Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 5

< 4 May	6 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 delete. One (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Whitburn[edit]

Not notable - "Sarah Whitburn" lawyer produces 16 google hits and none, other than this page, that appear to be about this person Smartse (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Whitburn. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with the creator to improve the page, but have no opinion on the notability Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." I cannot find evidence that this has been met. Of course WP:BIO is a guideline, but I do not believe Sarah Whitburn warrants an exception (meant as no slur); the article says she "has advised the New Zealand Government on the amendments to the Financial Reporting Act 1993", but I cannot tell if her level of advisement was great to the extent that it was notable. Plus, the article also says "She has been involved in a number of significant international transactions", but the websites cited to me don't suggest they were significant enough nor was her involvement significant enough to make her notable. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This fails WP:BIO and positively reeks of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability - no substantial coverage in independent sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability - no substantial coverage in independent sources. Only clients's contracting or law firm's employing Sarah Whitburn have pages on her to cite her work. Her page should be pulled down until more external links can be provided to evidence notability - then a publisher can produce/amend this information on her. If we kept Sarah Whitburn's page up we could create a precedent for having a few hundred associate level New Zealand's solicitors all on Wikipedia. Lambert611 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N for starters. Advising the government is interesting but not that interesting. We don't (and shouldn't) have an article for every lawyer who has been involved in advising a national government. If she had an official role with the govt, and had a major, verifiable role in a piece of legislation or a case of real significance, I would consider changing my opinion. And, by significance I mean something on the scale of the Human Rights Act 1998 or Police and Criminal Evidence Act 198412:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Whitburn[edit]

Not notable Smartse (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Whitburn. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I worked with the creator to improve the page, but have no opinion on the notability Stuartyeates (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ This is a different case to Sarah, in my opinion. He has been the subject of what I believe to be (from WP:BIO) "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject": [1]. However, whether the depth of coverage is substantial, something WP:BIO looks for, I will defer to the consensus of other editors. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete After further consideration I do not believe one article is substantial coverage. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 16:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My, my...someone's bigging up the Whitburn siblings in clear violation of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No substantial coverage in independent sources, therefore fails notability. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This person is notable in New Zealand, and very highly notable in the property investment community over here. NOTE 10 MAY 2009 EDITS. Whitburn is speaking to our property investors' association in Wellington later this year. I am appalled at the site page creator and some editors not googling David Whitburn in which case it is glaringly obvious that he is a prominent and notable person, more than worthy of his page staying on Wikipedia. I understand that the users above seem to be not in New Zealand, or the right communities - however there is a paucity of New Zealanders on Wikipedia, and many people with far far fewer external references have had their pages up for a long time. After doing some googling as I watched a movie I noticed the first dozen or so entries being on David Whitburn, with a plethora of references, comments and articles in New Zealand's leading papers, online forum and a number of external blog sites being used. He is sought for comments and has appeared on New Zealand radio stations, papers, magazines - I have heard and read them. Whilst I don't expect editors to know this, I am somewhat disappointed that the editors above did not seem to do this basic research. We as Wikipedia editors should strive and actually try to keep good New Zealanders pages up, rather than deleting them. Wikipedia doesn't have the traction in New Zealand, that it has in other countries. Suggesting or voting to take down sites rather than doing the simplest research, or letting New Zealanders police their own people, would be a nice start rather than simply commenting negatively from abroad. I have as a result built the site up today to include several more external references including: The New Zealand Herald (New Zealand's largest newspaper) - www.nzherald.co.nz/property/news/article.cfm?c_id=8&objectid=10536971&pnum=2, The Sunday Star-Times (probably New Zealand's largest Sunday newspaper) - www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/560369, The New Zealand Property Investor Magazine (New Zealand's leading property investment magazine) via their Publisher's Tarawera Publishing Limited's website - www.landlords.co.nz/read-article.php?article_id=3409. Other New Zealand property investors will attest to hearing David Whitburn present to them around the country, but particularly in our nation's largest city Auckland. Something I will try to build on in the future is Whitburn's passion for cutting the red tape and reducing the costs to home-owners, developers and builders in terms of council and ancillary professional fees. Whitburn has made submissions to various councils, government departments on this, and spoken to various media (particularly radio) and property investors associations for his crusade against bureaucracy. This cause has further increased Whitburn's notability. I am not the best person to add this content to David Whitburn's page - however I think i could make a start on it even though it is not an online campaign. Energyhelen (talk) 10:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not convinced personally. He's developed 150 houses (not that many). He has given some commentary on the property market to newspapers - note that these have been passing remarks rather than articles on David Whitburn. He blogs. Even with these new sources I still view this article as borderline spam and still do not feel that proper notability has been asserted. Oh and this "Whitburn is speaking to our property investors' association in Wellington later this year" seems to demonstrate a conflict of interest I'm afraid. Smartse (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Comment Above Whitburn has spoken to a number of property investor associations around New Zealand. By being one of over 400 members of Capital Property Investors' Association (note not an owner - just a member of an Incorporated Soceity not entitled to receive any monies from it, I just pay an annual subscription fee) and also a property investor). Therefore I think your attempt to point out a conflict of interest is totally unfounded and unnecessary Smartse. A sought after person on New Zealand radio stations and popular property presenter over here deserves to be on Wikipedia. Sure his page could be built a lot more - and I am sure it will be. Lets try to grow Wikipedia in New Zealand, rather than remove its already exceedingly small base. Energyhelen (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (a) I don't believe that in any of the sources the subject is independent as required. (b) I have serious doubts about an undeclared COI when faced with an emotionally charged rant from a user with less than 4 days experience. (c) I don't believe there's any evidence that there's a shortage of New Zealanders on Wikipedia (I'm a kiwi, as is clear from my userpage).Stuartyeates (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete after rereading the page and examining the edit histories of some of the editors involved, I fail to find either (a) an experienced editor who seems to think it's a good idea or (b) a single independent article which is about Whitburn. There are clearly editors who seem to believe that this page is a good idea. Let them develop the page as a User subpage to show they can prove notability. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is Wikipedia not the Yellow Pages.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 20:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A google search throws up plenty of hits but not a single one that is either reliable or from a third party- as interesting as I'm sure his facebook profile is! HJMitchell You rang? 12:23, 12 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 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chennaiyil Oru Mazhaikalam[edit]

Apparently fails future films notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Reference claiming that filming had already begun in July 2007 is demonstrably false (it refers to a promotional stills shoot, not actual motion picture filming), and sources as late as March 2008 still refer to this as "to be shooting shortly". No evidence within the past year that this has progressed any further than pre-production. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or move to name space. Clearcut. Drawn Some (talk) 03:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep per [2] and [3]. And as per everything from here: [4]. Universal Hero (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BJ^Talk 00:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The two sources linked by Universal Hero are of little use as they only mention the film in passing, but the google news search is more helpful. According to this article, the film "went to floors" (whatever that means) although shooting was put on hold; this article states that filming resumed, while Trisha Krishnan is asked about acting in the film in this interview. It's not much, and those sources are themselves about a year old, but I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt. PC78 (talk) 15:52, 6 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 03:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Heimbuch[edit]

Not notable. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE.

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Drawn Some (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - [5], and [6] are the same story in two different local presses, and he gets mentioned here. That's not enough to establish ntoability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:CREATIVE. ttonyb1 (talk) 15:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and further source, specially as WP:CREATIVE was not written to address a new director... and seems to encourage waiting until their works themselves become historically notable. HOWEVER, since his works ARE becoming notable (The Ties That Bind (2009), Leeds Point (film), Elevator (2006)) and winning awrads and gaining recognition, as writer and director, that notability is his. It must also be rememberd that CREATIVE is only a sub-section or WP:PEOPLE and its basic criteria, whch he is just now passing. If a person meets these basic criteria, there is no need to follow in through the subsidiary criteria in order to find some way to exclude them... specially as he does not pass the "secondary considerations" of WP:POLITICIAN, WP:DIPLOMAT, WP:ATHLETE, or WP:ENTERTAINER either. In these cases, guideline advises looking at WP:N and WP:GNG, where a newcomer with growing notability is allowed consideration. Having (growing) articles on young writer/directors whose works are growing in recognition, improves wiki. Wiki allows that he is the sum of his parts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The "newness" of the director is not addressed by WP:CREATIVE because the "newness" is not relevant. If his work is recognized as stated in the guidelines, then he is notable regardless of his newness. If it is not, then he needs to reach that level before being considered WP:NOTABLE. You are suggesting to move the notability goalposts to include up-and-coming, which to my knowledge, has always been considered just short of meeting notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please try to focus on whether or not there are sufficient in-depth resources available to establish notability and create a verifiable article. This is an unreferenced BLP. Drawn Some (talk) 03:10, 12 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) 21:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the band played on (Titanic)[edit]

While I agree that the Titanic's orchestra is significant, in my opinion, verifiable information about it should be included in the existing article on the Titanic rather than in a separate article. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PRODded; contested without comment. This is original research and references, such as they were, were removed by author. HeureusementIci (talk) 23:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is already adequately covered here. Edward321 (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contributions from new editors are always appreciated, and it takes awhile to learn many of the rules of Wikipedia. The author shows a talent for writing, so much so that I did a google search to see whether this had been copied from elsewhere-- so far as I can tell, it hadn't (the phrase "Romantic as it seems, it seems" sounds homemade). The main problem here, greater than the essay-like tone, is that there is no sourcing at all, no citation to where a fact has been drawn; needless to say, there are probably more online sources about Titanic than most subjects covered here. As Edward notes, the topic is covered-- and covered better-- by an existing article. Keep contributing, but always make sure to tell us where you got your information. Granted, nearly every Titanic afficionado already knows the "Nearer My God to Thee" story, but it still has to be cited. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Titanic#Titanic.27s_band or delete as per Edward321. Too much of an essay, nothing new to add. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there's nothing new to add, then what do you suggest we merge? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. That is an awesome essay. It's beautifully written and pushes all the right buttons. Sadly, it's just not a wikipedia article- I doesn't seem to tell us anything we don't know already, it doesn't link anywhere and it cites not a single source. If WP were an essay writing contest, we'd have an FA on our hands. Sadly, it's not, and so it just can't stay here. HJMitchell You rang? 12:00, 12 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 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bend Elks[edit]

Prod was removed. Reasons: Local junior-league team not meeting guidelines for notability of organizations. Best claim to fame appears to be a player went on to become notable, which does not confer notability. see reply for argument against deletion. tedder (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 23:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CLUB. Not enough notability for its own article yet. However, this kind of subject has a tendency to become notable quickly. I have to ask how many professional players coming out of teams like this would it take to make it notable enough for at least a stub? Zab (talk) 02:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability for organizations is established if "A ... team ... has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." I would note that this team has 158 Google news hits from 2008 alone[7] from newspapers that are independent of the team. It should be noted that Google News would only hit on articles that are still online from last summer. Many news articles go offline after a short period of time, so the actual number of articles was probably much larger. Some articles are rather more substantial than just reporting the score of the game such as this one [8]. How is this particular team any less notable than any of the other teams in the category (Category:Amateur baseball teams) or any of the many collegiate summer league teams located in the category's subcategories? Are you planning on putting all of these up for deletion in the near future? If not, it seems as though you are being biased against this one team in relation to the dozens of other teams that are similarly situated. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Bend Bulletin is a very local source. See the Wikipedia:Notability (local interests) proposal. It seems it would be very suitable merged into the league team. As far as "why A not B?", see WP:WAX and WP:OSE. Otherwise, it seems it would fall under WP:CLUB, which says it must meet both the standards of coverage and scope being "national or international in scale", especially the section discussing individual chapters not being notable in themselves. tedder (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that the concept of "notability" has a bit of subjectivity to it. As User:Kinston_eagle noted, this organization has received a good deal of media coverage about their games which is, I think, enough to warrant an entry. Also, such a move would set a bad precedent of deleting entries against scores of other amateur baseball teams. I don't think that this would be a good move either. (Jeick (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Per WP:CLUB, the first sentence deletes itself.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:58, 11 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 as a hoax under CSD G3. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man Speed Record[edit]

I think this is a hoax, because:

No Google hits for "Man Speed Record" or "Individual Foot Speed Record"
The article has a generally ridiculous tone - e.g. the first sentence is "The fastest speed achieved by a single individual running on land, as opposed to one on water or in the air."
I cannot find any reference to the book "Rocket Runners: An Insane History of Powered Sprinting" or the publisher, Barneystone, or the ISBN 05894143215
The picture of Clarence Welling is the same as the one here of Wally Schirra -- Jll (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it rises to the level of a hoax, because the first sentence alone is so absurd, but it is WP:MADEUP. Very well done though, quite humorous. Drawn Some (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Fails the common sense test, blatant hoaxery. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 22:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Made up but as the user above me said, it is quite the funny one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomad2u2001 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 The Clarence Welling/Wally Schirra pretty much seals it for me. Acebulf (talk) 23:36, 5 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 (NAC) --Unionhawk ^Talk 14:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypticism[edit]

On grounds of being a neologism and artificial synthesis.

I think it should be turned into a redirect to End time. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search returns over 133,000 hits many of which are books on the subject. Is the nominator sure that he spelled the search term correctly? http://www.google.com/search?q=apocalypticism Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. As it stands (and, as near as I can tell, as it always has), this article consists of original research with a dollop of point of view. (I mean, "Still there are no guarantees that unknown forces won't intervene at some point, or that unknown natural cycles won't reassert themselves"? Really!) And now there's a humongous "See also" section that includes fiction and films and everything anyone could think of, all of which is presented in other places, such as Apocalyptic fiction, List of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic fiction, and so forth. And all this from an article that started out as a simple redirect to Apocalypse! I'm waffling on the proper redirect target for this: at the moment End time seems the best match for the content of the article, because it includes links that will lead readers most anywhere this does. The main problem is that there's too much unnecessary overlap between Apocalypse, End time, and several other articles, and this is the odd one out, since it includes nothing that isn't present, in better (and sourced) form, elsewhere and is vitiated by the pervasive OR and POV problems referred to above. With no content worth merging, redirection seems the best option. Deor (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be merged into Millenarianism? 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep In fact I say WP:SNOW. This is clearly not a neologism, but a very widely known and used term. No we should not redirect to "end times." Furthermore this is the anchor article for the category of the same name. See Bart Urhman's excellent book Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet as well as Kossy's interesting book Kooks. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject is clearly notable whatever the quality of the current content. John Carter (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly Notable. End Time is what apocalypticism expects to happen, it is not the sum of apocalypticism. So too, Millenarianism is a sort of apocalypticism, not the thing in its entiretly. Now, I won't say that there shouldn't be a merge in some of the related articles mentioned above - I'm sure that's the case. But, instead of an AfD for a notable term, how about some concrete merge proposals. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:40, 10 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) Tim meh ! 00:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irenaean theodicy[edit]

On grounds of being a neologism and Wikipuffery. Basically it seems to be about the theodicy of John Hicks, based on the theodicic views of Irenaeus.

Its a bit like having an article about Disraeliism, covering the political views of Michael Nazir-Ali, and these being based on a few views set forth in a comment made by Benjamin Disraeli; his political opinions are notable, but connecting them to Disraeli to such an extent is just vanity, and an inaccurate implied portrayal of Disraeli. Beeton Pineapple covering 'my views about the best way to cook pineapple chunks, based on Mrs Beeton's recipe for upside down cake', would be similarly inappropriate.

