Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 27

< 26 May	28 May >

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 merge to Weezer discography. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Six Hits[edit]

No reliable sources. Exclusive release in Target stores, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Artist samplers are something less than genuine releases, therefore probably not noteworthy Hairhorn (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just as significant as any other greatest hits album. You might as well get rid of these too... Also for clarification it is an album offered at Best Buy in lieu of Target. -Ichabod (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Searching finds no significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. I see a Delete-a-thon on the horizon. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 04:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between a "greatest hits" album, that gets full release, promotion and new artwork, and a commercial sampler that's thrown together without involvement from the band and with no new content. (Also...ahem... greatest hits albums usually have more than 6 hits... ) Hairhorn (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC as above. Eusebeus (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Weezer discography, which currently fails to mention it at all.--Remurmur (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Weezer discography#Extended plays, per WP:NALBUMS.Fingers ^OnRoids 01:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep as a DMB page. This is certainly a valid term, as exemplified by the references that were found during the AfD. However, insufficient content was adduced that would stand up an encyclopaedic page. The opinions of the contributing editors were several and varied. The delete views, though, were not backed up by convincing reasons. The consensus was that the page should be kept in some form. A DMB page looks a good solution. TerriersFan (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon violence[edit]

This page isn't really worthy of a page on its own but more or less on the ESRB page or other similar pages John Collier (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Awww, this would make a great essay topic. But for the moment it makes a crap encyclopedia entry. Hairhorn (talk) 23:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article simply as a redirect to cartoon physics because the phrase "cartoon violence" is often used to refer to that topic. I'd just like to see it used in that way, not in the way it currently is. Cale (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Cale's suggestion to redirect as originally intended, is a good solution. Cartoon physics, while I've never heard that term, seems to mean the same thing. --Susan118 (talk) 02:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Make a disambig - He meant it to be a disambig page, and I don't think it's an unreasonable one. Shadowjams (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that happens, that last item mentioning violence related to a particular newspaper cartoon should be removed. Does not seem logical that someone would be looking under "cartoon violence" for that. --Susan118 (talk) 05:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Television content rating systems (Which is a redirect from Fantasy Violence). Cartoon violence, as in Wile E. Coyote getting hit on the head with an anvil is considered differently than realistic violence such as a gun battle in a crime drama. Eauhomme (talk) 04:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Make~~ Keep as a disambig I agree with Shadowjams. This is a reasonable disambiguation page. I do not believe that this would be a good merger for Television content rating systems as it specifically redirects to articles that have a similar meaning, and does not discuss any rating systems. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the page seems to already be a disambiguation. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I only see the disambig page, but cartoon violence is an extremely encyclopedic subject, more than cartoon physics. Maybe someone will write such an article someday. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Here's nearly 500+ online searchable books that may help and several hundred Google scholar hits. A good article discussing cartoon violence, can you say The Itchy & Scratchy Show?, is certainly on order here especially as it has been tied to aggression in minors of all ages. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly okay as a disambig page. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has potential to be a good (or a bad -- it's currently very bad) personal essay and general venue for original research. It is not an encyclopedia topic.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets requirements for disambiguation. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic with much potential. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 19:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lazzerini (Ward 1 City Council Candidate)[edit]

Non-notable candidate for city council. Also a conflict of interest, juding by the User's name of the creator Jlazzerini2009 CTJF83Talk 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm sure he's a nice person, but he's not yet notable. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a clear case of self promotion by someone who fails notability criteria for politicians. Valenciano (talk) 05:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self promotion by a non-notable person for a non-notable position. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tan | 39 22:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Gilchrist[edit]

Contested PROD. Original reasoning for PROD was "Playing in youth internationals does not confer notability. Only playing in senior club matches or Test internationals does." PROD was removed without reason. While the article suggests that Gilchrist has played rugby for Stirling County RFC, that club does not play at a high enough level to constitute "senior" rugby. Nevertheless, there is not even any indication that Gilchrist has actually played a match for Stirling County. – Pee Jay 23:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Also the username of the creator of this article seems to be the same name as his youth team G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable.--Bob (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable per WP:ATHLETE. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. لenna vecia 05:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ionuţ Caragea[edit]

Classic self-promotion. Note the embedded links to his own website, the name-dropping in the "extended interview" (which just happened to be published on his site), the many links to forum-like venues where he has sought to make a name for himself. The closest we come to seeming third-party reliable coverage is in SFera, but then we look at their editorial policy and find they accept "everything writers may wish to contribute", with a bare minimum of an editorial filter. That does not really pass the WP:RS threshold. Caragea has succeeded in establishing some Internet presence through savvy marketing, but he has not entered the realm of coverage in independent sources, and until then, we should not have this article, which still fails WP:N. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient notability per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, don’t be ridiculous. Self-promotion? Wrong! Look at the Ionut Caragea`s activity. Source Wikipedia Romania and http://www.aslrq.ro/ASLRQ_fichiers/membri_files/ionut%20caragea.htm. Pls verify all this references. You are romanian, you can confirm all. Do you need more? --Nesterovici

Wikipedia is not a valid source for Wikipedia. Links to his own website also fail WP:GNG - sources must be "independent of the subject". As I've explained, the editorial policy of SFera (and, as far as I can tell, of all the other venues where his work has appeared) are in breach of WP:SELFPUB. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, Wikipedia is not a valid source for Wikipedia. Agreed. But I speak about links and references. You can help us. You can select good links and references. It’s easy to delete, it’s so difficult to help? --Nesterovici —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.52.108 (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you help me a lot. Now, SferaOnline is out and the good reference is National Magazine Helion and La Poesie Que J`aime. What do you suggest now?--Nesterovici —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.52.108 (talk) 17:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biruitorul, pls to reconsider. ChildofMidnight pls to reconsider. After new modifications, is no reason to delete this article. Thank you! --Nesterovici —Preceding undated comment added 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. I read the updated article. While it's not terribly well-written, that alone doesn't make it delete-able. What does is the fact that the subject doesn't seem to meet any of the aforementioned notability standards.Tyrenon (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Tyrenon. If in doubt, please verify that "Tyrenon" exists.

Start the User:Tyrenon page Search for "User:Tyrenon" in existing pages of namespace User. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title.

Other reasons this message may be displayed:

If a page was recently created here, it may not yet be visible because of a delay in updating the database; wait a few minutes and try the purge function. Titles on Wikipedia are case sensitive except for the first character; please check alternate capitalizations and consider adding a redirect here to the correct title. If the page has been deleted, check the deletion log, and see Why was my page deleted?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.193.182 (talk) 05:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesnt make it past WP:CREATIVE standards of notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bigdaddy1981

Start the User:Bigdaddy1981 page Search for "User:Bigdaddy1981" in existing pages of namespace User. Look for pages within Wikipedia that link to this title. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.193.182 (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete. User:Nesterovici (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nesterovici, don't edit other peoples' comments; the closing admin can see that you disagree with my view without you editing it to add "contested by Nesterovici " to it. Thanks. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bigdaddy1981, it is for you. You must see the last update and you can change your decision.User:Nesterovici (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Ionut Caragea use many clones as a Lerman Kruger, Ivan Ivanovici and Nesterovici http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pagini_de_şters/Sorin_Cerin see Victor Blacus on 30 January 2009 and Gutza on 31 January 2009.Caragea wrote this article and comments here using Nesterovici name.Many sites of qutes are not serious because he is not published as a famous qoutes author in Great Quotes.He is published to user sumbimtted quotes area where any peopele can submit free how many quotes need.Many of so called literary critics are child or people who don't have anything to do with literary criticism.To Sfera review Ionut Caragea is editor.What serios magazine or review talk about Caragea?No one.Biruitorul has right.This article about Caragea is classic self promotion.Wafeofsun (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why was this relisted? We've got one editor putting up a huge fight to defend an article that he wrote...and frankly making a mess of things in the process. I, for one, do not intend to change my vote; I honestly suspect a conflict of interest here considering the amount of energy being put into the article and to the fight here by the author.Tyrenon (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't seen anything to convince me either; however, I think Nesterovici is acting in good faith to try to establish notability. Possible conflict; but maybe he just disagrees with us honesty and is seeking to convince us. No socks or other tricks are being used so I tend to think the best; true he made the page harder to read but I think an admin will be able to figure it all out. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bigdaddy1981, peoples from Montreal speak french or english. Ionut Caragea live there. A lot of writers from Montreal are in Wikipedia with just few lines. My argument is solid. I`m not a cheater. Thank you! Take a look : [1] User:Nesterovici (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree --- I think you are honest. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are a cheater Ionut Caragea.Who edit this article?You.You are Nesterovici!Who are the critics?Your friend.In romanian literature and culture this people who give the critics to you, don't have any serious background like Nicolae Manolescu, Ion Dodu Balan or Eugen Simion who are the best critics of Romania.You don't have notability because your book is published on your own like print on demand.Any serious editor and publisher don't agree your "poems" who are not serious, because is like a joke.A cheater like you who edit own image in Wikipedia is agains Wikipedia policy!Wafeofsun (talk) 11:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wafeofsun, I`m a friend of Ionut Caragea. I`m from the same city. And you are Sorin Cerin, the guy who want to revenge because Ionut Caragea maded some articles about you. Valeria Manta Taicutu, Marius Chelaru, Daniel Corbu are reputated critics from Romania. You can see their pages. User:Nesterovici (talk) 08:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nesterovici (talk • contribs)

Comment The critics are:

Marius Chelaru, Valeria Manta Taicutu, Daniel Corbu, Constantin Frosin, Alexandru Florin Tene.

Any serious editor and publisher don't agree your "poems" who are not serious, because is like a joke

Who do you think you are, Wafeofsun (Sorin Cerin)? Is my last comment here. I dont accept insults and some people revenge. All the informations are in the main page. Thank you for sustain my work. Bye. User:Nesterovici (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name from above are your friends who are the member of the association who been established by you last year.This is not serious literary romanian critics.Everybody need literary critics can go on the street like you to find some people who prise him and then this people are recommended to be "serious" critics!You are a joke and a liar in this case Mr.Caragea!Tell me what important literary journal wrote about you?Only your own?Wafeofsun (talk) 19:14, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentNesterovici please stop the liars.You are Ionut Caragea!I can proof anytime it.Wafeofsun (talk) 19:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentGenovese12345 thanks for the flagg, I try my best with this article. New updates are ready now. I really appreciate your help! All my best. Have a nice day.User:Nesterovici (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do I ask for a sock puppet check between Wadeofsun and Nesterovici? Both accounts are talking awfully similarly, and their profiles both consist of their name. I hate to leap to conclusions, but something about the bizzare exchange above is seriously bugging me.Tyrenon (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nebularium. Anyone wishing to merge content, which should be sourced, can do so from the page history. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nebularium + The Restless Memoirs[edit]

Non-notable future album via WP:CRYSTAL. More reliable sources required for the existence and notability of this release. FireCrystal (talk) 00:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Added more sources to the page. One coming directly from a member of the band. Demon1416 (talk) 01:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be a good backing to have direct info from the band leader but this is considered a self-published source and those other sources are questionable at best. They're in another language and because of this their notability is unclear but if you can explain why they are notable it could be enough to satisfy the article. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~ and take a look at wikipedia policies, especially: WP:RS and WP:V, among others. Also see the AFD discussion rules. FireCrystal (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All of the sources are in english not another language... And I don't know how much more confirmation you need when it comes straight from the horses mouth, and just days later multiple sites start confirming the same info. Why is The Isolation Game not under questioning? The only reference it has was published months after the same band member that I am using as a reference for Nebularium + The Restless Memoirs confirmed it. That in itself states that he is reliable. Demon1416 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry about that. The only site I saw as non-english was this but I was too quick to judge and didn't notice it was English below (my sickness might have made things a bit stretched). I'm still not sure if the sources other than the forum were credible as sources (and forums even from the band are not reliable). These two sites should of been reviewed to see if they are just a fansite and understand who starts the headlines there. Also, like I've said above, a member of the band is a self-published source and we need more backing than that for a future album but it may be good backing with other reliable sources, such as an interview with the artist. FireCrystal (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources no reason at all to assert notability. NBeale (talk) 21:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Credible source added. Case closed. Next time make sure you know what you guys are talking about. Demon1416 (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment settle down and maintain civility here please. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It just so happened to be published today. Before, the sources were unclear of their notability. So now a site with an article should be meaningful at least. Another should be fair enough. P.S. since I'm sick (and getting sicker as I type), I won't be taking part in the discussion. FireCrystal (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge into parent article: Album fails WP:NSONGS. No assertion that the album has won any awards, placed on any notable charts (Italian or otherwise), or anything else. However, WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply either (at this point) because the article asserts that the album has been confirmed to be released and not just speculated. Redirect and merge at best.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 01:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge per Sallicio --- the sources are credible but there's no evidence of notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nations Afire[edit]

Non-notable band. The only sources are a Last.fm page and MySpace pages. my name inc^{Ottoman project Review me} 22:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Doesn't assert notability, no good sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One 5-track EP and no reliable sources. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. However, it is composed of (former) members of other bands which do appear notable (and have Wikipedia articles). —Wrathchild ^(talk) 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

…which isn't an assertation of notability if they meet no other criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed the speedy deletion tag (I had actually considered putting one there myself), because the claims that members of the band are also members of other bands are enough not to speedy delete the article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bouygues Télécom (disambiguation)[edit]

This disambiguation page has outlived its usefulness. Neither entity being disambiguated is known by this exact name anymore. The cell phone company spells its name without the diacritics now (though I'm not sure how that even happens), and the cycling team has another sponsor in its name - they're now known as Bbox Bouygues Telecom. So "Bouygues Télécom" is not really a useful dab. If a user types in "Bouygues Telecom" seeking the cycling team, there is an easily noticeable hatnote on Bouygues Telecom to navigate there (same is true even if they type in the diacritics). This disambiguation page has no utility and to get to it a user would have to type "Bouygues Télécom (disambiguation)" into the search box, which is extremely unlikely. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to also mention that it's unlikely that any editor will link to Bouygues Telecom meaning to link to the cycling team, since the cycling WikiProject has developed a new way of representing old cycling teams' names while linking to the correct current name, the {{ct}} template (and while users who aren't prolific WP:CYC contributors might not know about this template, they're also not likely to be working on articles about old events where the name Bouygues Télécom would be used - anyone who happens by during, say, this year's Tour de France, would be writing about Bbox Bouygues Telecom and link to that). But even if someone did errantly link to Bouygues Telecom or Bouygues Télécom meaning the cycling team, the hatnote still gets the reader there a step quicker than any disambiguation page would. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 22:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete Neither entity is known by this name anymore, so it's not a useful dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move Bouygues Telecom to Bouygues Telecom (company), and move this to Bouygues Telecom. The mobile phone company is not primary to the cycling team of the same name (as named between 2005 and 2008 and as still known, although with a slightly different name) and so when people are searching for Bouygues Telecom, there's a good chance they're looking for the cycling team rather than the company. Neither is primary, so the DAB is useful at Bouygues Telecom. Severo^TC 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That should be a separate move discussion. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's still only one click as Deor states, fair point. Severo^TC 13:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Disambiguations involving only two articles are better handled with hatnotes (per WP:DAB), as this one already is. Severo's suggestion would require folks searching for the cycling team, under its former name, to click through exactly as many pages (one) as they have to now. Deor (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and redirect Bouygues Télécom to Bouygues Telecom as a {{R from title with diacritics}}~~ (I see that is the current state). Disagree with Severo: the phone company can indeed be the primary topic, and the readers looking for the cycling team will reach that article in precisely the same number of clicks regardless. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Ray Wilson[edit]

While the story behind this is very sad, this is a classic case of WP:ONEVENT, the person in question only being notable for having been murdered. Passportguy (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I looked for reliable sources-found this-but this is, unfortunately, a case of WP:ONEVENT. ceranthor 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no notability save for his murder. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeffrey Brent Ball for the AfD on other Missionary killed in this this event. Shouldn't these two AfD's be handled together? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the same rationale as the related article. Shereth 15:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason as Ball. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Brent Ball[edit]

While the story behind this is very sad, this is a classic case of WP:ONEVENT, the person in question only being notable for having been murdered. Passportguy (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notability save for his murder. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup and then possibly Merge+Redirect if an appropriate page to merge into can be found, or Keep or Move/Rename otherwise. The article as it stands is unsourced and may contain material that is not verifiable in reliable sources. But a google news search shows: [2] demonstrates that this person's murder, and some other related facts, such as his memorial, is clearly WP:Verifiable in realiable sources. As such, it belongs on wikipedia somewhere. ONEEVENT would recommend covering the event, not the person, but would not recommend deleting the material. In the absence of recommending a merge/redirect, I would rather see this article reduced to a stub and left be or move/renamed to a page about the event. Cazort (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Ray Wilson for the AfD on other Missionary killed in this this event. Shouldn't these two AfD's be handled together? -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, there is no real notability here. There is some possibility that some of this information could be used for a broader article about LDS missionaries, violence against them, or something more general - but then again, nothing currently in the article is sourced. In any event, the article as it stands should be deleted. Shereth 15:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, the material as it stands is not really salvageable and I think little would be lost by deleting it. Cazort (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps some of it could be salvaged into an article on the attack itself, if it can be demonstrated that that has recieved sufficient coverage. Passportguy (talk) 07:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Tragic, but a single event doesn't bestow notability on everyone involved. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 HTML element#Frames. Non-admin closure. Artw (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iframe[edit]

Page contains little content, only discussions as to past incorrectness alitheg (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the article and I still don't know what it's about... not a good sign. Hairhorn (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A1 No context. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be a redirect to HTML element#Frames [3] and seems to be someone's attempt to expound on why iframes are different than frames. I think the HTML element article summarizes it sufficiently. Restore redirect. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 22:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and redirect to HTML element#Frames, as it was previously. Page appears to have been vandalised. Artw (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to delete the commentary crap that was introduced in place of it. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 03:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect should be restored. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Carolina Democratic Party. MBisanz ^talk 12:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henderson County Democratic Party North Carolina[edit]

local party orgs are not notable rogerd (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- no notability I can find, none likely to be found. Given its tone, its also spammy, so I'm tagging it with G11. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a local-level political organization, which doesn't qualify it for notability, and I haven't heard anything particularly notable about it (i.e. this isn't the Daley Machine in Chicago).Tyrenon (talk) 23:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ I did not find enough sources to justify a keep: [4]. Cazort (talk) 00:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into North Carolina Democratic Party per precedent. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, merge would be better, after paring out all unsourceable material. Cazort (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shelby County Republican Party and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton County Democratic Party (2nd nomination) --rogerd (talk) 01:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge to North Carolina Democratic Party unless reliable secondary sources that establish notability are found. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth more than a mention in NC Democratic party, and in any case, without proper sources, merging isn't on. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Appetite for Destruction. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out ta Get Me[edit]

Short stub on a non-notable song that was not released as a single, and failed to chart. Lack of sources indicates lack of independent third-party coverage. Fails WP:NSONGS. Note that while the article is tagged with a proposal to be merged into the Appetite for Destruction article, the talk page gives no indication of any thread that proposes that this article should be merged. → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an additional note, Out Ta Get Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) redirects to the article, if the closing admin closes this AfD with consensus to delete, then could s/he please delete the redirect as well? → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why do you want the redirect deleted?Fingers ^OnRoids 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only want the redirect deleted if the article is deleted too. That way, we avoid yet another broken redirect. ;P → Dylan 620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 20:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought it redirected to the album. Thanks for the explanation.Fingers ^OnRoids 21:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable song, will likely get undone if redirected. Not enough sourcing, no notability asserted beyond being by a notable act. Don't worry about the redirect, it'll get deleted if the article does too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable single that should have been redirected to Appetite for Destruction long ago. ~~On a side note, User:Crazysuit apparently did leave a mention on Appetite for Destruction's talk page~~. Sorry, wrong proposal. just a little insignificant 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Appetite for Destruction. No reason not to. The stub as it stands has a source (perhaps added after the AfD started) so it is legitimate to add the information to the album article. I should note that allmusic shows a cover version, but the artist does not seem to have a Wikipedia article and so may not be notable.Rlendog (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - with Appetite for Destruction, per WP:NSONGS, which suggests redirecting songs that don't meet the criteria to their respective albums. Again, just because song redirects tend to get redirected doesn't mean we shouldn't keep them, we just need to make sure the redirects aren't undone.Fingers ^OnRoids 20:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St Georges Finance London Limited[edit]

Contested PROD - no indication of notability and a quick search revealed no reliable sources that might pass WP:N (2 results total) Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of RS coverage; the only coverage (which is decidedly not from RS's) is quite trivial. Quantumobserver (talk) 21:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Ueland[edit]

Contested prod. Unreferenced BLP. Plays on the second tier in Norway, Norwegian First Division. That is not a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE and there are no other significant coverage that fulfills WP:BIO#basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nom seems to have gotten it all. Delete. Quantumobserver (talk) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK thanks for the explanation guys. I had absolutely no idea that this wasn't a fully professional league. Division One and Two in English football are professional and are notable teams and players. Thanks for clearing it up. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has extensive media coverage [5] and thus meets WP:N which trumps WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 03:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, that's not media coverage, thats called a Google search - and not even of the person this AfD relates to. --Jimbo^[online] 10:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops cut and paste typo ... fixed. Search was of media articles only. Nfitz (talk) 03:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But were any of them actually about his playing exploits or just trivial name-checks. --Jimbo^[online] 08:47, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, the top two for instance are in-depth articles about the individual player, in one of the three largest newspapers. Lampman (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The first article is about the player being on a trial in another first division club, the second article is about him being injured when coming back to Bryne to play against his old team. Both articles origins from te local newspaper Stavanger Aftenblad, but are also published in Aftenposten because of the collaborative effort 100 % fotball. Rettetast (talk) 11:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional player with extensive media coverage. Lampman (talk) 15:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete coverage is trivial, not notable enough to meet WP:N. Fails WP:ATHLETE too. --Jimbo^[online] 11:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:N failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by SchuminWeb under WP:CSD#G11. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Futronix – the company[edit]

Contested PROD - article is a borderline spam page with no true indication of notability. A quick search learns that it might be notable, but it requires a full rewrite. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with possible rewrite. Note that the parent company doesn't even have an article. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11 as spam, previously speedied at Futronix. Creator is SPA. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, snowball close and delete owing to no likelihood there will be a consensus to keep. Moreover, there seems to be no wide or meaningful coverage of this person's career in reliable sources, only thin coverage of a single, rather small controversy which (perhaps) could be more helpfully dealt with in another, more fitting article which has to do with Mr Bush's religious outlook.. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert I. Sherman[edit]

BLP nightmare. Removed a section per BLP (check history for it), but then I saw the whole thing is a mess. There's nothing biographical about it. It's just a negative BLP from top to bottom. I don't know if this guy is really notable or not, as there's not an assertion of notability made in the article. He made some controversial remarks, okay, but he's a journalist... what work has he done?

