainly because the song is a fan favourite (no good source here, but you may see this for at least a tendency. Note that "Jordan" is even placed higher on this list, plus the presence of other nominated tracks). There's of course no doubt that the article is in bad shape and that there's lots of work to be done. Therefore it has been tagged as "needing immediate attention" even before this AfD.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to some of the above comments I am unbundling the extra articles and creating individual afds Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone may be canvasing [16] Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may take this to WP:ANI then, this is not the right place.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the right place, it gives relevant information to the closing admin. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can't be too serious then. BTW: Did you inform all article creators and main contributors of the ten AfDs? (see your talkpage: [17])--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as several new sources have been found since nomination.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 08:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the new sources have non-trivial coverage of the song. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is just "trivial" coverage of a "non-notable" song we have to nominate and delete dozens of stub articles, e.g. "Beaucoups of Blues", "A Beginning", "Life Begins at 40", "Arrow Through Me", "Watching Rainbows" and "Nod Your Head" too - right? I guess it's the name of the artist that makes the difference... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Come on, you know better than to go with~~ Other stuff exists ~~argument~~. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a point to a) how easy it is to go to a category and pick some or all songs of a certain artist b) the double standard on Wikipedia regarding artist names - I guess none of the above mentioned articles would be deleted if nominated, even if the content didn't change a bit. But c) they wouldn't be nominated in the first place --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 02:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll never know if you don't nominate them. =) I mean I never thought I would see most of the fancruft here eliminated but it eventually happened. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I nominate 50 or 60 songs by The Beatles and Pink Floyd that all offer less than the 10 Buckethead articles? To annoy their WikiProjects? Again, I'm not that kind of asshole. Instead I will try to improve the Pink Floyd articles in the near future. And now stop stabbing in an open wound. Plus, close this ridiculous discussion. Delete, as people do not look at the article, or whatever reason you may come up with... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 04:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not just about trivial coverage. There is also charting, awards and others that are not in this article. If there is not one of these reasons then you need significant coverage. Included in the examples you provided is a song that charted, one of the reasons for notability given in WP:MUSIC. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Giant Robot (album). Not a single, not widely covered, and no other particular notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the album. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to album. --Sloane (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ravenshead#Schools. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey gates primary school[edit]

My speedy has been declined by an admin, who also removed some of the more of the more spammy content. But what we're left with is so meagre, lacking in basic context let alone notability, I believe it merits deletion. I generally stay away from school articles, as it seems like just about all of them are notable. But this one? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To whatever district (or equivalent thereof) this belongs to, as is the norm in these cases. §FreeRangeFrog 04:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ravenshead#Schools. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Ravenshead#Schools. The statement "The Foundation Unit is recognised as a centre of excellence" is sourceable against the 2006 Ofsted report and should be included in the merge. TerriersFan (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although rename to Abbey Gates Primary School to match peer article for Ravenshead C of E Primary School linked to from Ravenshead#Schools. ~~Alternative ought to be Merge & Redirect both articles into parent article.~~ DiverScout (talk) 12:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that I have managed to get this to stub status through a few edits and references. Notability, in common with other school articles, may now have been proven? I lean more strongly towards Keep now. DiverScout (talk) 14:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have just found that this school has been involved in national CPD provision (through Teacher's TV) relating to changes in sex education. It appears that this school may have a stronger case than many for notability. DiverScout (talk) 23:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Ravenshead#Schools. -- Lucas20 (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above and the established consensus on school articles. Stifle (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query - could you please direct me to the indicated Wikipedia policy? Cheers. DiverScout (talk) 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a better one but ... Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) explains why high schools are almost always fine while Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) delves into what garners notability. Since this school is below the high school level you need to show it meets our general notability guideline which would override those first two if there were so many independent reliable sources conferring notability. Like multiple newspaper articles about school projects and programs, special events, etc. high schools almost always have this whereas schools below that level usually do not. -- Banjeboi 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOL - Indicators of probable notability. Radiopathy (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until notability established. -- Banjeboi 18:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect until notability established. Radiopathy (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query 2 - Thanks for that essay link. Second query is that, as deletion through AfD seems, if I've read it right, to ban the content of the article being relocated elsewhere, would it not make more sense for this not to have been placed for AfD, but tagged for a merge of the content in through normal process (as seems to be the general consensus)? May I request that AfD be aborted and the page tagged for a speedy merge instead? At this time it would also make sense to merge tag the second school in the town (Ravenshead C of E Primary School), with each becoming a dedicated subsection under the schools heading? Abbey Gates having had national exposure on TV could be used to argue notability - but I feel that merging the three articles would make one good article out of the three. DiverScout (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD, at this point, needs to play out. You can be bold however and merge the most salient bits from here into the main village article without delay and simply repost a note on this page that salvagable content merged already. -- Banjeboi 19:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done encyclopedic content recovered as above. Will revert if article survives. DiverScout (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

merge as suggested above, as usual. DGG (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 04:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Sloane[edit]

Self-glorifying WP:AUTOBIO resume of obscure actor. No indication that he meets WP:ENTERTAINER or WP:CREATIVE, as ~~only apparent~~ no WP:V claim to any prominence whatsoever ~~is obscure 'Angel Awards'~~. [Correction: cited link does not in fact verify this claim. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC) ] Does not appear to be even listed in IMDB. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to the various links just added on this site you will see verification by third parties. The documentation via the reference books may be accessed at many libraries world wide. As a picture is worth a thousand words, pictures of past productions including the Ma and Pa Kettle series and comic book covers with J.P. Sloane and Lash LaRue are also available through links at jpsloane.com and other sites throughout the web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.P. Sloane (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, but noting regardless, the above user has conflict of interest. Esteffect (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, putting this article's text into Google comes up with J. P. Sloane's own website, however according to the logs he has given permission for the text to be used here, therefore this isn't a clear copyright violation. I note this as I almost made the mistake of speedying this here. Esteffect (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to the above critic, regarding the so-called “…obscure 'Angel Award’s” one only has to access their web site to see that this organization, which was hosted for twenty-five years by the late Steve Allen (originator of the “Tonight Show”) is anything but obscure. Excellence in Media has an illustrious history as well as a formidable list of inductees. See < http://www.angelawards.com/celebrities.html>. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.P. Sloane (talk • contribs) 04:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the fact that it's former host and/or some of its inductees were famous does not raise this award out of obscurity. Prominence would require (i) significant third party coverage of the award, and/or (ii) that the award be conferred by a prominent professional organisation. The fact that it appears that (i) anybody can nominate for this award & (ii) that this requires paying a $165 fee (see above link), tends to indicate that this is not a particularly prestigious award. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above criticism of an entry fee for an Angel Award is a bit disingenuous. All award programs, be it The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Cleo, Golden Globe, Grammy, Angel, Dove etc., must be accompanied by submission fees. Usually the production companies act as the sponsor of the artist they wish to receive an award although many, such as C.L.E.O., Angel Award, and Golden Globe may be entered by independent production entities. Entree fees do not guarantee an award. This shall be my last word on the subject although I am truly enjoying the discourse and I appreciate your willingness to research and debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.P. Sloane (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nice set of awards, but they don't confer notability even if they all are true. Doesn't demonstrate notability by significant coverage from sufficient sources — and autobiography plainly doesn't help. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – Although the article hints notability, it is somewhat unencyclopedic and contains no reliable sources. TheAE talk/sign 06:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on sources: of the 8 sources currently cited for this article, 3 are unreliable (wikis, or wiki-clone), 1 fails to verify the cited information, and 3 are non-independent. This leaves http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/JPSLOANE as the sole reliable independent source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 08:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I doubt that the Marquis Who's Whos can be considered independent (or reliable) sources, since the great majority of their entries are self-submissions by the subjects. This Forbes article may be of interest. Deor (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tracked down discussion on this to WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 9#Marquis' "Who's Who" as RS?. Consensus seems to be that MWW is at least as reliable as a WP:SELFPUB as to details of the biographee, but bestows little in the way of notability. Given that it is referenced purely for his inclusion in this volume of dubious notability, I think that this can be seen as an irrelevance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable sources. I decided to look up the subject's role in the "Ma and Pa Kettle" movie series because I figured that would be easy to verify. According to the article, he played Billy Kettle in the series. Well, the Internet Movie Database shows that five different actors played Billy Kettle over the course of the series -- but none of them had a name anything like the subject's name. Maybe he changed his name, but even if he did, which one of the five Billy Kettles was he? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been the subject of an OTRS request at Ticket:2009022210003659. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would keep, trim, and rewrite. The kernel of notability is there; the fact that the current article is bad doesn't mean that no article should be here at all. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions: what "kernel of notability" would this be? Bare unsubstantiated assertions of notability are worthless in an AfD discussion. And of what relevance is the OTRS request (which average editors cannot see) to the notability of this topic? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The OTRS ticket relates to permission and a concern about the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands, this article fails WP:V. Admittedly, online sources may be slim for someone whose principal activities predate the WWW, but the total absence of relevant, independent Google Books or Google News hits is not encouraging. If appropriate sources can be adduced before this AfD ends, I'll reconsider. Deor (talk) 12:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would delete for now, but - if the article is improved and asserts notability in a verifiable manner as needed - not apply CSD G4 if it is recreated. Esteffect (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable; if the article is recreated, it will need some serious trimming (cause "fluffy" is an understatement) and the addition of verifiable sources--and they don't need to be web-accessible. But for one of the 2000 Outstanding Intellectuals of the 21st Century" I would expect some significant coverage (also keeping in mind that the internet was there at the beginning of that century). Drmies (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG Keep. Unless we are to believe he has fabricated his entire (poorly designed and promotional) website, there certainly is some notability here. And - OMG! - look like he co-wrote You Can Be a Virgin Again and the follow-up The Christian Counselor's Guide for Restoring Virginity. I know I am fascinated be revirgination. He has a former life as a rock singer and then started a ministry making appearances on "Christian television shows as The PTL Club, Lester Sumrall Today, Richard Roberts Live, and The 700 Club, Lesea Broadcastings World Harvest, Trinity Broadcasting Network's Praise the Lord, etc." Those are the biggies. So he's been interviewed about something on at least seven television shows. He has an internationally syndicated radio show.[18] Again from his website "Hear him share how he went from atheism to salvation and from a rock singer to a biblical scholar" - there is something here - even if all swept into a corner, it adds up enough notability. Thus remains writing it all better and unearthing reliable sources. Almost forgot, his fields, Biblical scholar and evangelizing preacher don't readily get mainstream attention unless they get caught breaking laws. I hardly expect to see a lot of this in mainstream media so countering systematic bias I think is also in play here. -- Banjeboi 22:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a show that reaches other countries through "satellite shortwave radio and the Internet" can be accurately described as "internationally syndicated". Your faith in Mr. Sloane's truthfulness is touching, but without reliable sources discussing him and his achievements, there's nothing to put in an article about him. (By the way, there are plenty of biblical scholars who get mainstream attention.) Deor (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I do think they were technically syndicated in the Xtian ministries - possibly to their churches in those countries but whatever. I simply have nothing that convinces me his website and the article is a pack of lies. Just that he's not a proper media whore like everyone else. -- Banjeboi 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The books you refer to were published by Xulon Press, a self-publishing company. Siawase (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also may be true but simply riveting in concept, a guide to ministering to young women on how to become virginal again. This is the stuff situation comedy was built for. -- Banjeboi 10:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That these books are self-published also raises further questions about the prominence of the Angel Awards, given that they hand out awards for such minor material. The creators of these awards turn out to be a pair of crime fiction writers, incidentally. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ease up already, we get it, you want to smite this article away. Fine, point drilled to bits repeatedly. An award is still an award and may be one of the highest honors, it really doesn't seem that important to quibble at this point. On this one we'll have to agree to disagree. The only issue, IMHO, is that sourcing is not readily forthcoming. I think this would pass if the television interviews were cited but personally I don't have the interest. This is different than what certainly feels like personalizing an AfD against a newby editor, COI or otherwise. Our civility policies are pretty clear we should be welcoming. -- Banjeboi 13:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the awards can safely be deemed to not be a 'highest honour', as they lack an article (and seeing as we have articles on awards such as this, that's an indication that they are minor). Esteffect (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, given that this award appears to be the only claim to notability that Sloane himself is pushing back upon (see his comments above), I don't think a degree of counter-argument on this point is unreasonable. Sourcing is always the central issue in determining notability -- otherwise it devolves into personal opinion, and articles on every editor's favourite aunt or uncle. If this is perceived as 'personalising', it is out of fustration at the difficulty in having deleted a blatantly self-promotional piece, for which no reliably-sourcable replacement appears to exist. If people keep harping on with unsubstantiated assertions that this guy is notable, I'll continue pushing back with substantiated arguments as to why he's not. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning "You Can be a Virgin Again" being of no value because it is self-published by Xulon-- it may be helpful to understand that Xulon is the Christian arm of Salem Communications. However, Salem also has a political arm called "Town Hall Press." In 2007, Town Hall Press had a self published book by Senator Fred Thompson who also was a presidential candidate entitled "Government at the Brink.” Thompson’s ideas are no less valid because the Senator chooses to speed up the publishing process by publishing with Xulon’s sister publishing house Town Hall Press <http://www.amazon.com/Government-Brink-Causes-Waste-Mismanagement/dp/160266854X>.