You might as well have articles about Bristolean Coca-Cola pricing, which discuss prices of Pepsi in Manchester; its not a notably distinct 'thing', and the title is quite misleading.Anthony on Stilts (talk) 21:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does not appear to be a neologism but of the two references given for the article the second one which perhaps might be reliable is dead. If the subject matter is POV or not about the title and cannot be corrected or referenced then I would lean towards deletion. However this is not my area of expertise and I will wait until others have weighed in. Drawn Some (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator does not represent accurately what this theodicy is (and the poor writing of the article doesn't help)--it is not 'like' those things mentioned by nom. at all. And it is certainly not puffery (doesn't even read like it), and it is far from a neologism--it is a pretty generally accepted term. It is named by Hick 'for' Irenaeus, and it is explained in some measure here. And here. And here. And here. And here. Do I have to go on? Apparently--what neither nom. nor article told us--this is one of the most significant theological developments of recent times, and it is (as shown above) well covered in highly reliable sources. Nominator, what a quick search through Google Books can't do... Drmies (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The theory of Gröbner bases was developed by Bruno Buchberger, who named them after his advisor Wolfgang Gröbner. This is a notable concept, worthy of an article by itself, and as such should of course be treated under the name by which it is commonly known, which happens to be Gröbner basis. Same here. The concept is notable and generally referred to by the name "Irenaean theodicy". The fact that it was explicitly formulated and named by someone else than Saint Irenaeus is not an argument for deletion. --Lambiam 00:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to the John Hick article, section "problem of evil", he said ...[such and such].. this type of theodicy is also known as greater good defence [emphasis added]. So that would seem to suggest that his thing would be under greater good defence, not Irenaean Theodicy (which the John Hick article doesn't even mention). Anthony on Stilts (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Anthony, the leaps you make on those stilts, I can't follow. Just accept it: Irenaean Theodicy is a well-accepted term, coined in its present meaning by John Hick, and accepted, references, discussed, and mentioned in very reliable sources. What the Hick article says is really not so relevant in comparison to the half dozen or so books I referenced, which clearly and unequivocably establish the notability of the term. Wikipedia articles: great, but not acceptable as WP:RS; books: sometimes heavy, and perfectly acceptable. I urge you to take a minute or two and look through the book references I gave above, and then perhaps you'll draw what I think is the appropriate conclusion: the withdrawal of this nomination. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the idea of theodicy is certainly notable - sermons are given on the topic every Sunday. The questions is whether this would be better merged into another place, as it might not be enough to stand on its own. Bearian (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Irenaean theodicy is not a neologism. Is notable. Nominator has pretty much mischaracterized the article. (Article needs help though).Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term and meaning of "Irenaean theodicy" is quite a famous, common and well-received term used so frequently that it should be retained. It is by no means a "neologism" but an "old convention" to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.160.150 (talk) 02:46, 9 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 to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of artists who have covered The Beatles[edit]

Ridiculously long list (and far from complete: I can think of at least three missing covers just within my own album collection), poorly sourced, trivial. As influential as the Beatles have been, just about everyone is bound to cover them at some point. Almost none of these covers is particularly notable, either, and the article has been unsourced since May 2007. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You complain that the list is too long, and then complain its missing a few entries. Neither of these are reasons for deletion. Dream Focus 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the Hammer here--this list is pretty trivial, and while it is in principle not impossible to maintain or clean up, I don't see the point of it. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~
Comment Actually I'm not sure. Still per Tina Turner. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you still thinking about her legs? Drmies (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr., this article has a lot of blue links. The title isn't going to help it's cause at AfD. But if the cover songs of the Beatles by these groups are notable, why wouldn't a list of article for for those songs be notable and worthwhile? WWTD? Should it be renamed List of notable covers of Beattle songs? List of Beattle covers?ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:TenPoundHammer. If you think about it, "Yesterday" and "Something" are the most covered songs in history ("Yesterday" has been covered about 4000 times). Would we include all of those? freshacconci talktalk 02:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct was to delete. But looking at the article and the blue links, it seems to include a lot of notable covers. So it seems actually pretty reasonable and just in need of a rename? Oh wait my mistake. The blue links are just to the Beattles songs themselves? I thought they were to the covers. I agree with Delete now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The only reason why the links are blue is because they link to the article about the song. (I may be wrong, but cover versions aren't granted their own page.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And_I_Love_Her The songs linked to, list who covered them. If any don't, then a cover section should be added to them. Those songs meet the notability requirements for songs. Dream Focus 02:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But compare a list on any of these songs to, for example, Run, Hero and Hallelujah. All three of these songs have notable cover versions (all topped the British singles chart last autumn/winter), yet none of them have their own articles. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean. If you think they should have their own article, just create one. Check out WP:MUSIC for that. Dream Focus 10:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete' -Comne on, it should be more of a "who hasn't covered the Beatles". Absurd article. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, yeah, yeah. :) I don't believe it is possible to ever have a complete list (let's not forget the non-English cover versions of the Fab Four's songs). Pastor Theo (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:PERNOM Sceptre ^(talk) 11:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could pretty much be a copy of a list of musical artists. WP:LC items 3 and 6. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to retool this as "List of covers of the Beatles", focusing on independently notable Beatles covers? I don't know how many there are, since music isn't quite my forte. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that's what I thought the article was when I saw the blue links. But just linking to the original songs seems awfully worthless. Have other bands recorded notable versions of Beatles tunes? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- No objections to that. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some good references seem to have been added to the article. It seems to me that the topic is highly notable. The nomination is based on the fact that some of them are missing, which is easy enough to fix by editing. The more they have been covered, the more important that is and the more reason for an article. DGG (talk) 09:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added and request more. A list of notable songs of a notable group sung by notable artists... Gee, isn't wiki all about notability? And then one needs consider the historical impact these folks have had over the past few decades. Its a no-brainer keep per precedent set for such. And if you noticed an omission... then by all means add it and source it. Sheesh. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 10:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability established, well referenced. Ikip (talk) 19:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Talk:The Beatles and Talk:Cover version page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Comment My problem with the article is still that it's just a list of bands with sublists of Beatles songs wikilinked to the Beatles song. I don't see how that's useful. If we want an article about the influence of the beatles music and all the people who have covered them fine. If we want an article about notable versions of Beatles songs fine. But I don't get what purpose this article serves. Bands play the songs of other bands all the time. Unless it's a notable and itneresting version that would warrant an article on the COVER, I don't see why it's helpful to include it in a list. If a song has been covered why not just add it to the article on the song, and I'm sure we already have a list of Beatles songs somewhere right? So this seems redundant. What am I missing? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you believe it to be useful, its not relevant. Some will want to see a list of all their songs covered, perhaps hearing one on the radio and wishing to find out who it is singing it, or just out of curiosity. Dream Focus 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a perfectly legitimate article. Dream Focus 02:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. On first blush this seems to be a list that suffers typical deficiencies of lists. It needs a bit better lede, many have no clue who the Beatles were or their cultural impact; this seems relevant. This likely should be a sublist of a larger more universal list on notable bands and notable cover versions in all languages with the lede spelling that out. It would also seem to serve our readers best by reformatting to be a sortable list s one could find all the lists of _____ song. The only issue, IMHO, is if it is maintainable and if the list is tightened to apply to only notable instances then that would seem to ease those concerns. These all seem to be regular editing issues. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This could basically encompass 95% of all musical artists. Per Stifle, fails WP:LC. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:48, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LC is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Anyone at all can make an essay saying anything. Would you consider the article valid if it was for some other group, which had only a dozen bands covering it? Is the size the only reason you wish to delete it? Dream Focus 09:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's "only" an argument, just as pretty much all guidelines and most policies are "only" an argument. The argument is that this list is a list of things with two attributes, rather than an illustration of a topic. As for some other group, that would be some other article. A list of Metallica songs covered is probably not a topic, since there are many and few of them matter; a list of Bob Dylan songs made famous by other singers probably is for obvious reasons. Ultimately, it comes down to whether there's a topic here.

Ultimately, I don't think it much matters if this article is deleted or not; the potential for an encyclopedia article here exists, but that article needs little or none of this content and probably wouldn't even use this title. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see User:Benjiboi's and User:A Man In Black's points-of-view here. I too have a problem with lists, mainly because there's usually so little context to give the reader any indication of why this topic is important enough for an article. As I said earlier, with the 4000+ covers of "Yesterday" this list has the potential to become insane. I'd be perfectly willing to change my delete to keep but there's a great deal of work that needs to be done to make this list useful. Right now, all I can see is a "so what" factor. Who cares that any given artist here covered a Beatles song? They are the biggest selling band of all time and one of the most (the most?) influential as well. It would be odd if there weren't so many covers. What is needed is some indication of why these are important covers. If some band once played a Beatles song in concert, that's not notable. The Rolling Stone's recording "I Wanna Be Your Man" early in their career is notable. Every Beatles song now has its own article. Most of the significant covers are discussed in those individual articles. So in this case, citations would not be needed here. Click on Joe Cocker's "With a Little Help From My Friends" and you'll get the info on why that's an important cover. Likewise, the Stone's "I Wanna Be Your Man", Sinatra's "Something" and so on. If this article is kept, then the work that needs to be done is to whittle this down to the important songs with info about that particular cover in the individual song article. The rest should be removed simply because it's is just not important that Band A covered "Yesterday" live once and Band B recorded "Yesterday" on a long-out-of-print 60s album. If this list is to be useful (and that's what we're trying to do here, present useful information, aren't we?), then we need to do the work to make it useful and not just a list of songs without any context. Personally, I'd prefer to see an actual article in text format discussing the key covers. Scrolling through the list, I found it to be mildly fascinating, but in many cases, all I could say was "so what". That Oasis covers many Beatle songs live is important because of their obsession with The Beatles and the Oasis article covers that in detail. But some of the other examples are really just trivial. freshacconci talktalk 11:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of martial artists who have covered The Beatles. Failing that, I suggest a reluctant keep, with the admonition that the list be truncated to include only those performers whose covers have been good/notable enough to garner significant third-party coverage -- if, say, a good cover by a then-obscure performer the launched their career. I don't know the Beatles of these artists well enough to know whether such performers/performances exist; happy to leave it to the tuneheads to figure it out. --EEMIV (talk) 13:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no-brainer for notability, and definable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 12 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. However it is okay to keep the version already now located in userspace. Cirt (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of outstanding South Park episodes[edit]

An assortment of trivia and irrelevant opinions. Article title fails WP:NPOV, no indication as to why we should propagate these reviewers' particular viewpoints. Punkmorten (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The viewers' choice could possibly be notable if it were not originating from the website of the network that airs the program, but in this case there are no outside sources to verify the information given by Comedy Central, which means this list contains only information from the original source. Mrathel (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, entirely WP:OR. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 01:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons patently self-evident. JuJube (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research, trivial listcruft. RobJ1981 (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite into the 25 most watched (by initial airing ratings), and the episodes which have won awards. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourced. A good way of doimg it. Avoids OR, includes a variety of criteria. DGG (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant POV. Random people on the internet are not reliable critics, Comedy Central's own opinion is not independent and IGN is given undue weight. If the box set has gotten significant press attention, we can rename the article and focus on that. Any notable opinions belong in the reception section of the relevant episodes. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into the LOE it was split out of Sceptre ^(talk) 11:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure and unadulterated WP:OR and listcruft ukexpat (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this information was salvaged from the LOE article. It was deleted from there because during the FLRC it was viewed as not really being part of the article. Nevertheless, I think this information deserves to be on wikipedia because if for nothing else, is a good place to list what reviewers saw as really noticible episodes. Why is this a listcruft? Nergaal (talk) 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Ran across this at DYK. I see this as arbitrary criteria for a list, "best" or "outstanding" can never be more than opinion, a list of outstanding episodes that have some kind of objective criteria to determine their quality would be much more useful (such as award winning episodes or whatnot). Lists like this are inherently in violation of NPOV and with no particular reason given why these reviewers have been given undue weight I must say delete.--IvoShandor (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge POV to seg out like this. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all of the reasons above. I don't see how a subjective list is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia anyway.--Susan118 (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question wouldn't articles like this one be sufficient to have a separate article like the present one on wikipedia? Nergaal (talk) 04:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
reply If several non-trivial source were to list the SAME episodes in a top ten list, then maybe you could have an article titled "Most Contraversial South Park Episodes", but just because some are listed in other sources by no means means that this list, which is a compilation of episodes made from completely different criteria, is notable. I have no doubt that an article titled "Contraversial South Park Episodes" would have enough sources to make it notable, but not a list of episodes made from random viewers' votings on the Comedy Central website. Mrathel (talk) 13:35, 11 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 I Love Money. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Pitts[edit]

This is a WP:BLP about a reality television contestant who is notable for appearing on two reality television shows: Flavor of Love and I Love Money. I would say this still generally qualifies as WP:ONEEVENT (although weakly) as all contestants on I Love Money have appeared before on a reality show. Note that the article was prodded by an IP user, and checking that users history, it appears he/she attempted to post it for AFD. My personal opinion would be either delete/merge or redirect/merge with Flavor of Love as there is already a Noteworthy Characters section on that page. Plastikspork (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that because one event led to the other oneevent applies. That would mean that being elected into Presidential office would meet ONEEVENT and that the other events don't count since they were all because they got elected in the first place. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, however in the example you cited (presidential office) that ONEEVENT is sufficiently notable. Plastikspork (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to I Love Money. While the sources are questionable, the sources related directly the show creators are are reliable when it comes to determining who won. Winning the show is enough to make her name a plausible redirect until better sources for a biographical entry surface. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge or delete as per above Bossk-Office (talk) 23:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per Category:Reality show winners, it seems that keeping all winners of competitive reality shows is fair. IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 22:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete until press is generated to make her more notable. For example if she does something notable beyond appearing on a couple reality television shows. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:04, 13 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) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Soumpouros[edit]

Non-notable person, only known for one event. Prod was removed by anonymous IP with only that single edit. References provided do not indicate any notability. Google gives only one hit for "Michael Soumpouros": this very article. Crusio (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly the sort of thing ONEEVENT was written for. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into whatever page talks about Greece's involvement in Somalia. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far as I can see, there isn't any... --Crusio (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Delete then. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mac. Plutonium27 (talk) 15:56, 11 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 keep because the nomination was apparently on behalf of a user who says he did not want the article deleted. WP:SK ground 1 therefore applies. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theodicy[edit]

I'm listing this here on behalf of User:Ht686rg90 to settle a dispute. I don't know what Ht's exact motivation for wanting to delete the article are, and he gives none - [9], [10], [11].