Noting that the subject has expressed strong objections to the article through OTRS (Ticket:2009051810049523), if he is notable and no one is willing to immediately rewrite the article, it should be deleted until it is created within our high standards for BLPs. لenna vecia 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, actually, reading through it again, I'm thinking it may actually qualify for G10, but as I've already opened the AFD, I'll not do that. If another admin agrees it's qualifies for G10, please do it. لenna vecia 21:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete My first reaction when reading this article was an unconscious mouse movement and near placement of a CSD G10 (Personal attack). This page, while sourced, is nothing more then an attack page. This is absolutely no WP:NPOV compliant article, and it certainly violates neutrality guidelines we have for BLP pages. As this page would indeed require a full rewrite i would suggest removing the page so it will start with a clean slate and a non attack history. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. With the attack material dropped, the article is now a stub about a non-notable journalist who put his foot in his mouth.Tyrenon (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I literally gutted the article of material not relating to this guy, and whats left is some debacle where he called a Chicago state representative a negro, then removed it from his web site. I tried to look for sources but alas, I didn't find anything noteworthy. Syn 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above; there's nothing much there. Quantumobserver (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete attack page --- nn subject. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am so angry about this. The material on the alleged Bush quote on atheists is NOT a BLP concern. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (Wikipedia:Verifiability) What is verfiable is that Sherman has alleged that Bush said this. The Washington Monthly certainly is a reliable source, or does anyone want to dispute this? This material is notable if you look at the number of sources that there are on this. I am particularly angry because I spent a lot of time researching the issue, writing a balanced account of it and defending in the discussions about it. I will make a note of this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard an seek some more input. Zara1709 (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked only at the version of the article with the attacks removed. It should still be deleted; it is a classic example of WP:BIO1E and WP:COATRACK. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wrote an elaborate argument why it is inappropriate to of "attacks" here at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Robert I.Sherman - Balanced or CSD G10? The WP:BIO1E argument does not apply. Sherman is not a person "notable only for one event." If you look at the article, you will see that he stumbled into a political discussion at least TWO times. (And the account of the second one is balanced, too, b.t.w.) I know that there is an OTRS ticket for this article, but you can't simply delete this material because it is controversial. If someone makes controversial remarks, and consequently gets into the focus of the public, he sooner or later becomes notable for this. (And in this case, I think that impact was intended.) And you can't blame Wikipedia then, if some editors there write abn account about these remarks that gives all sides of the issue. Zara1709 (talk) 06:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I appreciate the anger you feel in your work being up for deletion, the article is bordering on an attack page and quite possibly could have been speedy deleted as such. Rather than being presented as a biography, it's a negative piece from top to bottom and the subject of the article has expressed strong objections to the content of the article. Verifiability, not truth. You are very correct, and your own writing states that the Bush section has not and cannot be verified. Considering WP:UNDUE, the article is far from NPOV, giving massive amounts of undue weight to individual incidents while giving absolutely no information whatsoever on his overall career, whatever that may be. لennavecia 06:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - NO, this article is NOT "bordering on an attack page". This statement is, what makes me so angry. I honestly get the impression that you've never read the sections you have deleted. This person participated in two controversies, about which there are different views. In these controversies, each side gets it's due weight. We can probably discuss this afd on the basis of notability, but you are not describing the article to be "bordering on an attack page". Zara1709 (talk) 06:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I read the article. Twice, actually. The article is titled as a biography, but it is not presented as one. Rather it mentions nothing more than two controversial incidents, while stating in the lead sentence that he is a journalist, yet gives no details whatsoever about his career. There is also zero detail about his life, his education, or anything else. How this can be considered a "balanced biography" is not clear to me. It reports on two incidents, which gives wildly undue weight to each when considering a biography should cover one's life and career and there is no mention of any of it. لenna vecia 06:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein. Mathsci (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I get roughly 1000 hits for "Robert I. Sherman" from google [6] and 1100 from yahoosearch [7] Then there are several newspaper articles and at least one mentioning on TV. [8] about the controversies (there are not two, but actually 3, at least).Some details about him can be filled out from his homepage. He claims to have been a radio moderator in a 'Rob Sherman Show' on AM 1530 WJJG Chicago. ... And I looked for only 5 minutes. If you don't count the controversies, it could still turn out that he is not notable, but it certainly isn't a clear case. Zara1709 (talk) 07:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Arbitration case of 2007 at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. While it may be a broad interpretation of WP:NPA to apply that core policy to a WP:BLP, I believe it fundamentally understandable that it applies to content as well as editors. I don't question that the possibility of a Robert I. Sherman article exists; however, this is not it. — Ched : ? 07:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please have the courtesy to specify where you see a "personal attacks". This person was part of several public controversies, and thus faced with several polemical attacks, however, you cannot blame Wikipedia for referring that those attacks existed. I am particularly opposed to the notion that the material that I contributed about the alleged Bush quotes would constitute a personal attack. Zara1709 (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aside from the idea that this is a WP:POV WP:FORK, and ignoring the concept that this is not a BLP article, when you cherry pick a statement like "... said: “I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic.”" from the National Secular piece, while ignoring the possibly baiting questions, and the proceeding comments and questions - then I consider it an attack. I completely fail to see the NPOV here. There are just so many ways that this does not fit into an encyclopedic endeavor. Be it the inability to verify, the WP:COATRACK issues that David brought up, or the WP:UNDUE issues that mentioned by Jennavica. It may well work fine for an online op-ed piece, but it just doesn't fit any understanding that I have of our policies and guidelines. I appreciate the work that you've put into this, but it's not an encyclopedic style of work. I believe that the ArbCom decision is directly related to this article. I realize that this is only my own opinion, but I have to stick by that. — Ched : ? 08:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Admittedly, the article still lacks basic information about Sherman outside of the political controversies, so concerns about Wikipedia:Coatrack are justified, albeit refutable. It is not as if the missing material couldn't be added. Concerning you other points, I would suggest that you write a longer elaboration at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Robert I. Sherman, because I don't see your point when you write about the "inability to verify". Anyone who can use google should be able to verify that Sherman has alleged that Bush made the said quote about atheists. But actually, any political active atheist in the Unites States is likely to be already aware of that. Don't you think that Wikipedia, as the web's foremost source of reference, should provide an account of the question based on the best sources pertaining to it?Zara1709 (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I honestly do need to get some sleep here, but I will follow-up tomorrow. Several items: 1.) I'm not seeking any administrative action here, so I really don't have good reason to post to AN or AN/I in this matter. 2.) Regarding Bush and atheists: I don't really involve myself in religious or political debates at WP. 3.) I'll gladly discuss the points of whether or not the article should be kept, and I believe that this is the place for that. I'll also say, that I more often than not prefer to keep material that can fit with our endeavors, and I'll often watchlist an AfD on the rare occasion that I do participate in such discussions. Should the article evolve into what I consider an encyclopedic piece, I will gladly change my vote. Now allow me to ask you a question if I may, If this conversation had taken place in public, do you not think that there would be documentation of it in items such as: The New York Post, The New York Times, USA Today, WSJ, and equivalent publications? I also read through the Chicago Trib. which you reference, but it does not cover the item I mention either. I'd also mention, that the sentence structure of the Bush quote, does effectivly obscure the fact that this was a claim Mr. Sherman made, rather than a statement of fact. That further enforces my perception of the attack idea. It appears to me that we have one man, making a claim that Bush Sr. made this statement over 20 years ago, getting it posted to National Secular Society, and the second reference you use for this is the Madalyn O'Hair piece on a positiveatheism.org blog which states at the bottom that they can't even verify the physical address of the site. Hopefully you can start to see the difficulties I'm having in accepting this as material for this type of endeavor which WP presents. Please consider these issues, and I will gladly entertain any comments you'd care to make tomorrow. — Ched : ? 09:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein, etc. Verbal chat 08:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, hello again, Verbal. ... You probably remember me; When I made a futile attempt to actually make a meaningful article out of Discrimination against atheists, you rude response almost drove me off from Wikipedia. If you like to know it - I am almost there again (on the verge of quitting). I already wrote that WP:BIO1E does not apply (in any case not verbatim), since there is more than only one controversy surrounding Sherman. I am still counting how many there - currently I am at 4. Do you have a reply to my argument or would you rather like to ignore it? Zara1709 (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I thought we sorted that out and I dispute it having anything to do with me. This person does not meet the notability guidelines. The events are: 1, his possible/probable misreporting; 2, an incident in which he is incidental, it should be included in Monique Davis and does not add notability to this person; 3, use of "negro", should also be in the Monique Davis article, if anywhere - lots of people abuse this term and it doesn't necessarily establish notability. This also appears to be a coatrack, and not a biography. Verbal chat 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am not sure if you endorse this deletion based on the 'spirit' behind WP:BIO1E, but based on the wording of that part of the guideline, you can't endorse it. There are (at least) 4 events in connection to him, in which he is mentioned. It shouldn't be a surprise when an atheist political activist has been in the news several times due to his activism for atheists... It is therefore possible to conclude that he is a notable political activist for atheists. It might appear that this is a case for WP:NOT#NEWS, but then, on the other hand, the guideline states "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event,..." etc. There certainly is news coverage on Robert I. Sherman outside the context of a single event. That most news reports are somehow in relation to his political activism for atheism can not be used as an argument for deletion based on the wording of the guideline. Zara1709 (talk) 09:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Then it's a good job I didn't use his political activism as a reason for deletion. Verbal chat 09:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) What are the four controversies? The Bush issue is more appropriate in the Bush bio. The Davis issue is almost entirely about her and belongs in the Davis bio. What are the other controversies, because as the article currently is, it's still completely void of biographical information. لenna vecia 12:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as coatrack article not establishing the notability of its subject. Most of the content is about controversies surrounding alleged statements by other, notable persons and can, if at all, be reported in their articles. Sandstein 12:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject of minor notability requested deletion of article about them. Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline notable, and there are no strong sources that treat the subject of this BLP in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weyr[edit]

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

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

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

To summarise, this article should be deleted as the topic doesn't meet WP:N and the content shouldn't be merged anywhere unless it has been verified through reliable sources. Them From Space 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with an upmerge to the main Pern article. Contrary to the nominator's assertion, there is material here suitable for a merge, as we can make limited use of primary sources when it comes to fictional elements. Powers ^T 22:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this cruft is everything Wikipedia shouldn't be. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and consider possible merging. But the nom has completely ignored the possibility that there might be printed sources. Which is really odd, because if one follows the link to the author, one finds there have been a number of books--let alone other criticism--written about her fiction, including several academic works. BEFORE does not mean the sort of parody-search of looking blindly in Google. a blind search, giving 512,000 hits in google, either needs thinking about, or look beyond the first page before one concludes there are no adequate sources. GNews search is good for finding book reviews, but not comments and discussions of a book. A truly reckless set of nomination of the elements of a major work. I;'m not saying this group of articles is done well--they are not; the articles about the individual books also are very scanty indeed and need very considerable expansion. They do not talk enough about the plot to provide a background for critical discussions. The thing to do is to improve them and merge as needed, not delete. Of course, that takes work, and this sort of nomination doesn't. Removing the poor articles does not improve WP as much as upgrading them does. DGG (talk) 01:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything here that isn't original research? Original research must be removed and a removal of it will leave a blank article. If you want to rewrite the article than be my guest but articles that need a full rewrite to be encyclopedic should be deleted if nobody is going to put up the effort to do so. Them From Space 02:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt most of it is original research; I bet the majority of it could be sourced to the Pern novels. Powers ^T 12:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading a novel and then choosing an element of it to handle in a largely in-universe fashion is original research. Cheese is not sourced to your refridgerator. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not remotely what original research means, and I can make no sense of your second sentence. Apologies. Powers ^T 12:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Okay, I had to make my searches very specific in order to cut the number of hits down, but here you go: 22 Google scholar hits and 184 Google book hits. That's 184 books—none of which are by anyone named McCaffrey—that mention weyrs in the context of McCaffrey's works. Can we agree that there's a plethora of sources to use in writing an article? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Did you bother to look at the 101 cites at Google Scholar for Weyr + dragon? Bearian (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you? I got about four pages in, and saw 95% Anne McCaffrey's own writing, interspersed with occasional papers that mentioned the premise of one or several of her books in passing. Nothing useful as a source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 21:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is, btw, why my Scholar and Book links above showed the searches without books written by McCaffrey. Fewer results, yes, but all are solid. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Command & Conquer. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modding of Command & Conquer[edit]

Non-notable article and redirect, containing largely unsourced info / unlinked page / little useful information. Hornpipe2 (talk) 21:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about a redirect to Command and Conquer? Quantumobserver (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems in order here. No good sources, etc., but a redirect won't hurt. I don't think.Tyrenon (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect --- not the right thing for AfD. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fire lizard[edit]

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

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

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

To summarise, this article should be deleted as the topic doesn't meet WP:N and the content shouldn't be merged anywhere unless it has been verified through reliable sources. I'm also unable to find a home for the single sourced statement at the bottom. Them From Space 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, not a notable creature, no out-of-universe significance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks totally made up -- no out of universe context/meaning. OR as far as I can see. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs to be sourced from the novels, but its a major theme of a major series a novels. Not OR. I see from the article of McCaffrey thast there are some secondary works about Pern as well, and they would certainly do it. I havent seen the Critical Companion volume on her, but it's a very respected academic series. G search does not replace printed sources. Therefore the nomination statement of there being no possible sources is not correct, except for those whose view of the world is limited to Google. . DGG (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I'll disagree with DGG on one of his points; I think that Google search is very handy. For instance, Google book search shows 19 books that mention "fire lizards." Google scholar has another five. I'd call that plenty of raw material to base an article on. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable, a key component of a series of many notable books, also referenced by other books that talk about dragons and whatnot. Dream Focus 10:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This does not meet the WP:GNG as there does not appear to be significant coverage in independent sources. I see trivial coverage in some works, but nothing significantly focused on this particular topic. Also, there appears to be no real-world information available. Karanacs (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The general notability guideline, is just a guideline to help you make a decision. Its a suggestion, not policy. And something from a work of fiction, does not need references outside of that source. Dream Focus 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. I do not share it, especially as Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states that 'this does not mean that it is appropriate to ignore guidelines simply because they are guidelines. Without any indication that there is real-world information available about this topic (or any significant coverage of the topic), we are left with an article that recreates the plot arc from a book. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly notable? Evidently notable? Hmmm.... No reliable sources independent of the subject address this fictional thing at all, let alone to the extent that it would pass our notability guidelines. Absent reliable sources it's also original research and difficult to verify.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any doubt that the information is valid? Why would the source need to be independent? Is there any policy on that? Guidelines are suggestions, not policy. Recommendations, and nothing more. Dream Focus 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if, as you'd like, the notabilty guidelines be done away with this article is extremely difficult to verify even as to the accuracy of its claims in relation to the work of fiction these things inhabit. I'll tag appropriately to show you the problem (this particular problem fixed, we're still left with the notability and original research problem as to claims about how important (or not) these things are, their impact, etc... in the work of fiction).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable and I bet the article namespace ought to be taken by some actual lizard (I think it is unlikely that none of the actual reptiles is named this way). Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN not being a valid reason for deletion, especially when as shown above the subject is verified in numerous reliable sources. "Fire Lizard" also appears as the title of books, etc. so whether the article should be about these specific ones, there is clearly enough sources for an article on some kind of fire lizards and as such no reason to red link here. For example, Salamander derives from a Greek word for "fire-lizard" (see also [9]), Fire Lizard is the title of a book of poems. Now the idea of Salamanders as "fire lizards" is indeed discussed in who the concept has been perceived in myths/fiction as well, as seen here. Thus, clearly there is something to be written on about "fire lizards" even if as a merge and redirect to the article on salamanders with a short section noting the word origins and meaning or to rework this article to be about how fire lizards have been addressed in multiple works of fiction. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please be aware that Google searches are not references. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benden Weyr[edit]

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

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

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

To summarise, this article should be deleted as the topic doesn't meet WP:N and the content shouldn't be merged anywhere unless it has been verified through reliable sources. Them From Space 20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There does not appear to be independent coverage of this topic, so it fails the WP:GNG. It is also written almost entirely in-universe with no real-world information. I don't see the article as salvageable. Karanacs (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as "fun craft".Tyrenon (talk) 21:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete awful cruft. A trivia section about something made up is the icing on the cake. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I assume the nom has not noticed there are books on this series of novels, cited in the article about the author. I might support an appropriate merge, even though there is probably quite enough information, including secondary sources, to justify an article. DGG (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are books about Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling but not every building mentioned in the series is notable in its own right. Unless one can put up the sources that describe this topic in detail and show that an encyclopedic article can be written about it than there's no excuse for leaving original research and trivia to rot here. Them From Space 02:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are also obscene numbers of books on Star Wars and Star Trek. Those series have gone through major article pullbacks in the past; I once read that there were a large number of Star Wars articles dumped in a short span of time. Also, just because it's out there doesn't mean that it ought to be on here.Tyrenon (talk) 07:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: 5 Google scholar hits and 25 Google book hits means that there are plenty of sources on which to base an article. Is there a reason all of the Pern AFDs couldn't have been lumped together? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Google scholar hits appear to be only passing mentions. This doesn't satisfy the "significant coverage" aspect of the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why they weren't lumped together, but they would seem to qualify for a "batch nomination". Then again, my party nominations probably should have been batched together, but there were enough differences between them to justify separate noms IMHO (not to mention me still getting used to the controls here). If I might ask, though, could someone give me a link to the other noms in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenon (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They have all been listed on the Fictional Elements and Science Fiction deletion sorting. The links are higher up in the debate, pretty much on their own lines. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to Karanacs): that wasn't the rationale for the AFD. The rationale was that there shouldn't be an article because there were "no adequate sources that discuss this." That's simply not true; the nominator just didn't seriously look for them BEFORE nominating. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed don't "discuss", they mention the topic. So yes, we can verify from those that the topic exists within the fictional work, but there appears to be no significant coverage (as the GNG requires) to establish that the topic is a notable piece of the fictional work. Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. There are obviously good alternatives to deletion in such cases and so these cookie cutter nominations fail WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Center International[edit]

Looks like advertizing. Asserted that it has been featured on various morning talk shows but the claims aren't cited. Nominated for speedy but it looked borderline to me, so I'm kicking it up to you guys. I don't have any vote. Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete It's absurd that anyone can plop a two-sentence advert with a link to their website on Wikipedia and then we have to go look for sources and debate how important it may or may not be. This is pure spam and should be speedied. Drawn Some (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Speedy Delete as spam, with extra spanking for bad grammar. Hairhorn (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The question is not whether the initial version of an article is a terrific encyclopedia article, full of references and completely "nonpoint of view," but whether the subject is verifiable and notable with reliable and independent sources which would allow an encyclopedic article to be written. This company and its products have had some such coverage, such as The Globe and Mail, which verifies the appearances on TV shows happened. This article also includes criticism of the company, which should be included. We do not only have articles about effective products; the caveats in the Globe and Mail article are worth noting. Google News Archive has 32 articles, but many have expired links or are in French or require payment to view them. There does appear to be enough reliable and independent sourcing, such as [10], for an article to be developed. Edison (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took this as a speedy delete G11 case (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I didn't really consider verifiabilty or notability. But note that even the Globe article expresses doubts about their product. I've peeked through some of the French articles; many of them are press releases, several more are just mentions. There may be notability in there, but I'm staying neutral for the moment. Hairhorn (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentRemember that an article about something is not an endorsement of its medical effectiveness, just that it has been talked about by multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, you're right. But if it's a scam product, that might affect notability, unless it becomes notable as a scam. Hairhorn (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep A search learns that it is published in bits and pieces on some semi reliable sources. Other pages covering it are semi-spam, but still i would give it the benefit of doubt - for now. At the very least its not a CSD G11 - by far. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be sourced, and then only with a rewrite to pull out the feel of an advert.Tyrenon (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly written spam. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is basically an ad. The only legitimate source is the Globe & Mail article, which by itself isn't enough. The other google hits appear to be press releases. freshacconci talktalk 11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete As unverifiable spam. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the English news sites list the same exact article. Apparently its a scam. The only reason to have an article on this, would be to warn people of it being bullshit. But there isn't enough information out there for a proper referenced article saying that, so just delete it. Dream Focus 07:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Björn the Pale[edit]

Doesn't assert notability. I can't find any meaningful mention of this person/character that isn't a mirror of this page. The page for Gísla saga doesn't mention Bjorn, so he must not be of particular importance in this mythology, and the mentioned characters don't have their own pages. This page has sat here as is for 7 years without anything being made of it. Conical Johnson (talk) 20:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with haste, misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Possible hoax, but not notable regardless. American Eagle (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a Bjorn in the saga that fits the bill by getting defenestrated by a borrowed sword, referred to as Graysteel, although the owner refers to it as his chopper. The name of the character is rendered as Bjorn the Black in the two translations linked in the Gisli article that I had a quick look at (this 1866 translation and a more modern translation here), but it doesn't look like that he would be considered a major character, as he is dispatched in the first chapter, which is essentially a prologue to the main story. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge significant enough to be added to the summary of the story, with a redirect. Cnbtral figure of the first episode. DGG (talk) 22:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BIMwash[edit]

Non-notable neologism -- 11 Ghits SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO, insignificant neologism. American Eagle (talk) 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Reaches Weyr[edit]

This article is nothing but original research which can not be fixed since I have found no adequate sources that discuss this. Under our verifiability policy, Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A google search, and a google news search each show a lack of the reliable sources needed to back up the article.

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

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

To summarise, this article should be deleted as the topic doesn't meet WP:N and the content shouldn't be merged anywhere unless it has been verified through reliable sources. Them From Space 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I assume the nom has not noticed there are books on this series of novels, cited in the article about the author. I might support an appropriate merge, even though there is probably quite enough information, including secondary sources, to justify an article. DGG (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that this topic is notable? None of the books in that article are about this topic and this is currently totally unsourced. Unless sources can be added that actively discuss this plot elemant than this nothing more than in-universe trivia. Them From Space 02:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a highly specific place in a fandom. It doesn't have nearly the same exposure that, say, Back to the Future has; more to the point, this is one of a substantial number of locations, rather than a single central location (or one of two or three). The article has the feeling of funcraft as well; honestly, I think someone made a good point when they mentioned the idea of a trivia section on a fictional location here.Tyrenon (talk) 07:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete content fork, from whichever of the novels mention this place. No realityverse significance beyond the works of fiction establishable via the sort of in depth, independent, reliable source commentary on this fictional location in and of itself (apart from plot summaries that name check "High Reaches Weyr"). Since there's no sourced content, there's nothing to merge. Unsourced=bad.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article now has a source and so all the huffing and puffing above is obsolete. There are obvious alternatives to deletion and so ordinary content editings is what's required here, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of puff. Here's the addition. "High Reaches Weyr is also the name of a fanclub, which along with Fort Weyr, has over 200 members of which around seventy percent are female." This information -- that there are 200 members total in two fan clubs and one of these fan clubs is named "High Reachers Weyr" does nothing to establish this is a notable encyclopedic topic -- the citation itself carries no information/speculation/analysis of the realityvers relevance of this fictional location. Puff indeed.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fanclub with so few members isn't really notable, unless its mentioned in third party media sources, such as the book referenced, correct? I honestly see no reason to have it in there though. Dream Focus 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The source does nothing for this article, and the information offered up from it is largely unrelated to the underlying content. IMHO deletion is the best option for this and the rest of these articles; simply put, I cannot see this or any of these Weyrs reaching notability with all the edits in China right now. They're either unsourced or weakly-sourced funcraft that belongs on a dedicated wiki, not on here.Tyrenon (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all the edits in China? What do you mean by that? Dream Focus 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without significant coverage (of this topic) in independent sources, this article does not meet the WP:GNG. Trivial mention (it exists) is not enough to justify a separate article at this time. Karanacs (talk) 18:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we could have just one article for all of the Weyrs, it'd be better, but AFD isn't the place for a merge discussion. Mentioning just which book it was first mentioned in, and how large of a part it played in any of the novels, and specifically which novels it was featured prominently in, would be a nice addition for the article. Dream Focus 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR and WP:N. No notability outside the fictional context. See also WP:WAF. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minkymoo[edit]

Unsourced (in a substantive sense) article on a Bosnian footballer allegedly signed to Coventry FC. No sources found; the teams mentioned as his former homes don't exist, except in one or two cases as screen names on a footy forum, which might not be irrelevant to the genesis of this article. :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy. Clear example of Wikipedia:Complete bollocks. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Blatant hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Something that got added after my AFD tag: "Minkymoo was banned from the game for 2 months by the Bosnian FA for garroting an opposing centre half during a corner. Really, they are far too lenient with professional fouls nowadays. Yes, it is blatant enough for a speedy at this stage; it's a couple of guys on a forum having fun. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L(a[edit]

Declined PROD. The text of the poem belongs at Wikisource, if anywhere, and the unreferenced original research analysis which follows does not belong on Wikipedia. KurtRaschke (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Original research indeed, nothing useful. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Rewrite per Zagalejo. I forgot that poems can be notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Though the article in its current form isn't really appropriate, e.e. cummings is a pretty famous poet, and this specific poem has been analyzed in several sources: [11], [12], [13], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 19:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good source if someone can access it. I stubbed the article to get rid of the OR and text of the poem, which might have been a copyvio as presented. However, the article still has a long ways to go. This is a rather difficult poem to describe, so if anyone wants to help, feel free. Zagalejo^^^ 20:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though poems can be notable (and I remember reading this one back in high school), my inclination is to be cautious about inserting large numbers of articles on individual poems (epics and other particularly famous poems notwithstanding). I'm not sure whether or not this article should be deleted or merged into a list of e.e. cummings poems, but I'm somewhat dubious of it meriting its own article.Tyrenon (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article as it is needs serious work, there are more than enough sources on the subject to meet notability guidelines. I would also add that poems of any size can meet the notability guidelines so long as they receive adaquate coverage. To reject all but epic poems and "particularly" famous poems would be to show a bias against entire genres and poetic movements such as Imagism. However, the brevity of the work is not excuse for the brevity of an article, and a major expansion should be done to discuss the importance of this work to the history of poetry. Mrathel (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There appear to be enough separate sources for this particular poem to be individually worthy of an article. I know of no more restrictive guideline for poems other than general notability, and the article already meets that in its current state. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable poet with an interesting new type of poem. Link to the college site, plus the mentions of it in books, proves its notable as well. Dream Focus 22:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends. Cirt (talk) 03:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Swing[edit]