Many people for many reasons self-publish. First the obvious reason is that some can not get published. Others self publish because they are in a special field and do speaking tours where the profit from selling a self-published book to a targeted audience, far out distances the meager royalties that publishing houses pay. By self publishing one is better able to underwrite one’s cost of ministry. My field is Christian ministry and not the type of genre cited by the above link highlighted by (talk) link which leeds to: “Bad Sex in Fiction” ihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_Review#Bad_Sex_in_Fiction_Award . Our book is a reassuring and uplifting Christian, biblically based self help book, aimed at restoring ones virtue not sex for entertainment as your link suggests. I am also in contact with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to help me document my role as Billy Kettle. J.P. Sloane (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reference of Literary_Review#Bad_Sex_in_Fiction_Award was not referring to your book; I was using it as an example of a (very much trivial) award which has an article, in relation to the Angel awards which do not. Apologies for the confusion. Esteffect (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
J.P. Sloane, as I've stated here and elsewhere I have little reason to doubt this article's content or your website. The likely first problem here was the press release tone which is waaay over the top for an encyclopedia. We can fix that but there is little point as has been blunty pointed out that we need to show notability of any subject and that requires reliable sourcing. These are the challenges to be met. Personally I feel there is enough here to meet the threshold of notability between the acting, television appearances, radio show, scholar and ministry work. It's an interesting narrative as well - a good article can be written to pull it all together. Had the tone not been off the chart self-promotional sounding this may have skated a bit but would still be nicked eventually for want of reliable sourcing. Likely newspaper articles were written about you/your work. Even if in Christian ones they help verify what is being presented as facts. Start finding those - maybe you have a press file from that long ago? If yu can sort out the dates and shows you appeared on that would also help. There is even a chance recordings of those shows exist. Frankly, if worse comes to worse, get rebooked on some shows and then you can be quoted in talking about yourself because a person is considered to be an expert on themselves. I do hope you continue helping on other articles as well so you can see more how this whole project works. -- Banjeboi 15:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, rewrite it. [As it is], it's puff. Ventifax (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Lengthy ramble by J.P. Sloane moved to talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC) I would further note that {{uw-coi}}, which J.P. Sloane has received on his user talk explicitly contains the following admonition: "If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when ... participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors" (which I assume would also include deletion discussions on an article on the editor themselves). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC) ][reply]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.````J.P. Sloane

Delete Despite the article and the lengthy discussion above, I can't find a single secondary source discussing the subject of the article. Is there a link showing that the subject has done something notable? Is there a link asserting that any of the subject's awards are notable? Johnuniq (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources don't properly establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETED per WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V, and finally WP:SNOW. If someone wants to write this article from sources, and post something that isn't simply repetition of stereotypes, please feel free to do so. This wasn't it. If anyone reviewing this close wants to see a copy of what's deleted, just ask me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparisons between Scots and Jews[edit]

No references, just original research & opinions. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR and personal observations. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR and possibly attacking. →If you have questions, please leave a comment on my talk page (JakeBathman) 04:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - As vandalism; no encyclopedic value whatsoever. §FreeRangeFrog 04:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually, this is a fairly standard comparison. Nowadays we might call it bigotry, but I'm not sure it was thought of this way in he 19th c. b. G Book Search [19] gives a number of lines to pursue. For example, the H. Kingsley from 1869. Even the Sowell from 1975, and, epitimizing it "SCOTS LIKENED TO JEWS AXD ATHENIANS. through the tumults of centuries; and now, in spite of all the hindrances which nature has placed in their way" p.23 of Burns, William. The Scottish War of Independence; Its Antecedents and Effects. London: Reeves & Turner, 1875. DGG (talk) 05:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR & person opinions, bordering on racism. -- Marek.69 ^talk 05:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Scottish and Jewish: two racial stereotypes for the price of one! Perhaps the best value in the graveyard this morning. Perhaps not." Artw (talk) 06:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page suggests there is a connection between the two when any similarities that aren't totally tendentious are simply coincidental. Leaving this lying around would promote the idea there is a link. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it fails WP:OR and WP:POV. (And what Scottish pork taboo? I'm from Scotland, and I've never heard of it.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolute nonsense, WP:NOT#WEBHOST. --84.45.219.185 (talk) 10:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per User:Freerangefrog.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - OR, borderline attack page, unsourced, indiscriminate. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see this as an attack page at all--it's simply poorly written, really poorly. And DGG is absolutely correct in his assessment of the historical verifiability of this kind of prejudice (thank you for doing that legwork, DGG)--but this is not the way to do it. There should be an additional paragraph (or more), with the proper references, under Anti-Scottish sentiment, along the lines of Anti-Irish_racism#19th_century--though that very section needs some help (it fails to mention, for instance, that the Irish were depicted in blackface in American newspapers...). But I don't see this as a valid search term, and think deletion is the way to go, also since it's not so much the very comparison that's relevant here but the general stereotyping of an ethnic category. Perhaps DGG, when he has a moment, can write this up properly... Drmies (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -OR, unsourced and sterotyping.—Sandahl (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced drivel. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Shaver[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not assert notability, nor give reliable sources from which notability might be inferred. The subject has written some stories, none of which seem notable, and worked on some games which do have articles, but this does not confer notability on her. Thompson Is Right (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First she didn't just "work on some games", for Hero's Journey she was the lead designer. This is an interview with the person. Since I don't know much about the subject, I'm not all that good at finding sources about her, but what I have found is enough to convince me that she is a reasonably well-known figure in the field of fantasy literature. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjakkalle. Lead designer on a game is a significant role and the ISFDB shows this isn't just a random hobby writer. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is currently unsourced, looking past the first page of Google results (which are mostly this page, her own personal site, and a few blogs) for her name show quite a few sources that could be used for this article. She is also mentioned in a number of books on Google Books outside of her own novels, though they all seem to be passing mentions. Orbital Delegate (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As an author she passes WP:N for coverage in Locus, ISFDB [20](two entries as it's not determined yet which version of the author's name is canonical), and scifi-fantasy-info.com. These sites all satisfy all the bullets in WP:GNG and WP:NOBJ with the exception that Locus does not have an article dedicated to her. In terms of verifiability, ISFDB and Locus also link to the anthologies her work has appeared in. As a game designer she's been the subject of at least one dedicated independent coverage interview, was asked to write for part of this article, and a column on another web site. At minimum, she's been acknowledged as the lead designer for a game and as a result attracted notice. Lack of notability for someone's work nor lack of sources in an article are grounds for deletion. --Marc Kupper|talk 11:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as originator. The guidelines for people in general say "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject [...] trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Mere listings of what work a person has done or published are surely insufficient. For creative professionals, the relevant tests are "widely cited by their peers", "a significant new concept, theory or technique", "a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", "work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." None of these appear to be satisfied. Have the stories or games been the subject of a book or multiple periodical articles or reviews? I think not. In fact the only game on which she is reported to be lead designer has not appeared yet. Thompson Is Right (talk) 11:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep, if a cite or source can be found for the claim that she was the youngest member ever to join SFWA. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. X MarX the Spot (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While I have no real stake in the issue (I did one minor edit on her page recently), I find the arguments for more compelling than those against. Plus I have a bias toward retaining articles when in doubt. BPK (talk) 19:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - She seems to be a popular guest writer - in addition to those columns posted by Mark Kupper, she's written for GDMag. However, being a prolific writer isn't a factor. Lead designer for Hero's Journey would probably satisfy notability for creative professions, providing it receives the required coverage. However, the main issue for me here is verifiability - independent refs? Marasmusine (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm still struggling with what the metrics for notability are. When I started editing on WP I took a very conservative view of the policies and as a result viewed many articles as AfD material. Is Stephanie Shaver notable? Realistically, the answer is a flat out "no." The only reason I heard of her and ran across the WP article is because I read an anthology and when done with it I went through all of the author burbs and crossed checked them against WP and ISFDB had I not done the cross check I would not have taken note of Shaver at all. The x-check happened and as a result I updated her WP article, wondered why she even had an article, and forgot about it. More recently I've swung towards a more inclusive view where I'm viewing WP as a resource that should contain articles on subjects where it's possible people in a wide area would want to look something up about the subject. There are two fuzzy words; "possible" and "wide area." As an author she has had short stories published in two magazine and in 12 anthologies over a 19 year period. I don't know if this is typical in the game business or if Simutronics is an exception but the company publicity credits the contributors to their games much like movie credits. She appears to be active in on line forums and conventions (both fantasy fiction and games) which also increases her exposure. Thus the "possible" is above zero and the areas would be people who read her stories, play a game she's involved with, or participate in one of the forums or conventions she's active in. When the AfD came up I took a look at the notability policies and a scan for available evidence. With a liberal/inclusive mindset she clearly passes. With a conservative mindset she clearly does not pass the notability tests. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a wide paintbrush, there, as well as an incorrect statement in which I take offense. I consider myself fairly liberal (I do support Barack Obama and many of the staff), but I do support deletion of articles of subjects that do not meet the notability criteria as prescribed by policy. Politics aside, I believe in the process as it should be intended – that users exercise other alternatives (as listed in WP:BEFORE) before considering the deletion route. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it a haven for unsourced biographies of living people in which actual people can potentially be damaged by the content possibly posted here. I am still neutral as what I think about the article, but I think that this article may not have much a chance if reliable secondary sources can be found and quickly. MuZemike 09:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using conservative/liberal in their standard meaning and not the Conservative or Liberal political persuasion. Interpretation of WP policy is much like how people can read the 27 words comprising the Second Amendment and come away with wildly different, and strong, beliefs as to what it means.