(As 'people' might 'happen' to edit the article or other related article nearly or entirely out of existence), this AFD was created when this was the version of the Theodicy article and this was the version of the Problem of Evil article

Keep. Theodicy is the justification of God(s), including justification of philandering by deities, and justification of the motivation of deities behind legal codes. The Problem of Evil, on the other hand is just about the existence of evil, and isn't restricted to theistic situations; the secular problem of evil^[1]^[2]^[3], for example, and the evolution of evil^[4]^[5], being other aspects of it. Clearly the two topics (Theodicy vs. The Problem of Evil) overlap, but neither overlaps the other completely, and they are not the same. Anthony on Stilts (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have never argued for the deletion of the article so I suggest that this strange AfD should be closed.Ht686rg90 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emphatic speedy keep under WP:SK ground 2: The nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it.
I submit that it could not possibly be appropriate to make "Theodicy" a redlink.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep--why are perfectly valid articles nominated by editors on the idiotic hunch of someone else? There is no way in heaven or hell that an eyncyclopedia like ours could not have this article. Vandal warning for the instigator, and trout slap for the executor (this is NOT the place to have editing disputes--if user keeps redirecting, get them blocked or banned or dunked in cold water). Drmies (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep over 0.5 million Google hits and I see at least three that are reliable. What's up theology guys? Drawn Some (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References:

^ Nicholas J. Rengger, Moral Evil and International Relations, in SAIS Review 25:1, Winter/Spring 2005, pages 3-16
^ Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63
^ John Kekes, Facing Evil, 1993
^ Timothy Anders, The Evolution of Evil (2000)
^ Duntley, J.D., & Buss, D.M., The evolution of evil, in The social psychology of good and evil (2004). New York: Guilford. 102-123. Full text

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dell On Call[edit]

I was going to prod this, but it looks like it might be controversial, so I am taking it here to get a through consensus as to whether this should be deleted. It does not seem notable to me, and is almost G11, but not quite, and has been tagged for cleanup and copyediting since October '07. My personal stance is weak delete. Oldlaptop321 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not require a whole article on Wikipedia, a mention on the Dell article would have been sufficient if needed at all. Holkingers (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there was a small amount of coverage in 2005 when it was launched, and then only mentioned since. Notability not established. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 6 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) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mosh Girl[edit]

At its core this is just a non-notable person, and borderline violation of our policy on attack pages. The only reliable source - a purported article from News.com which is sourced from a third party - mentions this among several internet phenomena which had been noted around 2005. I don't find many contemporary RS's. This is a fad which already died out and probably doesn't need to have an article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selective paste merger to List of Internet phenomena if at least deemed mildly notable and the WP:NPA issue is addressed. SoSaysChappy (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Searches using Google and Google News for "Mosh Girl" (without quotes) do not turn up any WP:reliable sources. While the fad is covered in the News.com article it cites, WP:N requires multiple sources, which this does not seem to have. (Note that if other reliable sources can be found, I will change my !vote to merge, or possibly keep).--Unscented (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've added more links to that article and it was interesting reading for me (I know almost nothing about the Internet phenomena), but this isn't worthy of own Wikipedia article. I agree with nominator. --Vejvančický (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm kinda sure we've already deleted this before. Obvious BLP vio. JuJube (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Found the previous debates at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshzilla and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshzilla (2nd nomination). JuJube (talk) 03:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth the effort to figure out a blp compliant version.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of NBA on ESPN announcers[edit]

A person who has a chronic habit of unneccessarily splitting pages without discussion split this page from NBA on ESPN. I merged them and left a note on the talk but was reverted without comment. Since that article is only 20kb and this is only a list of 4kb, there is absolutely no reason why they should be split. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Incorrect title: Announcers and analysts are two different things, so a redirect is unsuitable per CSD#R3. Per WP:SPLIT there is no pressing need for a split either. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, no reason to split.—Chris! _ct 19:20, 6 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.

{{subst:afd2|pg=History of the Major League Baseball Game of the Week|cat=G|text=Page is an exact copy of [[Major League Baseball Game of the Week#History]. It has the exact same images and text verbatim as the main article. I redirected the page there and left a note on the talk page, but a person who has a chronic habit of improperly splitting articles without discussion undid that and did not discuss. That main article is 41kb long total, well within the limits of WP:SIZE, and the two articles would be only 9kb vs. 32kb. There is absolutely no reason why the pages must be split. I suggest redirecting and salting.}} Reywas92 ^Talk 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to New England. Cirt (talk) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of New England[edit]

Page is an exact copy of New England#Population. It has the exact same images and text verbatim as the main article. I redirected the page there, but a person who has a chronic habit of improperly splitting articles without discussion undid that. Not a single page links here and the full text exists elsewhere, so it should be deleted/redirected and salted. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It seems to be an integral part of the mother article which is not so large as to need to have sections spun out and I see no reason for doing so. Drawn Some (talk)
Delete per nom. I do not believe this would be a particularly popular search term so redirect not required. Quantpole (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is our common and usual naming convention for articles such as this. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Special:PrefixIndex/Demographics of shows that this should not be salted if deleted. This is the common form for summary style demography spin-out sub-articles, and such an article for New England in the future should not be prohibited simply because we might decide today that we have not yet reached the point at which an article should be spun out. Uncle G (talk) 23:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right; a salt is not required. I was a little afraid this person could continue to redo the split without consensus. But so far, there's no need to spin it out at all, and I think a different section would be first.Reywas92 ^Talk 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Do not salt as per Uncle G. Edward321 (talk) 04:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as plausible search term. Protect if the creator continues to undo the redirect without discussion. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'd use that search term. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 6 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 03:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Hunau[edit]

I am concerned that this article fails to meet the notability criteria for people outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (people). It is summarised that "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". This article doesn't seem to demonstrate that this is the case nor do attempts to find more sources using Google turn up much.

I raised this concern on the talk page over a week ago now and whilst the discussion seemed to have quickly become distracted from the concerns I expressed, it doesn't seem any progress was made to address them. There is currently only one source cited that is independent of the subject of the article and that only makes passing reference to this individual. I therefore suggest that this article should be deleted because it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Adambro (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. One reference is trivial and the other is a first-person mini-autobiography. There must be independent reliable references to establish notability and to verify an article. Also the tone is inappropriate in parts so if it is kept that needs to be addressed. Drawn Some (talk)
Keep There are quite a few stubs in the category Comics creator stubs that have the same issues. Let's for example take the one that is just above Barry Hunau in the category Chon Day Talk:Chon Day and the one that is just below Barry Hunau in the category Merrill De Maris Talk:Merrill De Maris, and just one more random sample Mick Hall Talk:Mick Hall. As long as all these stubs stay and only Barry Hunau stub is deleted, I am afraid I cannot help, but feeling that there were double standards applied there.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That the other articles should be deleted is reason to bring them up for AfD, not to keep this one. Drawn Some (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably few hundreds, maybe few thousands biography stubs that should have been deleted for the same issue (if of course there is an issue), but were not. IMO the fact that this particular stub was nominated to be deleted makes it notable enough to be kept. Once again I repeat that, if only this stub, and I underline a stub not an article, will get deleted while all other will stay I will consider it to be double standards.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt you are correct about there being thousands of other articles that should be deleted as non-notable and non-verifiable, dozens are listed here each day. Please try not to see it as double standards, though, it's more of a failure to enforce the guidelines, certainly the plurality of the editors here on this noticeboard are not acting in malice or to promote a double standard but to see that standards are adhered to when issues are brought here for attention. Drawn Some (talk) 20:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, Drawn Some. I am afraid you are not aware of the very long (4 months) history that lead to this deletion request to be submited. I am sure User:Adambro knows what I am talking about. That's why no matter what is said here, I wish I could, but I am afraid I cannot change my mind about the double standards. And it was my last commment here. Thank you, everybody.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no double standards here. You could pick any of the thousands of other articles with similar problems, nominate it for deletion and I'd happily support it having assessed it against the guidelines and agreeing that it fails to meet them. Just don't expect me to go through every other article before allowing me to bring up concerns with this one. Unless I was to oppose the deletion of an article with similar problems, I'd suggest you cannot really suggest I am exhibiting double standards. The other stuff exists argument doesn't hold up since otherwise we'd never enforce our policies and guidelines because there is pretty much always another article with similar issues such is the nature of a project of this size.

I am certainly aware of the long history to which Mbz1 refers but it is difficult to see how that in anyway discredits my suggestions that this article fails to meet the notability criteria. For anyone fortunate enough not to be familiar with the situation on Commons I shall briefly explain it. Mbz1 has been very vocal in his opposition to the project hosting images by Carlos Latuff and has on a number of occasions been involved with attempts to have them deleted. I can't recall exactly how I was foolish enough to become involved with this but I suspect I expressed my belief that the images do fall within the project scope because of their potential educational value to the number of projects which have content relating to Carlos Latuff. Since then I've felt a responsibility to do what I can to protect the project from what has become a very disruptive campaign against Latuff following the community's decision not to delete the images. Unfortunately Mbz1 seems to consider that anyone who opposes the deletion of the images is a fan of Latuff but that is a very mistaken view.

Recently Mbz1 seems to have managed to negotiate the release of a number of images by Barry Hunau under a free licence accepted on Commons. These images seem to be more favourable towards Israel and so could be said to provide a balance with the images by Latuff. Around the same time this article was created. I do wonder if to some extent this was an attempt to justify the images by Hunau being uploaded to Commons. However, whereas Latuff seems to meet the Wikipedia notability criteria, this doesn't seem to be the case with Hunau so this article should be deleted. Whether the Hunau images fall within the project scope is of course a discussion for the Commons community but I would encourage the admin who closes this deletion request to be concious of the risk that some users might choose to oppose this deletion but be motivated by a desire to keep these images on Commons rather than a desire for this article to meet the appropriate Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I will be very reluctant to comment further here with any extent because the evidence clearly shows that Mbz1 is looking to distract this discussion with suggestions of double standards rather than properly address the concerns raised. Just as he has done when I raised it on the article's talk page and just as he has done on Commons on numerous occasions. Adambro (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage about this cartoonist to establish notability. The references provided in the article consist of a passing mention and a directory listing. That's far from sufficient to show notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His work is found in multiple newspapers, and he has won notable awards for it. Dream Focus 01:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any information about any awards this cartoonist has won. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what notable awards you are referring to. Adambro (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be sentence number three and four on that page. "Best Editorial Cartoons of The Year" and "The Best Editorial Cartoons of Campaign 2008". Dream Focus 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had noticed. I just wondered how either could be considered to be an award, never mind a notable award. Inclusion in a book of, according to the Amazon page for the 2008 version, over 400 cartoons published by a company whose Wikipedia article doesn't seem to suggest is particularly notable cannot be described as having "won notable awards" in my view. I cannot find anything about "The Best Editorial Cartoons of Campaign 2008" but I presume it is the same situation. It is my opinion that the information we have doesn't support your suggestion that this individual has won any notable awards. Adambro (talk) 20:50, 11 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. No consensus to delete. The discussion wrt merging can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASCII porn[edit]

Delete. As WP:INTERESTING as this subject may be, the requirement is non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable third party publications. We simply do not have that. JBsupreme (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to ASCII art. I agree that references do not exist for notability and verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or failing that Merge and Redirect to ASCII art. I believe references can be found. E.g. Art and Obscenity by Kerstin Mey mentions the "ASCII pr0n genre" and as an example, Deep ASCII http://www1.zkm.de/~wvdc/ascii/java/ . C'Lick Me: A Netporn Studies Reader edited by Katrien Jacobs, Marije Janssen, Matteo Pasquinelli also calls it the "ASCII pr0n genre." Шизомби (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC) As prevalent as this stuff once was, it doesn't seem there is much writing about it and one of these sources appears to be quoting the other. There may be offline print resources about it, but they may prove hard to locate. Pornography in general is an underdocumented subject. Favoring merging and redirect now (it had been a redirect originally, it appears); I'll add the sources. Шизомби (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Шизомби (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article and its citations have been improved. This article [12] demonstrates quite substantial coverage as well as very significant historical notability.
Merge; after a certain editor put some of that porn on my talk page I am convinced of its notability. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just worked a little on the ASCII art article--man, that is thrilling stuff. I'm positively pixelated. CoM, I'm going to need some coffee, intravenously. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ASCII art. There's not enough really for a standalone article, but it would be a useful addition to the main article. Ladyof Shalott 01:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 04:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In my heart I would like to keep this as it is, but we do have an obligation to ensure all the material we present is reliable and verifiable through other sources, prohibiting original research. So as odd as this may sound, I oppose a merge because this will undoubtedly be lost in the main ASCII art article and never get sourced, keep it where it is and fix it there. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coccyx is right. This ought to be an article, and the page devoted to the genre in Art and Obscenity confirms that there are sources out there.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically it's creative...Modernist (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have revised my view based on improvements to the article and the addition of sources with substantial coverage and very clear historical notability. I encourage the closing admin to consider the state of the article when the earlier conclusions were reached if those editors don't have a chance to revisit the subject. o>8-< ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ASCII art, there's very little in this article. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A notable topic in its own right, apart from ASCII art. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 16:38, 10 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. Icewedge (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Kuka[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, no sources. PROD was removed. —Snigbrook 19:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 19:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The subject of the article fails this basic requirement of notability. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't seem to meed standards for notability due to not being mentioned in reliable sources. Gaia Octavia makes a good point here. tempodivalse [☎] 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources available to confirm this person's notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Non-notable person. Iowateen (talk) 23:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:37, 10 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. Icewedge (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pauseball[edit]

Another self-created/made-up game Passportguy (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP although I would like to see the author do five minuets. Drawn Some (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Game with a strong case of madeupitis. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, not mentioned in any reliable sources (or anywhere for that matter), so clearly does not meet the criteria for inclusion. tempodivalse [☎] 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete total and complete trash. JuJube (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indecipherable rules, WP:MADEUP Eauhomme (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I enjoy reading people's ideas for new games, although none of them ever meet the notability standards. I agree with Eauhomme that this one was especially difficult to figure out-- you have two teams of five players throwing a ball around, nobody can hold the ball for more than 15 seconds, and whichever team has the ball at the end of the round wins a point -- that much I got. For every four and a half minutes that don't count, there would be perhaps 30 seconds of excitement; I think baseball already has that quality. Mandsford (talk) 12:52, 6 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) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper frizbee horseshoes[edit]

likely hoax, made-up game Passportguy (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MADEUP ~~but if a decision is made to keep it should be spelled "frisbee".~~ Drawn Some (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously made up...--Unionhawk ^Talk 20:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for a case of madeupitis. I dissent from Drawn, since it is their game, they should name it how they see fit. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valid point. Drawn Some (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not for things made up one day; this is not mentioned anywhere in reliable sources, as far as I can see. Does not meet criteria for inclusion. tempodivalse [☎] 21:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP Eauhomme (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A game played by Canadian guys, that uses a squeegee, washer fluid jugs, and cardboard coffee trays. So Lorne, you got fired from another service station, eh? Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 6 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) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Roberts (Debunker)[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, merely unreliable conspiracy theorist (and anti-conspiracy theorist) websites. A "brief" appearance on national TV doesn't confer notability either. Hut 8.5 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional spam, not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the topic of the article has not been the subject of reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In addition to the sources cited in the article, I found this. However, the sources mention the subject in a trivial way that I do not think establishes notability. -Atmoz (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When I started this page actually Mr Roberts mail me he dont like to have this page in Wiki. --RicHard (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: delete also the translated page (finnish / suomi)?--RicHard (talk) 22:07, 7 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) 21:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UCF Victim Services[edit]

Despite the claim (ongoing for several days now) that the article is "under construction" I am nominating it for deletion. The reason is that the only references are the organization itself, and I don't believe any amount of "construction" will be able to establish the notability of this organization. There is a department like this at most major universities, and no indication what is so special about this one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, lack of reliable independent references to establish notability and provide verifiability. Drawn Some (talk) 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Quantpole (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the page is indeed mostly done, with a few outside resource references being taken into consideration soon. However, this page is up here for educational awareness reasons and decided to further develop a Wikipedia page site, since UCF is one of the top largest universities in the country. Even IF there are Victim Services programs in some other universities, most people are not aware of the services and potential that one can derive from this type of program. I would really appreciate it if this page stays up. It WILL be edited and improve in time, especially since I am starting fresh on coding that I haven't dealt with in the past. Please help consider. Thank you. Serene skies (talk) 17:24, 10 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) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Frontier[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS: non-notable game with no references to reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability, fails WP:OR, WP:GAMEGUIDE, etc.. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much fails WP:GAMEGUIDE Taelus (talk) 18:53, 10 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 03:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth (painting)[edit]

This article about a non-notable painting should be deleted. Per WP:NTEMP: Notability is not temporary. It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability. (Or in this case, a couple of press releases three days apart about a non-event that did not happen):

April 24, 2009, 9:35 AM EDT — artist Noah Greenspan of Noah G POP Fine Art Management Group (NGP FAM), publicist for obscure, non-notable New York artist Michael D'Antuono, places a press release Painter Michael D'Antuono To Unveil Controversial New Work in NYC's Union Square on Obama's 100th Day in Office on PR Newswire [13] and Reuters [14] about a planned 12-hour exhibit on April 29, 2009 in New York City's Union Square of D'Antuono's "controversial" painting "The Truth" (depicting Barack Obama as Jesus Christ with a Crown of Thorns) to cash in on the media hoopla about First 100 days of Barack Obama's presidency, to promote D'Antuono, and to drive traffic to D'Antuono's personal website http://www.dantuonoarts.com.
April 24–27, 2009 — predictable "outrage" about "blasphemy" from anti-Obama bloggers, increased traffic to D'Antuono's personal website http://www.dantuonoarts.com, and a self-reported 3,000 emails to D'Antuono protesting his planned exhibit.
April 27, 2009 11:06 AM EDT — artist Noah Greenspan of Noah G POP Fine Art Management Group (NGP FAM), publicist for obscure, non-notable New York artist Michael D'Antuono, places a press release 'The Truth': D'Antuono Cancels Unveiling of Obama Painting Due to Public Outrage on PR Newswire[15] and Reuters[16] that the planned exhibit of D'Antuono's painting "The Truth" has been canceled.
April 27, 2009, 6:31 PM EDT — Grundel2600 creates the article The Truth (painting) with a Template:Under construction tag requesting that the article not be tagged for deletion for several days.
April 29, 2009 — conservative columnist Amanda Carpenter devotes 168 words of her Hot Button column on page A18 of The Washington Times to noting that the planned exhibit of D'Antuono's painting "The Truth" has been canceled (only print media mention of painting).