A non-notable song which has not ranked on national or significant music chart, won significant awards or honors, or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Fails WP:NSONGS. I previously redirected and nominated for PROD but these have been reverted. JD554 (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NSONGS. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable song, no significant sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends as has been done two times previously, as it suggests in WP:NSONGS. No need to delete it, it is a useful redirect. However, make sure it stays a redirect.Fingers ^OnRoids 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Agreed, no need for it to be deleted, just redirect it to the album. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per WP:NSONGS. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 21:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Quantumobserver (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leave It - It is a good page with a good amount of information. Heck, you didn't even nomanate "Postcards from Far Away", and it's not even as long of a page as Strawberry Swing. Don't delete it, edit it. And what does "Don't delete the page, but put it into redirect" or whatever mean?--Das Ansehnlisch (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Saying it's a good page isn't enough, you need to explain how it meets the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia as per WP:NSONGS and WP:GNG. See WP:R for an explanation of redirect. --JD554 (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 13:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are more notable articles like Lhuna which have a dearth of information. Atleast this one is longer. It just needs references. There's decent amount information available. But yes, not a really notable song. Suede67 (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mango (Saturday Night Live)[edit]

No sources, fancruft, trivia, not notable. Tagged as needing sources since 9/07 with no help. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Quantumobserver (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the GNG. Sources listed provide only trivial coverage (essentially a mention that the character exists). Karanacs (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I never liked the character on SNL, but the article content supports a claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not one of SNL's funnier creations, admittedly, but the article passes WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, with an ephasis on adding refs. Artw (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A memorable character on a notable show, that was featured on a significant number of episodes. Dream Focus 23:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stinky Peterson[edit]

Unnecessary dab. On each series, the characters were either secondary (Hey Arnold, Recess) or unseen quartenary character (Red Green). I see no point in a dab if none of them will ever be worthy of having an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as I would support a redirection to a show or character list if there was only one Stinky Peterson, but with three of them, the disambig is the best way to go. Frank Anchor^Talk 18:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Works as a disambig becuase you know them rabid fanboy types, can't keep them from changing stuff. treelo _radda 23:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a topic that could be a redirect to any of the articles mentioning the characters so needs to be disambiguated even if none of the topics would have an article of their own. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why on Earth would we want to delete a page dedicated to helping direct our users to the correct information? We do these specificly so our readers are aware there is more than one entity of the same name and allow them to choose the best one. I'm unclear why deletion is needed here. We have redirects specifically to get folks to the article they seek. Here we have elegantly bundled three in one. -- Banjeboi 22:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. No one arguing for keeping these articles as they are has indicated how they meet or even come close to WP:N. The majority is unsourced,n the rest is only sourced to primary sources. If there is anything left to merge, feel free to do so. Please don't undo the redirects unless significant coverage from reliable independent sources for the character is added. Fram (talk) 14:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Sawyer[edit]

This nomination includes and only includes the following pages:

These supporting characters do not satisfy the notability guideline for fiction per WP:WAF and unlikely to do so at any point in time. They are already on List of Hey Arnold! characters. ~~I suggest redirecting to that page rather than outright deletion.~~

It should also be noted that a deletion discussion took place on Hey Arnold! character Stinky Peterson (here) and resulted in a consensus for "delete." (The page Stinky Peterson is currently a disamb. page with a link to the show). Frank Anchor^Talk 18:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all No sources will likely exist for any of these characters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better. There appears to be enough content for a stand alone article on some, and the smaller ones can be merged into one article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it's all unsourced original research. What the heck would we source it to? It's not like there're scads of sources for a three-season Nickelodeon cartoon. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And the few references that are found in the pages right now are "in-universe" - either references to the show itself or specific episodes. reliable secondary sources do not and will not exist for these characters. Frank Anchor^Talk 20:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hey Arnold! characters (at least the non-disambiguated ones) as reasonable search terms. Probably no point to redirecting the ones with the "Hey Arnold" qualifier, but if someone has a compelling reason I don't really care. ~~Not sure why you needed AfD for this though...~~ BryanG (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because some rabid fanboy might undo the redirects if they get redirected? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some can get deleted... others not so much being feasible search terms and don't make me turn a hose on you regarding the rabid fanboy stuff. Only I may be derisive to them. treelo _radda 23:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I boldly redirected them, but another user undid my edit, so I decided to have a discussion on the matter here. Frank Anchor^Talk 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough, I just don't like it when people come to AfD arguing for something other than deletion. BryanG (talk) 04:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and transfer any useful, encyclopedic content. None of the characters cut it as a lone article (the sole possible exception being Arnold himself, and even that is dodgy), but an improvement of the character list article wouldn't be the worst thing known to mankind.Tyrenon (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not even the nominator is suggesting deletion, just redirection. probably Redirect or merge after a talk page discussion This should not have been brought here in the first place DGG (talk) 00:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protected redirect as above. No notability here, no out-of-universe content. Eusebeus (talk) 02:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see what the problem is with the current description. Honestly, this show has been off the air for years--where is anyone supposed to get outside sources or anything? I am all for keeping the articles the way they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legrammarnazi (talk • contribs) 04:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep All The nominator wants to keep this material and suggests redirection. If that is sensible then it does not require deletion of anything. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do support deletion. I even deleted that redirect stuff i put on the page before you added this text. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most of them, redirect some of them All these articles can't be treated the same way, and yet they should be treated as a system. The show obviously is notable, and the information related to its characters obviously can't be kept within one article and has to be split. Therefore we should not estimate the articles' independent notability (most of them are not notable, but they cover a notable subject, and splitting the subject into several articles simply makes them more handy). We should estimate the characters notability within the show. I suggest the next criterion: a character is notable, when s/he has at least two episodes centered on him/her, and has significant participation in several other episodes. The next characters I consider notable within the show: Lila ("Ms Perfect", "Arnold and Lila"), Harold ("Weighing Harold", "Harold's Kitty"), Rhonda ("Polishing Rhonda", "Rhonda's Glasses"), Curly ("Curly Snaps", "Curly's Girl"), Sid ("Sid the Vampire Slayer", "Sid and Germs"), Eugene ("Eugene's Birthday", "Eugene's Pet"), Oskar ("Oskar Can't Read?", "Oskar Gets a Job"), Mr. Hyunh ("Mr. Hyunh Goes Country", "Family Man"), "Phoebe" ("Phoebe Skips", "Phoebe Breaks a Leg") — they are regular main characters and deserve to have articles of their own. The same goes for Stinky Peterson ("Stinky's Pumpkin", "Stinky Goes Hollywood"). On the other hand Miles, Stella, and Gertie seem to be important characters, but never having a spotlight on them. The information about them may be included into the articles about other characters without making the system of articles less intuitive. Hellerick (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, Eminem just said it's his favorite show[14][15]. Just interesting fact. Hellerick (talk) 10:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is but holds no bearing on this AfD. Your reasoning doesn't take into account out of universe notability which none of these characters have, might be good for a Hey Arnold wikia but not much for here. Anyway, I figure a bold redirect then protection of all the articles as done before this nom came abouct would be best. treelo _radda 11:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My position is that you should not apply notability rules designed for one article to a system of articles. The current organization if Hey Arnold related articles is more sensible than remaking them into a bunch clumsy but notable bricks. Hellerick (talk) 15:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your argument there, talk of systems and bricks confuses me. The organisation isn't the issue, it's whether or not these primary/secondary characters are notable in their own right without using in-universe criteria or inherited notability from the series itself. Had a look at a sample of the articles and most I feel can be trimmed and merged into a character list seeing as they're mostly unsourced fanfluff. treelo _radda 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean we can remake the articles into a new notable article like "Characters of Hey Arnold!", but for the sake of comfortable organization, the articles are better to remain split. It's better to have a system of unnotable articles, than counter-intuitive mess in several notable articles. Hellerick (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article like that and that's a god-awful mess of minor characters as it stands but it can be rewritten for the ones which are notable in-universe. The problem with having non-notable articles regarding characters who aren't notable in their own right separate from the show is that they end up at AfD, there is a reason behind it. treelo _radda 17:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters is a list of characters, it is not supposed to contain any descriptions. And the characters deserve to be described. Hellerick (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most character lists do describe the characters, not a wall of names but nothing regarding them. The Hey Arnold list is a terrible example of what a list of characters should be and deserves to be halved given the sheer weight of useless information there. Supposition doesn't matter, what is generally accepted does and nobody is saying don't describe the characters, more a merge of the characters into a single list, judiciously clipped. If that can't be done then the wrong people are looking after the article. treelo _radda 09:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of characters is a well organized and informative "dramatis personae" list. It serves its function and should not be mixed with anything else. Hellerick (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, it's your baby (it isn't, see WP:OWN) and you want all 180(!) characters documented regardless of if they're noteworthy inside of outside of the Hey Arnold universe. Problem here is that Wikipedia is not the Hey Arnold wiki and everything cannot be documented here, not for lack of space but because of the content being notable and relevant to everyone, not just the fans. Having a predominantly useless list of one-shots, unseens and minor characters to protect non-notable characters from having their own articles is ludicrous and a poor argument as to why your own personal organisation of a set of articles (which fits no established consensus on how other character lists and articles are maintained) should be protected. Again, this is not the Hey Arnold wiki, there is a threshold of notability for characters in a TV series amongst several TV series and these are way below it. treelo _radda 11:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First try to delete the articles List of characters in The Simpsons, and List of one-time characters in The Simpsons, then you may compaint about Hey Arnold!, which is rather moderate. Hellerick (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all: No out of universe context. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 16:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy all to the Nickelodeon Wikia then do what's appropriate here. knoodelhed (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these are informative articles about notable characters form a notable TV show. Varbas (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with Varbas. Informative articles about notable characters from a notable TV show. If you don't like character articles, don't read them. You wouldn't be likely to find them anyway, unless you went looking for them. And I don't care what the guidelines say, they just suggestions anyway, not policy. Dream Focus 01:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure these articles might be "informative" but almost none of the information in the articles is notable or verifiable, as the articles are poorly sourced (if sourced at all) thus making it un-encyclopedic. The little useful content in the characters' articles could easily be added to the character list and some of the "informative" content you say is in the articles would stay. Frank Anchor^Talk 02:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why you add a reference tag, not delete. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that? There aren't references out there. It would just be a waste of time Frank Anchor^Talk 14:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge and/or redirect Not a single article in the batch has a single reference. WP:FICT first inclusion clause gives the qualifier Significant real-world coverage, and no original research, which not a single article presented provides. The articles are full of wonderfully fluffy words like possible and perhaps, which is not a mere indication of WP:OR, but is original research without any evidence to back those statements up. Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Listify. No sources presently hardly means that no sources exist. Nickelodeon has these in rerun and a movie based on the series exists and my understanding is that the original series is being put out on DVD. These all suggest that deleting wouldn't help here - nor would a strict merge as there exists a character list already. It may make sense, presuming these are the lead characters, to listify these into a main charcter sublist of the character list. This will allow those interested in the basic details to get more than a single sentence currently on offer at the main list but also condense all these into just one or a couple list articles as appropriate encouraging the entire series to be developed rather than just one or two breakout character articles. -- Banjeboi 10:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are not lead characters. They're rather secondary, minor characters, which is why such sourcing lacks. Popularity != notability, having DVD releases still does not provide suitable sourcing for the characters. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be more clear, I have little doubt that the original sources can be used to cover most of what's here. What is more helpful is non-primary sources so movie reviews, DVD commentaries, DVD revues, Nickelodeon commentary etc are all possibilities. In any case, these aren't AfD as in deletion issues as much as merge to proper list article(s). Someone more familiar with the series would likely do a far better job than I at that. -- Banjeboi 11:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of these original essays, existing of entirely in-universe plot summary, and unsupported by any reliable sources independent of the fictional work and its creators that might serve to begin to establish some independent notability for these fictional entitites separate from the work of fiction which they inhabit. If someone wants to redirect to the series after deletion, i have no particularl objection.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We redirect instead of deletion actually. In that way any editor can see what the previous work contained and can access that history. The other benefit is that when newer users search for these characters they are redirected to an article with whatever information we do have. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for fun, I have counted the articles about South Park: 271 (+ about 200 pictures). You chose Hey Arnold a victim of your attacks solely because it can't defend itself? Hellerick (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it can't defend itself? Attacks? Personally, what I want for these articles are redirects with deletion for those which aren't likely search terms. Comparing a series like Hey Arnold to genuinely culturally important shows which have run several times longer isn't the best method by which to argue for your (when I say your, I mean it in the WP:OWN sense) articles not to be removed. treelo _radda 10:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course South Park is culturally important -- that's why it has 271 articles. But Hey Arnold deserves to have at least 27. Otherwise it turns out that the only de facto criterion for deletion is presence of fans among Wikipedia administrators (For some reason Wikipedia and Hey Arnold don't mix. I was talking to HA! fans, they can create sites in php, but they think Wiki is too complicated.) Hellerick (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop proving my points right and way short of the full truth! Whether or not someone is a fan is irrelevant, what is though is importance, notability and the relevance to the everyday reader. Yes, it's part cultural importance for South Park to have more articles but moreso, and this seems to be the sticking point in your understanding of things, they have sources and reliable ones too, wether or not it's deserved is of personal opinion. You can say why Stan or Milhouse are socially relevant but I want you to try and show me why Mr. Hyunh or Miles are socially relevant too. That you cannot back up why anything you say should be anything more than "but I like it is worrying, you clearly care more for the articles than Wikipedia itself and just so you're aware, I am a fan of Hey Arnold, doesn't exempt me from knowing where its place is. treelo _radda 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody tries to prove relevancy of South Park articles. They exist as a system, as an obviously relevant system which is organized in most effective way. You're trying to impose something like The Simpsons system of notable conglomerate articles — which seems to be in better accordance with Wikipedia rules, while I like more intuitive South Park System (one important entity — one article).

As for my motivation — I'm fighting the deletionists, the worst enemies of Wikipedia. I guess everyone here understands keeping these articles makes Wikipedia better. It's just some people are trying to help the readers and provide them information, while others enjoy destroying their work. Plus I feel necessary to represent all these anonymous IPs who have created this little miracle and now can't defend it.

The weird thing is that all these articles would be gladly welcome in any other Wikipedia but English one (well, and German maybe). Imagine: English Wikipedia is the worst suitable for description of American cartoons. Hellerick (talk) 11:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other wikipedias have even lower standards for dealing with fancruft and even less regard for trying to be, you know, actual encyclopedias about information notable in the real world? Wow.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can't say I care for your "system" logic, whatever the hell one is supposed to be. I'm guessing it means a wider array of garbage articles which must stay because, annoyingly enough, the devilspawn deletionists are out to crush everything. That you even brought in deletionist/inclusionist faction labels shows that you're way too polarised to see it any other way than "every sperm is sacred". Thing is that you know the rules/policies here and you know why these articles are up for deletion but heck, the wider system must be wrong because others are doing it this way which you prefer. If you note, no data will be lost as it'd most likely be a merge into a character list but nope, that list already contains a overly through list of one-time nobodies and we can't get rid of it... not everything is black and white and it is not a case of keep all info or delete all info. Keep what's relevant, ditch the crap. treelo _radda 18:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep and improve all, or merge to a list of characters due to existence of out of universe information in the articles backed by reliable sources. Lists of characters is what our manual of style for writing about fiction suggests. Per WP:PRESERVE, we would at worst merge and redirect these if not continue to improve them further as redlinking is an extreme last resort. Given that these are characters from a familiar series, they can and should be covered in some capacity. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list of characters, as there doesn't seem to be any properly-cited content in them. Anything that any user wants to preserve and is prepared to cite a source for can be merged, and in the unlikely event of enough cited material shows up, the articles can be broken back out per WP:SS. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as these articles fail WP:NOT#PLOT as well as all three of Wikipedia's core content polices. There are no reliable sources to verify their content which is filled with opinions about these fictional characters that is pure original research. These articles are basically content folks, as they provide no commentary, criticism, context or analysis that is not already contained in the article Hey Arnold!. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They pass WP:NOT#PLOT due to the out of universe information verifiable in reliable sources. No real reason for redlinking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your phrasing has me a little confused. You're claiming that they pass WP:NOT#PLOT? That is a policy for what should not be included, so are you saying they should be included or not? I don't think I've ever seen WP:NOT cited in such a reverse manner. And of the references, only Lila Sawyer provides a ref to a wikia site, which is really not WP:RS. Yngvarr (t) (c) 14:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of referencing all of them now. Given that a recent RfC has over 60 editors oppose plot, the guideline clearly lacks consensus anyway, but information on who played the characters for example cannot be called "in universe." Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Lovett[edit]

Non-notable soap opera character, fails WP:N and guidance at Wikipedia:SOAPS#Notability standards. ukexpat (talk) 18:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is a new stub, and properly tagged as needing references. Unlike many similar soap opera character stubs, this character is actually the son of two very notable/famous characters from the series. I think we should give editors a chance to come up with some sources; as the character's paternity has just been revealed onscreen, I think at the very least the next Soap Opera Digest will certainly discuss it in a meaningful way.— TAnthony^Talk 18:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Additional info and references have been added to the article since my comment above.— TAnthony^Talk 08:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage of characters is not coverage of individuals. Ironholds (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure what you mean by that, this is a character article ... Anyway, I ask those following this AfD to check out the article again, as it has been beefed up today.— TAnthony^Talk 08:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per improvements. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Despite character being new, his mother and father, both big stars of the show, make him seem like a character who stay and join in the exploits. As such, the page should not be deleted. Citybug (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Citybug, that isn't a valid keep rationale. Please quote some form of policy in your comment, or some reason more valid than "well his parents are important to fans of soap X, so he'll probably be important at some point in the future". Ironholds (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The character "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and the article has been expanded since the initial deletion nomination. Rocksey (talk) 04:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Good rescue work. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Teifer[edit]

Tagged as lacking sources since July 2007. Asserts notability, but no sources found to verify any of his compositions or notable positions held. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here are some sources: [16]. The article needs editing and better referencing, but it doesn't need to be deleted. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources The article is on a famous music publisher and songwriter. His contributions to the field are historic within the industry. THANK YOU Pastor Theo for your Rescue Tag solution to the destructive tag placed this article on 27 May 2009.Wikibones (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Sheehan Didn't Die for Nothing[edit]

The song does not appear to meet the notability criterion, or the more specific WP:Notability (music) or WP:SONGS guidelines. On the talk page, the original author stated that he/she believes the singer/songwriter's nationality factors into the song's notability, but the article does not mention his nationality. (I'm not sure why it would add to the song's notability in any event.) Pete (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Songs aren't inherently notable. This one isn't covered in any sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —TexasAndroid (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-charting song; lacks substantial coverage from reliable sources. — Σ xplicit 06:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No proof of notability. Need I say more?

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 06:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The album it is on doesn't have an article either.

7h3 0N3 7h3 \/4Nl)4L5 Pl-l34R ( _t / _c) 06:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers, no WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 13:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not assert notability nor does it seem likely to be notable. I would also suggest "Weapons of Mass Instruction", another James Gordon song, be nominated for AfD (though I don't care enough to do it myself). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A song is not automatically entitled to an article just because it exists, but needs to have demonstrated notability. And in response to the talk page comments, notability is defined by reliable sources which demonstrate the actual real-world significance of the song (ie. chart performance, awards, documented social impact, etc.), not by the mere fact that a Canadian songwriter happened to write a topical song about an American political controversy. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GLC Advisors & Co.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/GLC Advisors & Co.

Changing my mind about my speedy per request on my talk page. When news outlets reproduce your press release, that's not an independent source. And there's no reaction at all here. But the fact that there's so much reaction to your (and I do mean "your"; note the WP:COI) press release here means I shouldn't be making the call myself. Let's see what the !voters think. - Dank (push to talk) 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Along with the associated Global Leveraged Capital afd, I don't believe this meets the criteria for notability for corporations. Syrthiss (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Leveraged Capital. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete You were right the first time. ukexpat (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. All of the keep arguments are based in the false premise that notability is inherited. Smashville^talk 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lars Onsager Lecture and The Lars Onsager Professorship[edit]

There are thousands upon thousands of specific professor chairs in the world, and this one does not stand out. Deprodded with the reason "Significant award deserves an article", but read again and you will find that this entry is not about an award. That would be the Onsager Medal, I guess, for which no article exists. Punkmorten (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. I don't see this as significant; I can rattle off about a half-dozen such positions at my college alone. It's not notable.Tyrenon (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Highly prestigious award, recipients and institution. Article needs to be linked from the Lars Onsager page. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- This is no award. Punkmorten (talk) 08:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The first line of the article claims that they are. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    - Come on, how can a professorship and a lecture be awards? Punkmorten (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the authors of the article, not me. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per nom -- there's no reason to have articles on lectures or professorships/chairs like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant award. It is an award (something awarded on merit); see e.g. Temple University announcement, NTNU announcement, INTUTE announcement, The Lars Onsager Lecture and The Lars Onsager Professorship at Princeton. The last, in particular, says "The Lars Onsager Lecture and the Lars Onsager Professorship are awarded by the Onsager committee which consists of . . . . Both the Lecturer and the Professor receive the Onsager medal." Pretty clearly the professorship and the lecture are awarded, and thus are awards. They are prestigious. Fg2 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article would better be furthered by listing those Nobels etc. (those who have wiki-pages) received the award and when, I found some odd ones here and there but a year by year would be an improvement.--Alf ^melmac 07:23, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- to those arguing keep, where are the reliable sources demonstrating notability? (All four references currently on the page are self-published). A google news search (all dates) on both terms resulted in not a single hit. As for the notion that the award is significant because the recipients are, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Really, the quality of the keep arguments so far is very poor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:NOTINHERITED. This is a single chair without notability; if it deserves mention, it deserves it on its parent university's page, and I'm honestly not even sure that's merited, considering the large number of such positions some colleges and universities will have. (Self-edit: And I do apologize for "voting" twice; I overlooked my previous entry here.)Tyrenon (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor above identifies himself on his talk page as "a proud deletionist". Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"Comment on content, not on the contributor." Sound familiar? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is legitimate to flag POV, the more so if the POV is self-confessed. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per Tyrenon. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Doggystyle. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shante Broadus[edit]

Contested PROD - Wife of rapper Snoop Dogg. Does not assert individual notability; Par the guidelines related people should be included into the main article unless there is a specific reason for a seperate article. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Doggystyle, unless we can find some more resources about her besides the record label. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Does not assert notability. Redirect to Doggystyle. Hipocrite (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. No need to redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Fani Alessandri Carlos[edit]

Fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, especially The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. In my view, it is merely another professional, doing her job, like countless others around the world who do not have an article about them in any encyclopaedia. RafaAzevedo ^msg 11:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Citation impact indicates notability. See also this Google Books search. Additionally, one book in its 7th edition, suggesting that the subject possibly meets criterion #4 (significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions) as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 02:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in addition to the material shown above, there also seems to be some reasonable news coverage of this person. I can't read French or Portugese, but I think it all adds up to notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. May be suitable for Portugese Wiki. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. The English WP is the main/global WP, so notability should be verifiable through international sources, ideally sources that are widely available to the participants in AfD discussions. The language of those sources, however, certainly does not have to be English.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep here, with a Portugese version over on the appropriate Wiki. Echoing the arguments that Lankiveil gave. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M3 festival[edit]

Note: article was moved to following name after initial nom (- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Appears to be blatant advertising. Yes, some of the bands performing in it meet notable criteria, but the festival itself does not. See WP:N. just a little insignificant 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is an advert. It lacks independent references. Even if notable, it would need to be rewritten. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DanielRigal. Google News Search wasn't terribly promising. tedder (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish it was written better, but that is no reason to delete the article. Rather, it needs to be expanded with external refs. By the "ADVERT" argument, any company with a page on wikipedia could be deleted, since each page in its self is an advert.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the article, User:MikeyCMS, explicitly said on his talk page:

"Hello, all! I wrote the aricle and it was not intedned to sound like a commercial or anything of the sort. I wrote it just to promo an event I had a particular intrest in and saw that no one else has wrote anything on tit, so I took it upon myself and did it. I will be happy if it goes May 31th. AS LONG AS IT STAYS AROUND FOR THE EVENT! It does not have to be on Wikipedia forever, as I did not expect that."

The article is not intended to be encyclopedic. It is an advertisement, and it does not meet notability requirements anyway. just a little insignificant 10:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I feel it is less helpful to toss around wikilaw to a new comer rather than help improve the article. What has wikipedia come to when it is is better to delete an article rather than improve upon it. Regardless of the authors intentions (and believe me, he has not helped his cause since creating the article) I hope to help improve the article and to make it more encyclopedic. The easy thing to do would to just delete it and move on, but wikipedia has a higher purpose than that, and I intend to prove it.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. It is better to improve an article rather than delete it, a fate which too many articles have met in the past. But I feel that applies more to articles being considered for deletion because they are not well written. In that case, the article can be saved by bringing it up to acceptable status.