re: "I think that this article may not have much a chance if reliable secondary sources can be found." WP:SELFPUB fully supports that we can use Stephanie Shaver's own web site and writings about herself as sources for for the bio part of this article. Unfortunately, the article does not cite sources and so we don't know if what's already there is accurate. Her author bibliography has already been independently verified from RS. I believe her game stuff has been too. Those are the reasons for notability and so it's a matter of someone taking the refs dug up in this thread and using them in the article assuming the consensus is "keep." --Marc Kupper|talk 06:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - in addition to the sources mentioned above, she's been a guest at Dragon*Con.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - is she notable in her field(s)? That is, has she won any awards of any sort? She's got books. She's got software. She's bound to have an article or two written about her. But given that her work is out there, what does anybody think of it - in terms of awards or recognition that she's more than just another author/programmer? Rklawton (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm of the opinion that if you get into an MZB or Lackey anthology -- multiple times, at that -- that's a good indication of notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There's a lot of sources out there that cite her, but they provide only a weak case for her notability, not a compelling one. She wouldn't need much more to establish notability—a significant, documented contribution to even a single game would probably change my mind. — Levi van Tine (t – c) 12:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Leaving aside that I think the case for notability has been made, where does it say that it needs to be compelling? After all, the policy is verifiability -- notability is a guideline.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm a verifiable published author and photographer (outside of Wikipedia). There's more to notability than verifiability. A lot more. If all this person has is evidence they exist, then they are not notable. Awards would help. Rklawton (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Technically, I'm a published author, too. But I've never been in two anthologies each which have been edited by two of the most notable names in speculative fiction today.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked at WP:PEOPLE again and went down it point by point.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria
  - Has not been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable.
  - Is not the subject "none-substantial" coverage from multiple independent sources.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Any_biography
  - Has not received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
  - Has not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
- Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals
  - Is not regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  - Is not known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  - Has not created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  - Has not either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.
- She qualifies for getting handled under Failing all criteria and now we are looking at Special cases. I thought about her stories being selected by notable anthologists but that does not count as it's not "Stephanie Shaver" being the subject of recognition but rather that her story got it. A notable anthologist can't confer notability on her anthologies, nor can the anthologies confer notability on the stories, nor can the stories confer notability on the authors... She works for the game company and so recognition by them is not independent. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glitter Chariot[edit]

Band with less than 250 hits on Google. Article orphaned and created in 2006, and mention of touring, but fails to assert real notability and seemingly fails WP:MUSIC. Esteffect (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see some notability there but it's only at the local level. §FreeRangeFrog 04:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Chance Detectives[edit]

Notability is not established and sourcing is questionable to rather poor. While not a film, I've used WP:MOVIE as a rough guide for notability here. No evidence of wide distribution, nor reviews by national critics, no awards, etc. Media reprints of press releases are excluded from establishing notability, which would discredit the first and last sources (1 and 5). I don't have full access to sources 2 and 3, but they do not seem to be about this series in particular, but more generally about the parent companies. They both seem to be about a number of ventures, and I imagine, in a sub-500 word article about a broader topic, this series is only mentioned trivially (the title and blurbs don't mention the series at all...) Source 4 is a local paper saying filming will take place by a local airport, hardly notable. Nothing that would be considered published works such as books, television documentaries, full-length featured newspaper articles from large circulation newspapers, full-length magazine reviews and criticism. Andrew c ^[talk] 02:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – several reliable sources. You may make the argument that notability is not established because there is no critical commentary, but that's not entirely true. Source #4 is a newspaper article solely centered on the series. #1 is likewise. The others are (as far as I know), not solely focused on the series, and source the content mentioned. Per WP:GNG, the article meets the general guideline for notability, and includes several RS. TheAE talk/sign 04:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think this (barely) meets WP:N. I added 2 sources, and more can probably be found.— LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources you added are no more than trivial coverage, in terms of notability. One is a one sentence mention in a Forbes article from 1997. The other one is part of Oak Park Public School's Special Education library resources, and the mention of "The Last Chance Detectives" is within a list of Focus on the Family video series. I don't believe having a one liner in Forbes establishes notability. I don't believe having been cataloged by the Oak Park Public School system establishes notability. I did a Lexis Nexis search last week and did not find anything of note. What we really need is some significant coverage, and I don't believe that has been found. -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, they are sourced facts that meet both WP:V and WP:N, and so does the article. TheAE talk/sign 06:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may help to verify several pieces of information, but for a source to establish notability there are stricter rules than for those that just verify a fact. Trivial mentions are fine for verification not to establish notability per WP:GNG. If the trivial mentions say the show won awards or things like that, the content of the trivial mention is more important than its size. The same goes for press releases by the company that makes the show. They're not independent so not suitable to establish notability. I'm witholding my vote pending further investigation on my part. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page shows at least two notables in the voice cast of the radio show. If this can be verified through independent means, I think notability has definitely been established per WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:NF. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first I've heard of it, but at three albums and three movies I'd say it's notable enough. Focus on the Family isn't some guy in his garage or something, they also did the Narnia adaptations with David Suchet, among other things. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to me, there should be an article on various Focus on the Family/Tyndale Family Video productions. "The Last Chance Detectives" could have a section in such an article, but I don't believe it is notable enough to have it's own article. Just because it wasn't produced in someone's basement doesn't mean that multiple, independent sources gave this series significant coverage. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why would we do that when no other studios are handled that way? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Handled what way? We don't have articles on studies that mention their various projects that don't have articles themselves? (>ahem<... BlueFish TV, Film Booking Offices of America, NFL Films, etc)-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Ferster[edit]

Non-notable illustrator but long established article. Possible vanity as creating user was called User:FersterTech. I don't see an assertion of notability, and despite 3,000 or so Google hits for the name, this probably meets the CSD but article has been around a while, so taking it here. Esteffect (talk) 02:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase His work has been published in countless magazines and books strikes me. Something like that would probably prevent me from speedy deleting an article. But without further sources to back it up, it becomes problematic. If it can be established that Gary Ferster is a notable illustrator, then by all means we should have an article on this guy. I'd encourage editors to fix this issue, or else deletion will be inevitable. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From his website, the 'countless magazines' include Photoshop User, Illustrator 7 Studio Secrets, and The Illustrator CS3 Wow! Book. I'm not convinced that being published in any of those magazines would point to notability. Esteffect (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as mentioned, there's no assertion of notability made in the article, and there don't seem to be any third party mentions that point to notability. The fact that there are only links to the subject's personal and business/portfolio websites makes this look more like a case of self-advertisement. None of notability guidelines for creative professionals apply.Teleomatic (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I like the guy's work but aside from the three books where he is mentioned, I can't find anything that would assert notability under WP:CREATIVE. §FreeRangeFrog 04:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Just not enough coverage out there to build an article around. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find significant sources either BloodGrapefruit2 (talk) 06:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Nicktoons Heroes[edit]

Advertising, content already exists. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as test page. Totally implausible title. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content exists elsewhere, and the title is unsuitable for a redirect TheDude2006 (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence or claim of notability; if this is a term in actual use, rd to Nicktoons. JJL (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Matt (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not in actual use, and the way this reads it looks likely it was supposed to be the character description section of yet another poorly described hoax Nicktoons game. Nate • (chatter) 07:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz ^talk 01:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Years (Album)[edit]