Newross (talk) 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't contest this, and I'm the one who created the article. At the time, it was planned that the painting would be displayed in public, but that plan has since been canceled. So you can delete the article immediately, without any argument form me. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Was it a publicity stunt? Was the outrage to be expected? Maybe. But it passes our notability guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per author; all coverage seems to derive from one press release. PhGustaf (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a blip that was aborted before it even happened. Majority of sources are unreliable conservative blogs, not reliable or substantial as some claim. No articles link to it, and it is not notable enough to be added to any. No point in keeping a perpetual orphan. Tarc (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which sources are unreliable conservative blogs? Orphan? APK straight up now tell me 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google search of the painting mainly reveals a lot of hotair.com and worldnetdaily dribble. As for the orphan status, that is the way the article was when I looked at it the other day. I did not realize that you had just linked to it in a template this morning, a link which should be deleted, given the trivial, non-notability here. Tarc (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A simple look at the article will see the LA Times & Washington Times is included as refs. Is the South Park episode trivial and non-notable? APK straight up now tell me 19:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PhGustaf, not really notable, press release non-withstanding. You have to do better than this to claim notability because of public outrage against something. Had the painting been displayed anyway and then had body wastes flung at it, that might have worked. Drawn Some (talk)
Keep per mentions in the LA Times and Washington Times. APK straight up now tell me 18:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still WP:ONEEVENT. Drawn Some (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this, yet it survives with fewer sources. Also, a painting is not an event. APK straight up now tell me 18:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, why did you add this to the template about the public image of Obama? Do you sincerely believe that this is part of his public image? Drawn Some (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, look at Public image of Barack Obama#Depictions and the see also section below it. APK straight up now tell me 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any links to this page not manufactured by APK? PhGustaf (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also seen a website of children's drawings of Obama, should it also be included on the template? Drawn Some (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Manufactured"..."children's drawings" I seem to have struck a nerve. What is it exactly that you're implying, PhGustaf? I came across the article several hours ago, formatted refs, added cats, and added a template that's found on similar Obama-related articles. Drawn Some, if you have a mature question to ask me, I'll reply. BTW, Is it safe to assume anyone who votes keep will be berated, or am I the lucky one? APK straight up now tell me 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very serious question. I would like to know what the criteria are for inclusion on that template, what your decision process was, before I revert your addition. I believe that a website of children's drawings of Obama would be a more likely candidate for the template. I fail to see how a single non-notable representation of Obama would be considered part of his public image. Drawn Some (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat myself. Public image of Barack Obama#Depictions includes depictions of Obama. The 'See also' section and/or template includes Barack the Magic Negro, Super Obama World, and About Last Night... (South Park). Tell me how those articles are unlike the one I added to the template? APK straight up now tell me 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know the criteria for inclusion on the template. There are millions of depictions of Obama and tens or hundreds of thousands of new ones are created daily on six continents so there must be some way to determine which ones are included. We have rules about references to establish notability on Wikipedia and press releases and reprints of them are specifically excluded, for instance. Drawn Some (talk) 19:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, Category:Public image of American politicians says "This category is for articles concerning the public image and perception of politicians of the United States of America." (emphasis mine) The artist thinks some people perceive Obama as a Messiah. (side note: I usually avoid articles where emotions run high, so I find this interrogation rather amusing/weird) APK straight up now tell me 19:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know the criteria for inclusion on the template. Me too. APK straight up now tell me 19:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if this is your way of finding out then WP:POINT. Drawn Some (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a "point" and I'm getting rather fed up with your b.s. accusations. I've already explained (not that I need to) my reasoning. The only thing you've come up with is insinuations I've done something evil. If you want to continue this waterboarding process, do it on my talk page and stop wasting space here. APK straight up now tell me 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per WP:NOTNEWS unless or until the artist himself is worth an article (that survives AfD). Possibly speedy delete since creator of article has supported its removal (because of non-event of its "planned" exhibition). LotLE×talk 19:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable painting - the one event guideline likely applies to the creator, and while notability doesn't extend from one article subject to the other, I think non-notability of a creator extends to his work, despite/because of the limited coverage. Hekerui (talk) 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Notability for a Wikipedia article requires more than just a flash in the pan news item. DreamGuy (talk) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom and article creator: notability was questionable to start with, but if the event talked about in the sources didn't even happen, it's certainly not notable. Tvoz/talk 21:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per APK especially, and CoM. I found another RS, the Buffalo Examiner here with the title: "'The Truth': D'Antuono Cancels Unveiling of Obama Painting Due to Public Outrage". Reuters, the Washington Times, the National Review, and the LA Times are clearly mainstream, multiple, independent and reliable sources and therefore satisfies notability. The NR cite is an article in a conservative but still mainstream RS; the LA Times cite is a piece, not a mention; and Reuters is a major and respected news service with more than a mention. The Washington Times is not a lot more than a mention, but at 168 words is clearly more, so it qualifies. They all add up to more than sufficient RS and it's clearly not a WP:ONEEVENT. Also not an orphan, and we can't speedy delete when there are keep votes. I'm not sure about the cat, have to research that, but it's not the subject of this AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Buffalo piece is just another copy of the press release that started the whole thing. It doesn't gather any extra cred, any more than an AP release is worth a thousand cites. PhGustaf (talk) 22:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Buffalo examiner looked at the piece, made a journalistic decision as to it's newsworthiness, and published it. Therefore it independently bolsters it. So yes, it does gain extra cred, just as if any other journalistically independent RS publishes from a wire service. — Becksguy (talk) 23:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Becksguy and APK. If these notable news organizations felt it worthy of carrying/printing/disseminating the press release, then so be its notability. Sourced and valid. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sourcing available. Here's A National Review online interview with the artist to add content on motivation and background; this would support expanding and, logically, updates to this painting which has generated buzz without being displayed. There is a post that it's one of the most emailed photos as well but I don't as of yet see a source to support that. -- Banjeboi 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1) It's from an NR blog page, 2) it's been cited in the article from day one, and 3) its being there from day one just reinforces WP:ONEEVENT. PhGustaf (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs can be reliable sources and I think this one certainly is. It is cited but almost as a add-on, there is plenty more content in it which suggests that other sources may also be under-utilized. WP:ONEEVENT concerns people, not paintings, but the clincher clause anyway is - people likely to remain low-profile. Unsure if that's a reasonable conclusion here. -- Banjeboi 22:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, author. Most references are rehashes of the press release. Many aren't even in English, which would seem to be a WP:NONENG problem. The artist isn't notable and the event never happened. Recommend speedy since author agrees with deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Five established editors have voted to keep so far, so if this is speedied, it would probably just wind up in DRV, since speedy is for uncontested or uncontroversial actions. Also, see my argument above about independent journalistic decisions to publish. Also, it's the outrage that makes it notable. — Becksguy (talk) 02:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

There are zero mainstream news articles about non-notable artist Michael D'Antuono's non-notable painting "The Truth" which did not make news because it was not exhibited.
There were two press releases by D'Antuono's publicist, Noah G POP Fine Art Management, issued three days apart:
1. Friday, April 24, 2009 — announcing the planned exhibit of a self-described "controversial" painting and inviting e-mails about it.
2. Monday, April 27, 2009 — announcing the cancelation of the planned exhibit due to the receipt of e-mails decrying the self-described "controversial" painting.
PR Newswire is a press release agency that distributes press releases written by businesses that pay it to distribute their press releases.
Reuters is a news agency that distributes news, or in this instance, distributes, unaltered, PR Newswire-distributed press releases written by businesses that pay PR Newswire to distribute their press releases.
The National Review Online reference is a blog entry by Mark Hemingway.
The Los Angeles Times reference is a blog entry by David Ng.
The Washington Times reference is one-fifth of an column by Amanda Carpenter, citing Mark Hemingway's National Review Online blog entry.

Newross (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An LA Times blog is considered reliable according to 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Click on WP:V, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and look at note #4. (in regards to WP:SPS) "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed (e.g. "Jane Smith has suggested..."). Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." According to the New York Times, David Ng "writes theater reviews for The Village Voice. He also covers theater and the arts for The Los Angeles Times, American Theater magazine and ARTnews." Ng has written 70 articles for the LA Times. How is the blog's reliablilty any different than this article he published April 29, 2009? APK straight up now tell me 05:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The issue is notability not reliability. The Los Angeles Times "full editorial control" apparently determined that David Ng's blog entry about a non-event was not newsworthy enough to warrant a David Ng article in the Los Angeles Times newspaper. Nor newsworthy enough for a Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Newross (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep APK pretty much said it all. Blogs are merely a format to present a review in -- A series of messages in a recognizable format or as our article says: "Entries are commonly displayed in reverse-chronological order." As long as the blogs are written by professionals and are subject to editorial judgement, they're reliable. = Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Newross keeps making reference to press releases as if they somehow poison all the sources. When Microsoft issues a press release about a new operating system (eg - Vista), that's news. When the White House issues a press release on the financial crisis, that's news. And once published in a RS, they are both acceptable here, for the same reason. They have been vetted. The Press Secretary is a glorified publicist for the White House and the administration, spin doctoring with the best of them. What newspapers and journalists do, as independent, reliable, and neutral analysts and publishers of information, is to fact check the information and apply editorial oversight regardless of the origin of the information. Be it from Bernie Madoff, the White House, the man on the street, or a publisher of PR. That vetting process makes it a reliable source and that's why they are secondary sources. APK is absolutely correct in his arguments on blogs specific to this issue. Unreliable and unacceptable blogs are those that anyone can edit without any editorial oversight, for example reader comments attached to articles or opinion pieces. These cited newspaper "blogs" (eg - National Review and LA Times) are written by professional journalists as part of their job and are under editorial oversight, and are therefore reliable sources. Un-vetted and unexamined PR is, I agree, usually unacceptable, except in relation to its self. The RS citations provided in the article and here more than satisfy any reasonable requirement for verifiability. I have seen articles kept at AfD with considerably less RS provided. The press release and blog oppositional arguments should be rejected as not compelling, and not grounded in policy or guidelines. If the only sources were the press releases, and the showing was canceled, then I would be voting to delete also. The outrage as reliably reported made this notable, not the PR. Becksguy (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The National Review Online is not a newspaper. There is zero evidence that "as independent, reliable, and neutral analysts and publishers of information," PR Newswire, Reuters, or the news aggregator websites that distributed—unaltered—press releases by D'Antuono's publicist, took any steps "to fact check the information and apply editorial oversight." The fine print at the bottom of the two press releases[17][18] written by D'Antuono's publicist and distributed by the press release agency PR Newswire says: "Issuers of news releases and not PR Newswire are solely responsible for the accuracy of the content." The only source for the claimed "overwhelming public outrage" was D'Antuono and a press release written by D'Antuono's publicist.[19] Newross (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable, perhaps if he sets fire to the work on Times Square, it would be slightly more obvious than it is currently that this was a case a low standard commercial artist attempting to publicise his work for commercial purposes. The sorry saga was barely chronicled anywhere and isn't notable for wikipedia. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 13:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep-I'm not sure if its me or not, but it seems that WP:NTEMP has been changed. It used to say

If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future.