In this case, however, the article is not being considered for deletion based on quality. No matter how encyclopedic it becomes, the rules still apply: The festival is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. The bands that regularly play at it are its only notable aspect. just a little insignificant 15:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WHO CARES ABOUT NOTABILITY????????????????????? I WANT TO KEEP MY PAGE UP!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.194.107 (talk) 11:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your page. Once you hit that "Save page" button, it becomes the community's page. If you wish for stuff you write to not be mercilessly edited by others, then don't put it up in the first place. MuZemike 03:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's right but I would like to add that the author is still perfectly within his rights to take his content and republish it somewhere else instead. Rather than argue for keeping it in Wikipedia, where it is clearly inappropriate, if he cares about it enough to want to keep it alive he should find a new home for it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per What Wikipedia is not and the notability guidelines. --bonadea contributions talk 11:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G11) as processed meat. The creator indirectly admits to spamming as per above. MuZemike 03:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom - notability is not inherited; some of the bands may be notable, but the event itself does not appear to be notable. The article is pure advertisement, as the creator of the article admits per this edit where he states that he only wants it to remain up through the event, not forever, so it's clear that it's meant as an advertisement, not as anything encyclopedic. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timewave zero[edit]

AfDs for this article:

After this article's previous deletion nomination, it was decided to keep on condition that an attempt be made to bring the article up to some kind of academic standard. Instead, the opposite happened. As this previous version shows, it became even more swamped under preaching and jargon. I decided that the article would be better employed if shortened and kept as part of 2012 doomsday prediction, which currently has a wide range of committed and skeptical users able to keep such excesses under control. However, User:Lumos3 has contested the move. Serendi ^pod ous 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough to have an academic-quality debate about a crackpot theory; you can either have a long entry that picks apart every nonsensical claim, or you can have a short entry that merely mentions it as a crackpot theory. Neither article is that interesting. Hairhorn (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that that previous version did NOT pick it apart. It was written as an opinion piece that extolled the idea's virtues and dismissed all criticisms. This article, left to its own devices, will just revert to that form, as only true believers will be interested in editing it. It needs to be somewhere where an eye can be kept on it. Serendi ^pod ous 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I was hoping it wouldn't come to this. I wouldn't say that Timewave Zero is a "crackpot theory". I'm not saying I agree with it, but it does make some logical sense. The previous version was, as Serendipodous said, simply a show of bias, rather than a NPOV expository piece. If this article stays, and someone has to keep an eye on it, I would be willing to do that (even if I'm only causing more harm than good right now). Chocolate Panic! (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood the point of the nomination. Did it not sound like I did? Hairhorn (talk) 17:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was just stating my opinion. Chocolate Panic! (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be a notable, if not particularly useful, theory. The fact the some editors might or might not change the article in the future is not a reason to delete. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Uncle G showed why this article is appropriate in the second deletion debate linked above, and his arguments have not been refuted.
The nomination contains one of two serious errors, depending on how you read it. Either the nominator's argument is "let's merge this to 2012 doomsday prediction"—in which case this is a clear case of speedy keep ground 1 without further discussion—or else it's "This article is bad, and it's getting worse, so let's delete it" which fails WP:BEFORE. See also {{sofixit}}.
Either way, it's a speedy keep, under ground 1 in the first case or a snow failure of WP:BEFORE in the second case.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I want to merge this article with 2012 doomsday prediction. I did so, but that merge was challenged, and the person who did so said s/he would only accept the merge if the article went through an AfD. Serendi ^pod ous 06:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I really don't see this as a speedy keep. The article borders on crackpot nonsense. With one exception, all of the sources are fringe ones, and that lone source is an article on an event where the guy who made up the theory spoke. This is one of many such theories, and I really don't see it as having a place on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyrenon (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- In case anyone else shares Tyrenon's view, I'll quote Uncle G in full.
  Google Web is not the only search tool in the world. Google Books turns up a book by Graham St. John, Postdoctoral Research Fellow the Centre for Critical and Cultural Studies at the University of Queensland, which addresses McKenna's Novelty Theory and Timewave Zero on pages 214–218. (The reported criticism of the idea by Gyrus is quite amusing.) ISBN 9781591796114 pages 20–21 and 309 discusses McKenna's theory and xyr slide-the-date-up-and-down methodology, and, amusingly, gives two different dates for what McKenna claimed to be the zero point. Daniel Wojcik, Associate Professor of English and Folklore Studies at the University of Oregon, deals with the subject on page 293 of ISBN 9780415263245. And those are in addition to the web pages linked-to by the article itself, including the criticisms by Watkins and Meyer.—Uncle G, in the debate linked above.
  In other words, there are non-fringe sources. Crackpot nonsense it may be, but crackpot nonsense can be encyclopaedic; there are good reasons why Wikipedia has an article on bigfoot.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote! _Chocolate ^Panic! 22:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crackpot theories are still notable if people are talking about them in areas Wikipedia sees as verifiable places. I count around 60 published books that mention the theory see http://books.google.com/books?q=timewave+mckenna&lr=&sa=N&start=0 , many from mainstream publishers. Its clearly notable. Lumos3 (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS this is actually the 3rd nomination it was voted keep under the title Novelty theory in 2006. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novelty theory . Lumos3 (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... and it was voted keep under the same title in 2008. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novelty theory (2nd nomination).

There's a bit of WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED going on here, though I'm sure it's in good faith.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep bizarre pseudo-science that is notable deserves an entry --- the downside is that crackpots flock to them and try to make them plausible with lashings of pseudo-math. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So are you willing to spend the rest of eternity stopping crackpots from flooding this article with bias? In my experience on Wikipedia, people who claim that articles should be kept as long as the crackpots are kept out always expect other people to do the job. I have a HUGE in-tray on Wikipedia right now. I don't want to add this to my already heavy workload. And don't tell me I don't have to do it. If I don't, nobody will. This article's previous AfD provided a very clear means to prevent this from happening again, and yet nobody did anything. Serendi ^pod ous 06:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point --- I tried to do this once with the quackey of thermeoeconomics and it was gruelling. I am not sure of the correct solution. An encyclopedia must give correct information and it is better for it to give nothing on a topic rather than made-up things. If crackpot ideas are allowed to passed off as truth then it is better to not have articles on them. Sure. someone can say "what is a crank" idea and blather on about relativism and post modernism etc. But people with such ideas should then be hostile to the very idea of an encyclopedia -- which is premised on the basis of the existence of truth. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your remark above confirming that what you seek is a merge rather than a deletion, this is in the wrong place. Please look at WP:SK ground 1. AfD is for deletions, not mergers. The editor who asked you to take it to AfD was, simply put, wrong.

Mergers take place on the basis of a talk page consensus, being the talk pages of the two articles to be merged.

"Merge" is a common outcome of AfD, but that's usually done to preserve a paragraph or two of well-sourced content from an article that's mostly rubbish, and it's usually the result of an inexperienced nominator. (Experienced nominators act to preserve any valuable content by merging it to another article and then take whatever's left to AfD.)

I'm sorry if this seems obstructive or bureaucratic—I realise it would be convenient if you could bring these matters to AfD where lots of people will see it—but the criteria for AfD are deliberately very narrow because otherwise AfD would be even more swamped than it already is.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Close this. I'll take this debate back to where it belongs. Serendi ^pod ous 11:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I probably shouldn't close it because there's a delete !vote and I've participated in the debate. Hopefully an uninvolved editor will agree to do this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with 2012 doomsday prediction. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retinal gene therapy using lentiviral vectors[edit]

I wouldn't say this is exactly original research but it seems like synthesizing sources enough to qualify as original research. Also, some admin may want to merge this history with User:Chuckw2/Retinal Gene Therapy Using Lentiviral Vectors, where the article was originally drafted, to get the full history properly. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although links should be added to the article Leber's congenital amaurosis, the topic of gene therapy to treat LCA (a rare, inherited and, historically, untreatable disease that leads to blindness) is most certainly notable. I understand the synthesizing concerns, but unless this is untrue, I view this more as an attempt to explain the subject to us laypersons. I don't mind saying that the narrative would have to be "dumbed down" for folks like me. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like WP:OR to me. I don't see any cited sources actually discussing the topic, just supporting factoids included in the article. Drawn Some (talk) 19:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete OR, synthesis, advert, crystal, lack of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suitable topic for an article: if it were just this one disease, it could me merged there, but the article talks about the potential for other diseases as well. What looks like OR is probably sourceable to the refs listed . Editing is needed, not deletion.DGG (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like OR and synthesis to me. None of the sources support the basic structure of the article. Hipocrite (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say? The basic structure of the article? What does that mean exactly? Dream Focus 11:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A notable subject, well sourced. AFD is not cleanup. If you think it needs some work, talk about it on the discussion page of the article. Dream Focus 11:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Move to "Retinal gene therapy", and clean-up. The references are good enough to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The thing is real, it was published in Nature [17]. Being terribly written is not a reason for deletion, but for improvement.Biophys (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 08:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esben Ertzeid[edit]

Plays on the second tier in Norway. Not a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. No other significant coverage that fulfills WP:BIO#basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence that he has played in a fully professional league. The Norwegian First Division is not a fully professional league, many players have other day jobs, in some teams 100% of the players have other jobs besides football. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punkmorten (talk • contribs)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I know, Bryne operates as a professional club. There is a long precedence for Norwegian First Division bios. Lampman (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there. I went through all Norwegian footballers yesterday and found five. There are hundreds of players in this league. Rettetast (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five? There are at least eight playing for Bryne alone. Lampman (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a professional club isn't enough, it has to be a professional league. And there is no such precedence. Punkmorten (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other players have other merits that makes relevant for inclusion. Five was the number of players that only had 2 tier experience. Rettetast (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can a player and club be judged based on other clubs? There is nothing in the Norwegian promotion system that prevents an amateur club from being promoted to the Norwegian Premier League. If that happened, would we have to delete all player bios from that league? The implication of this practice seems absurd. To me playing on a professional level means playing for a professional club. Lampman (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary. Rettetast (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 14:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lampman is correct - the implications here don't make sense. Professional player, who plays for a fully-professional team, at the national level, in a mostly-professional league. WP:CS dictates that deletion doesn't make sense. Besides, isn't this all irrelevent; he seems to have extensive media coverage [18] and thus meets WP:N which trumps WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless you can find a reliable source from that Google search about his playing exploits, then it might pass general notability - listing a Google news search doesn't prove anything. Until then, he still fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league) and general notability criteria as well. --Jimbo^[online] 10:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's repeatedly covered in Norway's largest and most reliable news outlets: Dagbladet, Verdens Gang, Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation. Lampman (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just links to searches. Please give us links to extensive coverage about the player. As far as I can see all these articles are just match report where Esben Ertzeid gets mentioned. Rettetast (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ATHLETE and WP:N failure. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 00:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronny Espedal[edit]

Plays on the second tier in Norway. Not a fully professional league. Fails WP:ATHLETE. No other significant coverage that fulfills WP:BIO#basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By " not a fully professional league" do you mean to say that this club and player is amateur? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season	Top scorer, club	Goals
2008	Peter Kovacs, Odd Grenland	22
2007	Kenneth Kvalheim, Notodden	23
2006	Mattias Andersson, Strømsgodset	19
2005	Daniel Nannskog, Stabæk	27
2004	Paul Oyuga, Bryne	18
2003	Markus Ringberg, Fredrikstad	19
2002	Morten Gamst Pedersen, Tromsø	18
2001	Bala Garba, Haugesund	18
2001	Bala Garba, Haugesund	18	Marino Rahmberg, Raufoss

Here are some past top scorers for the same league Are all these non notable?. To me inclusion of what article is acceptable or not in respected to clubs in this division is shady given that some are professional players and others are not. If for instance we were to delete the above articles then people are likely to complain that they do have some claim to notability having played for professional clubs or having international experience. How do we find what or what not is appropriate by evaluating the player based on the club when they might have had previous professional experience etc? All I'm saying is if we delete this we may as well nuke hundreds of others like Thomas Sørum etc. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that inclusion on wikipedia not solely should be decided upon what club a player has played for. This is also how WP:BIO functions. All players that have played on a fully professional level are automatically "notable". If not we have to go to the basic criteria which is decided upon the presence of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". In my opinion Ronny Espedal does not fulfill this criteria.

To the players you listed. Péter Kovács has played on a fully professional level, Mattias Andersson has played on a fully professional level, Daniel Nannskog has played on a fully professional level and has won the Norwegian Premier League, Paul Oyuga has games for his national team, Markus Ringberg has played on a fully professional level, Morten Gamst Pedersen should be obvious, Bala Garba has played in the Norwegian premier League and for his national team, Marino Rahmberg has played for his national team and Thomas Sørum has played in the Norwegian Premier League. Kenneth Kvalheim is the only one of these that fails WP:ATHLETE. However he, in my opinion, he fulfills the basic criteria. Rettetast (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By first glance, I recognise almost all of the above mentioned players as players who have contributed greatly to Norwegian football. The only one I was unsure about was Marino Rahmberg, but he has played for Derby + several other clubs. But almost all of the top-scorers mentioned above have played/plays in Tippeligaen, except for Paul Oyuga, Kenneth Kvalheim & Rahmberg. When it comes to whether or not Addeccoligaen is a professional league, I would say it is. The league is sponsored, and the players are paid salaries. But whether or not this player is notable or not, I'm more unsure of. The article doesn't actually give much extra info, besides a photo, birth date and his employer. lil2mas (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless evidence that he has played in a fully professional league. The Norwegian First Division is not a fully professional league, many players have other day jobs, in some teams 100% of the players have other jobs besides football. Punkmorten (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK thanks for the explanation guys. I had absolutely no idea that this wasn't a fully professional league. Division One and Two in English football are professional and are notable teams and players. Thanks for clearing it up. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's fair to make assessments of the individual players or the individual clubs. But to assess a player based on other clubs in his league seems strange to me. That's an unreasonably strict interpretation of what it means to compete on a fully professional level. Lampman (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is also how WP:BIO works, but there is nothing special about this player. At least that I have found. Rettetast (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable player. Giant Snowman 14:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless I;m mistaken, this sounds like the equal to minor league baseball or semi-pro football. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom, fails WP:ATHLETE and general notability. --ClubOranje^T 10:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. No substantial references that meet WP:N either. --Jimbo^[online] 11:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H. G. Fogg[edit]

Have attempted to verify the material but British Library has no record of this author and the refs added don't add up, zero good ghits Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No libraries hold any of his books because they don't exist as he is a hoax. Good catch. Drawn Some (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a hoax. Good job finding this one. just a little insignificant 17:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 (hoax). Already tagged. Wonder if he could have been related to Phineas T. Phogg. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess was H. G. Witham Fogg, a prolific writer of gardening books. Drawn Some (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elysium (band)[edit]

Apparently a non-notable band of Poland; they have in their official website a series of interviews, but most are in Polish language. I think they are notable only in their home-country. :) Canniba loki 15:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is being notable only in sources in Polish language a cause for deletion? Drawn Some (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They apparently fails WP:BAND. Their interviews in Polish language is not a cause for deletion, but prevent me from trying to expand the page -- even in good faith.--Canniba loki 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two links in Englsh if you are still willing to expand this article (thank you!): http://www.spirit-of-metal.com/groupe-groupe-Elysium_(PL)-l-en.html and http://www.metal-coven.dk/htm/Interviews/Elysium%20interview.htm BTW, the former being a French site and the latter being an interview on a Danish site, both are evidences that this band is notable in countries other than Poland. — Xavier, 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first is an online database that contributes nothing to the discussion of WP:N (you may as well mention Metal Archives). The second I have already linked to, but may be considered weak. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep We can't delete articles because of linguistic bias. They meet the notability guidelines of WP:BIO. just a little insignificant 17:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How they meet the notability guidelines of WP:BIO?--Canniba loki 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant WP:BAND. just a little insignificant 21:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Huh? This band has released 6 albums (including 3 on "one of the lead independent labels in Poland") in a 13 year lifetime and it "apparently" fails to meet WP:BAND criteria? I wonder whether the submitter did really read them. — Xavier, 20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see your ability to expand this article to us and show the "notability" of this band.--Canniba loki 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you carefully read this article, you'll certainly notice that those 6 albums, and their labels, are already mentioned. — Xavier, 21:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The band appears to pass WP:MUSIC with three albums on an "important indie", in this case Metal Mind Productions. Actually, they have four including one on Black Mark Productions (home of Bathory et al.) as well, according to Metal Archives. Regarding other coverage, the name is obviously something of a problem, but there is a MusicMight biography here. Their wesbite provides a certain amount of press coverage, most of which may not reliable (I'm not really familiar with Eastern European magazines, and the fact that it's all linked from their site is somewhat dubious), but at least one claims to be from the Polish Metal Hammer, which would certainly be a big reliable source (I don't however speak Polish). English webzine interview here (not hosted by an Elysium site). It is a little sparse, I confess, but this was the result of a fairly brief search. Metal Mind is certainly huge (even by metal standards), so makes me lean towards keep. Note: I have personally never heard of this band. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - If the band is notable in Poland, it is notable. Even if all the available sources were in Polish, that is not a remotely valid reason for deletion. While the nominator may not be able to expand the article from Polish sources, an editor who speaks Polish would be able to. Rlendog (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reptar[edit]

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing and commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. While there are no standalone SpongeBob SquarePants for main characters, there are for many others including Moe Szyslak and Kenny McCormick. Choosing SpongeBob SquarePants and ignoring Simpsons is called the Strawman fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could we merge the batch of Rugrats debates into a single one? All of the debates are getting the same comments unless someone only remarks on a single one.Tyrenon (talk) 03:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one has actually been made into an amusement park ride at multiple parks. See Rugrats Runaway Reptar. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The character was notable enough to have their own amusement ride made at various parks. Honestly now. You can't get more famous than that. The character has also appeared in the extremely popular long running cartoon series Rugrats, and in their movie, plus I believe there is a toy you can buy. Dream Focus 01:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Amusement park note suggests ample out-of-universe material. A Principal character. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep having your own ride qualifies you as pretty darn notable. Artw (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an amusement park ride? Pretty notable per above. Valley2city^‽ 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Susie Carmichael[edit]

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect can be protected to prevent that. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing an commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect to the List of Rugrats characters. Entirely in-universe plot-summary content fork. This fictional entity has no separate notability from its work of fiction in the universe that matters here -- the realityverse.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is little sense to deleting if you are redirecting. The history may prove useful so simply redirecting would achieve the same unless there is some history that needs to be banished for some reason. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the new series, she is in the majority of episodes. She has appeared in the previous series, and all of the movies, although briefly. She has enough information to warrant her own article. Dream Focus 01:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelica Pickles[edit]

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing and commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. While there are no standalone SpongeBob SquarePants for main characters, there are for many others including Moe Szyslak and Kenny McCormick. Choosing SpongeBob SquarePants and ignoring Simpsons is called the Strawman fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and the other ones to the list of Rugrats characters. Tommy and Chuckie might be entitled to their own page, but even at that, this level of detail type of biography can go in Rugratapedia. Mandsford (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable character from a notable series. There is enough information to warrant her own article. Dream Focus 01:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discuss potential merge elsewhere. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil and Lil DeVille[edit]

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing and commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. While there are no standalone SpongeBob SquarePants for main characters, there are for many others including Moe Szyslak and Kenny McCormick. Choosing SpongeBob SquarePants and ignoring Simpsons and South Park is called the Strawman fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it as a strawman attempt as much as picking the two nearest examples (i.e. all three are Nickelodeon shows) to point to. That said, I'm inclined to suggest that the Simpsons (which is going on its 20th season and has always been on a broadcast network) is something of an apples and oranges example with respect to its long run. South Park may be a better comparison (it's only at 13 ~~episodes~~ seasons, and on cable), but it's also more ingrained in popular culture (not to mention more widely viewed, if ratings are any indicator) than are any Nickelodeon shows I can think of off the top of my head. If anything, comparing Rugrats to The Simpsons is an attempt at a straw man considering the popularity differences involved (which, for the record, I don't think you were trying to do; I just think your examples were somewhat mismatched).Tyrenon (talk) 04:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable characters in two hit cartoon series, and they played a notable role in two successful movies(the movies grossing hundreds of millions of dollars). Dream Focus 01:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Finster[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing and commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. While there are no standalone SpongeBob SquarePants for main characters, there are for many others including Moe Szyslak and Kenny McCormick. Choosing SpongeBob SquarePants and ignoring Simpsons is called the Strawman fallacy. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was in a successful movie($103 million at theaters) and is significant part of a notable cartoon series. There is enough content to warrant her own article, so she should have one. Dream Focus 01:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckie Finster[edit]

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing an commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then redirect Just going to pick this one at random and wonder why the nominator didn't make a single nom covering all primary characters. Anyway, fallacies aside, the secondary sources are the clincher here even if notability is established in-universe. treelo _radda 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect. Entirely in-universe, no real world notability aside from the work of fiction itself. Adding commentary (that is, original research) is a particularly bad idea.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character is a major character in two notable cartoon series, and two movies. Dream Focus 01:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Pickles[edit]

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing an commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Character is featured in two notable cartoon series, and various merchandise, as well as a Rugrats movie. There is enough valid information to justified his own article, so I'm against any merger attempts. Dream Focus 01:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Pickles[edit]

Delete or Merge. I don't see anywhere of more than one character in SpongeBob SquarePants or The Fairly OddParents having their own pages. If the result is merge, merge to List of Rugrats characters. Marcus2 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it'll likely get undone by a slobbering fanboy if redirected. There are no out of universe sources for the character. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't have an article for every single character in any television series. just a little insignificant 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a list of Rugrats characters. This and the other nominations around it all belong in a list of Rugrats characters (as many movies, movie series, and TV series have such lists. I don't see why Rugrats wouldn't qualify for such a list).Tyrenon (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add sourcing and commentary. Merge as a last resort, it seems large enough for a standalone article. While there are no standalone SpongeBob SquarePants for main characters, there are for many others including Moe Szyslak and Kenny McCormick. Choosing SpongeBob SquarePants and ignoring Simpsons is called the Strawman fallacy. For Moe Szyslak every reference is from the Wikipedia episode plot, or from the DVD commentary. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources establish independent notability for this fictional thing (here come the snowglobes and the sticker books). Redirect to Rugrats after deletion if you want to.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tommy is the main character of a notable franchise that includes cartoons, films, even amusement park attractions and the article itself includes numerous reliable sources such as newspapers establishing indepedent notability for this fictional character. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is the main character of a notable franchise. He has stared in different animated series now, several movies, been featured on a lot of merchandise, and there is even a major news paper which says "Tommy Pickles is a bigger star than George Clooney". Honestly now. How much more proof do you need of notability than that? Dream Focus 01:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Principal characters of major works get articles. Simple and direct rule, not going buy the accident of what sources we happen to find. I wonder what the fiction minimalists will do 2 or 3 years from now, when there will be accessible due to the expansion of Gbooks and gnews,. and the growth of academic work on these shows, multiple works giving information on even relatively minor characters? Will they still hold to N=2RS for fictional elements, and accept all of these without objection? I notice a comment above saying we should have articles ofn principal characters because then we'd need them on minor characters also--that's like saying we shouldn't have article on major league ballplayers, because we'd need one on every player regardless. (or perhaps I do an injustice, and it's just not realizing this is a major character.) DGG (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, speaking as something of a minimalist, I think that having articles on the main characters in reasonably popular series is more than defensible. Doing so for secondary and tertiary characters is more the bailiwick of dedicated 'pedias. In general, I would even be willing to say that if there is a dedicated 'pedia for a series we should encourage highly in-depth contributions on a fandom to go there. While I know WP isn't paper, I still think there's something to be said for in-depth articles on characters belonging in a dedicated source rather than on here. The proper analogue, IMHO, would be Wookiepedia to Star Wars or the Battlestar Wiki to BSG.Tyrenon (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tommy is definietly a Principal character of a major work. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Most of these are notable, and some aren't. I don't have the time, inclination, or lexisnexis account needed to turn them into GAs, but it's possible. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm open to a restore if he ships me some of that pot of cash he's got. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Cornor[edit]

non-notable and quite possibly bullshit. Discovered a start-up called Microsoft and invested some of the original money- and yet there's no record of this anywhere? It claims he's on the times rich list; the rich list has no record of him. Google pulls up squat, unless he became an estate agent when I wasn't looking. Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and speedy db-hoax would work for me. Good research. - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax. just a little insignificant 17:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. About as believable as the list of female movie stars who've slept with a fifteen-year-old blogger called Kevin. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terese Pencak Schwartz[edit]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced article and I don't see any reliable sources available to support notability. I'll be glad to reconsider if someone else finds sufficient in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and all BLPs with no reliable sources about the subject of the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references, the author of this article should provide necessary sources. Rsolero (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby County Republican Party[edit]