Was nominated for speedy deletion by another user, and contested. The individual and their bands have articles, however I'm not certain as to whether the album is notable - yet or at any point - therefore I've brought it to AFD. Esteffect (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL. Speedy not possible due to there being an artists article. Searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. The mention in the reference is, "He’s calling it Years. Can’t announce too much about that but there are plans for it to be released this year. That’s it". Not exactly significant coverage as called for in WP:MUSIC#Albums. Nothing to merge into the artists page due to the lack of WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:NALBUMS In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. This is a case of a walled garden between the band, the singer and this album, but the guideline is clear. I would start by questioning the notability of the artist as a standalone entity (rather than as part of the band). If the artist goes, the album is one quick WP:CSD#A9 away. As usual, I note my protest that WP:MUSIC and attendant guidelines have loopholes the size of Nevada. §FreeRangeFrog 04:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously my argument would be far more convincing if the album had been actually released, a fact which I managed to miss. §FreeRangeFrog 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Esradekan. FreeRangeFrog overlooked a particularly important part of that guideline. It said "may have sufficient notability". There's no point in questioning the topic's notability when there's too little verifiable information to build an article with. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, chiming in with Esradekan. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added the upcoming release page from the official Arts & Crafts site. Hopefully this will bring this to an end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AandC (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does all the OR in the article come from? Without that, it's nothing but a tracklist by an artist who is barely notable as it is (only one single reference for his article, and that a passing mention in an interview with someone else about a hypothetical project on a blog which I doubt is much of an WP:RS). Drmies (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seddσn ^talk 04:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nadya Suleman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Subject of the article is notable for just one thing: having given birth to octuplets after fertility treatment. Hence the page should be a redirect to the notable event. However, a previous AfD debate on this "biography" was closed after just twelve hours by an involved editor. The page is in itself a massive BLP violation, as aspects of this woman's life apart from her unusual approach to motherhood are irrelevant to an encyclopedia. We have got the point of publishing every single name that she has been known under, and linking to an online version of her divorce papers: this is not encyclopedic material, it is gutter journalism. Just because something can be verified does not mean it should be in an encyclopedia: otherwise we might as well just read the National Inquirer. This article should be deleted, nay oversighted, then a protected redirect created to Suleman octuplets, the only thing which even vaguely approaches encyclopedic notability. Physchim62 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I think to state that she's notable for just the octuplets isn't reflected in the shear number of news articles written about her. Laws are being enacted to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. The doctor that did this is under investigation. Legal battles will most likely arise about custody (hospital is already refusing to release to her). Do to the intense media attention and public interest, if this doesn't justify the one event rule it should qualify under the ignore all rules rule. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the accusations, the linking to the divorce paper is only a court summons that shows no additional information other then the date it was filed and her name(s). Under the rules for primary sources it is allowed. Due to the MANY names shes been known under and published as in the news outlets, it's necessary to list at least the most common referenced ones in the media. BLP violations are unlikely do to the immense amount of reputable sources for the information. According to WP:LIBEL if the information is from "reliable published sources," then it's valid for inclusion. With the shear number of sources we've included we strive to have EVERY statement backed up with at least one reliable source if not many. Sure some of the sources might be from 'tabloid' papers, but if they are we try to find at least one or more from a reliable news outlet. Problems with sources can easily be fixed (theres been over 17,000 news articles indexed by google news in the past month alone referencing her name) from the shear number of sources out there. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Admin If the decision is to delete or merge, please give the editors plenty of time to readd the information back to the octuplets page. Thanks! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'd also like to point out this AfD came after the editors decided decided to get additional input on the validity of listing multiple names shes gone under and which if any should be kept. They decided to post on the BLP notice page for visibility. There it was suggested due to the short time frame the previous AfD ran before it being closed (even though it met the criteria for speedy keep) they felt it should be renominated for more input and thus it was renominated here. The reasoning behind the renomination may qualify for a speedy keep under criteria 1, "for the sake of process." — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep, Flawed logic nomination There was an obvious WP:SNOW situation at the first AfD, the nominator withdrew the nomination, and yes, I closed it because the clearly stated conditions at WP:SPEEDYKEEP had been met. The nominator was the only one advocating deletion, and he withdrew, it was over. Re-nominating after so short a time is almost always a bad idea. If there have been bad edits to the article since then, add appropriate tags, or dare I suggest, fix the problems. Maybe some discussion on the talk page, where this issues are being discussed right now, before a speedy re-nomination. Calling for oversight on this is over-the-top ridiculous. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD debate was closed after only twelve hours, when we're talking about very serious policy points here. I don't hold any grudges that it was closed after the nominator withdrew the nomination but, just three days later, the same editors who were supporting the proposal are now having to discuss the obvious BLP implications, including asking for outside help (a very respectable move of the editors concerned). The editors might not like the answer I propose, but it seems obvious to me that this woman should not have her life dissected on a top-ten website any more than is strictly necessary. Physchim62 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent rationale for watchlisting the article, posting it at the BLP noticeboard, and so forth, but not for deleting it. AfD is not for cleanup, it is for articles that fail to meet the most basic criteria for an encyclopedic article. This has sources up the ying yang, and, as you pointed out, has some very thoughtful editors doing their best to keep it neutral. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Maybe revisit on octuplets 1st birthday and see where we are at :) --Tom 18:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything the octuplets should be redirected to the mother. Multiple births are not all that notable anymore due to the increasing use of fertility treatments, but a mother on welfare who already has a bunch of kids, three of which have been getting disability payments their entire life, plus the lack of a father and the ethics investigation into the doctor who made this whole mess possible add up to notability for the mother more than the kids, about whom there is little to say since they are newborn infants. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is an obvious magnet for BLP violations: it should be salted until this woman has done anything more significant than have fourteen kids, which is not something so unusual in itself and in historical terms. Physchim62 (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of pages that are magnets for BLP violations, should we lock them all? Active editors can reverse blatant violations quickly. We strive to get reliable sources for every statement to avoid BLP violations and libel. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boy Psychim, you really hate this article don't you? Calling for oversight, and now permanent create protection for an article that has been edited in good faith by dozens of people and handily survived an AfD just a few days ago? It's not just that she has so many kids, it's the circumstances in which she had them, and the almost universally negative public reaction. That is unusual and notable and may represent the beginning of a change in the way Americans view fertility treatments and multiple births. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do hate this type of article (I've nothing special against this one in particular, but it came up on my radar so there you go). Why on earth should we have articles which we know are going to cause us problems when the guidelines (and common sense) says there's a better way round the problem? Why should other editors have to look out for BLP violations on two pages when they could simply be doing it on one? Why should Wikipedia be the hostage to a handful of media junkies who feel that it's their right to publish every personal detail they can find about some single mother in California? Eliminating the gutter journalism and media vultures from Wikipedia would go a long way to making flagged revisions unnecessary. This is a project to write an encyclopedia, not a yellow press newspaper. Physchim62 (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Octuplet's page is going to draw just as much BLP violation problem edits as her page would. I still feel that she meets the criteria for her own page. If the main argument is just that this is going to receive a lot of BLP violations then I find that a weak argument. Active editors can quickly revert edits that are not backed up with reliable sources. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} —Preceding undated comment added 19:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Redirect - I disagree with some of the arguments here. The event is the birth of the octuplets, which already has an article. Not the woman. This is going to be another one of those problematic BLPs that every Joe Bob edits immediately after some tidbit of negative information is aired on Geraldo or Nancy Grace. Keeping the bio details in the article about the birth will make it easier to manage the inevitable issues. In fact, as this is bound to be ephemeral anyway, I'd argue that the bio be separated later if applicable, not now. I cringe at any BLP that exists only because of "juicy" negative information and recentism. §FreeRangeFrog 19:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nomitator in his inital post is advocating a redirect. This alone should qualify it for speedy keep under reason 1, the nominator either withdraws the nomination, or wishes the page to be moved, merged, or have something else done to it other than deletion. Although I'm not going to push this because I think it should come to a natural keep conclusion. But according to policy it should be speedily kept. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming that a redirect would result in most of the current "content" of the article being deleted. As such AfD is an appropriate forum to discuss the matter. Physchim62 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is supposed to be used for the outright deletion of an article. Merge requests and the debate surrounding that I believe is usually handled on the respective article's talk pages. If it was redirected we'd have to greatly expand the octuplets article to include info about Ms. Suleman, since all the surrounding issues, legal issues, ethical issues, and all that would have to be addressed to be fair to the subject. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Redirect" is a common opinion voiced on AfD, and it is perfectly fine to suggest it in a nomination as an alternative or addition to deletion, so long as deletion is on the table. And in this case, it is: The nominator says, "This article should be deleted, nay oversighted." That might be going a bit far IMO, but it's not the sort of "advocating a redirect" that one might find on an article's talk page (due to the fact that a mere redirect would preserve all diffs and revisions and wouldn't, therefore, amount to any true "deletion"). Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and No Redirect - The basis for the nomination is incorrect -- Ms. Suleman has become internationally notable for much more than the "event" of the birth of octuplets. There are many issues surrounding this case for which she is notable -- she has 14 kids conveived through IVF (including 6 previous children), use of public assistance while undergoing expensive IVF treatment, medical ethics of the physician involved, the questions about her preparedness to care for 14 young children, exceptionally lengthy time on workers' comp, refusal of free housing and nursing care, burden on her aging parents, possible foreclosure of the home she lives in, her own contradictory statements, etc. that are covered by numerous qualifying reliable sources. The case has created an incredible amount of public debate and spawned legislative proposals in multiple states. WP is in a unique position to have an article that is properly sourced and updated rather than the trash and rumors published by the tabloids. By refusing an article about this extremely controversial person, WP would lessen its relevance.

There are thousands of biographical articles which do not begin to meet notability requirements, yet here there is no question of notability and IMO, no question that she is notable for more than one "event." Even this guideline is not set in stone. See John Smeaton (baggage handler), an extensive article on someone definitely known for only one "event." Under the premise being used for deleting this article, the Smeaton article should also be deleted. Biographical articles should be based upon notability and should not not be deleted due to a desire to limit public attention to the subject. Toounstable (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that article should have been merged, as there was consensus to do. Physchim62 (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toounstable, FYI other crap exists is a null argument. We know there are other articles out there worse than this. Mr Stephen (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a weak argument (not a null one), so is asserting quoting it as some prime directive against someone - it's an WP:ESSAY after all, not holy writ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the Admin who makes the decision, please consider all of the comments on the previous AFD discussion page in your decision. Toounstable (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Now let me think about it (but I am unconvinced that this lady has two articles in her). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two articles? There is one about her and one about the octuplets. We're attempting to keep the vast majority of the info about her on her page and only relevant info about the octuplets on that page. I hardly see it as two pages about Ms. Suleman. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been here before, but usually with regard to foul deeds (eg one article for a murderer, one article for the murdered, one for the murder, one for the trial ...). Current practice is for a single article (AIUI). Mr Stephen (talk) 20:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how your examples apply in this case. The birth of the octuplets and their medical issues is one event. The controversy, legal and other matters that focus on the mother and her actions I contend is a separate event that isn't entirely relevant to the first one. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I heard [removed per WP:BLP]! In any case, this article is not worthy. Silk Knot (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is hardly the place to add additional BLP violations! — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you maybe give a reason based at least remotely on Wikipedia policy, "not worthy" doesn't really cut it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - This may be the most talked about woman of 2009. A quick google news search shows over 15,900 news articles about her [21]. She is clearly notable, and the WP:IDon'tLikeIt agumenent is not relevant to the issue of notability. Esasus (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The "most talked about woman of 2009"?!?!?! More important than, say, Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama? What happens if Elizabeth II of England suddenly pops her clogs? In this part of the world, Penélope Cruz beats this poor Californian single mother on Google hits by a factor of one thousand. I could almost invoke WP:SOAPBOX as an additional reason to delete this page: we should not be soapboxing the fetishes of a minute group of editors, and doubly especially not when the involve real life living people. Physchim62 (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of '09? The political whirlwind of the elections is dieing down quite a bit, thank God. Clinton will get a fair amount of press now with her position, but Michelle won't in '09. And depending how far this goes with the legal battles, laws, and other issues Ms. Suleman likely could be right up there in the top. As of now past month you'd be hard pressed to find another female getting as much media attention from the major media outlets. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously meets WP:N - a hell of a lot more notable than various game show contestants, professors and two-bit institutions and self-published authors that WP gladly confers the almighty notability upon. This might have been a redirect under WP:BLP1E, were she basically otherwise anonymous and kept herself to herself. But she has hired PR agents, actively sought and given interviews to the press - so whatever embarassment or privacy considerations that generated WP:BLP1E don't apply here: she's neither embarassed nor has she any concern apparently to maintain any privacy. If you want to live in the public eye and meet WP:N and WP:BIO, go for it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As mentioned above, "there's other crap out there" is hardly a convincing argument to keep this little bit of gutter tripe. Physchim62 (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neither is WP:IDONTLIKEIT which a lot of the merge/delete arguments are likely based on, not giving her more notability because they don't like her or what she did. Personally I can say I don't like what she did, but I don't think my opinion on that justifies ignoring or downplaying the article about her. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't nominate Suleman octuplets for deletion, as it might just be a marginally notable article in the field of obstetrics, although I note that WP:MED hasn't even bothered to tag the article yet. What I object to is the idea that, just because this woman had a fairly fundamental role to play in giving birth the eight live babies, we should dissect her entire life. That's not only ridiculous, it's offensive as well. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, just because we can find some information by a quick Google search doesn't mean that that justifies us creating an article about it, especially when it comes to BLP. Physchim62 (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - According to WP:NOT it states: Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) It says "in proportion" if you examine the THOUSANDS of news articles about her and the octuplets MUCH of those have nothing to do with the octuplets, and many don't even mention them. Her in of herself is a news article, apart from the octuplets. Thus my contention that this goes well beyond the "one event" criteria. The reason for an article to "dissect her entire life," as you put it, is because she herself has put out this information to the public. Theres a clear attention seeking pattern in her interviews and statements. This can't be compared to for example another multiple birth that we have articles for. Ms. Suleman appears to have used the births as a way to get media attention, money and possibly a career. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So much of Physchim's argument to delete is based on repeating the whole BLP thing. That's not a reason for deletion. Report it at WP:BLPN or request it be protected at WP:RPP or initiate a discussion to place it on the [22] probation list if you really think it's that big of a problem, but deletion is not a remedy for BLP problems. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article will continue to be a problem for as long as it exists, or until the subject discovers a cure for cancer or assassinates a U.S. President or does something in between that would make her much more notable than the simple fact of being the mother of octuplets. A simple (imperfect) solution exists, but it requires deleting the page and forcing the current editors (should they wish to continue with the task) to write only about those points which stand a bat-in-hell's chance of being encyclopedic and on a page which only deals with the (barely) notable topic. Physchim62 (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again just because it might draw vandals and BLP problems is NOT a reason for it to be deleted. Again your advocating it to merge which automatically qualifies this for speedy keep. So far your arguments is that it is a BLP magnet (which is easily mitigated by active editors), shes not notable beyond the octuplets (even though she herself attracts more media attention then the kids, due weight), and that you don't like it (definitely not a valid reason for AfD). I think theres enough evidence to point out that she is more notable for herself then the octuplets, if anything the octuplets page should redirect to her page if you go by due weight rules. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any article of this type is a BLP magnet, that's why the Community instituted WP:BLP1E. I don't think there are active editors on this article who do not want to place non-encyclopedic content on the page. There is a simple solution: delete the page and force those editors to work within a different framework. If you want to write you comments about the subject outside of the framework of an encyclopedia, there are several free web-hosting services available to you. But beware, you might not find them as polite as Wikipedia is. Physchim62 (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you think the content on this page is non-encyclopedic as a whole? I'm sure there is work that is necessary and we're actively working on it, but to say the entire article as a whole is encyclopedic I don't see that. It's valid to include negative information and criticisms in a BLP if there is valid creditable sources for them, and there is. Unfortunately there just isn't very much (or any?) positive information about this case. Because of that you can't say it's unencyclopedic. What rule under WP:NOT do you propose the majority of the edits on this page violate? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 1[edit]