I find the current interpretation utterly sacrilegious. This is indeed a well sourced and ongoing event and as such, I vote keep.Smallman12q (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that this article has a number of related news articles.Smallman12q (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. As a technical matter I don't think the article passes general notability - a single mention on the LA times news blog, plus press releases, partisan sources (covering a partisan issue), foreign language sources. If every painting that ever got a short article on a major newspaper were considered notable we would have several hundred thousand articles about paintings of no real note. What makes this one interesting and possibly encyclopedic, though, is that it relates to Obama and the public image of Obama including, perhaps unintentionally, a play on the radical conservative refrain that liberals see Obama as their messiah. If the artist had gone ahead and exhibited the painting in Times Square, no doubt it would have gotten some more press. I know that notability is based on coverage in the sources, not just what we think is interesting, but if something is on the borderline as this one is I think we should err on the side of adding material that can enlighten the reader, and this article does that. Also, there are enough sources to write a competent little start class article. Wikidemon (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. freshacconci talktalk 03:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Barack Obama's list of related deletions. Ladyof Shalott 04:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Author doesn't oppose delete. Ardent self-promotion should show more success than this has to be considered notable. Refs are largely to paid placement - e.g. Reuters+ PRNewsWire.--Elvey (talk) 16:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Conceivably notable as a very minor media non-event, reminiscent of the one or two years back over I have a film of Marilyn Monroe giving a blow-job, and I am so appalled by this that I am going to sell it, and you're just going to have to take my word for it because I'm not going to show anyone. The artist is otherwise unknown, the work has never been exhibited, and there seems little likelihood that it will be exhibited. I did wonder about its eventual donation to or even purchase by the Museum of Bad Art, but my reading of this, combined with my (admittedly amateur) evaluation of the work, suggests that it wouldn't qualify. Do we have a more politely worded equivalent of Category:Non-events that make the media go apeshit for 15 minutes? -- Hoary (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it should be kept, but only if the author can provide more reliable sources than just a blog and a few articles. I personally think it is an interesting article, though there definitely should be better resources. I think many people would agree that it is an interesting article and that it should be kept. (I hope this is what I do to say that I want to keep it!) =0)Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good response. Really, you can say anything you want. Your goal is to convince others (and especially the closing administrator) of your point-of-view. Once you've been here a while, you'll start citing various guidelines and policies pro or con. As it is, I think this discussion turns on notability and verifiability of sources which is pretty much what you argued. Simply saying it's "interesting" may invite some counter arguments (such as WP:ILIKEIT), but you seem to have hit on the basic issues around sources. Welcome. freshacconci talktalk 15:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The keep arguments convinced me. It has mention in major news papers, some of which have been mentioned and added to the article already. [20] Dream Focus 17:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and the fact the news articles report an event not happening. How many articles about notable works of art start "X is a work of art that has never been exhibited publicly", supported with sources attesting to the fact that it has never been shown anywhere? Ludicrous.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the art wasn't exhibited was because it caused a public outcry.Smallman12q (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "outrage" is documented primarily by the artist's own press release. PhGustaf (talk) 01:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as coming very close to the ultimate non-event. Unknown painter of kitsch creates possible contender for inclusion in the Museum of Bad Art, has PR hack spam news agencies with the announcement that he may raise more questions than answers when he unveils his highly controversial new painting, "The Truth" on the South Plaza of NYC's Union Square on the 100th day of Barack Obama's presidency (my emphases). And then he changes his mind. Note that no gallery was going to unveil the opuscule, let alone any publicly funded gallery: D'Antuono was no Mapplethorpe (and his exhibitors exhibited, rather than chickening out). It would seem that the only print appearance of his non-event was a short mention in the Washington Moonie, and even there the columnist merely lists the non-event among a pile of other stuff about hammers, sickles, guns and other staples of the tired old "culture wars"; she seems rather bored. It's true that "WorldNetDaily" manages to work itself into a righteous lather over this; its [http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96417 newzoid story on the non-event] is immediately followed by Related offers: / Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear etc etc so I see where they're coming from and start to wonder about donations of straitjackets. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, I think you make some good arguments. But let's not forget that Robert Mapplethorpe is probably MOST famous for the controversies over his photographs of nudes and the ensuing controversy over what is and isn't pornography. So your argument correctly understood supports including this work of art that was discussed in many newspapers around the world. If it was a publicity stunt it was an effective one, as it received substantial coverage and created a controversy, as it has here on Wikipedia. If you look closely at the Mona Lisa you will see that it has a very unusual background and is a bit strange and provocative and is quite unusual for portraiture of its time. Richard Serra is famous in large part for the controversies that ensued over public outrage leading to the removal of one of his sculptures from a public space and the ensuing outrage from those who believe art is sacred and shouldn't be subject to public whim. Jean-Michel Basquiat, Keith Haring, Jackson Pollock and Van Gogh, are all artists who established notoriety in large part for their roles in controversies and by receiving substantial media coverage. This particular artist and artwork aren't the most notable, but the coverage and the controversy, and the political issues and perceptions involved in this artwork are notable enough that it is certainly worth including in a pageless encyclopedia. It's never good to censor art, good or bad. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe, but to me the media coverage of this work of acrylic art is hardly substantial. (Incidentally, when will Keith Boadwee get a WP article? He's gone through a lot for it, or anyway a lot has gone through him [NSFW].) -- Hoary (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has Boadwee's work been covered in reliable independent sources? That cite looks like some kind of blog, and not all publicity stunts and grossout artworks are notable. But as far as publicity stunts and controversial artworks go, there are articles on Fountain (Duchamp) and Piss Christ. The artwork that is the subject of this article isn't as notable as those examples, but it was covered internationally by reliable media sources and seems to me to have caused enough of a stir to warrant inclusion. It's certainly not a slam dunk. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article I noticed that some of the refs indicating the story of the painting was carried internationally were removed. I'm not sure why. But if you take a look at an older version [21], it's clear the story of the painting was carried in many countries. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Boadwee's art has indeed been so covered, yes. I first encountered him back in the pre-blogospheric era, in the Eye's "Pseud's Corner"; I think quoting some unintentionally risible art journal. First time around, his art was produced fundamentally. He later reappeared with a new, emetic method of production. He certainly was covered in the art world, even if mostly (exclusively?) as a joke. Some comments are unkind, but others are hagiographic. Though of course WP:SOMEOTHERGUYISFUNNIER is not a valid reason for a delete vote ("!vote"). Duchamp's "Fountain" and Serrano's "Piss Christ" -- to which you might have added Manzoni's Merda d'artista -- got not just more but hugely more coverage than The Truth has. They're even mentioned in actual books. Of course, WP is not paper, but it's also not bog paper, to be used to help self-promoting nobodies become self-promoting Somebodies. -- Hoary (talk) 08:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparing this work to Mapplethorpe, Serrano, Serra, et al is a gross over-simplification and all the examples listed are notable without their respective controversies. (The inclusion of Richard Serra in this is in particular specious: he was a major international artist for 15 years before Tilted Arc). This is a one-time event (actually a non-event) for a non-notable artist. And let's not forget that "fame" and "notability" are not the same. Mapplethorpe may not have been part of popular consciousness (referenced on The Simpsons and so on) had it not been for the Contemporary Art Center controversy, but he was notable as an artist before this. freshacconci talktalk 13:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems to be a non-notable painting and coverage seems to be from one major press release. Brothejr (talk) 08:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:UCS everything that is written, does not require an article here...every once in a while common sense has to play a part...Modernist (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recentist PR puffery, overinflated by political sensitivities. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:05, 11 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) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren wills[edit]

Non-notable "author". Lacks reliable sources. Pontificalibus (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:BIO / WP:AUTHOR / WP:ACADEMIC. Once contributing to an exam crammer is not enough I'm afraid. Nancy ^talk 17:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the very most, he qualifies for a credit in an article this book, should that one meet notability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One study guide and a U2 concert review that cannot be found does not an author make. Wperdue (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
Delete --Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obviously non-notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 16:38, 9 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) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qigong Research[edit]

Prod removed by original editor.

If capital letters indicate name of a company, it's below threshold. If it's indeed about research into "gravitational field of qi" then horses can fly, but they don't. Incurable fringe, delete or redirect to Qigong. NVO (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Qigong. Seee Qigongology and related AfD discussion for reasoning, the article is almost identical if it isn't identical. Drawn Some (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Drawn Some Hipocrite (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ignorance is compounded by the excitement to express oneself
"horses flying" comments are akin to "do ignorant people think"
just as x-rays and ultrasound were dismissed so too is qi
instead of investigating you wish to delete.
there are many experiments providing evidence and some times little evidence of qi
why not list some of the research so that further work can be performed to prove/disprove
wikipedia should list both so further research is not duplicated —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gk6923798 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. JFW | T@lk 10:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No content worth merging. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no verifiable content and no claim of notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 11 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shea hecht[edit]

L~~ots of detail and lots of references but still not clear how this person is notable~~. RadioFan (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldnt disagree more he is a major figure in the jewish world and has affected many lives. He also as been printed in many place —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbi Schwartz (talk • contribs) 01:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written. However, this person is a former New York City commissioner and is apparently published in national periodicles on a semi-regular basis. Notability doesn't seem to be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.158.90 (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, article has been improved with details that assert notability.--RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 10 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Finnemore[edit]

Delete unreferenced one-line BLP with a claim of notability (avoiding WP:CSD#A7, but without any proof of notability - WP:GNG. WP:BIO - and devoid of any real basic biographical material. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Although the page does assert notability (She is a fulltime professor), the article fails to share any encyclopedic information a reader looking her up wouldn't already know. Substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now clearly explains what she's known for and how she is a respected scholar among her peers. Notability guidelines for academics are now obviously met. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Sorry for the initial stubiness of the article, this seems to have fallen off my watchlist. In any case, she is one the leading scholars of the discipline and any undergrad who's taken an IR theory class has probably read at least one of her books. Absolutely, irreproachably notable. Cool3 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If she's so notable, when and where was she born? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - By this logic, many Catholic saints, including Saint Peter are not notable. --C S (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Straw man. For modern biographies - which includes all living people - there is no reason why we cannot find the birthplace and date of someone notable - that we cannot seems to negate the notability. See Wikipedia:Red flags of non-notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I didn't make up your argument that notable implies we have to know when and where she was born. This is obviously wrong, which was the point of my comment. Now you are arguing that your argument was only for biographies of living people. This is still a bad argument however, e.g. see Orlando_Hernández#Disputed_birth_year. By the way, a straightforward reading of your essay does not at all give any red flags for this person, but as the originator of the essay, I'll take your word for it. However, I'm curious why you think an essay you wrote a couple months ago somehow trumps well-known notability guidelines. --C S (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If you want to go on an AFD spree sometime, you should probably check out Category:Year_of_birth_missing_(living_people) and Category:Place_of_birth_missing_(living people). For example, with only a few tries, I found Bill_Anschell. No sources giving his birthdate, and his "origin" despite being listed as Seattle, is in fact not known to be his birthplace. A big red flag, eh?--C S (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - It's not usable as a reliable source, but the answer is listed here as August 6, 1959, in Champaign, IL. But the ability to find this information has little or nothing to do with her suitability as the subject of an encyclopedia article: we don't make articles for people about whom the only information known is genealogical, so by the same token we shouldn't demand genealogical information as a condition of inclusion. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar search gives two publications with around 1000 citations each, and plenty more over 100; this looks like a clear pass of WP:PROF #1 to me. The TRIP survey makes a clear case for her impact, and there are plenty of overview articles on constructivism in international relations which could likely be used to source a more detailed description of her role in that subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS I just added links to ten published reviews of her books. There should be plenty more material there for expansion of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems obvious. Highly respected among scholars in ILR. Textbooks are basic reading in introductory courses. --C S (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep, according to David Eppstein's very conclusive findings. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:52, 12 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) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dorchester International Brotherhood Camp[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this boy scout camp is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 21:36, 5 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, improper nomination, no summary in nomination of attempts to find sources and sources now found. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restricted Access Barrier System[edit]

Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails verifiability policy.` Stifle (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - technically speaking, I created the article, but it was the result of a split at RABS and I really don't have anything to do with the article content. The topic does appear the notable in the pharma and food industries. This article] is specifically about it. There is some mention of it in this book. In the alternative, it might be worth a merge to contamination control. -- Whpq (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination fails deletion policy. See WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the work the creator did, the nomination is inaccurate. It is in fact verifiable, it just wasn't verified at the time of the nomination which is something completely different. Nomination clearly fails WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have renamed it to restricted-access barrier system as the main reference seems to be doing. JFW | T@lk 10:21, 10 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, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Yülük Osman[edit]

Unreferenced for nearly three years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Encyclopedia Britannica has an article so it's not likely a hoax. That it is unreferenced means it needs to be given references, not deleted. No doubt more sources exist in languages other than English. Drawn Some (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's notable enough for a paper encyclopedia. Google Books [22] gives several hits under his Turkish name and Google Scholar gives f few more. [23] Edward321 (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not being verified and being unverifiable are two different things. With a mention in Britannica and plenty of Google hits, following WP:BEFORE should have been a trivial exercise.-Mgm|^(talk) 08:55, 6 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 g3, blatant hoax/vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, Edd, n Eddy's Big Picture Show[edit]

This has been an "upcoming" movie since 2007. For references, please refer to the latest incarnation, which was AFDed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ed, Edd n Eddy's 1st Movie. Because of the different name, I'm not sure if it can be sent under WP:CSD#G4. There is also the deletion log of CSD candidates for this article Yngvarr (t) (c) 15:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 16:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BALLS. JBsupreme (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 per WP:HOAX. The linked article is nothing more than an announcement that there will not be a sixth season of EE&E with no mention of the movie. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a number of reasons. Even if it is real, it ain't notable. — Jake Wartenberg // ER 21:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 and salt, blatant misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then salt It has been (speedy) deleted many times before; I think salting would be good here. Also WP:CRYSTAL. Acebulf (talk) 23:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt It's a hoax. Chidren's cartoons never get any attention at ComicCon and with the end of Foster's on Sunday and the network's new direction away from strict animation, it's clear that CN has no interest in continuing to promote older shows like this, especially in movie form. Nate • (chatter) 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 02:30, 6 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. The article may be of poor quality but consensus appears to be that the topic is notable (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German-Libyan relations[edit]

Even worse than most of the usual foreign relations articles, this one doesn't even mention the embassies that represent each country in the other. Stifle (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not even the minutest attempt was made to create an article of lasting significance here. It is a dictionary entry, with no sources, no references, and no assertion of its unfounded notability. It isn't even as pretty as some of the others brought to AfD in the recent past. This is precisely what wikipedia should never be content to see. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No sources? ahem. Didn't you claim recently to be looking at the articles before you !vote? Submariner 9 (talk) 17:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you look at the source? It's an "independant as well as investigative journalism" site. I can't even determine the name of the person who wrote the story, if you can call three paragraphs a news story on such a topic. It fails WP:RS quite badly. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nice attempt at reconning but a source which fails RS is a bad source, not "no source". Submariner 9 (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's no source as far as AfD is concerned. If you can find better the second time around, get on with it. --BlueSquadronRaven 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you could probably find a better source if you spent 2 minutes, but I understand that you are above that kind of thing. Submariner 9 (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course you, Hilary T, can be excused for not taking these 2 minutes, because 3 minutes after you started the article you had to defend another of your pathetic stubs in AfD. [24] --Hans Adler (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe Hilary didn't know so much about reliable sources at the time. Submariner 9 (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        The name of the person who wrote the story appears to be "Mathaba" Submariner 9 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Submariner 9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Hilary T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) --BlueSquadronRaven 20:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good topic, lousy execution. Needless to say, a very good article could be written about relations between Germany and Libya, which didn't end with the Battle of Tobruk. This would be ideal for rescue, so I won't vote delete just yet. However, I don't subscribe to the philosophy of "this piece of crap I created is a stub, you can help Wikipedia by expanding on something I don't want to be bothered with", so no keep vote yet either. Mandsford (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Current article is worthless, but German-Libyan relations are a notable and very rich topic. Mandsford has mentioned the Battle of Tobruk; more recently there have been things like the terrorist bombing of a disco in Berlin, assistance by German companies in Libyan efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, etc. Ray^Talk 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whatever expansion can be done (and if all we have is the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing, well, that's covered elsewhere, and in any event is far more a function of Libya – United States relations (where it's mentioned)), do note that Libya became independent in 1951, so a 1941 event by definition can't be about "German-Libyan relations". I'd have minimal sympathy for that argument if it involved, say, a Libyan guerrilla force - but it didn't; it was a UK-Germany battle, and might just as well have taken place in Tunisia, Algeria or Egypt. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The current content is totally useless, the article was created prematurely. I think if someone really wants to deal with this one, there is enough sex and crime for a thrilling featured article. Example: "Because his companion took off some of her clothes while dancing, Gaddfi's son Seif al-Arab came to blows with the doorman of a discotheque in Munich. According to SPIEGEL sources, the case now even strains the German-Libyan relations." [25] But there would be a lot of work, and it would probably be much better to start with the Libya–EU relations. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] all directly address this topic. I've done half the work by finding some sources, so maybe someone who is concerned by the shortage of content and sources in the article would care to do something contructive by adding some of them? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Phil Bridger, and common sense. Nomination fails WP:FAILN (as almost all of these organised "relations" AfDs do): "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." All but a handful are "deletions as first resort" in the hope that others outside this group won't notice. Sad. T L Miles (talk) 20:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added in a quote from a major newspaper on how a meeting "ushering in a brand-new relationship between Libya and Germany." And will the people who keep trying to delete things, please search for information first. AFD is suppose to be a last resort, not a first. Dream Focus 22:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Sorry Stifle, but this is a somewhat disruptive nom. Asking the question yet again, are any of the nominators even consulting WP:BEFORE. A simple search would have brought up the results of the Battle of Tobruk, and the Berlin disco bombing. Both highly notable incidents, and given the long history of both countries there would be contacts going way before the 1900s. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but this doesn't qualify for speedy keep. Please refactor your comment. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, as I pointed out, we already have articles on those two, the first happened when there was no Libyan state and didn't involve Libyans so much as Britons and Germans; the second, too, is far more a function of US-Libyan relations than of German-Libyan relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. I am seeing far too many articles given "hit and run" deletion nominations when there are easy-to-find reliable sources. A bad article is not a good reason to delete; it is a reason to improve. Phil Bridger's finds are excellent, such as the BBC story about German commandos training Libyans in their spare time! Fences and windows (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tough one There probably is enough for a real article on this topic, given WWII, big german involvement in LIbyan industry, and of course the international politics around that lovable lug Qaddafi. But no one has written an article worth retaining.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relations are notable - there are sources out there. AfD is not meant for the deletion of poor stubs of notable topics. This is a notable topic, therefore it stays. If nobody else is going to attempt to collate sources and do some writing, I will. Fences and windows (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep AfD's like this are very disappointing. Our long time friend the google search reveals accusations of German nationals training Libyans in anti-terrorism techniques, an economic forum between the countries, a growth in supply of energy from Libya to Germany, a bilateral agreement between the countries following the bombing of a nightclub in Berlin in the 1980s in which Libya was the perpetrator and so on. Nominating this article for deletion, when such a plethora of reliable sources is obviously available, is a tremendous waste of time.--TM 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Another proof that we should require all afds for which its possibly pertinent to have a search made by the nominee to see if there is material. Not strongly recommended, not advised, required. DGG (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might be interested in knowing that Hilary T created this article and others to make a point. See this confession by a Hilary T sock, and note that this article was in fact created several days after the Thailand–Ukraine relations AfD was opened. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Creating an article on an obviously notable subject, whatever reason it is done for, does not violate WP:POINT as it is not disruptive. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand WP:POINT. It contains a long list of examples, among them some actions that would be considered OK if the motivation wasn't to disrupt. I could easily prove experimentally that you are wrong by creating 100 articles on notable Korean writers, each with content "X is a very important writer notable for getting the Korean equivalent of the Nobel prize in literature. All Korean school children must learn all of his works." But I am not allowed to do that. That's the point of WP:POINT. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll consider that when it becomes mandatory to consult with the administrator who deleted an article before listing at DRV. It can sometimes be better to get the community's opinion, as you say yourself. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Rescue_Squadron#German-Libyan_relations_2. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per above and considerable improvements now made to the article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per above and considerable improvements now made to the article. Always was notable anyway, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep--I'm slacking on the job, but hadn't voted yet because it seemed obvious that this AfD would be closed quickly; I'm surprised it's still open. The two countries have very meaningful and conflict-rich relationships, and the article, in whatever state it was then or is now, obviously describes a notable topic. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 11 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) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightline (Couriers)[edit]