County level political organizations are not notable rogerd (talk) 15:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This may only be a county level, but it is the county for Memphis, TN which is a major city, making it notable. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this even a county-level organization? Yes or no, I still don't see the significance, and the article doesn't claim any. Hairhorn (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Political parties do not inherit notability (or lack thereof) from their locales. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Branches of national groups need to prove stand-alone notability through significant in-depth coverage in reliable sources that also proves that they are not of local interest only, see WP:LOCAL. Drawn Some (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tennessee Republican Party unless sources are discovered which satisfy the notability criteria. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable, see discussion below. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment that I'm well aware of WP:ORG but strongly disagree with its claim that local interests need coverage from elsewhere in order to be considered notable. There is no firm definition of what is "local" (a building? a city? a planet?) and this invites personal bias into the decision. I am concerned that we may be deleting perfectly verifiable topics because we do not have the desire to maintain them. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common usage of the term "local media" refers to those that cover a given metropolitan area. If you don't understand that, I don't know what I can do to help you. There is no precedent for keeping articles about political organizations at a lower level than the U.S. state, except for Chicago, which is given considerable national attention. --rogerd (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "lack of precedent" should be a reason for deletion if we're trying to build an encyclopedia of unprecedented scope. We keep articles on topics that influence far fewer than the 900,000 people in Shelby county because they are backed up with independent sources. Assuming that the common usage^{[citation needed]} of "local media" pertains to a metropolitan area... so what? What's so bad about having lots of articles about local interests? --Explodicle (T/C) 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as no valid reason for deletion as given, just a subjective one apparently based on opinion rather than any guideline. An organization is only not notable if it hasn't been the subject of non-trivial coverage by third parties... that probably isn't the case here.--Chiliad22 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's (and my) concern is that the article does not meet the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Most of the pages from the search you conducted appear to be discussing members of the party rather than the party's history and platform. Would you please cite the specific (not Google search) sources that can be used as the basis for an article? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator didn't mention anything about the notability guideline... just made a subjective judgment about what is and isn't notable. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"not notable" is a perfectly valid reason for a deletion nomination. Not all deletion debate has to be quoting guidelines back and forth. Further, there are no guidelines about the notability of political parties. Hairhorn (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without mentioning any guidelines it's a very weak argument. What if my vote to keep had just said "Keep - it's notable"? It would have been pretty pointless. At any rate, I've run a search on Newsbank and see many articles about this org. "SHELBY GOP IS CREATING A LOCAL CODE OF ETHICS", 10/3/96, Commercial Appeal. "GOP TAPS FORMER COMIC AS COUNTY CHAIRPERSON", "GOP OFFICE OPENS", 600+ results, at a glance many are about the party, rather than casual mentions of the party. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just ran the same search at http://www.newsbank.com and didn't get anything for "Shelby County Republican Party" or "SHELBY GOP IS CREATING A LOCAL CODE OF ETHICS". Would you please cite the specific sources in question? --Explodicle (T/C) 17:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I did. I gave the newspaper and date. Not all Newsbank accounts have the same access - does yours get the Commercial Appeal? I use a special account that has access to everything in Newsbank, I think. There's also a 12/6/91 article "COUNTY GOP SWITCHES TO PARTY VOTING IN PRIMARIES", page A1. This is an importance source because it is about how this org. switched to using a primary to pick candidates, the first time any party in Tennessee had apparently done that for over 100 years (the practice soon spread). --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't verify the one that had a date, but after searching the Commercial Appeal website directly I was able to find a couple articles here and here that I think are enough to establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I also added an older article that has a nice rundown of the party's history, unfortunately it isn't on their webpage... --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's still all local stuff: LOCAL code of ethics, COUNTY chairperson. Drawn Some (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? --Explodicle (T/C) 19:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia; there's no size limit. We can include articles of mostly local interest if they're verifiable. However, if you search Google books, there's a reference suggesting this party was of regional importance across the south, as it was one of the first where southern white conservatives joined a Republican Party in major numbers, beating the regional trend by a good two decades. So this might be interesting to students of political science, rather than just local historians. --Chiliad22 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reason I feel that a bunch of minor parties with only local importance should be deleted: While this is not a paper encyclopedia, it is also not a place to collect information on every local group known to mankind. While I can see exceptions to the ban on county-level party organizations in the cases of, for example, the Chicago Democratic Party (due to the Daley machine) and the New York Democratic Party (due to the historic position of Tammany Hall and its effect on American politics in several instances), these are decidedly exceptions that prove the rule. I will also note that I would extend this exception if a party were otherwise known for particular scandals, etc. However, simply being a party organization in a big city or big county doesn't quite cut it IMHO.Tyrenon (talk) 20:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every group known to mankind, just every one we can write a decent article on, due to the existence of sources. If we can write a proper article that complies with all policies and guideliens... it seems rather pointless to discard it anyway because it's not important "enough" - it suggests you're worried about a space limit we don't actually have. Your argument just mentions your own opinion, no policy or guideline. WP:N/WP:ORG, guidelines, and WP:V, a policy, support inclusion of this article (based on sources cited in the article and mentioned at this AFD). --Chiliad22 (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is little precedent for listing local party organizations. The only ones that are currently in wikipedia that are notable (i.e. known outside the local area) are Cook County Democratic Organization and Tammany Hall (a historical org). There are no other local GOP organizations having articles in wikipedia, and the only other Democrat orgs are Hamilton County Democratic Party (currently being considered for deletion) and Henderson County Democratic Party North Carolina (also being considered for deletion). At least the NC article includes the state since there are 9 Shelby Counties and 10 Hamilton Counties in the US. The Hamilton County Dem. article was previously deleted, but was then about the same county in Indiana. --rogerd (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can always rename an article if the name is ambiguous, that doesn't require an AFD. As for there not being a lot of other articles like this... that's not by itself a reason to delete this one. Years ago there were almost no articles on National Forests, for example... that doesn't mean we deleted the new articles every time someone created one. At any rate, you say there's no inclusion guideline for political organizations, but there is one for organizations, and this article meets it. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that this organization NN because it is not well known outside the local area. I live in Indianapolis, and the local county GOP and Dem orgs get extensive coverage by the local news media, but that doesn't make them notable to an encyclopedia that serves the entire English speaking world. --rogerd (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just your opinion. Policy and guidelines just ask for meaningful coverage by reliable sources. There's no real harm in having articles that aren't subjectively notable to everyone in the country or the world... that would be a silly limitation of our scope. We have no need to delete articles just because they aren't important enough to some arbitrary number of people. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG (which you cited) says "attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability". The only two cites in the article are from the local newspaper. --rogerd (talk) 22:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned a book reference in this AFD. There also references in the Knoxville News Sentinel, the Tennessean, and 15+ by the Associated Press. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not below the state level, except for major cities. Every party organization in every country will have trivial cites. I could if I wanted to find one for every Electoral District, let alone county, where the local newspapers are online. I can conceive of an encyclopedia that goes down to that level,and it might even be an extension of the present WEP. But we have enough problems dealing with articles on international politics and major fiction, without opening that can of worms. The best criterion for local groups, is that of beibgng of some interest to people outside that immediate region. DGG (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- beibgng? At any rate, this is another delete vote that fails to mention any guideline or policy. And since when do we delete an article because there are problems on unrelated articles? That makes no sense.--Chiliad22 (talk) 02:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to point out before: (1) the nomination does mention a policy: notability (the same thing mentioned by most delete votes), and (2) there is currently no policy specifically on the notability of political parties, no consensus was ever reached. You can't cite a policy that doesn't exist. Hairhorn (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator mentions the word nobility, but even if he did mean WP:N, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. At any rate, the notability guideline asks for multiple non-trivial sources, which I've added to the article. There's no guideline on political party notability, but there is one on organization notability, so I've cited that. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline, policy, whatever. None of them are rules. Which is why it's important to present your opinion in an AfD debate, not simply cite guidelines or policies back and forth. Hairhorn (talk) 22:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think deleting an article that meets all inclusion guidelines improves Wikipedia, as IAR requires. You are apparently just trying to prove I've breached some unwritten rule of AFD behavior by actually expecting people to have a policy or guideline based reason for deletion? Otherwise I don't see your point. Of course it's important not to just quote policy mindlessly, and that isn't what I've done here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what you've done. But you do seem to think any contribution that doesn't cite a policy or guideline is somehow invalid. Usually it's implicit anyway, most people just interpret things charitably and recognize it. Asking things to be spelled out every time is needlessly bureaucratic.

Also, unless I'm on another planet, whether the entry "meets all the requirements" is exactly what we're debating. Hairhorn (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be debating my behavior more than the article. At any rate, my point was that other than using the word notability, the deletion arguments do not seem to have much to do with policy or guidelines. As WP:AFD says, "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies". Guidelines and policies, not personal opinions, are the thing to be discussing here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many, many articles are deleted solely for lack of notability, and there are lengthy guidelines for notability. There's nothing unusual going on here. Hairhorn (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've explained why these article meets those lengthy guidelines for notability. I'm really not understanding what your issue with me is here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with you, this is just a debate. And I'm saying that "you didn't cite a policy or guideline" isn't a good enough defense of the article; this has been the essence of at least half your posts. Hairhorn (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That nobody can coherently explain why a policy or guideline supports deletion is a big problem for people wanting to delete an article. And if it's only half of my point... I'm not seeing why we need to agonize over it so much. It's not like I'm trying to get the article kept on a pure technicality, I'm just pointing out that people arguing for deletion aren't making policy-based arguments. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cite a policy that doesn't exist. Hairhorn (talk) 04:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I've explained to you several times I'm citing WP:N and WP:ORG, guidelines that do exist. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Head, meet wall. Hairhorn (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to mean? You are being at best unclear, at worst, insulting. I don't understand what your problem is here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A local organ of a political party is notable if it has an influence on the politics of its state, or is in some way unique. An article on the Republican Party of McDowell County, West Virginia would be meaningless, because McDowell usually votes 85% Democratic making the GOP in that county irrelevant on the state stage. However, Shelby County contains the city of Memphis. 900,000 people live in Shelby County. 6 million live in Tennessee. Shelby County is also fairly evenly divided between the parties. This means that the Shelby County GOP exerts a great deal of influence on the internal politics of Tennessee. For this reason, it should be kept. Genovese12345 (talk) 05:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming [[19]] has an article on its Republican Party. I thought I should contribute that piece of information due to the populations of the entities involved. Wyoming: 522,830 (2008 est). Shelby County: 897,402 (2000 pop). I would therefore argue that the Shelby County Republican Party, based on population, is probably far more notable than the Wyoming Republican Party, which does have an inclusion because it is a state. It should be noted that metro Memphis has a population of well over 1 million. --Genovese12345 (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It bothers me that we even have to justify inclusion under these terms. In any other deletion discussion this would get thrown out as a WP:BIG argument, but since the arbitrary "metropolitan area" criterion is in place, it seems like an unfortunate extension of that logic. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that under said criteria, I can rattle off a decent number of parties that would get included: Miami-Dade, FL; Fairfax County, VA; Los Angeles County, CA; etc. We could probably add a number of other counties before too long. I'd also note that in the case of Wyoming, it has two dedicated US Senators and a Governor, not to mention a seat in the US House, giving it a bit more notability IMHO.Tyrenon (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelby county has its own U.S. congressperson, but there hasn't been a Republican in that office since Dan Kuykendall in 1975. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the state article. Fails WP:ORG. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, how does it fail WP:ORG? Merely saying it does doesn't make it so. The guideline you cite says "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" and we've shown evidence that this has been the subject of such coverage many times. Baring an explanation I don't see how this opinion can be taken seriously. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Farrah's Story[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Farrah's Story

This article is literally three lines long, and there isn't anything said here that wasn't already said in its section in the Farrah Fawcett article. After verifying that, I redirected this to the main article. It was undone as "a good start for an article", but nothing has been added either by the undoer or anyone else. The undoer also did not reply to my question about his actions on his talk page. I'd like to avoid a wheel war, so I'd like a community consensus on what should be done with the article. MSJapan (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there's a good deal of apparently non-trivial coverage of this documentary. Full reviews in several mainstream papers. Nominator appears to think the article should go because it's too short... but article length isn't part of inclusion criteria. --Chiliad22 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, I think it should go because the entirety of what is encyclopedically known about this program is a whopping three lines - most of that other coverage is more pertinent to Farrah herself, not the documentary, or it comes out of things like "Gossip Weekly". A simple list of Google hits says nothing about depth of coverage or the pertinence of that coverage. MSJapan (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you look at the results? There are articles about this documentary in many publications. "'Farrah's Story' is hard-hitting" - review in Boston Globe. "Farrah's story: Where Hollywood fears to tread" - Review in Minneapolis Star-Tribune. "NBC Considers Another Farrah Fawcett Special" - New York Times. "Farrah Fawcett's TV special doesn't really tell her story, producer says" - article about the documentary in LA Times. This is pretty blatant coverage... other than stubbornness I'm not sure why you're missing it. The article needs improvement, but that's not a reason to delete it... it's a reason to edit it. This is Wikipedia after all. --Chiliad22 (talk) 21:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. A truckload of sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge Fragmentation. The documentary is only of interest in the context of her biography. DGG (talk) 01:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, the movie Some Kind of Monster (film) is "only of interest" in the context of a biography on Metallica. By this logic we could never have an article on a documentary, since they're almost all about some notable topic. Also, we can't delete and merge due to the GPL... an admin should know that. --Chiliad22 (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as to the general question of whether we should have seperate articles on documentary films vs. merging them into an article on the subject of the documentary... that needs to be determined by whether the film has become notable in its own right, not on whether the subject is notable. In this case, we need to established that the film "Farrah's Story" can meet the requirements laid out in the WP:Notability (films) guideline. If this can be done, then we should have an article on it. If not, then merge it into the article on Farrah herself. Blueboar (talk) 15:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already done that by mentioning several articles about this documentary. --Chiliad22 (talk) 16:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you incorporated these sources into the article? If not please do. Blueboar (talk) 21:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? That's not a requirement for keeping the article. The sources just have to be shown to exist. -Chiliad22 (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and help to improve. PTorg (talk) 14:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball delete. Jamie^☆S93 17:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nauset ball[edit]

Article was previously deleted by PROD & later recreated which makes it ineligible to be deleted by PROD again. Thus it has to come here.

No notability indicated in the article, none found in my own search. ThaddeusB (talk) 14:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - seems to be one of those things made up in school at best. WP is the only relevant hit. MSJapan (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was the one who mistakently prodded this a second time, so my apologies for that. This was what I said in my prod tag: "Fails notability. Only 26 Google hits, and none of them meet the standard of significant coverage in reliable independent sources. (In fact, half of them seem to be old cached mentions of the fact that a Nauset ball article was deleted by PROD in 2007.) No mentions in an all-dates search of Google news, either. " Dawn Bard (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So how big is the goal supposed to be? Evidently, you can throw the tennis ball into a basketball goal, or you can throw it or kick it or bounce it off of your head into another goal protected by a goalie. I love reading about people's ideas for non-notable games, and looking at the problems with the rules. But put it on YouTube or on Gamepedia (which, if it doesn't exist, it ought to). Mandsford (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy delete as an obvious hoax. A "tennis ball that inflates to 9 lbs"? A women's shot put weighs 8.8 pounds. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that their intent was to refer to 9 pounds per square inch, although new tennis balls are pressurized to 12 psi; I had to look that up [20]. Of course, the game would probably be more exciting if they played it with a 9 pound shot put, especially for the goalie. Mandsford (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a possible hoax, and as at best something that was quite literally made up in school one day. I've gotta say, though: If they're hurling around shot put-weight tennis balls in a sport, I want to see their liability waivers at that school.Tyrenon (talk) 14:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheetah Girls 4: Glitz' in Shanghai Nights[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls 4: Glitz' in Shanghai Nights

PROD deleted. PROD for "Reference used states explicitly that this film will NOT happen." Beyond the fact the the sole reference for this is a blog, the blog contents include an interview with one of the principals where she confirms that there will be no more movies or collaboration of the group. [21] NrDg 14:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls 4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cheetah Girls 4 (2nd nomination). Issues raised in previous AfDs still remain. --NrDg 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Canceled film with no non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hoaxalicious film involving a group that's now broken up. Nate • (chatter) 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return if the film is ever made. Who knows... maybe someone will offer them enough money to get them back together long enough for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Eccles, The Jack of Piel[edit]

Autobiography; gsearch not turning up notability. Can't find book publisher in gsearch; author not listed in any libraries in worldcat. Prod contested without comment by IP editor (who also removed the maintenance templates). Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Authors name brings up no google hits from non-trivial sources relating to the subject; no google book hits on Graham Eccles as a performance poet, as well as no google news coverage. There is simply no information on the subject from verifiable sources, and thus no article can be written to pass notability requirements. Mrathel (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unverifiable. Hipocrite (talk) 19:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources → no article. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here is verifiable. Also, the thing about juggling, no news outlet would cover such a thing --Genovese12345 (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a very possible hoax, even if the guy has a very nice jugular.Tyrenon (talk) 15:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete. Likely not a hoax but certainly reliable sourcing to demonstrate notability is not evident. FWIW most poets would have to have quite a few reliable sources extolling their impact before we'd include them here. -- Banjeboi 00:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Morgan[edit]

Not notable: see WP:ACADEMIC and talk page for the article. Uthor (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I began this article in June 2005. The Wikipedia:Notability (academics) guideline began in December 2005. Regardless of any mismatch between the examples discussed on the talk page of the article, I stand by my creation as for inclusion - Morgan's work is used for and is on book lists for UK and USA university level courses of education (see talk page for some examples that were easily found).--Alf ^melmac 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't think being created before the biographical guidelines for academics is relevant. Guidelines don't have grandfather clauses for stuff that came before, and, more importantly, they're guidelines, not absolute rules. Morgan has a couple books and lots of entries on Google Scholar, although you have to filter through papers by other academics with the same name. So she may be notable. The biggest problem with the article as it currently stands is that it makes no claims at all about notability. It simply lists her credentials, her research area and two books. This is a resume entry only. Hairhorn (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link I provided to google scholar with 124 results here is specific to the title of her first book, "Morgan "Literate Education in the Hellenistic and Roman Worlds"" gets 123, though I would be happy to be shown a better way of judging 'cited by peers'.--Alf ^melmac 18:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the talk page, she would need "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications" to satisfy WP:ACADEMIC on the basis of citations: as it is, she has only one such, to judge from the evidence presented.Uthor (talk) 13:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two major book from Cambridge University Press are enough for notability. They are each in hundred of libraries, which is very good for specialized work on the ancient world. DGG (talk) 01:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being in many libraries does not feature in WP:ACADEMIC . It states there that "[t]he most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1 is to show that the academic has been an author of highly cited academic work[2]: either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates." She does not have "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications" to her name according to the evidence so far presented: she has *one* book that is cited. Nor has she "pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in [her] academic discipline", according to the evidence so far presented. Merely publishing 2 books (and having them bought by libraries) does not make someone's work notable according to the Wikipedia criteria.Uthor (talk) 13:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sure these publications show notability -- the existence of the impact is sown by the publications. thats how faculty make am impact as we both know well. . One good ,measure of this it the humnities , where citations are few and far between do to the inherent nature of the work, are the widespread acceptance of her books in a great many academic libraries., DGG (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note At just before whatever time stamp this edit has, I made a couple of edits to the article resulting in this overall diff.--Alf ^melmac 14:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DGG: Please make reference to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). I am somewhat concerned to see you state on your talk page that your current projects include "keeping articles about academics & academic organizations from deletion". Each case needs to be judged on its merits and with reference to the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (academics).Uthor (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a guideline. It doesn't always fit. I have !voted in disagreement with the guideline in both directions. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This case is borderline in my opinion, so I will only add a piece of information that may help others in forming an opinion. Web of Science does show a significant number of publications, 13 to be exact (J. Roman Studies, J. Theol. Studies, Classical Rev., etc.), but there's not a single citation among them. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Senior Dean at oxford, more titles and appts than anyone probably should have, seems pretty notable to me. I buy the held books argument to some extent, but the citations will need to be looked up in specialist indices, not general ones because her field is not well-covered in web 'o skant evidence--Buridan (talk) 15:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "Senior Dean" thing is a misconception. This is not an academic position. It just means that she is the fellow of Oriel College with particular responsibility for student disciplinary and welfare matters (in full: "welfare, upholding discipline, and ensuring a hospitable living and working environment for Junior Members", see http://www.oriel.ox.ac.uk/images/File/Current%20Members/MEMORANDUM%202008-2009.pdf ). It's *not at all* comparable to being Dean of a Law School or anything like that. In fact, it's seriously misleading even to include this in the article without saying what Senior Dean means at Oriel College. People coming from the American system, for example, will have a quite different conception of the role of a dean.

The "multiple positions" thing is also a misconception. In the Oxford system, tutorial fellowships are *always* coupled with university lectureships. College tutors *very often* have contracts requiring them to teach both for the college where they hold a fellowship and for another college or two (where they are called "lecturers"), if they would otherwise have an unusually light teaching load. Dr Morgan holds just such a combined appointment: a *single* appointment.

This article has been revised since I nominated it for deletion, but I'm not sure that quotations from the publisher's blurb are suitable for Wikipedia. These claims should be deleted unless a better source can be found, I think.Uthor (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I paraphrased their summary of the book. I have now indicated that it's summarising what the publisher, Cambridge University Press, is saying so as to correctly attribute the view and signal any 'bias'. I have added a bit from an American Journal of Philology review of the book, and likewise attribute it.--Alf ^melmac 17:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that she does not have the position claimed at Regent's Park College ( http://www.rpc.ox.ac.uk/index.php?pageid=189 ), and that she lectures for the university in ancient history, not classical languages. The claim that she was a "postgraduate student" at the RAM needs a source. I think it's at least unconventional to put references to reading lists in the body of a Wikipedia article. Surely these have to go. I also don't think a publisher's blurb counts as a reliable source. These blurbs often have no scholarly input whatsoever and are devised by marketing departments! The "first ... for fifty years" claim needs better support than that, or it should go.Uthor (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't an edit using {{fact}} or removing/correcting/adding the source for the obviously outdated been less of effort than describing it here? I have no reason to doubt the word of such a publisher, they are hardly a fly by night organization and it's clearly indicated that it is what the publisher is saying and not we ourselves. From this page we can see currently she is supervising post-grad candidates for Corpus Christi and Brasenose, but as you said, being involved in other college is no great shakes anyways. Note that the citation for postgrad at RAM is where you'd expect, following the information - the Jesus College citation.--Alf ^melmac 03:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it up here because Buridan had been impressed by the number of different "jobs" she was doing all at once. Your new "as well as supervising" bit again implies that she's doing an "extra" job at "other university institutions", but supervising research students is just part of the duties of a university lecturer at Oxford. Graduate teaching is conducted only on a university level, not a college-by-college basis, so it's wrong to say that she's supervising candidates "for" other colleges. She is doing it for the university, as part of her job. So I really think that new bit should go. (I concede on the RAM thing, not that it's of much relevance to the notability question.) Regarding publishers' blurbs, having read a number of these over the years, I stand by my remarks. These marketing departments are in the business of selling books. A Wikipedia article should be more than free advertising.Uthor (talk) 11:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It implies/you infer? I have removed "as well as" as you infer this from that. Saying that we cannot trust what CUP tell us about it's own publications when we clearly mark the saying as being by CUP is free advertising I find frankly laughable--Alf ^melmac 12:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the advertising point, I can't agree. The book has been reviewed by independent parties. If there's a significant "first" here, then the reviewers will point it out. It's in the publisher's interest to claim that their product fills a major gap in the market. No one will take them at their word when there are reviews available by experts in the field that give a significantly different impression. http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/1999/1999-05-22.html carries weight, being a journal review by the leading expert in the field, which notes significant shortcomings in this book. The comments of the publisher's marketing department concerning the significance of their product are of no interest and should go. Also, I still don't like the misleading "other university institutions in Oxford", which could only refer to Oxford Brookes University. If you insist on including this, it should be "Oxford University research students". But as I said earlier, that doesn't distinguish her from any other university lecturer at Oxford University. I persist in thinking that writing one book that has received a mixed reception, and another one that has not yet been reviewed, does not qualify an academic for a Wikipedia article according to the guidelines.Uthor (talk) 14:06, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bryn Mawr Classical Review needs writing then, it needs including in Bryn Mawr College (as it is not mentioned once there) and on the disambiguation page Bryn Mawr as this wikipedia seems, like me, not know about this publication, likewise Raffaella Cribiore if she is "the leading expert in the field".--Alf ^melmac 14:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point exactly? BMCR is a long-established review journal in classics, and is widely cited (among other places) in Wikipedia: type BMCR into the search box for evidence. If you want to write a balanced article, you should refer to the criticisms in this review, and get rid of the advertising copy. As I say, my preference would be to delete the article, as Morgan isn't particularly significant. But I could settle for a balanced presentation of the facts about the reception of the book. As for Raffaella Cribiore, I'm sorry, but you're on shaky ground if you're trying to cast doubt on her scholarly credentials. Try http://books.google.com/books?q=raffaella+cribiore&btnG=Search+Books for starters.Uthor (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you were typing that up I was indeed, putting in Raffaella's review, the BCMR as far as I understand it, is one the first online-only, free-access journals (eventually to be called "open access journals") which began appearing in the late 1980s. If the article was written by James J. O'Donnell I would not quibble of your view of who the expert in the filed is, but he is an editor of said online-only journal, the review was by Raffaella, who I have left red linked as I have yet to judge if she would be for inclusion or not. By virtue of the being one of the earliest open access journals BMCR would qualify for a page. I see no issue in stating what CUP state about its publication when it's clearly marked as being such. I do see a lot of cites, I also see some examples of BMCR contradicting non-online academic journals in their viewpoint, but hey, that's what the reference and attribution is about, so the reader can judge themselves.--Alf ^melmac 15:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this into account. At least the article's a bit more balanced now (but I still think the reading list references have to go, unless you can find other Wikipedia articles on academics that mention this sort of thing so prominently). I haven't changed my opinion that the notability criteria for academics are clearly not satisfied, but that's a separate point.Uthor (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we accept that "a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" would be able to easily check that her book is on some of the universities' reading lists we can try to agree on a formulation of the line without the cites and listing of which universities have it listed, which I expect will change in time anyway, then I think can rest that point.--Alf ^melmac 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding the "web 'o skant" remark above. Some commentators seem to have an unexplainable contempt toward Web of Science (see e.g. an earlier discussion). Let me simply point out some facts that we would all do well to observe in trying to objectively vet individuals on the basis of Wikipedia:PROF. "Publications" are not all considered equal. Those appearing in un-indexed journals and conference books typically do not weigh equally with mainstream journal contributions (a very few sectors excepted) because the acceptance standards are appreciably different. Academic committees look to the archival literature to judge scholarship (as should we, I argue) and regularly use Web of Science as one of their main tool (as it covers about 10000 journals across all sectors). The one caveat is that the print edition must be consulted for papers before about 1988. I think it's reasonable for us to consider questions of scholarship notability in the same way an academic committee would, i.e. if the individual has no archival publications (readily found in WoS), then maybe they haven't actually done any notable work. If "specialist indices" (mentioned above) equates to "sources that list all the papers that mainstream journals rejected", then we really haven't much of a system to vet professorial notability. PS – the commentator above seems to have overlooked the fact that Teresa Morgan does indeed have plentiful representation in WoS (uncited though it is), implying her field is actually "well covered". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

it is fine to use web of science when it is applicable, but it is frequently a null set as proven here. However, were you to take a look at a more specialized index, you may, or may find out notable efforts. I don't know if she is in there or not, alas, i do know you could likely make an argument with tools closer to her field. Objectively... while mostly a convenient fiction, is not universal in any tool. Much like google scholar doesn't cover things as well as it could, neither does web of science. there is in fact... no universal best resource that is not biased for or against any given set of fields. citation indexes are of course, never objective, they are contrivances, best to keep that in mind. --Buridan (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid there are a lot of tenure and promotion committees that disagree with you – they routinely use WoS for exactly the same purpose, i.e. to vet the level and notability of an individual's scholarship. Of course more sources are better – I think we would all agree with that. However, there seems to be an inscrutable contempt for WoS among some of the commentators. I don't know why they persist in saying that it is biased against this field or that field. Indeed, your claim that "it is frequently a null set as proven here" is patently false. I found 13 research articles she wrote in archival journals such as Classical Review – precisely the kinds of journals that people (erroneously) maintain that WoS does not cover. Please check for yourself. If you take the time, you'll be rather surprised at how broad WoS is. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 01:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Regardless of any perceived 'contempt', if WoS has a 'recognised standard', it would be a benchmark for listing the 'top ten cited' papers of academics on articles per se, on articles where the journal publications are not hot, like this one, it would be a benchmark comment as noting 'Web of Science notes 13 uncited papers to academic journals (or whatever)'.--Alf ^melmac 04:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having read this long debate and the recent attempts by the creator of the article to rescue it, the picture I get is of an accomplished career academic but one who does not stand out from the crowd. Her administrative positions do not confer notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

As was pointed out first, the article was written when the yardstick being applied didn't exist, I have recently edited it (or 'attempted to rescue it' as you colourfully say...) in response to comments, and specifically to two or three points of the guideline she is being held against: that is surely not a negative factor.