Delete and Redirect The person in question is notable for only one event and we should not extensively document this person who outside this event would fail WP:BLP. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 00:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain how shes just notable for one event? She had 8 kids, event one. Laws are being discussed in several states to prevent this from happening, event two. On the cusp of a custody battle, event three. Sperm donor wanting paternity test and a part in their lives, event four. The financial situation of her and her family, event five. The death threats, event six. Theres probably more... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 00:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of those could be discussed in a single article without having a separate biography. They are obviously all related. The very fact that you try to call them "separate events" speaks much for your NPOV. You seem to want to have a biography article just so that you can analyse this woman's life: I think that's disgusting. Period. Physchim62 (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If they all was addressed in the octuplets page then the page would be, by far, primarily about her and not the octuplets, due weight rules would prevent that. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are those straws the kind with bendy necks? How are death threats a separate "event"? How is the financial situation a separate "event"? things you list are all aspects of one event. They are all a result of, or a concern because of, the birth of the octuplets. And they are not so specific to Ms. Suleman herself that they would be inappropriate in the article on the octuplets. The laws being enacted are directly related to the inappropriate IVF procedure; the sperm donor and custody battle (? where is this information?) are relevant for the octuplet's article, as is the financial situation. The death threats would not pull undue weight as everything else is directly relevant to the children. Adam Zel (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It simply goes to illustrate the news coverage goes way beyond the birth of eight babies and most of that focus is on the mother and her actions and NOT the ouctuplets. Sperm donor is here Suleman_octuplets#Biological_father. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 19:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While a single event brought her to national prominence, she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources for matters beyond that event—matters that (in response to comments such as Physchim62's) are off-topic in an article on the Suleman octuplets. Bongo matic 02:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, reliable sources? Out of 31 references in the current version of the article, all but one of them are to media reports, exactly the type of source that WP:BLP tells us to be wary of in this type of case. The one remaining reference is a primary source repeated in a blog to an utterly irrelevant factoid. Physchim62 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Let me be blunt. The woman's become an attention whore. And because of it, she's become notable on her own, separate from her kids. She meets notability requirements by a long shot. As long as the article stays neutral in tone, there's no BLP1E issue. And NOTNEWS doesn't apply. If it had JUST been the birth we were talking about, then it would. But the constant attention seeking she's done since then has made her notable. Is the notability stupid? Yes. But so is Paris Hilton's, and nobody's arguing whether or not she's notable.Umbralcorax (talk) 04:04, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she's all over the news for an extended period of time not not news territory, she is notable and that doesn't go away, she alone is talked about now separate from the 8packTroyster87 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"well known at the moment" is not the same as "independently notable". Physchim62 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is notable, permanently, because the matter has already become a major focus of discussion on a public issue. She is in a sense more appropriate for an article than the children. They are notable as octuplets, which is rare enough to be notable. She is notable because of the circumstances of their fertilization, which her her doing and not theirs'. She has the responsibility; they are the victims. It's her deed which will prove historic, in defining public attitudes. DGG (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add t hat the arguments for deleting an article as a magnet for problematic edits is totally wrong--we have sufficient means of keeping an article objective--this is an argument that if followed, would delete the articles on most famous performers and politicians. They're problems, but we know how to deal with them. The BLP problems we do not know how to deal with as well are the more obscure articles. DGG (talk) 04:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have sufficient means to keep the article objective if it is intended as a complete biography of a woman who is only known in relation to eight of her fourteen kids: any attempt to keep it clean would lead to constant edit-warring with those editors who think yellow-press is clean, and would end up at arbitration. Delete and redirect is the best solution for the encyclopedia as a whole. Physchim62 (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to octuplets article. Sure, she is notable, but to me it still looks like all that notability comes from one event - yes, there are more details to the situation, but I'd still consider all that part of the same event. This info for the most part should be in wikipedia, just under the event, not the person. If it wasn't for the event of this woman having octuplets, would she even be mentioned here? No. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the octuplets article. Her notability derives from her octuplets, and the octuplets article should have a family section, so she fits in right there. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per last time! ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 07:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. She thrust herself into te media spotlight; there are articles about multiple aspects of her life cited in the wiki page, so WP:BLP1E does not apply. Xasodfuih (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I also agree with DGG above that her octuplets are less notable than her (WP:BLP1E applies there) so if anything should be done Suleman octuplets should become a section of, and rediret to Nadya Suleman, not the other way around. Xasodfuih (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to octuplets' article. Some of the keep arguments are just boldly inaccurate. Claiming that many delete votes are "likely" IDONTLIKEIT votes is not correct. It appears that it would be more fair to say many of the keep votes are ILIKEIT, or maybe IDONTLIKEHER votes. Regardless of how many news organizations have repeated the same stories, it's still one event. The claim that each aspect of this one event (ie. birth, sperm donor participation, financial issues, death threats, etc) are separate events is grasping at straws. Some of the votes in this AFD make the objectives of some editors very clear. However, what you think of her is irrelevant; the matter of her article being kept or deleted should be based in policy. BLP is a policy. Notability is a guideline. BLP1E reads: Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person. That seems to directly contradict several of the keep votes, including DGG's contention above regarding delete votes that mention maintenance issues. Ms. Suleman is not notable independent of this event. Her biography is dominated by the aftereffects and circumstances surrounding the birth of the octuplets. Therefore, the information should be merged into the relevant article. Adam Zel (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The logic here is circular. As Adam Zel points out, BLP1E states:

Marginal biographies on people with no independent notability can give undue weight to the events in the context of the individual, create redundancy and additional maintenance overhead, and cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person.

Adam Zel may disagree, but the thrust of the keep comments is that "independent notability" has been established. So the rest of the analysis is moot. Bongo matic 14:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what, independent of the octuplets, is she notable? Adam Zel (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My view (and that of many other commentators here) is that although she only gained the limelight because of the octuplets, subsequent coverage of her relates to (a) previous IVF births; (b) legal remedies being sought against this type of behavior in various legislatures, family issues that relate both to and not to the octuplets (such as her 911 call before the octuplets were born where she reported that she had lost a child); and (c) lots of trivial matters that are not directly related to the octuplets (foreclosures, family problems, relationship issues, disability payments). WP:N doesn't say that coverage establishing notability of a topic has to be interesting and deep, but only that it has to be significant, and published in reliable sources independent of the subject. That burden has been met. Review the citations—many mention the octuplets only in passing as a way of identifying the subject, rather than providing a focus for the article. Bongo matic 16:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll have to disagree. I don't believe these are independent of the octuplet birth, rather because of it. Adam Zel (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep . . . that's the crux of this whole discussion if you filter out the yelling. Reasonable people seem to disagree in good faith on this point. Bongo matic 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost the crux, yes, I'll agree with you there. Another important point (for me) is that the decision to split the articles causes BLP problems in itself, which could be avoided by keeping all the aspects in a single article on a single subject. If there is a "biography", it is in the nature of Wikipedia that editor will try to add verifiable factoids to it, because they are writing about the subject of the biography article. However, a subject is not encyclopedicly notable just because they have a Wikipedia article about them. Nor are they notable just because other people talk about them. Wikipedia is not here to record everything that is verifiable, otherwise I would upload the minutes of the local town council meeting into the page of my home town, or the bus timetable, or whatever. The bus timetable is a major topic of conversation around here, but I doubt it interests anyone else. On the other hand, uploading the local bus timetable wouldn't hurt anyone at all: digging into the grimy details of people's personal lives simply because they have been on the news, and then publishing it on a major website so as to ensure that the info gets good Google hits, that can hurt real flesh-and-blood living people.