Not notable company that does not meet WP:N or WP:CORP. Non-notable without reliable third part sourcing. It was once speedied per WP:CSD A7 after being tagged for WP:CSD G11 as can be seen seen here. I PRODed, article creator deprodded. The article is now much truncated, not advertising, but sourced only from the subject's webpage. Selfpublished sources can be used, but not as the basis for the article. I searched Google for "Nightline courier", and got these results among which I found no reliable 3rd party sources with significant coverage meeting WP:N. Nor did I get any here. Nothing via Books or News. I asked the creator to provide reliable sources, but none were forthcoming. Dloh cierekim 15:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note- link to press release from FedEx added byUser:Drawn Some. Dloh cierekim 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, thanks, I had been trying to find references, that's a press release from a business partner, not really reliable. I can't find any articles with other than trivial mentions (one sentence regarding layoffs) or basic demographics (address, CEO, number of employees) anywhere. This is a medium-sized company and a leader in its field in Ireland and FedEx's Irish partner but apparently it has no independent third-party coverage even in Irish newspapers and business websites. I still feel like there ought to be references but I just can't find any on the internet. Drawn Some (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same feeling-- but there they aren't. I asked the creator for help on this-- to no avail. If RS turn up, happy to reconsider. Dloh cierekim 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no reliable independent references exist to establish notability for this privately held corporation or to verify an encyclopedia article. Since Dlohcierekim also looked I'll take it that it's not just through my poor search skills that I was unable to find resources, especially since the television program of the same name and other businesses with similar names complicated matters. If references come to light then I may be notified on my talk page to reconsider my opinion. Drawn Some (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable company. ww2censor (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment here is one source for a start. Not much in it though. --can dle •wicke 23:31, 9 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) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Margaret Lane[edit]

Non-notable club area of barely notable club. This "theoretical area" (quote from article) is only of interest to the club itself Passportguy (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not even any context to it. What river? Where? And as you say, it's just not encyclopaedic. Canterbury Tail talk 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The river is the River Cam that flows through Cambridge, UK and which is used for boating by the Cambridge University colleges there. Quite notable enough as rivers go. The club is the Lady Margaret Boat Club (belonging to St John's College, Cambridge) which is notable enough for an article to be here for four years. As to Lady Margaret Lane - doubtful. Both as to existence and notability even if shown to be independently referenced. Might merit a line in the club article if referenced properly. Peridon (talk) 14:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, no significance apart from the club. It feels like a vanity piece. No mention in reliable sources. Sounds like a pet name used by the club. Dloh cierekim 16:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As someone who knows something about rowing in Cambridge this is a completely made up hoax/attack page having a go at the perceived arrogance of LMBC rowers. There are no sources, those that are quoted don't verify the article at all. Quantpole (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep- The tradition of the Lady Margaret Lane is well established on the River Cam; it was particularly in vogue in the early to mid-1900s when the 'blazing' Lady Margaret First Boat (hosting a number of Olympians) went practically unchallenged for the river Headship for a number of years running. The tradition of the Lady Margaret Lane continues to be applied on a regular basis in Cambridge rowing today; indeed, in recent years a number of the other college boat clubs have petitioned CUCBC to abolish this archaic rule on the basis that it unfairly advantages the Lady Margaret boats in training for the Bumps races. Downing College Boat Club and Jesus College Boat Club crews have repeatedly been in conspicuous violation of the Lady Margaret Lane right-of-way rule in recent terms, presumably in protest over the long-standing tradition. It was noted upon their second petition to CUCBC that their recent attempts at dismissing the rule by monopolizing the lane did not result in any dramatic alteration in the performance of their crews. B03023 (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR unsupported by reliable independent references. Drawn Some (talk) 23:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as above. I am also heavily involved with Cambridge rowing. The people writing the article are largely from Trinity College, Cambridge, which has a long tradition of rivalry with LMBC. This article is purely an attempt to be amusing and doesn't represent any sort of encyclopaedic content at all. Mrh30 (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no independent sources available to verify it. If it can be verified it should be added to Lady Margaret Boat Club or River Cam doesn't need it's own article.
Delete as original research/hoax (what a combination). Drmies (talk) 18:04, 7 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) 21:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Roony[edit]

Appears to be no material news references to this whatsoever. See this all-dates Google news archive search. The external references cited in the article do not meet the "significant" or "reliable" criteria of the notability guideline. Bongo matic 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL. When an Ikea-sponsored house is built on the moon I'll help write the article. Drawn Some (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. This is still in the planning stages, so there are no guarantees it will actually happen. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:46, 6 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 (A7) by Cobaltbluetony. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 15:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lenny John Pfohl Jr.[edit]

Likely attack page (born in jungle, kicked off team for drugs), zero google hits Passportguy (talk) 14:02, 5 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 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amelia Gray[edit]

Author appears not to have received any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. See this all-dates Google news archive search (I recommend looking at 2007-2008—despite her being active in 2009 there are no hits in this year). Bongo matic 13:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability at this point. for a short story writer, notability typically comes through inclusion in anthologies. DGG (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. I assume the university employment involves adjuncting... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:00, 11 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 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personas (Firefox)[edit]

Contested prod. Software of questionable notability. The reference added by the deprodder is from a blog. A notable blog but a blog nonetheless. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Passportguy (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, non-notable. --EEMIV (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Non-notable software. Iowateen (talk) 16:13, 5 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. No consensus to delete, although neither is there agreement as to what should be done. Merge seems to be favored, but that than be worked out after AfD. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winged sea caribou[edit]

No significant coverage in independent reliable sources identified after good-faith search. See all-date Google news archive search and Google search. Bongo matic 13:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the Federal Court of Canada's archives here, I cannot find a cariboo on the coat of arms, where it is allegedly found according to the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. The domain appears actually to be registered to the Canadian government (see http://www.networksolutions.com/whois-search/gc.ca), although that doesn't mean it's not a hoax. Bongo matic 14:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.gc.ca is indeed for the exclusive usage of the Canadian government, so a hoax there is unlikely. My point is, a claim made in our article is not supported by that government site. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Charge (heraldry). The site seems legit; you can navigate away to it to pages that contain court decisions, and can return to the coat of arms page by clicking the coat of arms itself. I edited out original research speculating about the sexes and habits of the mythical creature. What's left is a stub that probably should be merged somewhere. Surprised that while we have separate articles on lion (heraldry) and leopard (heraldry), we have no general article on beast (heraldry). That last would be the best place to discuss what little information we have on the subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Federal Court (Canada). It's not a hoax, just a unique charge. It could also be mentioned under the Charge (heraldry) article. It doesn't deserve a separate article as it will remain a stub. Drawn Some (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Much as it sounds like a prank (and I'm sure it doesn't actually have the name ascribed to it), it is apparently a heraldic charge that would probably be worth mentioning in Charge (heraldry). In any event, it doesn't merit a separate article. Geoff NoNick ([[User talk:Geoff NoNick|talk
Comment This is clearly NOT a hoax, it is on the website, see here: [42], where it is indeed referred to as a "winged sea caribou". Drawn Some (talk) 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an official element of a coat of arms granted to the Federal Court by the Governor General of Canada. It deserves its own site because of its significance as an innovation in heraldry and as an example of quirky official culture in Canada. Also, legal and national publications have taken notice of the Winged Sea Caribou. McClean's, Canada's most read current affairs magazine devoted a short article to the WSG on its site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poor polly (talk • contribs) 03:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You said it best: it deserves its own site—not a Wikipedia page. Bongo matic 11:26, 12 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) 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Howie Weinberg[edit]

Studio engineer with list of unreferenced record Vondell (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Vondell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep His participation on many of these records is referenced on the record descriptions (that's how I started the article). More args on article talk. --Alvestrand (talk) 15:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references issue can be resolved through editing. The awards make him clearly notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - just have a look on the list of albums, there's several defining works like Nirvana's Nevermind, classics like the Ramones' Brain Drain and notable underground albums like Buckethead's debut album Bucketheadland. He got several awards for this work. Nuff said. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a simple search before nominating would have revealed that this is a long-time well respected mastering engineer with numerous awards for his work with dozens of top selling artists. The article needs some cleanup; there's no deadline there. Radiopathy •talk• 21:54, 9 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. Based solely on the disruptive block drama, no prejudice to speedy relisting if an editor in good standing so desires. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoshino Fuuta[edit]

Does not meat notability guidelines. Unreferenced BLP. Vondell (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Vondell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Congratulations, you have been slapped with a wet trout. Nominations for deletions should indicate how the nominator tried to find sources to address the issue before nominating the page per WP:BEFORE. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The artist apparently won an honorable mention in the Alice Club category in 1998 the 1st Core Magazine Awards (according to the Japanese article). That's the only thing of note I can find, and it's not enough to meet even the general notability guidelines. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't know anything about this artist, but giving it the benefit of the doubt, since the shotacon/lolicon genres & communities are somewhat niche and underground, it may be hard for artists in those genres to be notable in the traditional/standard ways. But if people who read stuff from that genre think he's a big name in the field, then I think it should be considered notable enough, standard guidelines be damned... they're the ones who would know. Anyone familiar with the subject care to chime in? LordAmeth (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can we know that people think he is big name in the field? We need a reliable source for such a claim. Otherwise, it is a violation of WP:BLP. --Farix (Talk) 11:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can we know? We can know by having people informed on the subject provide sources. If you and I hunt around using Google or whatever, there's a good chance we won't find anything. But if the people who know about this stuff, those who have the insider magazines on their shelves, have something they can cite, they should provide it, and we should give them a chance to do so. I don't know much about shotacon/lolicon, and I don't care to, but to take a similar example, if it were an article on a particular designer of Harajuku-style goth-lolita clothes, and we gave up on finding reliable references because we couldn't find anything in English, or we couldn't find anything in Vogue and Maxim, we wouldn't be doing our job. Give those who have the Goth-Lolita Bible on their shelves the benefit of the doubt, and give them a chance to cite from it. Just because the necessary sources on Hoshino Fuuta are not on my bookshelf, or yours, does not mean that such sources don't exist. LordAmeth (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read over WP:BURDEN. This is a classic case of such. We can't presume that sources do exist without any evidence. Especially where a biography of a living person is concerned. --Farix (Talk) 17:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny, I read it differently. It says right there on WP:BURDEN that the burden of proof is upon the editor who contributed to the article, not upon the editor(s) who nom it for deletion. So, rather than having us run around trying to find the right sources, why don't we put the burden back onto the contributing editors to find sources? ... It's not about what you or I are capable of finding, it's about what the editor who contributed the article (and who therefore probably has better knowledge of the subject than you are I) could provide. Where are the contributing editors, anyway? Why haven't they spoken up? Hello out there.... LordAmeth (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to trust Nihonjoe on the search for reliable sources. WP:BLP pretty much comes into play here, which requires all content be cited to a reliable source and there is no evidence that this individual passes WP:BIO, specifically WP:CREATIVE. --Farix (Talk) 11:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not hard to find at least some of the listed works and confirm that "Hoshino Fuuta" is listed as the author, at least by sellers. Which is not the ideal in sourcing, but can be treated as reliable pending finding a better. That would take care of the BLP concerns. The problem of notability, either under WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO, remains however. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entire post removed - contained serious threat of violence by now indef blocked user Vondell (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bold Action - redacted the entirity of Vondells post above - completely unacceptable threat of violence. Exxolon (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do remain civil and not engage in personal attacks against other editors. --Farix (Talk) 17:27, 12 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. Strong consensus to delete, supported by OR and POV concerns. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Armenian historiography[edit]

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

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

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

Delete I've read this article two times over and I'm still trying to understand what the purpose of its creation is. It's essentially an irrelevant, disconnected, hodgepodge collection of certain scholars criticizing sources originating from Armenians all under the vague banner of "Criticism of Armenian historiography." What exactly does the reliability of the 7th century History of Taron have to do with the Iron Age kingdom Urartu's connections to Armenia? It digresses once more and shifts to a vague and poorly written section on the criticism of Soviet Armenian scholars, then the medieval author Movses Khorenatsi and then questions why Armenians are not infatuated enough with the date May 28 as they are with September 23. The reliability of the scholars further dampen the usefulness of the article: an obscure Polish (historian? archaeologist?) is cited to support, once again, vague claims, and even moreso when it cites a highly unreliable author numerous times, Turkkaya Ataov, who is a vicious denier of the Armenian Genocide.