I believe she meets three (at least two depending on how one parses the guidelines;

1. "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources."

4. "The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions."

5. "The person holds or has held a named/personal chair appointment or "Distinguished Professor" appointment at a major institution of higher education and research."

Academics need only satisfy one of the conditions - she clears two of them, or three depending on how the guideline is parsed.--Alf ^melmac 06:57, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you're taking these phrases out of context. The Wikipedia:Notability (academics) explains how they're to be interpreted, and Morgan just doesn't make the grade.

In detail:

1. She has not written either "several extremely highly cited scholarly publications" or "a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates". She has written *one* book (her doctoral dissertation) which is often cited. The guidelines make it perfectly clear that that is just not enough. This is not just a matter of interpretation.

4. Here too there is an explanation, which needs to be consulted: "for example, the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education". She has written one book that is occasionally mentioned on reading lists. It is not "widely used" and it is not "several books". So she does not make the grade on this point either.

5. She does not have a chair. She is a lecturer/college tutor, the lowest rank in Oxford faculty. Oxford has professors and readers (the next rank down from professor). She does not have either of these positions. Oxford elects to these positions annually in a "recognition of distinction" exercise, and she has not been elected to one of these positions.

So unless you have other evidence to offer, I don't see any case for claiming that she satisfies the criteria set out on the Wikipedia:Notability (academics) page as explained on that page. You are quoting selected bits without the attached explanations. When those are read, it's clear that she does not make the grade.Uthor (talk) 11:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are from the examples and practical tips for applications of the guideline: which then begins "The most typical way of satisfying Criterion 1" followed on what you are insisting on her having. "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline." But you won't accept the publisher's "copy" because it points out that her work is the first in fity years and breaks new ground. Criterion 4 is only exampled by "the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education." OK she has one book used as textbooks - how we want to interpret widely is a matter of opinion. 5. Is not exampled at all. She has a named appointment at a major institution of higher education and research - we already covered that you can parse that according to your view.

Regardless of that though, guidelines and policy follow discussion such as this, not the other way round, I already advised you I believed your bar to be set too high, which I still believe to be the case. This is not the first time that the specifics of WP:ACADEMIC have not matched the bar shown by community acceptance in discussion, no matter how good its intent.--Alf ^melmac 11:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to claim that "the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline", please find a reliable source for that. I don't see how writing on a subject that hasn't been written on for 50 years would count as pioneering a "significant new concept, technique or idea", and anyway this claim of the publisher's (that it's the first treatment for 50 years) is not true. The 6th edition of Marrou's "Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité" came out in 1965; Morgan herself cites this work from the 7th edition (1975): http://books.google.com/books?id=ZfuiGIlEhE4C&pg=PA347&vq=marrou&dq=morgan+literate+education&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1_1 . Please find a reliable source such as a review if you wish to make use of this "significant discovery" criterion. Uthor (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been over and over this - the 'advertising copy' you think is utterly unacceptable - "the first new interpretation of Hellenistic and Roman education for fifty years" "She introduces fresh interpretations of the function of literature, grammar and rhetoric in education", from Cambridge University Press, whose words you say we cannot trust.--Alf ^melmac 11:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's publisher's blurb it's not a reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

It's this description here WP:NOR (primary sources) says Our policy: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. In the version I had, it clearly lablled the comments as by the publishers and named them, don't see what the issue is there myself, as it was accepted after I took out the 'fifty years' claim.--Alf ^melmac 12:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is obviously special pleading. Blurbs are a special case, being marketing material, not subject to scholarly scrutiny, but designed to sell books. There is ample discussion of this book out there, and you should not need to refer to a publisher's blurb if there is general agreement that the book makes a significant advance in scholarship on the subject.Uthor (talk) 12:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I make Henri-Irénée Marrou's Histoire de l'éducation dans l'Antiquité, Paris, Le Seuil, published in 1948; that's sixty.

You raise an important point here. *Any* academic book will contain something new, unless it's just a student text book. But Wikipedia's guidelines are about *significance*, not just saying something "new". Even Cambridge University Press's Marketing Department doesn't say anything about "significance", about solving a "major problem". If there's a reliable source that does make this claim, then please give the citation. (On Marrou, what makes you think the 1965 edition is identical to the 1948 edition? Anyway, the "first book on this subject for 50 years" claim has *no bearing* on the question whether Morgan offers a "significant new concept" etc. You can write the first book on a subject for x number of years and yet not significantly advance the discussion!)Uthor (talk) 12:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please support that claim with reference to the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)? Otherwise the discussion is merely subjective. There are guidelines in place, and the discussion should make use of them.Uthor (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. She appears to be an academic who has done what would in many places be barely enough to qualify for tenure: one Ph.D. thesis turned into a well-received and reasonably well-cited book, one more book since then for which I could find only a single review (in Revue des études anciennes). Although she seems to be on an acceptable career track, I'm not seeing the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1, nor evidence of passing the other criteria. And the section about her thesis in the article is larded with block quotes from reviews beyond what would be appropriate in the bio of someone with more accomplishments with which to fill out an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your evaluation, I'm still deciding which of the two sections of the lard page apply most... Yes, this was a result of the nominator's comments at this AfD, they felt it balanced the article somewhat. With your comment on this though, I'm now sharpening the knife for a cut.--Alf ^melmac 22:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - what you looking for? Her most cited book is good enough ! --Donotask-donottell (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't one widely-cited book enough? - Vartanza (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

No: see Wikipedia:Notability (academics).Uthor (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I agree that a single widely respected book more than established notability. Geo Swan (talk) 03:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael heppell[edit]

I am not seeing secondary source coverage you'd see with a notable author. The article is somewhat promotional as well, with lots of peacock terms. Gigs (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When none of the sources are independant, that's a good indication the subject is not notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article appears to be self-promotional article created by a SPA. No secondary sources of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 14:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Non-admin closure; underlying article was deleted as copyvio with redirect put in its place

Richard Robau[edit]

Notable? Character is on screen for literally minutes... Ryan4314 (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Ryan4314 (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_Star_Trek_characters:_N-S#R, per Wikiproject's consensus on single- or rare-appearance characters. Some content I have already merged, so I think GFDL (are we on CC yet?) requires maintaining the underlying source, i.e. don't delete it outright. --EEMIV (talk) 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to closing admin: when this AfD ends in redirect, please di the orphaned non-free image. --EEMIV (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect per EEMIV. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect per EEMIV. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, speedy or otherwise.Tyrenon (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The initial version of the article here is also an exact copy of the Memory Alpha article at the time: [22], making this a copyvio. -- 84.135.79.216 (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oye. {{db-copyvio}}ing; will put redirect on top of ashes. --EEMIV (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It goes along with the character hype. Leave it up. Look at Bobba Fett in Star Wars, more or less the same situation. ---Brian Richard May 26th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plecostomus (talk • contribs) 20:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC) — Plecostomus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SuperView[edit]

WP:COI article that borderlines Advertising. No indication of Notability either - references are download sites. Excirial^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks 3rd party sources to establish notability; probable spam as it was created by single-article user named 'superView'. Dialectric (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete^{do I have right to vote?} Cross wiki spam by user Superview and Cindy Francês, copyvio from novus.com.br = developer.--Gunnex (talk) 17:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Update: pt/es-wiki speedy deleted.--Gunnex (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam - why did this get to Afd? Smartse (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD A7 – Toon ^(talk) 17:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flesh Is Savoury[edit]

No evidence of notability. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is about a band, in case you were wondering. Sub-stub that ends in a sentence fragment. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7. No indication that this band is notable. Also, article creator should be directed to Wikipedia:No one cares about your garage band. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7, no sources, fails WP:BAND. I'd direct the author to Wikipedia:Put a little effort into it as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billie J. Dominick-Cooper[edit]

Non-notable poet. Notability asserted for various local appearances, so speedy declined. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have notable publications - Vartanza (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Vitae[edit]

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Tagged since April without any change. PROD removed by IP under claim of "Translated into multiple languages, published in multiple countries", however this is not a standalone notability criteria and was rejected as such in discussions at the Book notability talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources"? Mania trashing volume 1 doesn't count? Jason Thompson calling it one of the five worst manga he's read doesn't count? (Okay, so this one is of marginal reliability.) And that's just from the 10 g-hits in English, without looking for reviews of the three European editions from mainstream publishers. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, you know that livejournal is not a reliable source :P Thanks for volunteering to fix up the article though LOL -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the Sword (manga)[edit]

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. PROD removed by IP under claim of "Translated into multiple languages, published in multiple countries", however this is not a standalone notability criteria. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Only minor blip found was a very brief mention that ADV edited the manga release to remove nudity, and even then a big deal wasn't made about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The really common phrase for a title makes it hard to find the relevant g-hits, but your searches don't seem to have been very complete: here's one solidly reliable review, plus 1, 2, 3 of uncertain or marginal reliablity, even aside from a fair number of reader reviews for such a short series, and that's just a very quick search (not even close to comprehensive) in English only. Foreign reviews also need to be consulted. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's two reliable sources (AnimeFringe is, but the the other two are not). If its just two, though, that's still not much. Will leave foreign language searching to others, but meanwhile, hope that means someone will be fixing this up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Taking into account WP:NOTAVOTE, the arguments for deletion are stronger than those for keeping the page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie the Unicorn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Because a previous AfD led to deletion, I think I need to bring this back to AfD, but I'm not taking a position because the last paragraph has 3 reasons to keep that were not present in the version that got deleted 2.5 years ago. Keep it civil, folks; the previous AfDs had a lot of drama. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 13:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Setting aside issues of notability, the article appears to be unverifiable. Google news search comes up dry as far as appropriate sources. Google search has over 700,000 hits for "Charlie the Unicorn" and yet I don't see any reliable sources in the first 5 or 6 pages. This is a situation where I would argue that common sense should trump guidelines regarding notability but verifiability is a different matter and one on which we cannot compromise. If verifiability can be demonstrated I will be the first to argue for an exception regarding notability guidelines, let me know. I am a bit puzzled and strongly believe that this ought to be included in the encyclopedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Verifiable how? That it's one of the most watched videos of all time? YouTube ranks these videos on the website, links are in the footnotes. - superβεεcat 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable YouTube video. Referencing on this article is extremely poor, as it was in previous versions. The coverage alluded to in Salon is nothing more than a repost of the video, and the Gawker reference (about the Weezer video) is again, just a link to the original video. These are trivial mentions, at best. The others are primary sources or dubious quality (a fan wiki page?). As before, I don't believe there's been any significant change in subject's notability (even the Weezer video is just a fleeting background shot) - lots of Google search hits due to common terms, but nearly all are trivial mentions on blogs or Newgrounds/YouTube-type links - usually just a link to the video and nothing more. No major citations in first 100 results or so. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is misleading. The gawker article is not just a link to the video, it's an article about Weezer using youtube to capitalize on extremely popular videos, and then links to those videos. It references both the fact of it being in the music video, and its importance to the youtube community by including it among the most popular of all time. Similarly, the salon blurb is not "just a link". A link isn't a paragraph about the subject, and then a link. This is "Just a Link". - superβεεcat 16:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hardly misleading. The Gawker mention doesn't give any specifics about Charlie the Unicorn, it simply says "hey, they included a bunch of stuff, here's some links" - that's a textbook trivial mention, as is (no matter your opinion) the Salon "blurb". Look, we get it, you like it, but the current sourcing on the article is extremely poor - and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Instead of trying to discredit my argument, try coming up with some legitimate references. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completely misleading. Enough mentions in good sources, even minor (though they aren't minor) amount to an overall notability. Moreover, I know you don't like it, but instead of removing valid citations as advertising (!?) try doing something constructive. - superβεεcat 17:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Simple mentions, even in reliable sources, do not equal notability. Nor does, as we've discussed on the article talk page (and you've been informed by an administrator), your addition of sales links or forum posts. Significant coverage is the key here, and this topic does not have it. As for my "liking it", I've never seen the thing - I don't need to have for this discussion, as the level of reliable references simply does not exist to support an article for this thing. And since you're trying to discredit *my* argument, I see no reason why you should have a problem with me doing the same to yours. That is what this discussion is about - it's not a vote - it's an argument about which position (keep or delete) is most appropriate. Quit trying to make this personal. It's not. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shun the disbelievers! Shuuuuuuuun... no, really, delete; an encyclopedic article about this is not possible right now. It doesn't bear anything more than perhaps a passing mention in the List of Internet phenomena article. JuJube (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent verification of notability. The references are either all incestuous, or just point to the video itself. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE I've found an entire clothing line at major retailer hot topic based on Charlie the Unicorn. That alone should meet the basic threshold for notability. http://search.hottopic.com/clothing/Charlie%20The%20Unicorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Superbeecat (talk • contribs)

(lulwut) They're all on sale 1/2 price so what does that tell you? Drawn Some (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the people at Hot Topic are desperate to sell something else than bondage pants and Invader Zim merchandise? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the store is irrelavent, as is the purchase price. They are a major retail outlet. They sell the stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.51.254 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent, third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this youtube video article thingy, for which no reliable sources establish any notability. Wikipedia is not an advertising service, nor a fan-site.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 24 google news hits the Unicorn%22&cf=all, including the TIME magazine. Computerjoe 's talk 19:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the google news hits - these are no more than trivial coverage, and in most cases are nothing more than a passing mention. I have been unable to find any reliable independent sources with more than trivial coverage, so this doesn't appear to meet the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note This is frustrating. Two completely seperate issues are being confounded. Replies that amount to the sources being unreliable are completely false. The sources are fine - youtube is a fine source for the video's rank, views, etc (over 40 MILLION on one account alone), the weezer article is a fine source to show what the artice says, that is, that Charlie is in the music video. Hot Topic's own website is a fine SOURCE for whether they carry an entire line of Charlie clothing. The only ARGUABLE point is whether these facts establish notability. Even passing mentions in major media outlets: gawker, salon.com, time's online magazine, coupled with a major retailer carrying an entire line of clothing, PLUS inclusion in a major rock band's video, AND the enormity of views on youtube, DO establish baseline notability. Asking for more is far to rigorous, and out of the norm for most articles on minor topics. -24.130.51.254 (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)— 24.130.51.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are links to major news sources that mention it. So I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't think it notable. Dream Focus 22:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability in that it is references in Time as well as notable online journals such as Gawker and Salon.com. Could do with a bit of a clean-up though. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Internet memes operate a bit differently and need to be researched on page views as well as real world impact. The youtubes own ranking list include:
The article itself needs clean-up and Here's a Google news search which has at least a handful of sources that can add context to the article. here's two book mentions and even a hit on Google Scholar. Charlie the Unicorn may not be the stuff of high art as much as low camp but sources do seem to exist and teh article doesn't seem to be terribly harmful in any way to suggest regular editing is the correct action. -- Banjeboi 23:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note one particular editor keeps removing citations from the article itself, and is clearly trying to hijack this article's chances. If you don't like a source, then vote not to keep, but edit warring an article already in afd is not productive. - superβεεcat 17:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - short has received no significant coverage in independent third party reliable sources that I can see - nearly all mentions and references are trivial at best - most only ackowledge that the thing exists, not much more. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full disclosure, I am the primary author of this article, but am in no way associated with the animation, or anyone involved therewith. Wikipedia has specific notability requirements for web content here.

"web-specific content is deemed notable based on meeting any one of the following criteria"

and then goes on

"3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster..."

We can agree youtube doesn't meet this criteria. However, most of what the detractors are citing as trivial mentions actually satisfy notability due to this guideline. The Salon AND Gawker (which are independent and respected) pages DISTRIBUTE this content. They don't link, you can watch the video itself on those pages, meeting the criteria. Because web content must only meet ONE of the listed criteria, and distribution on these sites meets the criteria, it is notable, per the web content guideline ALONE. - superβεεcat 22:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You left out this part of criterion 3: except for trivial distribution. The distribution by Salon.com for example is incidental, not deliberate and could be considered trivial. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 02:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely false. The "except trivial distribution" refers specifically to websites which have no editorial oversight such as youtube. How in the world can you say the salon.com page is not deliberate? It's part of their videodog section, and is completely deliberate. That makes no sense. The referenced pieces are all distributed by the writers of the columns themselves, not uploaded by random users such as with youtube or newgrounds, which would be trivial, as anyone can do so. -24.130.51.254 (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC) — 24.130.51.254 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. It really doesn't matter whether it has been watched by a lot of bored ten year olds on YouTube, or if some other websites have linked to the video. How are we meant to write an article without coverage in reliable sources? J Milburn (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by TexasAndroid under WP:CSD#G7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 15:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aleatoric Music Therapy[edit]

Non-notable form of music therapy. Article is unreferenced and the only hits I can find searching for it is this article. Ridernyc (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too new to be notable. Bearian (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mourad Topalian[edit]

WP:BLP1E - entire article is about criminal charges related to a weapons case. Should be deleted and restarted fresh on the case, if it's a notable case at all. Hipocrite (talk) 12:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there no suitable merge targets? Rd232 ^talk 13:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The merge target would surely be an article about the bombings, which doesn't exist. Apparently, the bombings are not notable enough for an article, but this person is notable because he admitted (20 years later) to storing the explosives used. That's WikiLogic for you. Physchim62 (talk) 14:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the article about Topalian should be kept, as he was a chairman of Armenian National Committee of America. We have articles about other chairmen of this organization, like Ken Hachikian. The info about Topalian's criminal case could be split to a separate article. Grandmaster 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A search by Google shows that Hachikian is much more notable for different issues (including as a current chair of ANCA) while Topalian is mostly notable for the weapon's case. I can't find any other facts from Topalian's biography or any notable activities within ANCA. Gazifikator (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google search gives 1,120 hits. [23] Google books search: [24] - 31 hits. I think this shows notability. Grandmaster 14:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, the great majority of sources is dedicated to the case and his possible (unproved) participation [25] not to his person or something notable out of this case. Gazifikator (talk) 15:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion in UNO also demonstrates notability. Grandmaster 16:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Rd232 ^talk 11:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Index to Proceedings of the General Assembly 2000-2001. Turkish delegation mentioned Toplian's case in its memos, circulated at the General Assembly. Delegation of Armenia responded. Grandmaster 12:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, checking the links to the article, Topalian is mentioned in the article about Carmine Agnello. I think this could be another argument for the need of an article about Topalian. Grandmaster 07:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. contains unproved allegations against a living person and some misinterpreted sources. Also no other notable facts for this person except of this "case". Gazifikator (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. subject is only notable for ONEEVENT, and thus the article will be a permanent magnet for BLP violations. Physchim62 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is notable, otherwise NBC wouldn't produce a program about him [26]. In addition, he was a leading figure in the Armenian National Committee of America and made immense contribution to the growth of Armenian American political advocacy. Chippolona (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or we can rename the article to United States v. Mourad Topalian. Basically, the current article is all about this case. Chippolona (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be reluctant to accept that because (a) it requires the case to be notable enough for its own article, which I think is doubtful. (b) it will still effectively be about a single individual, so risks seeming an end-run around WP:BLP1E; (c) if it only reported what was actually demonstrated in court, it would be rather short. Rd232 ^talk 16:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP General Notability Guidelines say: 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. No doubt, the topic satisfies the criteria. Chippolona (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He may be notable for something more than ANCA and criminal charges. If so, then keep. brand спойт 16:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maybe not very impresive biography, but it doesn't mean that this person is not enough notable. Rsolero (talk) 21:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's neither an argument nor an opinion. Do you think he's notable enough or not, and why? Rd232 ^talk 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. On present evidence this is WP:BLP1E. Inclusion of lots of unproven allegations is the main reason to have the article; cutting to what is actually demonstrated in court leaves relatively little (which could be merged to ANCA, perhaps). Rd232 ^talk 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant political implications. Not iust the usual sort of felony charge. DGG (talk) 01:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is no reason to delete this article, Mourad Topalian was the chairman of Armenian National Committee of America and a very notable figure in the Armenian diaspora. Baku87 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topalian was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of participation in the 1980 bombing of Turkish Mission in NYC, and plead guilty on the charges of storing illegal explosives, serving sentence after that. He is also a recipient of "Freedom Award" of ANCA for "advancing the Armenian cause". I think both are notable enough worthy of dedicated article in Wikipedia. Atabəy (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topalian was both chairman of a notable organisation and was found linked to quite a notable crime. Parishan (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glass of Water (song)[edit]

A non-notable song which has not ranked on national or significant music chart, won significant awards or honors, or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups. Fails WP:NSONGS. I previously redirected and nominated for PROD but have been reverted by the article creator. JD554 (talk) 12:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JD554 (talk) 12:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is a sourced comment in the article that the song did chart. Not sure why that particular chart would not be considered "national" or "significant". Rlendog (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That was added after JD554 started the AfD not before.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moon-sunrise (talk • contribs) 19:51, 27 May 2009

You're absolutely correct Moon-sunrise, and for that reason I now withdraw my nomination. --JD554 (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wackers guide to bloxorz[edit]

Prod Removed with no reason given, WP:NOTGUIDE ∗ \ / {talk} 12:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - apologies, now tagged as G12. ∗ \ / {talk} 12:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOTGUIDE and likely WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Online Racing Association[edit]

I am having a little difficult working out what exactly this is. "TORA is based on the Xbox 360" suggests that it is just a computer game. But the author has admitted his COI on my talk page. there is no evidence of notability and it is written in an horribly unencyclopedic tone. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy. Focusing on the notability, and setting other issues aside, it doesn't seem to achieve it because there is a distinct paucity of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Drawn Some (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TORA is a well established Sim Racing governing body. We operate our championships on the xbox 360 platform for the stated reasons.