I don't know if the subject of this article is hurt by the coverage or not. Neither do I know if any editors, so vociferously calling for the article to be kept, have financial interests in the continuation of the publicity circus. What I do know is that this type of article causes the encyclopedia far more problems than it's worth, and that a simple alternative exists in this particular case – protected redirection to Suleman octuplets with the elimination of any material which could not fit into that article. Physchim62 (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your position is, regardless of notability, that it shouldn't exist because of the possibility of future BLP violation edits and because you don't think something should be on wikipedia that shows someone in an unfavorable light? The content of the article is based on what verifiable sources report on her, it's not our fault if there is far more negative then good, and it's not our intention to slant it either way. I'm willing to wager theres plenty of other articles on WP that isn't a glowing review of them, thats marginally notable and a "BLP magnet," should all those be deleted as well? The direction of the article as it evolves is guided by the sources that are available not the editors (at least that's this editors intentions). I don't see how it hurts WP if this article remains, provided there is proper consensus she's notable. The 'crux' of your arguments generally fall under crystal ball reasoning, which isn't valid for a AfD deletion. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a purdy scarecrow. :) ₳dam Zel 06:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: What I said last time still stands :) Chamal ^talk 14:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Clearly both notable and verifiable. As per User:Xasodfuih if anything is done, the Suleman octuplets should redirect to this page. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 16:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per solid nomination and Tocino; explained below. Redirect per the very solid nomination. While the event is arguably notable, the fact that a woman named Nadya Suleman happens to be involved in that event is completely trivial. Raeky, arguing for "strong keep," states the following: "I think to state that she's notable for just the octuplets isn't reflected in the shear number of news articles written about her. Laws are being enacted to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. The doctor that did this is under investigation. Legal battles will most likely arise about custody (hospital is already refusing to release to her)." The problem with this reasoning is that the legal and ethical discussions could have been prompted by this type of event, regardless of who was involved in the event. There does not appear to be anything physically or psychologically interesting about Suleman that would render her uniquely predisposed to have octuplets, and it does not appear that she has contributed in important ways to the surrounding debate. Her involvement in the entire spectacle seems to be entirely coincidental. As an analogy, let's suppose that a tiger escapes from the zoo and eats a guy. And let's suppose that, later on, we discover that the tiger's name is Bill and that his meal's name is Bob. And finally, let's suppose that the tragic encounter between Bill and Bob leads to heated debate about animal confinement and zoo safety. Does this mean we should create Bill (tiger) and Bob (tiger's lunch)? Of course not! Who they are/were is immaterial; all that matters is that chance happened to bring them together in a way that commentators seized upon. And yet it might even be more appropriate to talk about poor Bob than about Nadya Suleman, because the latter is alive and therefore falls under the protection of WP:BLP. BLP states, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist." A separate article about Suleman is sensationalist. Gutter journalism is sensationalist. An encyclopedia, in contrast, does not focus on a person just because other sources have focused on the person; it focuses on a person when other sources have demonstrated that a person is worth focusing on at the potential expense of that person's privacy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So your saying that Nadya Suleman is a anonymous variable in the event, birth of octuplets, and that she herself is less interesting then that of the birth? I find the facts contradict this statement heavily. She had 6 kids already, all very young, unable to financially support them as it is, used money that could of went to food and clothes and rent to have plastic surgery and ADDITIONAL IVF to have 8 more kids. Has threatened suicide while pregnant with those 8 babies, chose not to selectively reduce the number of fetuses, putting all 8's life in danger, has refused financial support and free care for them, the only future financial support (next few years at least) plan she has is to get more student loans to pay for them and rely on her parents, seems to have clear mental disorders (backed up by reliable sources, if you think that's a blp violation), has had additional cosmetic procedures after the birth of the octuplets before she did TV interviews... all these additional facts about her put her interest and public interest well WELL beyond just having eight babies at once. All the media focus after the first couple days has been directed at HER not the babies. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Changed to "Strong delete." The more I think about this, the more I agree with Tocino (below: [23], [24]). So a woman had more children than she could afford. Big surprise. Welcome to America. And she accomplished this through a ridiculous application of technology. Again, big surprise. Welcome to America. Moreover, people have seized on this ridiculousness in order to colour their rhetoric linking poverty with personal irresponsibility. Once again, big surprise. Welcome to America. This incident is not encyclopedic, and it is barely even newsworthy. It belongs, if anywhere, in Wikinews. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, there are already two sentences about this episode in Multiple birth, and they are probably enough. Make it three or four if you insist that her lifestyle is remotely important for encyclopedic purposes. In any case, redirect Nadya Suleman to Multiple birth, which is the medical and social issue in which Suleman has incidentally played a part. Any further preoccupation with her transcends the decency of the interpretive sociology that lay commentators appear to think they're doing, and is nothing more than gossip and inanity. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Gutter journalism, I don't deny that there is that element out there in the world, and some papers/websites are going that route. But there are plenty of reliable news outlets that are not resorting to this kind of tactic, you can't say ALL news about her is Gutter journalism because that is simply false. Our job as editors is to only include information and reference reliable sources, not what the most recent tabloid has said. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Gutter journalism has nothing to do with the reliability of sources; it originated with relatively reliable sources. It's about the value, not the veracity, of what is being reported. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: [edit conflict] Not that she is an "anonymous variable," even if she should be. What I am saying is that she is a relatively unimportant variable. Okay, maybe a peculiar, eccentric, even irresponsible relatively unimportant variable. Let's make Bill not just any tiger, but a rabid tiger. Now we know a little something about him; he's not so "anonymous" anymore. Or, if it's puzzlement that we're after, then let's go the opposite route: Let's make Bill the carnivore judged to be the friendliest at the zoo. The fact that a thing or two can be said about Bill does not mean he deserves his own article. An article about the event could point out that a rabid/friendly tiger named Bill was involved, but an entire article about him would cave in to demands for sensationalist trivia. Similarly, an article about the octuplets' birth can point out that the mother is a woman named Nadya Suleman, who lives a controversial lifestyle. But the fact remains that no one would be talking about her lifestyle had this event not occurred. She (and her lifestyle) is a footnote to the event, not vice versa. At worst, an article-length preoccupation with this footnote would be gossipy and tabloidish. At best, it still flies in the face of the idea that "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy." A conservative effort would not go to great lengths to point out that someone's controversial lifestyle surrounds a single event, when a discussion of that event could note the lifestyle in passing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the disticnt impression you don't think she should have an article because you don't think anymore attention should be given to her? This is of course a "I don't like it" argument. We're here to decide the notablity of her, not if we agree or disagree with any of her actions. The issue shouldn't be about does she deserve more attention but does she qualify as a notable person according to guidelines and does her BLP withstand the rules of the guidlines. First we start with WP:N; (1) "Significant coverage": with nearly 20,000 referenced news articles, many of wich from very reputable news outlets and are solely focued on her not the octuplets, I think it plainly passes (1). (2) "Reliable": There are THOUANDS of news articles that pass the reliablity test. (3) "Sources": There are THOUANDS of reliable secondary sources. (4) "Independent of the subject": There are THOUANDS of independent reliable secondary sources. (5) "Presumed": The available sources, and their number, are headline news articles from reputable major news outlets. It would be hard to argue it violates (5) either. So I postulate that she passes the WP:N, it states "Notability requires objective evidence" and "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." You can argue that this violates WP:BLP which states an article "must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States and to all of our content policies, especially: WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:OR. For NPOV it is not, at least mine, our intention to express one view over the other. We're trying to add information based on reliable sources. Due to the shear amount o material already published about her we're attempting to do our best wo wade through it to arrive at the most neutral stance. Of course mistakes can and will be made (or already have), but this is where others can come in and help, point out problems. Just because problems might exist now dosn't mean they can't be fixed, and shouldn't be used as a basis for a deletion. We addressed [WP:V] above and for WP:OR: which is "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." We srive to make sure everything is properly sourced with a reliable source, ones that are not a source should be added or deleted. The article can remain NPOV, but if there is problems now, it's not a valid argument for deletion as per: WP:NOTCLEANUP. I just don't see how this article violates policies or how she dosn't meet the critera for notablity. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm well aware that she has been mentioned by a bazillion sources. What I am not aware of is any demonstration by any of these sources that she is notable apart from this WP:ONEEVENT. As for the whole NPOV/V/OR thing, BLP is about more than that, as I explained below ([25]; typo correction here). Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above discussion: "Welcome to America" (i.e. this IVF being a missapplication of technology) isn't a valid reason to delete. Xasodfuih (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 2[edit]

Comment On the one hand, the argument that we don't need two separate articles on this event -- one on the mother, the other on the multiple births -- is appealing. After all, we have only one article on the Dionne quintuplets, which was the equivalent media circus 70-odd years ago. On the other hand, since this is a developing event we really don't know how this story will turn out: it may be that Suleman gains the greater notability for her bizarre obsession with children. What is certain is that at the moment people are looking to Wikipedia for information on both subjects, & that there's no harm keeping both articles for the time being -- after all, Wikipedia is not paper. -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a crystal ball argument, and shouldn't be used in an AfD. I think theres plenty of evidence now that shes notable in her own right. The Dionne quintuplets can't really be compared, first back then big family's of that size wasn't rare, they're identical so it wasn't an intentional act of her parent(s) to have a multiple birth, and they apparently had the means to support the children. A identical multiple birth of that size undoubtably caused a 'media circus' but the focus of the attention was completely different than this case. We need to assess the CURRENT notability of the two, the birth, and the mother as it currently stands not how it might turn out in the future. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be crystal-balling, but even a fortune teller should be pessimistic when it comes to BLPs. An eventualistic attitude is inconsistent with a "conservative" approach that favours a subject's current privacy over the prospect of her future notability. As for current notability, let's not confuse the recent hype with substantive concern. This is not the first time that personal responsibility has been doubted or recommended, and it is not going to be the last. What we have is a biologically notable event with biographically incidental features. To have an article on Suleman is to overstate the biographical, and therefore not to exercise the caution urged by WP:BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be specific what exactly under WP:BLP does the article violate? — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An entire paragraph in the introduction: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment." And the bulk of WP:1E, e.g., "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Suleman is not notable outside of this event, and any mention of her outside of it is necessarily superfluous and tangential. And going off on tangents is not exactly a conservative approach to writing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats why the 3 specific rules must be met under WP:BLP which as I outlined above that I think this article does. Also your logic would seem to mean that we couldn't publish a critique, criticism or any negative information about a BLP. The rules state so long as it is sufficiently sourced with reliable credible secondary sources it's valid for inclusion. Obviously care must be taken to not WP:LIBEL someone, but so long as valid sources are available it is valid to include it so long as you remain WP:NPOV. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 21:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course it can be appropriate to have a criticism-based BLP, and I have in fact defended such an article in a prior AfD. To be precise, the article was Criticism of Vladimir Putin, which is perfectly acceptable because the subject is biographically notable in the first place. This accords with WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:NOTCENSORED, and therefore with the idea that even the most sensitive, conservative assessment of him that can be presented within reason will include critical assessments of his activities. Because it has not been established that Suleman deserves to be cast into the limelight, or that, apart from being an incidental figure in a biological event, she is any more than a pawn in the media's money-making game, it is not clear that she can be treated in a sensitive and conservative manner except insofar as she is noted in passing in an article dealing with the event in which she was involved. Furthermore, "the rules" do not "state so long as it is sufficiently sourced with reliable credible secondary sources it's valid for inclusion." If BLP were about nothing more than WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR, then it would have no need to state anything beyond, "See WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR." Abiding by these three policies is the bare minimum required by BLP. The point isn't that they should be followed (the individual policies can speak for themselves on that point), but that they should be the backbone of a cautious and sensitive approach to biographical figures. And, like I said above, being cautious and sensitive toward Vladimir Putin is not the same as being cautious and sensitive toward Nadya Suleman. The former is already notable enough to have plenty of BLP material, so the question of sensitivity revolves around the ways in which criticism should be presented and counterbalanced. With the latter, the question revolves around whether it is appropruate to give her any biographical attention in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two notes on the current state of the article Firstly, it has now been semi-protected so BLP problems should stop or at least slow down. Secondly, in response to the repeated suggestions of merging or redirecting, I have added merger tags and begun a discussion here to decide what to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge because the 14 children are the main reason why Suleman even became a household name in the first place. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The arguments for merging this article into the octuplets article confounds cause and effect. Suleman is the cause and the octuplets are the effect. If anything the octuplets should be merged into her page. They came from her body, like it or not. It also reeks of misogyny as in (paraphrasing)"giving birth to octuplets is nothing noteworthy" (why then should we merge this article into the article about the octuplets, if the octuplets birth is not noteworthy?). This argument reduces the complexity of Suleman's actions to the product of her womb, in other words, it reduces her as a person to her offspring. She is (obviously) noteworthy for much more than her children, controversial, yes, but noteworthy nonetheless. This reduction of person to offspring is never done with men, only with women and it is done to handle precisely the kind of anxiety that we witness throughout this case, i.e. that female reproductive powers are difficult to control and have broad social, economic, and environmental implications. The primary editors calling for this article to be removed have repeatedly shown personal bias, using language like "gutter tripe" and arguing that Suleman was (paraphrasing once more) "an insignificant player in the birth and in the ensuing media frenzy" (she is the central player)that she has an "unusual approach to motherhood" (millions of women have IVF and are single mothers, in fact, single motherhood predates fatherhood by millions of years -- it is fatherhood that is unusual)etc. I run an organization dedicated to reducing the population through voluntary means, so I in no way support this kind of behavior (Suleman's), but I find it very interesting that the hate we are all witnessing is levied against a woman who dared to reproduce without being properly submitted to a man. Every child born will increase the struggle we all face for increasingly scarce resources, yet we do not generally become enraged with people with big families, only women who choose to go it alone. This is not about protecting her, it is about defining the proper place of women (the controlled)in general and ensuring that men (the controllers)are not increasingly left out of reproductive matters. It is about erasing her. If we can erase this woman's entry (however controversial) then we can "erase" her, which is exactly what historians have systematically done for centuries. Erase women because "having babies is nothing significant." Only a class of people incapable of having babies would adopt this incredibly incorrect position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LotusOne777 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— LotusOne777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