How any of this falls under such a vast banner as "Falsification of history" and is placed in the same box as Holocaust Denial and neo-Stalinism is beyond me but it does certainly provoke thought as to what its supposed to demonstrate. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I can go on but I think the silliness of this article is practically self-evident. If someone is criticizing a historian from the seventh century or a city built in the first century B.C. or a kingdom from the Iron Age, it can go on its respective article; desperately grasping for straws on anyone who criticizes Armenian historians and then lumping them into a single article to thus show their unreliability reeks of POV and it's tragic that Brandmeister, its creator, has taken such lowly steps to demonstrate this.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A collection of dubious minority POV quotations with a possible purpose of anti-Armenian propagand. Some of the sources like Suny are included in the same Armenian historiography. Gazifikator (talk) 04:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't wonder, given who is prodding the article. Another case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and it is not "certain scholars", but even Armenian ones or of Armenian heritage, such as Suny, not to mention the third-parties. Indeed, this is just the tip of the iceberg and I have much more to write. The criticism clearly detected several forgeries in particular, so it falls under the falsification of history template pretty well. ~~And I don't think that Turkkaya Ataov or even just knowledgeable man can't debunk the misattribution and fake caption for quite notable painting.~~ brand спойт 09:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Why am I not surprised that Brand created this article, his obsession with smearing anything Armenian seems to have no bounds. How on earth is a 9th century alleged geneological forgery by Photios I of Constantinople fall under the banner of modern revisionism? I'm not even going to bother with the rest. Brand here then goes on to place the article under the header for Holocaust denial in this template, see the diff [43]. What was the rush? Sickening. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not talking solely about revisionism. If there are forgeries (even Armenian authors confirm that), they can be naturally in the criticism. The Holocaust denial is criticized as justly as Armenian historiography. brand спойт 14:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, how could I be so mistaken... The content of this bogus article doesn't even match the lead. You placed the article under the topic of Holocaust denial in that template without paying any attention obviously. You should have at least placed it next to "Censorship of images in the Soviet Union‎", not that it would matter anyway.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A contributing article with objective sources, there is no reason for deletion.

Baku87 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Delete. If the historiographers are notable, than the criticism should go on their pages or the subjects-being-investigated-by-the-historiographers' page, etc. The article in its current state is a hodgepodge list of criticisms that violates WP:coatrack. I don't think there is enough notable content to justify a whole separate article on criticisms alone when there isn't even an article on Armenian historiography. Sifaka ^talk 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge information and Delete as per Sifaka. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Armenian history is rich enough that discussing random criticism of scholars analyzing different chunks of it qualifies as indiscriminate. Ray^Talk 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in fact is large enough to not to be merged into any of the suitable article. I see nothing of coatrack as it currently defined: I can hardly imagine that the forgeries, dating criticism and improper attributions, confirmed by several scholars independently, are tangentially related biased subject with regard to the criticism of Armenian historiography. Neither do I think that the article runs against the fundamental NPOV policy, as defined in WP:COAT. "There isn't even an article on Armenian historiography" is not a valid argument as well, otherwise what hinders you from creating the page?

Regarding indiscriminate collection, you should read WP:INDISCRIMINATE first, it says that the articles just should not be plot summaries, lyrics databases, lists of statistics and news reports. That's all. brand спойт 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some of its content seems virulently POV, most of the rest is unrelated trivia gathered from here and there. The purpose of its creation is pretty clear in its "other issues" subsection: spread propaganda aimed at denying the Armenian Genocide and Nagorno-Karabakh propaganda produced by Azerbaijan, and give that propaganda a spurious veneer of respectability. There might be a valid case for an "Armenian historiography" entry, with a "criticism" subsection within it. But I bet little of the content in this current entry would survive scrutiny and end up in it. Meowy 20:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Like the nominator described above, I too am curious to know what this page wishes to accomplish. Specific criticism of historiography probably falls within the reach of the articles on the authors who posited those positions. Notable nationalistic positions could be included within the context of an article covering nationalism, and I see two articles existing on the particular subject: Armenian nationalism and Armenian national awakening. We're falling into the trap with the potential of creating a domino effect. It can be said it will be inevitable that someone will soon create a Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography and where will it stop then? I share the concerns of Sifaka when he/she states that there isn't even an article on Armenian historiography. Lastly, I'm a little troubled with this edit, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Template:Falsification_of_history&diff=prev&oldid=287826964, which places the criticism of Armenian historiography on par with Holocaust denial. What meaning does this article's author wish to convey?--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your question on what this page wishes to accomplish is quite simple: we are writing encyclopedia. It is not some scattered non-notable scholars or a 'collection of dubious minority POV quotations', but a continuous stream by Alfred von Gutschmid, Arnold J. Toynbee, Ronald Suny, Bruce Metzger, Erich Feigl, Victor Schnirelmann etc. If someone wishes to create Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography, let it be, I have nothing against, Wikipedia is not a battleground. Regarding the proper place in template, I agree with Eupator to fix the article under Soviet historiography. brand спойт 11:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, Erich Feigl himself is a well-known revisionist, with his Denial of Armenian Genocide and anti-Armenianism. The report by the Simon Wiesenthal Center called Feigl's book, "A Myth of Terror: Armenian Extremism", "a revisionist publication" that "abounds with misleading details".[44] He is a documentary film producer by his profession and an amateur author. Gazifikator (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That of course does not make his non-genocide statements wrong, neither disqualifies him to judge the historiography - Feigl was a Prof., acclaimed by Genocides.eu as "one of those rare authors who knows practically each village in eastern and southeastern Turkey, Hakkari and Zagros, west and northwestern Iran and Azerbaijan, as a result of not only travelling, but researching" ([45]). A Myth of Terror touches the real phenomenon and the same site writes: "The preparatory work was already well underway when a shocking event (the murder in Vienna on June 20, 1984 of the Turkish labour attache, Erdogan Özen, who was a personal friend of the author) led Erich Feigl to produce an extensive film expose of this "myth of terror", which had already claimed so many innocent lives. After more than a year's work on the films, Professor Feigl wrote his book "A Myth of Terror,"... which exposes the roots and strategic aim of Armenian terrorism. After that, ASALA ceased terrorist activities..." brand спойт 08:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "Soviet historiography" article, but no "Criticism of Soviet historiography" article. Why? Because, even for that important subject, there is no need for such an article - it can all be placed within the "Soviet historiography" article. Regardless of its current lamentable content, there cannot be a legitimate argument for having a "Criticism of Armenian historiography" when there is no "Armenian historiography" article. Meowy 15:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian voting here is natural, but each particular historiography is usually a big subject, more or less. The giant Soviet historiography, as well as phantasmal Soviet history is quite ambiguous 'cause it was an artificial umbrella term for many nations. The issue of Armenian historiography in particular is ongoing - from the late antiquity forgeries to modern critics. I still don't get your legitimate argument - be bold and create one, no one hinders you from. Nonetheless, the criticism is still important for we naturally have Armenian history. brand спойт 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin. The nominator Marshal Bagramyan has not provided any related policy for deletion. Given the vote stack above and WP:IAR, I think the current true cast is 2 'keeps' vs. 2 'deletes' and would like to ask the closing admin to weigh the pros and cons. Thanks in any case. brandспойт 08:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. The only two votes to keep are from notorious, anti-Armenian users, one of whom is the creator of the this propagandist and unencylopedic poor excuse for an article.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like to add, that a good chunk of the article is almost a verbatim copy from probably the most racist and anti-Armenian web site out there. I'm referring to the paragraph by scumbag Turkkaya Ataov regarding Vereshchagin's painting. I wont even link to that site here, simpy google "Turkkaya Ataov" and the first result will be self explanatory. It's very interesting to see what sort of literature inspires Brandmesiter to create such an article. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 14:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After carefully evaluating the arguments presented by both sides, I must admit that I am wholly unconvinced by Mr. Brandmeister's reasoning and logic and have consequently changed my vote to delete this article instead. The usage of even some of the so-called historians such as Feigl, who appended his name on a work called Armenian Mythomania and describe Armenians as having a 'compulsion to embroider the truth, exaggerate or tell lies', I believe, is enough to show on what shaky grounds this article stands on.

Just to set the facts straight and clear up a few of Mr. Brandmeister's misconceptions: The Apotheosis of War was never actually meant to portray as an actual picture of massacred Armenians - it's merely a known distortion by the Turkish historian Turkaya Ataov. You propound the belief that Wikipedia is not a battleground Mr. Brandmeister, but how are you helping this discussion when you baselessly attack Armenians for conspiratorially working to delete the article you created and make provcative statements such as 'Armenian voting here is natural'? With the exception of Baku87, no one, as of yet, has been persuaded by your fallicious arguments.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'The so-called historians such as Feigl?' If you think the others like Toynbee are 'the so-called historians', then I'm sorry. If you don't trust Feigl, there are many other scholars to choose from. And 'never actually meant'? Who challenges that? And how do am I supposed to know that there is a distortion? Known by whom? So far I believe Ataov is right since no credible arguments are presented, just your particular notion that this is the so-called 'known distortion'. Lastly, there is no provocative statements, it is just natural that Armenian users would more likely vote for deletion that's why I requested the check against vote-stacking. brand спойт 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this article was written for the intent and purpose to feed someone's hatred of Armenians. IF this article had been seriously written to show Criticism of Armenian historiography, Brandmeister would have at least mentioned, Mikayel Chamchian, Elishe, Koriwn, Ayrivank, and the 1958 Conference attended by Charles Dowsett. Instead, this article mentions Photius, who isn't Armenian, and merely used Armenian genealogy for his own purposes. The first reference as listed has NO page number. The 3rd reference presumably mentions forgery(forged) twice, yet on page 79 the word forgery does not exist! The 9th reference states, "The History on the move notes, that "the leaders of the present Republic were so unprepared for independence that they were unable to create a new flag, a new coat of arms and a new national anthem".[9] In particular the coat of arms was adopted in a dubious, underhanded manner, as a measure of shortsighted political expediency.[9]". Which has NOTHING to do with Armenian historiography. The 10th reference doesn't have the correct name of the book(the correct name is, "New Testament studies", and merely states a misconception(by whom is the relevant question) as Armenian historiography(which at this point I'm curious if the creator of this article even KNOWS what historiography means!). The 12th reference appears to be a blog, which I'm sure there are more reliable sources available on such a crucial subject as Criticism of Armenian Historiography. All in all, a poorly written, poorly researched, and even more poorly sourced, hated-driven article. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone forges Armenian historiography, like did Photios, then sooner or later the others will give credit to that unless it becomes dismantled. Regarding the 3rd reference, here is the Google Books scan of page 79. I would like good faith to be assumed here to see no such things as I'm curious if the creator of this article even KNOWS what historiography means!. If I did not know the word 'historiography', I would not rather use it, right? Also I would like to inform you that a big, big, big part of info in Wiki is in progress, something is being trimmed, something is being added and so on. You suggested Mikayel Chamchian, the 1958 conference etc.? Ok, will be added. I don't believe that the concerns with particular places in such topic constitute a valid argument for deletion since this is not how Wiki works. Deletionism should have its bounds. brand спойт 12:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As many have noticed already, this article contains a collection of completely unrelated issues lumped in under an incorrect title for very dubious reasons. One can effortlessly strip down this article to a line or two and then redirect it to an exisiting relevant article, merging the few lines (if any) that can be salvaged.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let people judge. The recent issue of Moses of Khorene is a good example and the third-party opinion confirmed, that "there is clearly an ongoing scholarly debate over the date". As to Photios, see also the Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography, p. 349. Still I hope that there are only few unmasked forgeries and this is one of the core issues the criticism deals with. Anne Elizabeth Redgate in turn testifies, that the authenticity and chronology of Photius' Armenian correspondence are problematic [46]. brand спойт 19:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They already have, other than you and another Azeri, everyone else voted to delete this article. As for Photius, i'm not sure you even understand that issue. From the seventh to tenth centuries most notable Byzantines were of Armenian descent, wholly or partially including Photius. Most of them were actually related to old Armenian noble families but others were merely descendants of deported peasants. In order to gain favor with Basil I, Photius convinced Basil's family thay they are the descendants of the Arshakunis. That's it, that's all. This is common knowledge within Byzantine studies and has absolutely nothing to do with Armenian historiography. I don't even know why i'm explaining you this, as if you care.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argumentation just hit the ground. Indeed, the common knowledge within Byzantine studies is Photius' famous Arshakuni forgery and even you confirmed his Armenian origin. brand спойт 07:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're too confused.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 15:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there is a critism of certain historian, it should be in that author's own page. The article can cause a vicious circle of accusations by its title. Then an article then will come with Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography and then it can involve other countries. Overall the title is not healthy for Wikipedia and induces a battle field mentality. Criticism of Azerbaijani historiography, Criticism of Turkish historiography, Iranian historiography, American, Jewish, Spanish and etc.. These sort of titles are not informative and seem propagandistic. Anything valid can be put in different author's page. As an example of mistakes in this article: "The Massacre of Armenians by certain Ismail Ra’in, printed by Emir Kebir Publishing House in Tehran". Ismail Ra'in is actually a Muslim Iranian and not Armenian! He has written a book on the Armenian Genocide but uses that picture simply because he feels it is representative. On page 151 he states: "After a while, dead bodies left to rotten will turn into skulls as shown in this picture". The book's picture quality is poor, but I think the one on pg 273 had this one in mind [47]. Anyhow, Ismail Ra'in is a Muslim and the book is available online and the author is relatively clear he is not Armenian. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that independent.co.uk photo you linked to is originally from a 1916 Russian book, was taken in 1915, and depicts a massacre scene in the Mush valley. The original has the caption "Sculls of Armenians burned alive near the village of Ali-Zrnan" Meowy 02:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First of all, I'm not Armenian (hi Brand). Second, there's almost nothing historiographical in this article (hello? historiography?). Third, and to my knowledge, the concept itself of "Criticism of Armenian historiography" does not exist in academics (thus OR). This article is a collection of I don't know what, though some of the refs (I mean, from the recognised specialists, i.e. not a lot from this article) could be used in other articles (for exemple in Moses of Chorene). But to aggregate them in one article, and in such a way, is completely artificial. And of course completely PoV, to say the least. Sardur (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi :) Broadly speaking, historiography examines the writing of history and the use of historical methods, drawing upon such elements as authorship, sourcing, interpretation, style, bias, and audience as per our article. Now you are welcome to have a look at the Criticism again. You may also look at the Category:Criticisms. brand спойт 07:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sardur's observation actually puts the final nail in the coffin of both the title and the content of this POV-ridden article. Historiography, by definition, already includes criticism - historians advocating one viewpoint, arguing against another, and so on. To have an article titled "Criticism of Armenian historiography" is just stupid, a POV invention. Meowy 15:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...said omnipresent POV-pusher Meowy :) brand спойт 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any facts to refute the argument, brand resorts to spurious insults. Meowy 02:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several concerns have been addressed, Feigl and Ataov removed and replaced with more venerable scholars. brand спойт 07:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you can't strike out text written by other editors. Striked-out text means that an editor has withdrawn a comment they made, so the only person who can strike out a bit of text is the person who wrote that text. Meowy 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As an unregistered user probably I have no right to vote but article which calls me an expert in Armenian historiography and cites my weblog should be deleted. Best regards. W.Pastuszka —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.223.201.83 (talk) 17:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have got things rather wrong in your web blog. There were several settlements named "Tigranakert". Nobody has been saying that the Tigranakert recently excavated in Nagorno Karabakh is THE Tigranakert, Tigran's capital, the city captured by Lucullus. That site has been fairly conclusively identified as medieval Arsen, whose ruins are located to the southeast of Silvan in eastern Turkey. As for the Nagorno Karabakh site being one of the other Tigranakerts - I don't know, but the remains that have been uncovered do appear to be from that time period. There are videos on youtube depicting the excavations. Meowy 18:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is solved and Pastuszka replaced with authoritative scholar to entirely conform with the standards now. brand спойт 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is breathtaking. Are users allowed to so effortlessly infringe users’ rights by editing their own text?! Mr. Brandmeister, this may not be the first time I am saying this on Wikiedpia but your editing habits have a disturbing nature to them. Yes, I called Feigl a so- called historian but I never appended such a prefix to Mr. Toynbee. This is not a war between my words and Ataov, for Ataov is an unreliable source. In academia, schools of thoughts attract criticism and it is a plain fact Armenian scholars have never had problems criticising each others’ positions. The article in fact is not the criticism of a school of thought (which could fit in the article about Armenian nationalism, I suppose) – It’s just an incoherent list of irrelevant material. There is no distinct line of reasoning; almost any criticism found in any book could go in this article under the same pretext. It is akin to creating a 'Criticism of Greek historiography' article by lumping together a classical Greek historian criticising another classical Greek historian.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are a relatively new user here, I'll say that the striking was applied to facilitate the updated revision. Anyway, I would like to draw attention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Controversial names: the current title of a page does not imply either a preference for that name, or that any alternative name is discouraged in the text of articles. Generally, an article's title should not be used as a precedent for the naming of any other articles. But it is quite reasonable to exclude the general, non-critical views from the article since they are endless. brand спойт 08:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry mate, but this article is one massive joke. No one, least of all myself, is convinced that we need it and it's a major distraction. How one can compare the standards of modern scientific ethics to 5th century historiography and lump it into the category of 'falsification of history' and Holocaust denial boggles me. After all this, it's breathtaking that you still have not realised this and are aggresively pushing your views.--The Diamond Apex (talk) 15:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Sardur (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sifaka, Ray and The Diamond Apex. - Fedayee (talk) 22:00, 12 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Formidable Markup Language[edit]