What do you mean by notability is this instance?

AJ --AJzero (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTE, possibly WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Basically you need significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Drawn Some (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason? We shall be appearing in tomorrow's edition of Autosport if that helps? Can you explain the issue here, this is clearly a genuine and thought out entry. --AJzero (talk) 11:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most of it appears to be original research. My suggestion is to locate non-trivial coverage in independent sources and add them to the article, in a reference section. Article content must be verifiable. My suggestion is to review WP:NOTE and satisfy the basic conditions. Drawn Some (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would appearing in a magazine, on a radio show and TV show be acceptable for notability? As far as verifying the content, would linking to the results archive on our website be sufficient? Thanks for your assistance. --AJzero (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the coverage is in-depth and not just trivial mentions and can be checked somehow it would be fine. Primary sources such as your own website can be used in the article but not to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for self promotion G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would stating at the bottom of the page that TORA has a regular segment on a radio station that has its own wiki entry suffice your 'notability' requirements?--AJzero (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All self promotion has been removed. The entry is now purely factual. --AJzero (talk) 12:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm having a hard time even finding anything about this supposed association on Google. If it's a hoax, it sure is an elaborate one. If it isn't, the fact that I can't easily prove it's not one points to serious verifiability and indirectly, notability, problems. Gigs (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A hoax? I find that highly insulting. Our website link is in the info box and our forums can be found there too. We have been established since November 2007 and have run over 15 highly successful championships with over 80 meetings. We are well know within our demographic, and have partnerships with other entities within the Sim Racing and motorsport communities. I have given suggestions to meet your notability, but I rase concern that entries can be suggested for deletion just because administrators know nothing about the topic, is that not the whole point of wikipedia? --AJzero (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a regular editor like you, not an administrator. Our notability guidelines require that non-trivial information needs to be published about a topic by multiple, reliable sources. If I do a search for "The Online Racing Association" on google, and only get a single forum post on the first couple pages of results, then it's somewhat likely that a topic is not notable. Of course this is biased toward Internet sources, so in cases where it's likely that there is published work that isn't on the net, we often supplement with library and scholarly searches.

In addition, it's entirely appropriate for you to bring additional reliable sources to our attention as well. So far you've been very vague about the nature of these additional reliable sources, so until you provide more specific information, all we have to go on is our own research.

Anyway, the bottom line is, no one here should be using "I've never heard of it" as a standard, and if they do, their input will be ignored. What I'm seeing are people raising legitimate concerns, that you should not dismiss, but rather need to address by giving us specific sourcing to establish notability. Gigs (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

| I understand what you are saying, this is my first time adding to wiki and am not used to this (seemingly) high level of citation. On the other hand it is quite clear this is not a hoax, as you can see from our website!

here are some sources;

http://www.radiolemans.com/ Frequently featured on The Midweek Motorsport Show, including latest episode. http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5508588715 Strong presence on the MWM collective.

youtube - account TORAmedia

Autosport - 28/05/09

forzamotorsport.net - strong presence on forums and featured in forza 2 community update 20th February 2009

Forums - in both directories.

forumotion.net - toraonlineracing.forumotion.net

freeforums.org - britgt.freeforums.org/

SRT - ongoing partnership, with appearance on episode 42 of ISR. --AJzero (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An internet radio station... OK. Hard to verify though if they don't archive. Facebook is not a reliable source. Youtube is not a reliable source. The only mention of it on Autosport is a forum post, which is not a reliable source. On ForzaMotorSport, again, just a forum post. These forum posts don't even have replies! forumotion... another forum, freeforums... you get the idea. You can't just make promotional forum posts and then cite them as sources. For all we know, you made this whole thing up. Gigs (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made the whole thing up? Have you not visited our website or forum?

Here is the iTunes feed for the radio station's archive - http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?id=83115817

I am talking about Autosport, the magazine.--AJzero (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't visited your site, last time I tried, your web site was unreachable. Also your site does not show up on google when searched for. All I have is your word and a few forum posts that it even exists. Gigs (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theonlineracingassociation.com/TORA/Home.html

We have been having metadata problems. typing theonlineracingassociation into google will find us.--AJzero (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added two (highly) credible sources to the entry, can this now be taken off articles for deletion please. --AJzero (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wki guidelines on non-commercial organization notability state;

Non-commercial organizations

Shortcut

WP:CLUB

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)

The scope of our activities is international in scale. (we have members from all over the world.)

Our activities can be verified by Radio Le Mans and Autosport.

Therefore this entry should be removed from 'articles for deletion.--AJzero (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't make it clear what this thing even is. Hipocrite (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Luxembourg relations[edit]

another completely random combination. non resident embassies, you would think almost all relations would be Georgia-EU context. Georgian foreign ministry says trade is less than USD1000 each way! unless this is an error? LibStar (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the European Council connection making their diplomacy moderately notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
does not prove actual bilateral relations only relations in multilateral context, eg at European Council meetings. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that, but I consider countries in such a partnership to have a "special relationship" with each other, and their mutual membership of the EuroCouncil would affect their bilateral relations. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're clearly venturing into synthesis if not original research. Drawn Some (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources of the subject of the article, relations between Georgia and Luxembourg, likely because there is no notable relationship to document. No evidence of trade, or bilateral projects, treaties, war, diplomacy, exchange students, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "EU connections" are insufficient. No trade, nothing to make this worth the paper used. Collect (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article mentions "Argentina" (copy/paste error). It also mentions Moscow so it seems fair to conclude that there are no notable relations. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent coverage of the topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress these relations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angeorgle[edit]

A very low revenue, small potentially non-notable website with one claim of being founded by "children" uncited. Appears to be using the Subway logo for some reason. SGGH ^ping! 10:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only has 9 Google hits, all apparently self-published. Likely a hoax. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:WEB, no sources cited to support notability, and a Google search does not suggest that any independent ones can be found. ~~I don't know what the Subway logo is doing here~~ (it has been removed). JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to achieve notability under WP:WEB due to a lack of independent reliable sources providing in-depth coverage. Drawn Some (talk) 10:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, self promotional --ClubOranje^T 11:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. And for what it's worth, the claim about being the first internet company set up by under 18s is just bunkum. --Dweller (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I was just starting to rewrite this article when I noticed that the only vaguely encyclopaedic content in it was that it was founded in November 2008 and is some sort of portmanteau. Not the first website started by under-18s by a long shot; no notability; I seriously doubt they have any employees or revenue; no notability; no verification. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That was NOT my final copy, the subway logo was a mistake, the revenue is a true fact, and i dont know why you are being such bullies, im only trying to make a page for our company, It is NOT a hoax, and i have no idea why you are trying to act cool by including words that no person that, just started to create a page would know, sheesh. P.S what does bunkum mean, or is that just trying to be cool --George85291 (talk) 11:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC) — George85291 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

No-one is bullying anyone, so please keep your accusations to yourself. "Bunkum" means "nonsense". If the company truly exists (which I don't think anyone doubts) that is not sufficient for an article on Wikipedia. It needs to be notable. This is an encyclopedia, and just like you wouldn't expect to find an article on the fluff between my big toe and the one next to it, you shouldn't find articles on just any old thing. The way we determine whether an article should be in Wikipedia really boils down to a policy you can read here, with this and this also relevant. To save you a lot of reading, what we're looking for is a company that is:

the subject of multiple, non trivial references in reliable sources

The last of those terms needs further definition (found here), but coverage in mass media like newspapers, magazines, TV programmes and books does the trick nicely. If you read none of the links I provided, please do read this one: WP:Your first article. --Dweller (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Apparently already deleted Tone 12:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danzanjamts tsagaach[edit]

I cannot find anything (see [27]) that can establish any notability of this living person. May also meet WP:CSD#A7 as well. MuZemike 09:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note – this was also a contested PROD, hence bringing to AFD. MuZemike 09:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Appears to be a cross between a MySpace page and an encyclopedia article. Drawn Some (talk) 11:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article Danzanjamts Tsagaach was speedy deleted as A7 (NN autobio). -- Alexf^(talk) 11:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia:Autobiography, no refs found using latin or cyrillic character sets. --Triwbe (talk) 11:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehyn[edit]

Promotional article about a "young and inspired" singer. There is evidently a campaign going on: the same peacocky prose is all over the internet - a Google search finds the identical text in a dozen different places, so that it is hard to know where this is a copyvio from. The article could be de-peacocked and de-copyvio-ed, but beneath the hype what it amounts to is, she has released one EP and got some reviews in Milwaukee papers and a couple of fan-sites. This is not notable per WP:BAND. She may go on to become notable, and then an article would be appropriate, but for now Wikipedia should not be part of her publicity campaign. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why this subject has multiple entries/articles is because the one got deleted by TexasAndroid while I was still posting it. I made a new one and it didn't get tagged until I mentioned I made a new one to TexasAndroid. I am new at this and TexasAndroid apparently removed the block on the Rehyn and redirected Rehyn (Ren) to the Rehyn article.

I have looked at two other artist articles on this site to use as examples. They are Nothern Room and Edward Bell. I followed those templates to write Rehyn's article and I don't see how they are any more successful then her. You could make the the same argument for the articles on Northern Room and Edward Bell. I thought I was being neutral in pointing out only facts on the subject. If someone would like to help get this article where it needs to be, please help. I will find out more about her birth date etc.--Funtup (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - Unless more sources can be shown to indicate notability, and not reviews in local papers, I am now thinking that this falls a bit short of the notability requirements. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over several articles in the music/band section now and I would questions acticles on Lights Action, Northern Room, Edward Bell, The Alps (band), etc... I could probably make the same delete case for 50 band articles on this site based on the delete case for the Rehyn article. Will the articles from these bands be deleted as well? Maybe a general standard should be set because from the examples that I've pointed out, I really don't how you can argue one article being deleted from the next.--Funtup (talk) 16:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TexasAndroid, that is the easy way to get around my argument while not answering with a strong rebuttal. Rehyn does have a notable licensing deal with MTV, Oxygen and E! networks. It's only a matter of time until you hear one of her tracks on one of those network shows. She has also had review from California.^[1] She also has a write up from TAXI (A&R) but it's no longer online. I do have a hard copy written by Craig Streaman, Manager A & R from TAXI (A&R). When you hit the itunes link, her tracks are being downloaded/popular level is high. You probably thought the same thing with Meiko when she first started.--Funtup (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an interview with site in the UK: http://www.piewatch.co.uk/2009/05/rehyn/ That's not a local newspaper.--Funtup (talk) 17:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further reply to your remarks higher up: the fact that the article was created more than once here in Wikipedia is not a problem, what I meant was that the Google link above shows that the identical same fluff about a "unique balance between a timeless lyrically driven base" etc is found word-for-word the same on soundtrack.mtv.com, eventful.com, ourstage.com, thesixtyone.com, myspace.com, shankhall.com, last.fm, cdbaby.com, bebo.com, famecast.com. That's what I mean by a promotion campaign going on; and when a new editor pops up repeating the same words here, it looks like part of the campaign, and Wikipedia dislikes, in fact refuses, to be used for promotion.

It is also a problem because (a) those words must be copyright to someone and (b) words like "unique" "inspired" "timeless" "soulful" are peacock terms (click that link) - ad-speak, subjective praise suitable for PR puff pieces or record sleeves but not for an encyclopedia.

The words could be rewritten, the real problem is that she doesn't (yet) meet Wikipedia's requirements as set out in WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. As regards the other articles you cite, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an easy way out: it explains the principle that the existence of some doubtful articles is not to be taken as an excuse for relaxing standards and admitting more. Finally, for your "it's only a matter of time" argument, read WP:UPANDCOMING. I'm sorry to give you so many links to policies, but we have these arguments over and over, and it saves writing it all out each time. JohnCD (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from the lack of coverage to establish notability, this article is promotional, and also a possible copyvio. -- Whpq (talk) 17:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even think about it![edit]

Non-notable coffee-mug catch phrase. WP's not a repository of idioms. Conical Johnson (talk) 07:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A 2003 article, and it shows. Oh-Are!! Although I would love to know who coined the phrase "don't even think about it", or when it was first seen in that form, I'm not sure whether research will ever yield the answer, and this article certainly doesn't reveal the answer. When the article started, it was about a Pepsi commercial. I got a laugh at the part about the New York City "landmark" (a sign that said "Don't Even Think About Parking Here"). If anyone wants to try to track down the earliest use of D.E.T.A.I., feel free to post it here, because I don't think that will save the article. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd add that Google news now has a feature that shows data about the frequency of the use of a search term in news "don't+even+think+about+it"&cf=all&sugg=d&sa=N&lnav=d3&as_ldate=1980&as_hdate=1989&hdrange=1990,2007, with bar graphs and other cool stuff. Even if not applicable here, worth noting for future reference. Mandsford (talk) 12:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, pure O.R., which is O.K. because this is a discussion, not an article-- earliest use I see in print is [28] from an April 30, 1986 AP story where Dolphins' coach Don Shula is quoted as having said, "Don't even think about it". I will send one dollar to whoever can find the earliest use of the phrase. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED gives a use in 1751: "‘I will not hear a word on that head,’ cried Mr. Trueworth, hastily interrupting him, ‘and if you would add to the favours you have already conferred upon me, do not even think of it.’" Is that authoritative enough to earn me a buck? (Or, if you insist on 'about' instead of 'of', 1835.) Olaf Davis (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the citation? Which edition and under which entry is this quote? What work is the dictionary quoting? -Verdatum (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "draft addition" from 2001, which I believe means it's available only online. The entry is think, v.². The source is "E. HAYWOOD Hist. Betsy Thoughtless III. v. 64". Olaf Davis (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it currently stands, there is no strong reason to believe that research regarding the origin and usage of this term currently exists. Without such information there is no basis for an article. If such information could be found, I would happily change my vote. -Verdatum (talk) 16:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This feels like the kind of phrase that must have been discussed by reliable sources, but I really don't know how to go about finding them - the internet is, of course, full of uses of the phrase and fifteen minutes of searching has not produced anything very substantial. There's undoubtedly enough to wiktionary-ify before deleting though. Olaf Davis (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Olaf gets the dollar. Do you have PayPal? Nah, leave post office box info on my talk page, and a one dollar bill shall follow forthwith. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without any real reliable sources proving its origin, it's just speculation and original research how it was invented. according to this it seemed to first appear in the media in 1925 (noting Olaf's wonderful discovery). mind you I think WP:INDISCRIMINATE should apply too. what next? an article "oh I missed my train"? LibStar (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google returned 327,000 results of finding "don't even think about it". The expression predates the internet. If you searched through scripts of old television shows, you'd find the expression used quite commonly back in the 1980's. The expression is notable, but the article needs some work. Dream Focus 10:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the issue is not how old or how popular it is - the issue is whether there are reliable sources to be found which justify an encyclopedia article and not just a dictionary entry. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:48, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about "Here we go again!" or "Oh no she didn't!" These ridiculous phrases are far more ubiquitous on stupid sitcoms than "don't even think about it", yet neither of them have pages. That's not an invitation to create them. Conical Johnson (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and suggest that people don't even think about putting this article on Wikipedia again.Tyrenon (talk) 15:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable phrase. I have added some citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ought we have a comprehensive list of "catch phrases" on WP? Maybe. Until then, individual ones scaecely pass any notability concerns. Collect (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, an argument could be made that this is similar to Don't Mess with Texas, except it's not the exact phrase that appears on the sign, and the link is tenuous, so delete. Artw (talk) 17:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 seems to be valid here Tone 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raspberry dumpling[edit]

This is merely an intersection of a food wrapping - dumplings with a flavor - raspberry. If we have this page, we could just as easily have a page for every other possible dumpling filling, and every other foodstuff into which it might be possible to cram some raspberry flavor. Conical Johnson (talk) 07:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 because the article does not assert notability. Also, it is borderline Wikipedia:NOT#HOWTO. ZabMilenko 10:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The topic of dessert dumplings is already sufficiently covered in the parent article so no merge is necessary. Drawn Some (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lest we get every possible flavour combination in here -- figure 3,000 main ingredients, and 500 main food items (and we could get two or more flavours in one item -- "chocolate cinnamon pie" anyone? WP can easily get over 9 billion more articles ... ) In any event -- delete. Collect (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, now, WP:BEANS. Drawn Some (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Its pretty obvious why G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was just at AfD. The correct venue for challenging the recent deletion is WP:DRV. I am deleting it again as biography of living persons enforcement. This article as recreated violated WP:ONEEVENT, in addition to the reasons I stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination). To write a biography there must be enough verified information available in independent, reliable sources to write a fair, balanced article about this person's life. The recent issues with Wikipedia should not receive grossly undue weight, as happened with this article's recreation. It was a virtual attack page. Jehochman ^Talk 08:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Boothroyd[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The individual does not meet our criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this individual has been noted in several reliable sources concerning his political activities in Westminster and is now receiving attention for his activities on Wikipedia as well. The article existed for several years until he stepped down from ArbCom and we should not delete an article to "protect one of our own" now that new media coverage is taking place. TAway (talk) 06:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above user is the article creator.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has been borderline notable for quite some time, but unfortunately definitely put his head above the parapet just now. Agathoclea (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Current coverage is just a side of the current on-goings concerning wikipedia. If this person was truly notable, they would be covered for reasons besides what is noted in the article.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Self-referential at best. Not notable within the government system of the UK. Recent news coverage does not mean that he is suddenly notable.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - councillors are generally not notable. This one is no exception: he fails WP:BIO, lacking sufficient coverage in independent reliable sources. Nothing significant has changed in that respect from the last AFD on May 23rd. The only in-depth coverage is from The Register; unless someone can demonstrate that more exists, this article should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how you can say "nothing has changed" with a straight face, but I'll help you out: three days after his article was deleted, the media took notice of his activities on Wikipedia. TAway (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I said nothing significant has changed, and I don't think it has - there still aren't enough references to prove notability. I'm not aware that recent events have reached the media either, beyond The Register (and that reference isn't enough to build an article on). If you can show that they have, I'll happily change to Keep. Robofish (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You have an interesting bar for what qualifies as "significant," then. To be clear, you do not deny the legitimacy or reliability of the source itself? TAway (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't - it seems reliable and more-or-less factually correct. But we need more than one source like that to write an article. If this was a new article, rather than a recreated one, and that was the only source, it would have to be deleted. Robofish (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The reasons for the Delete result of the last AFD were given as there is no indication that the article meets criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, WP:CSD#A7. It is a biography of a living person that entirely lacks references, and there is contentious material in the history of the article and the talk page. Also noted, the subject has asked more than once for this to be deleted. Under the combined weight of circumstances, deletion is clearly justifiable - and I don't see that anything has changed in the last five days. -- LondonStatto (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Inaccurate; it does not entirely lack references, and the subject who requested deletion (immediately before the media picked up the story) is the subject of the current controversy. TAway (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article on The Register by a writer who is apparently obsessed with finding "Wikiscandal" does not count as substantial media attention demonstrating notability. Delete. [[Sam Korn]] ^(smoddy) 07:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Coverage from journalists we dislike or disapprove of "don't count"? Where is that written? TAway (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 found for deletion. Discussion provided reliable resources for expansion, article was kept. -- User:Docu 00:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Austria–Georgia relations[edit]

another random combination noting that Austria does not have any resident embassy. There have been no visits from Austrian leaders or ministers to Georgia and most of the bilateral treaties are minor in nature. [29]. Most searches reveal relations in a multilateral context especially Georgia-EU English search German search LibStar (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep since it does contain some information (date of diplomatic relations being established etc.) – you could also add in the fact that they are European partners. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do you have any reliable sources to prove bilateral relations. my searches in 2 languages could not find anything, simply establishing diplomatic relations is not enough for an article. LibStar (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave here, plus the fact that I only gave a weak keep :) ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "weak keep" means "should be deleted but I like it" as far as I'm concerned. If you're not sure if something should be kept or not, state your concern and perhaps others will address it. This is a discussion, not a voting booth. Drawn Some (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Saying "weak keep" means "should be deleted but I like it" as far as I'm concerned. OK, as you wish, but it's common terminology, and I thought I made my points clear. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources of this topic to achieve notability. For the record, government websites of an embassy are NOT independent for this topic. If the newspapers and television people can't be bothered to cover it, and no one writes books about it, etc., it isn't notable and we don't synthesize some lame stub out of primary materials just to get rid of a red link on a template. All of this is shameful the way it wastes time and puts editors in opposition over a contentless stub. Drawn Some (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One more un-notable combination and permutation. Mentally append my comment on recipes. Collect (talk) 11:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only useful content ever likely in this article are the links Foreign relations of Austria (which does not mention Georgia!) and Foreign relations of Georgia (which mentions only some trivial information about Austria, implying that there is nothing notable to say). Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 12:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - not sure about contemporary relations (but I suspect that for Georgia Austria is one of the most important foreign partners these days), but historically Austria-Hungary and its ambassador Georg von Franckenstein were instrumental in the formation of the first, shortlived Democratic Republic of Georgia, together with the German and the Ottoman empire. For literature on these relations, see this book [30] Stepopen (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about relations between Austria and Georgia, not Austria-Hungary and the Caucasian nations. A related but entirely different subject. Basically most of the nations discussed in that book do not even exist today.Drawn Some (talk) 22:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some other articles on bilateral relations, the standard seems to be that these articles cover the complete history even if technically the countries do not exist anymore. See for example Germany–Russia relations which also deals with the relations between the German and Russian Empire or West Germany and the Soviet Union, countries that technically do not exist anymore but have clearly defined successors. Same applies for Austria as the successor of the Austrian-Hungarian empire and Georgia as the successor of the Democratic Republic of Georgia. Stepopen (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No third-party coverage of the topic in relation to any other relationship. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not sufficiently notable. Recreate later if notability can be demonstrated. Hobartimus (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia,[31] Austria and Georgia have the following bilateral agreements:

* Agreement between Georgia and the Republic of Austria on Bilateral Foreign Economic Relations

* Memorandum of Understanding between the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Georgia and the Federal Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic Austria

* Air Transport Agreement between the Austrian Federal Government and the Government of Georgia

* Agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Government of the Republic of Austria for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments

* Agreement between the Government of Georgia and the Government of the Republic of Austria for Avoidance of Double Taxation

* Protocol on the Amendment to the Air Transport Agreement the Austrian Federal Government and the Government of Georgia

I think we can all agree that bilateral relations presently between Austria and Georgia exist. Important/notable? Perhaps in the eye of the beholder. Obviously there is room for growth, which is likely since Austria supports Georgia's integration into the European and Euro-Atlantic structures.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as shown in other deleted articles, simply having a few minor agreements (and most of these are minor) does not necessarily indicate a notable relationship. If these agreements are widely reported in the media then it increases its notability. LibStar (talk) 08:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The number of bilateral agreements these countries share is irrelevant. The only valid criteria for determining whether a stand alone article on this topic should exist on WP are the general notability guidelines:

“

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.