While its good to explain the foundation of our opinion, this lengthy editorial does not belong here. What does the statement "Only a class of people incapable of having babies would adopt this incredibly incorrect position?" mean? Are you assuming that only males want to see this article deleted or merged? Until told otherwise, I'll believe I am interpreting that statement incorrectly. The alternative is too ridiculous to swallow. --Boston (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Agreed. That looks like a WP:SOAP to me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, mothers are very important, the pillars of our society. They should be given medals for being mothers, and we should have lots of Wikipedia articles about them. Maybe we should set up WikiProject Your Mother to coordinate all this, to write articles about your mother. Yes, we would have a group of people hunting down every titilating yellow-press factoid we could get out grubby little hands on about the woman that brought you into this world, and then we'd publish them on a Top-10 website so that whole world could find them easily. Because it's important for the world to know what your mother is really like. I suggest that the project starts with thorough investigations of Raeky's mother and Beeblebrox's mother, possibly moving on to investigate LotusOne777's mother as well. Physchim62 (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice WP:SOAP. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously haven't read WP:SOAP in a while. There's nothing wrong with pointing out the hypocrisies in arguments at an AfD discussion, nor with explaining the reasons behind Wikipedia policy. Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I don't opine to merge on the basis of not feeling Suleman is notable. Rather, as someone who hadn't previously taken note of her, I would have liked to read about her and the octuplets in a single article of manageable length rather than in two articles. However, since she's at least as notable as the octuplets, maybe the combined article should be called "Nadya Suleman and Suleman octuplets" or something. I'm aware that I'm regarding this with pragmatism rather than interpretation of policy, but since there's plenty of the latter here I've decided to offer the former. --Boston (talk) 03:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We have no article on Lesley Brown, but we do have a short, sensitive and conservative biography of her daughter Louise Brown, the fruit of a far more notable scientific event than the Suleman octuplets, in which Lesley Brown is discussed to the necessary degree (including some quite personal details, with references). This would be the approach I would recommend for Nadya Suleman, but there are too many editors who are unhealthily obsessed with the woman herself to make this possible without deletion of the article and a big BLP rap on the knuckles. Physchim62 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again another comparison that doesn't even remotely fit this situation. "Unhealthily obsessed" nice. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, I should simply let the number, length and nature of your comments speak for themselves. Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the WP:OTHERCRAPISNTREALLYCRAPBUTTHISIS argument as Louise Brown's "independent notability" is even less than this lady. If anything they should both be deleted. — CharlotteWebb 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both articles. WP should not have trivial articles about people's private lives. --Tocino 17:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid argument for an AfD. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS is a valid argument for an AfD. --Tocino 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just not an applicable one for this discussion. Umbralcorax (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes it is. Furthermore, WP:NOT#NEWS gets at a lot of the WP:BLP stuff I've been rambling about: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic" (emphasis mine). But if you really take both WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP to heart, you might reach the same conclusion that I did, which is that even the event is not notable enough for a stand-alone encyclopedic article. Rather, the event should be mentioned briefly in Multiple birth (and it is), and the person should be mentioned even more briefly within that passage (and she is). Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If all this woman had done was give birth to eight kids, then WP:NOTNEWS would certainly apply. I'd have zero problem with redirecting her name to an article on the octuplets and merging any content there. But this is not a person known for one event, she's known for so much more than that now, thanks to both the media's efforts, and her own, that deleting it is absolutely the wrong way to go. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All she has done is give birth to eight kids. The rest of the doing has been by the news media, which has taken on the task of reporting the non-events of her life that have no place in an encyclopedia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionable Keep, no redirect I can't even wrap my head around an argument that she shouldn't have an entry. Ventifax (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definite keep Do I care about this woman? No. Do I think she deserves attention? No. Do I think she's an idiot? Yep. Does she meet the notability requirements to have an article on WP? Absolutely. (Will I keep talking in questions? Not after this one.) -- Mike (Kicking222) 03:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person is a minor figure mainly appearing on tabloid television. I can see having an article on the controversy on the octuplets but I don't believe it does Wikipedia any good to have an article on this person itself. --Fasterthanaspeedingbullet (talk) 15:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Fasterthanaspeedingbullet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep. This has moved waaay beyond a basic news controversy story even if both this and the Suleman octuplets article need a lot of work. Plenty of notability and sources, the rest is basic clean-up work starting with the wp:lede. I'll give anyone who cleans this up to GA their own shiny barnstar, just remind once it's at GA and it's all yours! -- Banjeboi 17:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Suleman octuplets. The octuplets have received more than enough coverage to be notable but I don't see the need for a seperate article on the mother. All that's relevant can be included in the main article.--Sloane (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is it possible that some here are trying to use the concept that notability for only one event is in itself insufficient notability (despite the dozens or hundreds of articles by qualifying WP:reliable sources in this case) primarily because they do not want this particular woman to have a wikipedia article? If the people arguing to delete this article also proposed and/or argued to delete the Chesley Sullenberger WP article because he is clearly notable only for one event -- the water landing of US Airways Flight 1549 (which also has its own article) -- I would be more pursuaded of their consistent application of the notability restriction they are arguing to apply in this case. Even the fact that there is such a lengthy debate here by a substantial number of WP editors, some of whom have taken the time to make multiple arguments for and against deletion would seem to support that the subject is notable (or perhaps controversial) enough to draw such a debate. This is the first time I've participated in an AFD debate and am frankly both surprised and dismayed that it has gone on so long, especially considering the clear response to the first AFD nomination that resulted in a keep, which the second nominator did not accept. It seems to me that the effort that has gone into debating deletion would have been better spent improving the article. Toounstable (talk) 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contend that just the shear size, number of editors and lengthy debate for this AfD (which is highly unusual looking back through the archives) seems to speak to the notability of this person. A completely unknown person, or even one that wasn't controversial like Mr. Sullenberger in the above example wouldn't spark such a huge debate. The fact that this many people has this much of an opinion on it, above all else, is an argument for Keep in my book. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 05:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A major difference between Sullenberger and Suleman is that Sullenberger is notable for far more than one event. He is a published scholar who has collaborated with NASA; he is an international expert on airline safety; he is a former Air Force captain and accident investigator; he has testified before Congresss; etc., etc. He probably deserved an article even before Flight 1549. A second--and related--difference is that Sullenberger's ability to save the plane like that might have been unique. Not any pilot could have done that. I still am unaware of anything that uniquely predisposed Suleman to have the kids. She could have been anyone. A third difference--and the most important one for BLP purposes--is that Sullenberger is not a controversial figure. It is not difficult to write about him in a sensitive and conservative manner. But the very act of singling out Suleman for an article may amount to giving her both positive attention that she did not earn, and negative attention that she does not deserve. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you get "published scholar" except maybe because he has an advanced degree, in which case hes no more notable for that then the millions of other people with advanced degrees. Theres thousands of people who "collaborate" with NASA, not every NASA employee or contraster deserves a wikipedia page. Being an "international expert in flight safety" is also not a notable thing, nor is being a captain in the military. Plus I have faith in the majority of our commercial pilots, MANY are just as distinguished former military men, to state that his ability might be "unique" is very inaccurate. Landing on water isn't exactly an untaught skill. Sure he saved plenty of peoples lives, averted a possible disaster, but being notable beyond landing a plane in a river? That's a stretch. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 09:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I get "published scholar" from the fact that he is a published scholar, a fact that is already noted in his article: "Working with NASA scientists, he coauthored a paper on error-inducing contexts in aviation." Your average commercial pilot is not the CEO of an aviation firm; a graduate of three academic institutions with two masters degrees; a speaker at an international conference; a visiting scholar at a well-known university; an instructor, safety chairman, accident investigator, and national technical committee member for the Airline Pilots Association; an accident investigator for the U.S. Air Force and National Transportation Safety Board; a major contributor to the development of a Federal Aviation Administration advisory circular; a developer and teacher of a major airline's crew resource management course; and, yes, the coauthor of a NASA paper. Sullenberger is: [26]. And now we get to Flight 1549, where he didn't simply have the ability to save everyone's lives, but actually used that ability in an uncommon way (the last time anything comparable occurred was more than 45 years ago) and an unlikely locale (planes that crash into the middle of a metropolis generally don't have zero fatalities). And finally, we get to Suleman, who, um...had some kids. That has got to be the most unfair comparison between two individuals that I have ever heard. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure he's a hero, but I don't see how any of the events in his past prior to the crash that make him notable enough for an article, or anymore notable beyond the plane crash. Sure he's a good man, well educated and well off, but much of what hes done isn't notable. I don't see how you can argue that hes more deserving of a page then Suleman. I think this is a perfect example of two extremes myself. Sullenberger is a perfect example of a hero, he did something everyone respects him for so everyone holds him in high esteem, so he gets his own page (one which resulted in a very familiar looking snow keep AfD decision.) Suleman on the other hand is the exact opposite, virtually noone thinks shes acting in the best intrest of her children, shes not liked and people get very opinionated about her article, not necessarily on the grounds that she doesn't merit one but because giving her one might validate some of her actions or at the very least make her more visible. The two people's fame stemmed from one media frenzy event, what's different is Sullenberger hasn't been seeking more media attention or generating anymore outlandish stories, where as Suleman is generating even more outlandish stories by the day, like the most recent one where shes selling a video of the birth to the highest bidder [27], not saying this event makes her more notable but this is definitely not normal). As more and more information about her is published the lasting impact of this gets stronger. Currently just a few stats are considering IFV reform laws, which is another reason to keep an article on her to reference. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break 3[edit]

delete. So everyone will see how ridiculous the growing WP:NOTNEWS movement is. AfD hero (talk) 08:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Ouch, that was WP:POINTy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... How about this one then,