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.^[2]
"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.^[3]
"Sources,"^[4] for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.^[5]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.^[6]
"Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not.^[7]

”

These criteria are clearly not met. There is no evidence in the article of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and I've found nothing on my own. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources adress this in the depth required for an article. Hipocrite (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Several scholarly studies on this topic have been published, see the bibliography of the article. They are not available online, and probably not in most libraries, but still academic scholars thought it worthwhile to publish on the role of the precedessor of todays Republic of Austria, the Austrian-Hungarian empire in the caucasus, including Georgia. Clearly there are reliable sources, they are just not easily accessible via Google but require a visit to the library. I have added aa short section from a book that I could find in my library, so this should demonstrate notability, and maybe one day someone will use the bibliography to expand on this topic. Stepopen (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well you've got to 3rd June to rescue this article but as it currently stands it has 1 ref. Bilateral relations can easily be proven through google and news articles searches. LibStar (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather see an article with 1 academic reference and a bibliography with two academic books about the topic, than an article based on some random news clipping found by googling the words Austria and Georgia (or Österreich and Georgien. Stepopen (talk) 05:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an article up for deletion won't survive with 1 reference. LibStar (talk) 05:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Tilson[edit]

Subject isn't notable. The only references in the article are primary sources and neither one is reliable. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of third party, reliable sources giving nontrivial coverage that demonstratess notability. DreamGuy (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Street has interviewed him, Miami Herald has written about his founding his company, and there are about 580 articles either by or quoting him, and it looks like he's been interviewed on CBS 60 minutes and FoxNews, and he has been quoted and his articles referred to by Business Week and Newsweek. The references on the article page may not be good, but that shouldn't disqualify the article, it needs to be improved. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage appears trivial - Vartanza (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: but as a stub. The article is crap, but the subject is notable. Along with those 580 news ghits, there are also 41 Google Scholar hits and 47 Google book hits. He's been quoted in a lot of major magazines and cited by a number of books as a leader in his field... but you couldn't tell that from the article as it is now. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He regularly writes for notable publications/sites and had coverage by third parties. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary–Libya relations[edit]

whilst these 2 countries have embassies, I could not find any real coverage of bilateral relations only in multilateral context. [32]. the only exception was this [33] but doesn't make an article though. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to little grounds for an article. ╟─Treasury Tag►hemicycle─╢ 11:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify what you mean by "weak delete" as opposed to "delete" please? Drawn Some (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability, would need significant in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources which are lacking, if anyone finds such please notify me to reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 11:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the worst, but still fits combinations and permutations argument. Collect (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching Hungary shows no mention of Libya, and searching Libya shows no mention of Hungary. Common sense confirms the articles: there is nothing notable about these relations. Fails Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third-party coverage of the topic as a whole means no notability. --BlueSquadronRaven
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There are some relevant news articles, but the notability just isn't there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete where is the in depth coverage of the topic of this article (the bilateral relationship) that we would need to even consider including such an article?Bali ultimate (talk) 12:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks sufficient notability. Hobartimus (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speedy - no content. Hipocrite (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Valley2city^‽ 23:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young $tack$[edit]

Non-notable rapper, unsourced article. I was unable to locate any reliable sources that discuss Mr. $tack$ and/or his achievements. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything other than a MySpace page for "Young $tack$". Fribbler (talk) 21:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There do not appear to be any reliable sources discussing this rapper. Despite the claim in the article that he charted a single, I was able to find nothing about either Young $tack$ or his song "Hatin on Me" on either allmusic.com or billboard.com. Aside from this, the article does not assert notability, and there are no reliable sources anywhere to indicate it. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 21:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Pope[edit]

Non-notable musician, questionable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, none of the bands or people he has allegedly worked with appear notable either. -- Pontificalibus (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks coverage from non-trivial sources. — Σ xplicit 06:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Nation Blue. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Lyngcoln[edit]

Non-notable musician, questionable sources, and yet another n00b who doesn't know how to fill out the "background" field in {{Infobox musical artist}} properly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the content, not the editor, and assume good faith. Nakon 04:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It just frustrates the hell out of me when people can't fill out a simple infobox. Note also that this musician is only a member of several red link bands. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment based on the article I would suggest that whilst the musician is probably non-notable there is a potential and worthwhile arguement that the band, The Nation Blue, is notable and that the article should be re-drafted along those lines. Maybe in future Ten Pound Hammer you could provide some assistance to new editors rather than being so critical. Dan arndt (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Nation Blue, no notability outside band. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Nation Blue, as most of his notability seems to be associated with that group. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mpica[edit]

Previously speedy deleted article. See: [34]. Current article is the same as the deleted one (see Google cache:[35]).

That of course makes it a candidate for speedy again, but the whack-a-mole game can go on forever. Nominated for being purely promotional; I'm uncertain about notability. Article author also seems interested only in promotion. User's other created article is also highly promotional; possibly speedy candidate:

Hairhorn (talk) 04:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pretty straight-forward, I think. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 04:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it stands currently. However there is some content within this that can be salvaged. MPICA might deserve some page that documents IT regulations, but this page is nothing more than some kind of promotion of the services and one company in particular. --SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree...sounds like its promoting a business. However one user keeps banking the article which is unacceptable still. I say delete.Schnitzel MannGreek. 13:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boxoffice (magazine)[edit]

Unnotable magazine; fails WP:N. Prod removed by User:Ed Wood's Wig without any reason given. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is one of the major trade journals for the U.S. film industry. It is not as well known to the general public as Variety or Hollywood Reporter, but it carries major clout within the industry. The article needs better referencing, but it shouldn't be here. Pastor Theo (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not better referencing, it needs some period. Can you provide any that actually shows it is a major trade journal, carries major clout, etc. from reliable, third-party sources? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Pastor Theo. Having been published for 89 years does tend to help a magazine establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Occasionally something that seems like it ought to meet guidelines for notability doesn't. Is there sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources to achieve notability or not, that's the question we should be examining, not various flavors of WP:ILIKEIT. Drawn Some (talk) 11:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep Occasionally something obviously notable in the real-world sense of the world fails to pass WP's home-made, OR-based, lacking-in-basis-in-Reliable-Sourcing "notability" guidelines. If our "rules" say a well-known journal with an 89-year history fails "notability", then fix the Goddamned rules. We're supposed to be here to write an encyclopedia, not to make up a rule-book to play games with. Dekkappai (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that is "not as well known to the general public" (as Pastor Theo points out) is not "obviously notable in the real-world sense of the word" (as you would have us believe) and needs references to prove notability. If there are no references for notability, then verifiability is a problem, too. There are plenty of 89 year old whatevers that don't belong in Wikipedia. Obscure single-industry trade journals may not always have a place here. Appeal to the age of the something or unproved importance to a small group of people doesn't persuade me. Drawn Some (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals to common sense don't persuade a lot of people around here. I hope I didn't give the impression I was adressing you. Dekkappai (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only two sources given are not independent. Significant in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources is required for notability and verifiability. At least with Charlie the Unicorn we know how many people have watched the video; we don't even know the circulation of this magazine to make a claim of popularity, much less notability. Drawn Some (talk) 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Drawn Some made a valid point about circulation that required some research. Box Office Magazine's online service Boxoffice.com receives 220 thousand US hits monthly (2,640,000 yearly), and 424 thousand Global visits monthly (5,088,000 yearly) [36]. Comparatively, Box Office Mojo receives 740 thousand US monthly (8,880,000 yearly)[37]. Box Office Mojo is older and larger. Box Office's online version in newer and growing faster. Note: Box Office Magazine itself is spoken of in Reliable Sources [38] Yes, article need sourcing. Its available with a search. Send to WP:CLEANUP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Artw (talk) 21:44, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its been in publication a very long time, and its the official publication of the National Association of Theatre Owners. The wikipedia has two policies for this, called ignore all rules, and use common sense. The guidelines are suggestions, not rules. Remember that. Dream Focus 22:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Aitias // discussion 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monika Fikerle[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable musician, no notable awards, questionable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Multiple albums, multinational tour, multiple bands (one two three on wikipedia), and multiple years of activity passes WP:BAND #1, 4, 5, 6, and possibly 10. The article has even undergone a peer review. The refs are not bad either and appear to be sourced from sites like http://smh.com.au and http://mlb.com which are not very questionable. ZabMilenko 11:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of those bands are at AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which can be taken as evidence that afd is being used as cleanup. The articles could have been merged. ~~Rampant deletionism not only creates a backlog but solves nothing. /me shakes head.~~ ZabMilenko 01:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment provided that at least one of the two articles currently subject to AfD are retained, then there is sufficient justification for the retention of this article. I would suggest that any determination of this Afd be held in abeyance until a determination is made in respect to the other two articles. A futher alternative would be for an editor to find independent verifiable references relating to the artist in question, as opposed to articles relating to bands within which she is a member. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, member of notable band Love of Diagrams, and news coverage exists. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. blatant hoax, made up one day in the cafeteria Acroterion _(talk) 02:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People's Republic of Antarctica[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/People's Republic of Antarctica

After being speedied as an obvious hoax, this article has been recreated as a micronation made up in one school day. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:WHYCANTMADEUPCRAPLIKETHISBEDELETED. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G12 as copyvio, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Erickson[edit]

Prod tag removed without dealing with the concerns on the talk page. No firm evidence of notability. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G11 as advertising. G12 as copyvio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. copyvios are a speedy Tone 12:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decatur Police Department (Illinois)[edit]

Non-notable police force. Majority of information is being gleaned directly from the City of Decatur's webpage, ending up as a copyright violation. User has now created a SPA for the sole purpose of spreading this gibberish. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G12 as copyvio of this and other portions of the Decatur, Illinois website. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete for copyvio, per nom... --mhking (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Speedy Delete per nomination: speedy WP:CSD#G12 for WP:COPYVIO, and AfD delete for the record because, regardless of copyvio, this subject is not notable enough to warrant its own article. As noted above, this article is just 66.116.28.188 (talk) finally creating an account and recreating his Decatur, Illinois material for the 4th time. (He then did it a 5th time a minute later, back on Decatur, Illinois.) --Closeapple (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Etkin[edit]

Seems to be an obituary, non-notable, no sources. Intelligentsium (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with haste, no sources, reads like obit. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple Google scholar search and a WorldCat library search reveal her articles to be often-cited and her books very widely held. Definitely meets WP:PROF on several counts, including winning the highest award from her professional association and chairing her department. Here's a nice newspaper feature if you want to know what she looked like, yes she died of cancer in January: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2007/01/13/features/story01.html. I am surprised anyone would claim she is not notable as she meets so many different criteria. Drawn Some (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOFIXIT. I am surprised anyone would make such a crappy article for someone who meets so many different criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page was nominated 15 minutes after it was created. I'm completely unsurprised that this WP:BITEy behavior caused its creator to take a break from improving it. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it Mr. Drawn Some (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article documents claims that look likely to satisfy WP:PROF #1 (several books and many articles, reasonably cited in Google scholar), #2 (Distinguished Economic Botanist Award), #3 (Fellow of Linnean Society), #6 (President International Society for Ethnopharmacology), and #8 (editor-in-chief of Economic Botany). Any one of these would be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As noted by David Eppstein, meets WP:PROF criterion #8 (editor-in-chief of established journal). Economic botany is held by more than 750 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Very likely meets other criteria as well.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Boldly redirected to album, pretty much a no-brainer. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey_Stephen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hey Stephen

Not enough information; not an official/digital single; article does not assert importance Bpkcow (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW here... Tone 12:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Tatiana[edit]

Prod removed by an IP with no explanation. Rationale is no significant coverage in reliable sources to meet notability guidelines and does not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:ENTERTAINER. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO ukexpat (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Totally non-notable. A few walk-ons, a CD announced to be released in 2007 that there are no Google hits for, a non-existant website used as a ref (along with that 2-year old press release), no way this person is notable enough to deserve an article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed that fails WP:BIO, but may be viable after future coverage. If there is future coverage, a new article may be appropriate. FrumpyTheClown (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 00:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn at this time, no verifiable sources for anything of notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage in third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find a single reliable source about this person. It should be deleted for failing to meet notability policy. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources whatsoever about the subject of a blp? Then no blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all! - Vartanza (talk) 02:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Found in IMDB.[39] Filmography roughly matches IMDB. Name disagrees with IMDB. Not found in Hollywood Reporter. Not found in Hollywood Creative Directory. Press release on PR Newswire regarding being signed by Global Village Records.[40]. According to an SEC litigation release [41], "Global Village Records" was part of a Ponzi scheme. "According to the complaint, even after the original defendants were enjoined from continuing to violate the federal securities laws, they continued their fraud by soliciting additional money into this scam. To circumvent the asset freeze, certain defendants created a new company, Global Village Records, and then used the bank accounts of companies owned by Daniel J. Merriman to forward money from investors." Let's just flush this article. --John Nagle (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Diggy diggy delete! no reliable secondary sources. She's either not notable or a hoax. Either way, make it disappear. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 06:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete echo above, snow? Verbal chat 09:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And a snowy close. Hell, this AfD is pointless, the article is a textbook IAR speedy delete, someone should've just zapped it when the prod was contested by a drive-by. --M^ask? 09:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anybody who has a name that rhymes like this should get an article. I am singing it now, "Brianna Tatiana, Tatiana Brianna". Drawn Some (talk) 11:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Smitherman[edit]

Unsourced autobiography, no Google News hits that clearly deal with her. Google Web search gives 124 distinct results, not all of which are her. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her book is published by a vanity press. Not that self-published authors are intrinsically not notable, but publishing a book is the only noteworthy thing in the article; or it would be if she hadn't paid to have it published. Hairhorn (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, utter lack of in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:BIO in general or WP:CREATIVE specifically. Drawn Some (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:CREATIVE - Vartanza (talk) 04:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casey Tyler[edit]

An undrafted player from a division II college (Portland State University) has been with two teams and has yet to make either which fails him for WP:ATHLETE and the only sources I can find specifically about him is the story about his release from the Patriots last year and the Cowboys this year. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails the relevant notability standard. JJL (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 01:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. No significant coverage in reliable sources. لenna vecia 17:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Listen Campaign. MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Hollingsworth[edit]

I don't believe this individual meets the notability guidelines for inclusion. In the article, all the sources used appear to be sources about the Mandela concert this person organized, not about the person himself; of the ones that I can access from here, none of them even mention his name. Google Web and Google News searches return no relevant results (the web search gets lots of social networking sites and a blog from some other guy who has the same name); Google Books search gets a couple, but they all seem to just be passing mention, and again they are about the concert rather than Hollingsworth himself (and many of the other results are a different Tony Hollingsworth, who appears to be a meteorologist or something). The original versions of this article read like a CV, and the current version doesn't seem to have any noteworthy content about Hollingsworth; I don't see there ever being a need for this article that can't be filled by putting this information on the Mandela concert article itself. Nothing else the individual has done seems to generated any significant third-party attention (apart from possibly the Jobs for a Change thing, which is cited to a book that I can't access right now; nevertheless, again, all the content about that could be merged into its respective article, rather than kept here). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I find coverage with regard to the listen campaign: [42], as well as some other coverage: [43], including discussion of some rather interesting things, like censorship. He seems very solidly notable to me. Cazort (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this some more and I think it might be better to delete all problematic content and then Merge/Redirect into Listen Campaign. You are right that most of the sources being about the event. And that page needs cleanup. There is some interesting content that belongs somewhere. Cazort (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your searches turned up some stuff I hadn't seen before; particularly, this one might help somewhat with notability (since it seems to be, at first glance, about what he actually did, rather than just being about the event and mentioning that he organized it). That being said, though, I do agree there's still a general problem with most of the sources being about the events rather than him... I guess I'll just let this afd run and see what others think. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just my modest opinion, great events do not happen on thir own. Takes a lot of work and effort by somebody. This person seems to be one of the behind the scenes folks who makes it happen. Now, seeing the list of the events and their nature, I would almost say weak keep and improve a lot. Organizing good causes. Turqoise127 (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the author of the original piece, I accept many of the criticism you have made about this entry. But I do think Hollingsworth is a notable person, by virtue of the fact that he has produced some notable concerts. He is no less notable if the references to him are mainly references to the concerts. Surely, it is right for Wikipedia to carry an entry on such a person, bringing together the various concerts. With reference to a dialogue between you and a contributor (Wireless1917), you imply Hollingsworth was merely the organiser of concerts. It is also important that several of the concerts were organised as television programmes (which require different criteria), and sold to broadcasters around the world – no mean feat. Hollingsworth was responsible for this. The Mandela 70th Birthday Tribute would not have had anywhere near as much effect without the widespread television coverage – which in turn partly depended on bringing in a large number of top artists. Rogers Waters threatened to pull out of The Wall – Live in Berlin because he, Waters, and the people he had appointed had failed to bring in the artists. Hollingsworth, who was already acting as producer (itself no mean job for such an event), took over and the event was almost immediately resurrected.Peter Elman (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability, Wikipedia doesn´t care how great of a job he did or how difficult the work was, but only what is said in and can be verified through reliable sources (ie, what has received significant coverage). For instance, when I was little I climbed the most ridiculously high tree on my street, and I guarantee you it was really difficult and when I got to the top it was really awesome. But that doesn´t mean I deserve a Wikipedia article because I did such a great job. --rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect into Listen Campaign all relevant info and delete the rest. He's not the subject of coverage, rather he's mentioned. لenna vecia 15:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In any case, WP:MRFD is third door down on the left. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toothpick Man[edit]

Not a notable character by himself. Should be merged into List of recurring characters from The X-Files. 2008Olympian^chitchat 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- if you want a merge why are we at articles for deletion? Umbralcorax (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because that is the result for this article: it is deleted and the info moved to the other article. A decision to merge is often the result of these discussions.--2008Olympian^chitchat 03:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You can't delete then merge, GFDL wouldn't allow it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect or just delete as non-notable if someone has a problem with merging being an outcome at AfD. Toothpick Man lacks sufficient in-depth coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't seem to be a notable enough character to even warrant a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you want a merge discussion, then have a merge discussion. AFD is not the place for that. And this character sounds rather notable in the series. Surely there is more information on him to expand the article. Dream Focus 01:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as recommended to List of recurring characters from The X-Files. Does not support its own page per lack of indendent secondary sources. It should be split off when there sources establishing its notability (beyond being a List of recurring character from The X-Files) and that list becomes to long to suitably fit the character. --maclean 20:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Keep/merge. Here's a trout for nom, AfD is for deleting content not keeping it at all. Please avoid AfD for issues that don't need this process per WP:Before. -- Banjeboi 01:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable. I am adding a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor character - I suggest WP has a fairly large number of such, but that does not mean this one belongs. Collect (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spadout.com[edit]

Contested PROD. Doesn't seem to pass WP:CORP or WP:WEB. Wperdue (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I believe Spadout is a notable website that is very important to the outdoor sports community. At the present time this article does not do it justice. I'm in the process of finding some additional secondary sources and request postponement of deletion until I finish doing so. Thanks. Washburnmav (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can improve its sources to prove some notability, I'm all for keeping it. Wperdue (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, here we are a week later in the same situation, a lack of sufficient in-depth coverage in independent sources to establish notability under WP:WEB, WP:CORP or even just WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't pass WP:WEB, no real references within the first four pages of GSearch, nothing on GNews, Alexa ranking 97K -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 04:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fp.board[edit]

No external references given. Extensive search (web and news) indicates that no significant coverage in reliable sources is available:

web search for "fp.board" excluding a number of false positives
web search for "fp.board" and "forum"
all dates news archive search for "fp.board" excluding a number of false positives
all dates news archive search for "fp.board" and "forum" Bongo matic 02:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: if nobody opines at an AfD for seven days is it equivalent to an expiring prod? If an AfD falls in a forest but nobody is there, did it make a sound? Bongo matic 06:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lesley Staples[edit]

Non-notable actress, only thing I can find about her doing a Google search are self promotion web sites. Ridernyc (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I can't really find much about her, but her IMDB page shows that she has what looks like a prominent role in a film being released next month. If that's the case (and the movie is of any significance), there may be some reliable coverage of her in the near future. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced sub-stub using only IMDB as a reference, no assertion of importance or significance, lack of sufficient coverage to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Somebody might be able to do something with this in the future; this discussion should not prejudice a future writer if there is further notability. FrumpyTheClown (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Gbirley's argument is based on WP:CRYSTAL; however, if he would like to have it userfied to User:Gbirley/Reza Faezi, I will be glad to do so. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Faezi[edit]

No sources to establish notability. Best I could find was this which lists him as an amateur fighter (thus not notable). --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 04:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The internet is not a reliable source due to the relatively small media attention that Finnish MMA creates. The sources that I have used in the creation of the wikipedia document are credible, the sources are; Reza Faezi himself, videos of the fights and Finnish MMA Magazine. This article should not be deleted on the grounds that Reza Faezi is an upcoming fighter and may make an appearance internationally in MMA (seeing as he one the nationals). --Gbirley (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Gbirley, media attention is one way we judge notability. There are other means to notability but he doesn't appear to achieve it through any of those routes, either. It might be appropriate to userfy the article since you believe he may become notable in the future. Drawn Some (talk) 01:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They've had a handful of matches in regional competition, no title fights or championships. There is nothing to suggestion that this person is notable. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia–Slovakia relations[edit]

another random combination. According to the Georgian govt, only one head of state visit (and that was for a multilateral conference) and only 1 actual bilateral agreement. Most media coverage is in a multilateral context eg with Ukraine etc, only 1 article I find mentioning the 1 bilateral agreement. [44] not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge despite pleas of helping merge these articles, nominator continues to noiminate new articles. I have already collected all of this information to merge, so this is a pointless empty gesture, an argument over a redirect, not an article. Ikip (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Neither of the above can be considered "votes" since the former is simply 'per nom'- an argument to avoid- na dt'other is just copied and pasted, with respect to Ikip.

Merge to relevant foreign relations articles. [45] and [46] are not enough notability for an article but it's worthy of an entry somewhere. HJMitchell You rang? 00:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some external links. They may indicate potential, but do not make an article. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, random X-Y article. Newspaper articles containing words Slovakia and Georgia do not establish encyclopedical notability, formal diplomatic statements neither. For Slovaks Georgia could teleport to the Mars and nobody would notice. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notable relations, per Bilateral relations. Johnuniq (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to achieve notability as does not have sufficient in-depth independent coverage of the topic. The Georgian and Slovakian journalists and authors need to get busy. Drawn Some (talk) 11:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Not worst case by far, though, as they has a communist past. Collect (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but wouldn't that relate to Czechoslovakia-Soviet Union relations? LibStar (talk) 11:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much and neither one of those countries exists these days. Drawn Some (talk) 14:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourced content, only News items in external links. Fails notability by having o coverage of the topic as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems to have no notable relations. Hobartimus (talk) 15:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relaible sources adress these relations in any detail. Hipocrite (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glauco Della Sciucca[edit]

Unsourced article about unnotable person, after seeing no relevant news about him. Alexius08 (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I cannot tell from the fractured English in the article which claims of notability refer to the named individual and which to people he knows. It reads like a personal blog written by a person with little knowledge of English. That would be remediable by editing, if there are multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage of the individual, rather than the "he worked on this," "he met this person," "the New York Public Library has a copy of his wonderful book" kind of mentions. ~~Might or might not~~ Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. The refs are mostly to sites selling the book. Google News archive has zero results for him. His book of short stories, in Italian, is apparently held by 9 libraries in the U.S. He writes for the "New York Review of Books" and "The New Yorker" per [47]. Writing a book of unknown success and working as a writer/artist do not in themselves satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - This article is a mess. Appears to have been written by the subject. As Edison noted, the English is broken, thus it is not easy to even distinguish between claims to notability and information regarding other people. Search for sources disappoints, thus we can't write a decent article from sources. Fails WP:BIO. لenna vecia 05:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Baghdada. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzkandi Jamiah Masjid[edit]

This mosque is not notable; no sources other than names repeatedly added by the article creator. I've searched and can find only self-published sources, none that are reliable. The mosque can be mentioned in passing in the page Baghdada, the section of Mardan it is in. Fences and windows (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything sourceable to Baghdada. Notable in the context of the town, but not enough notability in my mind to justify a standalone article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep This is a bautiful mosque in the important city of Pakistan.So I think the article is notable and not to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.175.75.12 (talk) 05:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This IP user seems to be the article creator, and has removed the AfD notice several times. Fences and windows (talk) 18:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge any verifiable material to Mardan per Fences and windows, including a photograph. Unfortunately reliable sources do not appear to be available to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Roesing[edit]

Ron Roesing does not fulfill Wikipedia notability guidelines for musicians. Werideatdusk33 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unless some references are added. The responsibility of notability (and references) lies with the author not the reader.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Certainly not notable on his own, seems to be riding on inherited notability from prior work. treelo _radda 23:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Leveraged Capital[edit]

Article has a single reference (from a good source, mind you), but that source cites the company is forming another firm...and including that, the company seems not overly notable.-- Syrthiss (talk) 14:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note that if this discussion ends up with delete, should probably make sure the redirects get cleared as well)

GLC is part of the new trend of investment banking shifting to boutiques and alternative firms.

Boutique trend: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123379537765150203.html
Citadel: http://www.iddmagazine.com/news/-192797-1.html

Understand the idea about notability, but this is the parent of a multipronged finance company and represents a major trend in the industry.

Weak delete Borderline case, but there does not as yet appear to be the depth of coverage necessary to support inclusion of this article, as spelled out in WP:N and WP:CORP. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GLC Advisors & Co. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . Fails WP:CORP. ukexpat (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taimak[edit]

Only one (self) reference. Article seems to oscillate between various unreferenced statements that at best are fangush, and at worst could be libel. With respect to the subject, I'd rather see the article deleted if we can't find a reasonable source to stop this BLP merry-go-round.-- Syrthiss (talk) 18:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep He was the lead actor in the 1985 film The Last Dragon, which was a major motion picture (Tristar Pictures), grossing nearly $26 million. The article needs lots of work, but the actor was clearly notable, even if only for one role. Eauhomme (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source? In digging back in the history, there was a pretty reasonable version a while ago that did list the assumedly IMDB-verified film credits. Probably wouldn't be too hard to prune that back from the unverifiable bits, and I'd support that. If all we have is the Last Dragon bit, then the article should be pruned to that and left as a stub. Syrthiss (talk) 11:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it just needed major cleaning up. Kingturtle (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion Revert back to version: 20:41, 13 January 2009 12.232.69.10 (talk) (2,111 bytes) (→Early life). This was before fan info and revert wars appeared to take over the article, and this appears to be a reasonable place to work from. Eauhomme (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It isnt the best article on here but its subject is of relivance including some major film/tv roles. It does need clean up though. --Will Decay (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs help, but he is clearly notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://www.staump.com/reviews/32
^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[1] ttp://www.staump.com/reviews/32

[2] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.

[3] Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.

[4] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[5] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.

[6] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.

[7] Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]