This is nothing more than a singular burst of media attention on an otherwise nonnotable subject. Every once in a while random human interest stories get picked up by a few news and tabeloids, and the story spreads like wildfire for a few weeks. That is, until the media latches onto the next thing and the story is ultimately forgotten. In 1997 some septuplets to survive were born in Iowa. There was a huge media storm over the event, and the story was in the news for several weeks. Now no-one even remembers it.

The policy WP:NOT#NEWS says that we must consider not only the number of sources, but also the historical significance of a topic. There is no historical significance here to speak of - its just a woman who had a lot of kids - nor is there any objective evidence that the attention on this event is more than a passing fad. To speculate on whether or not this will be important would be crystal balling, which we do not do at wikipedia.

Furthermore, this story is inherently of a tabaloid nature, as are the majority of the secondary sources we have. This is unacceptable because WP:NOT#NEWS tells us that Routine news coverage of such things as ... tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.

Finally, one could make an argument that the act of having 8 kids is inherently notable, given it's rarity. But even that isn't good enough. According to policy, Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. The news coverage of Nadya Suyleyman does not go beyond this single event, so she should not have a wikipedia entry dedicated to her. The only place suitable for the information in this article would be, for example, a short entry in the list of multibirths article.

Taking all of this into account, it is clear that this subject is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. If the significance is weak, you must delete. AfD hero (talk) 10:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You missed one: "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." ;) Physchim62 (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AfD hero: Now that you've explained yourself, I actually agree with you completely. I misinterpreted your original delete !vote as a sarcastic way of saying that it's ridiculous to invoke WP:NOTNEWS here (e.g., delete this article about such a well-known figure as a way to demonstrate that WP:NOTNEWS-based arguments have become ridiculously prevalent). Actually, it still reads that way to me, but your more detailed rationale makes perfect sense. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wooosh AfD hero (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The McCaughey septuplets hardly compare to this event, they had them as the result of fertility drugs, not a voluntary decision to have a multiple birth, they chose not to abort any on religious grounds and they didn't have any existing kids, and could support them. Ms. Suleman is hardly comparable. For example the McCaugheny's wasn't use as a pretext to pass stricter laws governing IVF [28][29] They didn't try to sell a video of their children's birth for a million dollars [30], they wasn't a single mom with multiple children they couldn't support, had an income, didn't live at home with their parents, didn't have plastic surgery and very expensive IVF to have more children they couldn't afford, didn't seek and want media attention, the list goes on and on. I challenge you to find another story that is covered in this depth. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately, this woman is notable and has sufficient independent coverage. She's probably one of the most talked about non-political women talked about in the last few weeks. More importantly (in my opinion), she's notable as a launching point for a larger political discussion of in-vitro fertilisation regulation. FlyingToaster 09:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"In the last few weeks" is hardly an appropriate timescale for an encyclopedia, even if your suggestion were remotely true. Physchim62 (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note-Nadya Suleman has been viewed "291,628" as opposed to "136,860" for the octuplets, she is more popular than the kids.Troyster87 (talk) 12:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But less than half as "popular" as Adolf Hitler… 10,000 hits a day during February is still less Selena Gomez, Madonna, Beyoncé Knowles, Kristen Stewart, Hannah Montana, Megan Fox, Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Angelina Jolie, Freida Pinto, Lady Gaga or Rihanna. The difference is that all of those women also averaged at least 10,000 hits a day during January, and most of them will probably do the same in March. So much for this subject being "the most talked of woman in 2009"! Even America's Next Top Model gets half as many wikihits again. Physchim62 (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The fact that hundreds of thousands of peeping Toms are peeking into her wiki-window sounds like all the more reason to protect her privacy. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which you do by preventing BLP violations and LIBEL, not by deleting. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 16:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands is appallingly sourced—several references simply don't contain the information claimed for them—which is a BLP violation that doesn't seem to have been prevented. But that's by the by. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current state of the article isn't a valid reason for an AfD, articles can be improved and it is. You're welcome to help. And I agree theres to many sources, it's hard to verify all of them, when we're putting an "unhealthy amount" of time into this AfD (As was so graciously pointed out above.) — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I wasn't clear. The only point I was trying to make was that the article is already a BLP violation, despite being fairly short and with all the refs online. That is not a reason to delete. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: But then we get back to the idea that the mere existence of this article is in violation of BLP, especially WP:1E. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, as has been pointed out above, we're well past the "one event" stage, so BLP1E really isn't applicable here.Umbralcorax (talk) 17:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As has been pointed out, the main editors on the article have shown themselves quite incapable of grasping the basics of BLP policy. The article should never have been created in the first place, and is certainly unsafe in their hands. Physchim62 (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow................. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obvious. Well beyond one event, very strong notability as a cultural phenomenon and has had a significant effect on public discourse on many parenting-related matters. BLP and other policy problems are there, but deleting articles based on notability criteria is no way to deal with problems unrelated to notability.Wikidemon (talk) 17:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I'm not asking for it to be deleted on the basis of a notability criterion, although that would also be a good reason. I'm asking for it to be deleted on the basis of BLP policy. Old hands will remember the precedent of an Ohio sex offender who became famous on the internet for a quite distinct reason. Jimbo had to delete that one, after several AfD debates which make this one seem like a church tea party. The current article adds nothing to the encyclopedia, and is already a magnet for all sorts of BLP violations. It should be sent to the (locked) edit window in sky. Physchim62 (talk) 18:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Delete, Delete. This is Wikipedia, not the National Enquirer. An encyclopedia is supposed to reflect information that can stand the test of time, not jump on every scandal-wagon that swings by. Are we going to start making articles about Angelina Jolie sightings, too? let the poor woman and her mass of children sink back into the anonymity that the rest of us take for granted. --Ludwigs2 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article presents considerable biographical material indicating that coverage of this woman in reliable sources goes well beyond the context of this particular event. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a merge Though it isn't likely that will be the outcome. BLP1E was always our least followed policy anyways. I suspect there are enough sources with which to build a decent biographical article, so that might lean me toward keep. But still...it does seem kind of flavor of the month. Protonk (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or create single article? I say it that way rather than "merge" because I can easily argue that the octuplets themselves are not nearly as notable as the woman herself - all the kids have done is to be born. However, the octuplets article would follow the general approach to articles about multiple births. The information could be moved (not deleted) from the woman's article to the octuplets article, but how long would it be before a spinoff article would be needed anyway? In effect, this is that spinoff article. So, keep. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think the two should be merged somehow. I don't think these are distinct phenomena. You cannot treat the subject of the 8 children separately from the mother, or vice-versa. That could change in the future but for now the notability of both is completely a matter of this one issue. Wikidemon (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I paid my first visit to the article just now after viewing a note at the BLP page, and fully expected to find a mess. IMO the article is well written coverage of a notable subject, and not at all "tabloidish" except for perhaps one sentence in the Controversies section that unnecessarily repeats something said earlier in the article. Deserves to be kept. --CliffC (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete- effectively reads like an attack page, rightly or wrongly and regardless of the intent. Sticky Parkin 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My Mother was one of thirteen; this doesn't make my Grandmother notable. HalfShadow 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would, if they were all at once. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also large families of that time wasn't abnormal, and they was all naturally conceived and in theory somewhat planned (you can always opt to not have sex if you don't belive in birth control or want more kids). Not comparable to this situation, even remotely. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her notability seems to have been confirmed. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are numerous sources about various aspects of her life, not only giving the birth.Biophys (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No one denies this; however, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to meet the notability criteria... — raeky ^{(talk | edits)} 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Encyclopedia is, I think, the operative word in that quoted sentence. Perhaps she is notable, if by "notable" you mean that she passes WP:GNG, where G, for "general," is the operative letter. Generally speaking, this guideline can help one to determine whether or not a subject should be granted its own article. But in individual cases, certain other guidelines and official policies (such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP) become salient and help to determine whether a subject that has passed the GNG milestone is ultimately encyclopedic. She has been noted, that's for sure, but to either history's benefit or hers? Doubtful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for those that (like me) believe she is notable: What do you see as the disadvantages of merging these articles? --Boston (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well for one, the octuplets are notable in their own right, longest surviving in history (I believe), second set in the united states. All the controversy and wrong doing of their mother and the IVF doctor aside, they're notable for that. It would be best to separate the two, of course some mention about how they came to be and their family is necessary and whatever future developments that directly involve them, sure. But all the legal and other issues of the mother shouldn't clutter up the octuplets page, because it's not relevant to their existence. All that should be with the mother's page. — raeky ^{(talk | edits)}

Strong Keep She is the Paris Hilton of IVF treatment. There is so much news about her that she has become a celebrity. I came across her page by Googling specifically for the wiki page, and then stumbled across this AfD. It makes absolutely no sense to delete her article. She is notable for a stupid event, but she is notable. There are many authors of scientific achievements who have their own page, not merged into article about their about their scientific achievement - even when the scientific achievement is the only thing notable about the scientist. Nadya's 'achievement' is nowhere scientific, but is so incredible and notable that both she and the event have been given huge amounts of attention. Thus they both deserve an article. RezaBosagh (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— RezaBosagh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: Most scientific achievements don't just happen out of the blue. Scientists are predisposed in biographically unique ways to do the stuff that they do, and scientific discovery is generally a gradual and piecemeal process that cannot be meaningfully described as "one event." There is, perhaps, the occasional exception that proves the rule (see Benzene#Ring_formula and Archimedes#The_Golden_Crown), but I think it is safe to say that most important discoveries do not pop out of the brain quite as spontaneously as kids pop out of the womb. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For all the reasons previously stated by others, it's clear the amount of coverage in major media establishes notability, even if it may be transient. Bluecanary99 (talk) 04:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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