A follow-up for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formidable for TYPO3. Timurite (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination: non-notable, non-consumer software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete... not only is it not notable, but I almost get the idea that it fails Wikipedia:Hoax, given the lengths it attempts to call itself "FML", I wonder if it's merely some joke reference to fmylife.com... If someone drops a reliable source for this article, I would retract what I just said, but at the moment, there's no sources in the article, so I'm going to have to assume it's a hoax. Toad of Steel (talk) 20:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to be a hoax, it seems that Formidable does exist and the language is indeed called FML. Shreevatsa (talk) 00:21, 11 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 per WP:SNOW and WP:SPA nominator. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knuth reward check[edit]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Casesorcurone (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What part of WP:IINFO suggests this article is inappropriate??? A Knuth reward check is a notable, verifiable object. This article is not a list, not a summary, nor it is "thoughtless" or "gathered without care". --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Knuth is one of the biggest names in Computer Science and this is a notable topic related to him. I'd heard about the reward cheques, as I think many people in the field have, but this article provided a good deal of detail for me and seems to be reasonably well sourced. I see no good reason to remove this article. --A scientist (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Knuth is highly notable, and these cheques are one of the most notable things about him. I can definitely see people wanting to know what a Knuth cheque is, such that wikipedia should be able to answer them. Plasma (talk) 08:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's why I found that page today. So count this as a keep, too. --L33tminion (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - How is it an indiscriminate collection of information? There ought to be something that prevents the random nomination of articles with ridiculous arguments. They are a waste of time. Rilak (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article, as stated above, is about a notable and verifiable topic. One (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We do have articles on notable awards. This particular award is offered by a famous computer scientist, and has received its own coverage, so I think it deserves an article. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AfD's like this show the problem with "indiscriminate collection of information" as a title in WP:NOT; what that label means to various editors itself seems rather indiscriminate. The topic itself seems clear enough. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem with keeping this article. I found the article notable and suitable for a project like Wikipedia. What would be the problem? I vote "keep". Tommy (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is an SPA. Iowateen (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteworthy cultural phenomenon. Can we get some WP:SNOW here? Ray^Talk 17:26, 5 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Michael McHale[edit]

McHale appears to be a bit part actor and a member of a boy band. Neither make someone notable. His acting credits show no indication of significant parts (with the possible exception of the currently unbroadcast Glee (TV series)). He is a member of NLT (band) currently at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NLT (band) but appears to have done nothing notable outside that band. There appears to be no independent reiliable sources that show any individual notabilty for McHale. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. He's certainly no regular Kevin McHale, either. ;-) One (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 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 13:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clusterball[edit]

Non-notable computer game with no reliable sources to it's notability. Hipocrite (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 14:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – reliable sources covering the game [48] and [49] (at least in regards to the iPhone release; more are probably out there). MuZemike 17:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's about a different game, given that it's got a different name, on a different platform and was released 9 years after the game being referred to. Hipocrite (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read both reviews, and it still looks like they're referring to the same game, though given they're different ports. All say that you collect balls and drop them through rings to score. MuZemike 01:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article was only edited six times in 2007 and 2008 combined! If that doesn't establish its place in obscurity and non-notability, then I don't know what does. -sesuPRIME ^{talk • contribs} 06:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't matter how many times it was edited, or how short it is. It was mentioned in a third party media source, mentioned by MuZemike, and thus meets the requirements for existing. Dream Focus 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there are not the kind of multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources that would establish notability for this.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Extremely trivial real-world coverage in only two sources, which is far from enough to establish sufficient notability. The provided sources don't even seem to cover the game in question so much as an apparent sequel to the game. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Clusterball" + "review" + google search = three good sources pop out immediately, now cited. C'mon, this is depressing... Someone another 01:53, 11 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Peterlin (footballer)[edit]

Footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:FOOTYN. Dancarney (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Dancarney (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He only appears to have played at an amateur level so far, and other than his transfer to Everton he has yet to acheive anything of note (simply signing for a professional team isn't enough to establish notability as there is no guarantee he will ever play for them). This article can be recreated if he makes a first team appearance. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 15:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I have been working on getting the article up to date and properly formatted so it can easily be re-created if/when he makes his Everton debut. --JonBroxton (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ATHLETE. Iowateen (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player has not played in a professional league. John Sloan @ 20:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest WP:SNOW. John Sloan @ 20:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree that the article doesn't meet qualifications for a professional soccer player, but as this is an extremely rare case of an amateur player from California being signed to a Premiership team without going through the MLS first (and it's well-documented with many, many supporting sources), I don't think it should be held to the standards of a normal soccer player article. It's rare. It's new. It's a dream for me, and a dream for you. 216.205.234.2 (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)I know I don't have a username, and I'm sorry. Call me Ishmael.[reply]
- Can you show us those many, many sources? Iowateen (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure! http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_5267150,00.html, http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/blog.php?b=5183, http://blogs.nypost.com/sports/soccer/archives/2009/05/unheralded_anto.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.205.234.2 (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Skysports link and the New York Post are reliable sources with significant coverage, but Bigsoccer is a forum. If you or soemone else posts one more reliable source with significant coverage, my !vote will be changed to keep. Iowateen (talk) 03:04, 12 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geostick[edit]

Neologism, recently invented concept Passportguy (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No independent sourcing, no evidence that this has received any widespread coverage (or, for that matter, coverage within the Geocaching community). —C.Fred (talk) 11:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, there's always someone somewhere enjoying making other peoples live miserable. Nyarnon (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice Speaking as a fine weather and time permitting geocacher, I wouldn't fancy using a memory stick of uncertain provenance instead of a geocoin or travelbug. As to the article, looks like promotion of a new idea that isn't yet accepted. Geocoins and travel bugs are established items. If this takes off (not into my computer, it won't), then an article could be re-created. Peridon (talk) 12:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advert for a new concept. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an advert, but not notable, and also a neologism. No prejudice to recreation, but the emo from Nyarnon is a bit of an insult. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:47, 5 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elite of Classical Music[edit]

Article contends notability, howver zero google hits. Likely advert/spam/nn-group Passportguy (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources to back up notability claims. Also delete Elite of Classics (which redirects to this article). Quantpole (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. --Klein zach 13:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jashiin (talk) 13:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP Drawn Some (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Eusebeus (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Clearly spam.----Smerus (talk) 08:24, 10 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Books writen on Compost

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spam with no context. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 15:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Books writen on Compost[edit]

Article written to promote a book by one author - advertising, Original research, non-notable book Passportguy (talk) 11:37, 5 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 Grand Erie District School Board. merge to district article has consensus Nja²⁴⁷ 08:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port Dover Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Primary school. High schools fine, primary schools no.--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please merge into the Grand Erie District School Board article as it will be more notable at that level. GVnayR (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and the articles that follow per above. These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only trivial information mentioned. Article topic is not encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. Core information on schools is entirely suited to the district page. TerriersFan (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge into the district, as routine for public schools. Inappropriate nomination DGG (talk) 09:18, 7 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) 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port Ryerse School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. (if sourced, the racial integration thing MIGHT be notable) tedder (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Other people should find information about Port Ryerse School in newspaper or print form and source it into this article. GVnayR (talk) 15:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even at that, though, they would still be required to show that Port Ryerse School is notable enough to receive coverage outside of Norfolk County, Ontario. Merge this and the articles that follow per above. These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Racial integration of students in the late 19th century is sufficiently uncommon to consider the school pioneering. I'm calling it weak because the entire article is based on one source. -Mgm|^(talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the racial integration issue confers notability. TerriersFan (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep if there's more information than just the pictureabout integration, or otherwise merge with the school district.o or other appropriate unit. , not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:29, 7 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. keep consensus, assertion of independant notability Nja²⁴⁷ 08:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doan's Hollow Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - Being that it was a school that operated before the Internet (or even before personal computers), it would be prudent that if people found sources through print media about Doan's Hollow. GVnayR (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one big article about Norfolk County schools; i've seen a proposal for merging to the Grand Erie District School Board, although that covers three counties. These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While references are severely lacking, being a pioneer school in its field in the area means it could potentially be encyclopedic. Let's give people a chance to improve it. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - pioneering in special education. Special Education in Ontario Schools, Ken Weber, Highland Press (1999), ISBN 0969306172 should also be consulted. TerriersFan (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to have been a notable pioneeer special education school.DGG (talk) 09:13, 7 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 Grand Erie District School Board. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

South Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge into the Grand Erie District School Board article. GVnayR (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into one big article about Norfolk County schools; i've seen a proposal for merging to the Grand Erie District School Board, although that covers three counties. These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only the address is verified, no independent, reliable references exist to verify the article content with. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lack of independent sources speaks against a standalone page but not against a merge. Merged factual, non-contentious content needs reliable sources but not necessarily independent. The distinction is made at WP:NNC which states that the notability guidelines don't apply to content. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district.o or other appropriate unit. , not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:28, 7 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. due to assertion of indepedent notability Nja²⁴⁷ 08:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nixon Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - If people can find information in newspaper or other forms of print, then this article would probably be good enough to reach Start-class. GVnayR (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with any other article, one has to establish that the subject meets Wikipedia's standards for notability. I can appreciate that you want to write about the history of Norfolk County, Ontario, but unless there is information that shows that this is well-known outside of Ontario, it's not likely to be kept. Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's notability guidelines say nothing about sources or coverage needing to be non-local to establish notability. People have proposed such guidelines at WP:NLI and they are the topic of a heated debate which is showing mostly opposition to the proposed guidelines. The issues we should focus on discussing here are (a) whether there are reliable sources coveraging this topic, and (b) whether the coverage is significant, per WP:N. Cazort (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one big article about Norfolk County schools; i've seen a proposal for merging to the Grand Erie District School Board, although that covers three counties. These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't exist except as an empty building. So not only is it not notable it doesn't exist any longer. If the building is of architectural significance the local populace should get it designated as a landmark and then it will be welcomed at Wikipedia, leave a message on my talk page at that time and I will help write a referenced article. Drawn Some (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer existing is irrelevant. If you believe the school to be notable when it existed, it still is. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Contrary to the other listed schools, this one shows actual signs of having a historical significance. Referencing is still lacking, though. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What signs of historical significance do you see? I looked for them and didn't see them. The article makes no claim of significance or importance other than being free of bullies. Drawn Some (talk) 19:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence. It appears to have existed for more than a century. Anything that started in the late 1800s and survived that long has historic potential. Not sure, if it will come through on it, though.- Mgm|^(talk) 07:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Claims of significance or importance can be found in newspapers, books, and other print material. I choose to specialize in Web material because that's the easiest to get. GVnayR (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No claims of significance have been given, however, and it can always be recreated if claims are found. GVnayR, make sure to read Wikipedia:OUTCOMES#Education, Wikipedia:Notability (schools), and even Wikipedia:Notability (high schools). tedder (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a former one-roomed schoolhouse that looks historically significant. TerriersFan (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reuse of an old school is notable; even if it is thought not to be , we.d merge in with the school district., not delete. Inappropriate nomination. DGG (talk) 09:17, 7 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 Grand Erie District School Board. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Williams Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - If people can find information about this school in print form, that would be wonderful. GVnayR (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you've taken the time to contribute articles, but Wikipedia regulates its growth through policies concerning a threshold of notability for a particular subject, and I don't believe that this school would meet that requirement. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one big article about Norfolk County schools; i've seen a proposal for merging to the Grand Erie District School Board, although that covers three counties. These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant memorial with no independent reliable sources to draw from. (address database data from ref 1 don't count) - Mgm|^(talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district.o or other appropriate unit. , not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:28, 7 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 Grand Erie District School Board. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lynedoch Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - There are probably more sources in print form that other people can find. GVnayR (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article is plentiful, but it's unlikely that the topic (Lynedoch Public School) could be shown to be notable for its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one big article about Norfolk County schools; i've seen a proposal for merging to the Grand Erie District School Board, although that covers three counties. These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources exist, the current use of the building has nothing to do with the school. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

c*Merge with the school district., not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:26, 7 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 Grand Erie District School Board. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walsh Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This school has been notable to the community as well as Norfolk County (in one form or another) for 100 years and it's also a Start-class article. GVnayR (talk) 14:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- make sure to read Wikipedia:Notability (local interests); is there significant coverage outside of the local community? tedder (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that individual articles about the high schools in Norfolk County (i.e., those that can grant a diploma that would qualify a graduate to enter a university) would probably be kept as inherently notable. Other schools, such as Walsh (which goes to 8th grade), have to demnostrate the type of coverage that Tedder refers to. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into one big article about Norfolk County schools; i've seen a proposal for merging to the Grand Erie District School Board, although that covers three counties. These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the information is independently verified. No reliable INDEPENDENT sources. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the lack of independent sources speaks against a standalone page but not against a merge. Merged factual, non-contentious content needs reliable sources but not necessarily independent. The distinction is made at WP:NNC. TerriersFan (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district.o or other appropriate unit. , not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:30, 7 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 Grand Erie District School Board. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

West Lynn Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge into the Grand Erie District School Board article. GVnayR (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above; Since Grand Erie covers three counties, I'd support a merger of all of these by the author into one article about Norfolk County schools; These aren't grouped in one nomination, so a boilerplate answer for this. This and the nominations that follow appear to have been part of a project of about 50+ articles about Norfolk County, Ontario in Template:Norfolk County, Ontario and even an entire category called Category:Elementary schools in Norfolk County, Ontario. Needless to say, there is not a right of entitlement for articles about all of the elementary schools in any locality. If any of these are notable outside the immediate area, then a keep should be considered, but this seems to be unfamiliarity of Wikipedia's general rules of notability. Mandsford (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ delete A7 as organization that fails to establish its notability. - Mgm|^(talk) 18:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Schools cannot be speedied under A7. This has been the situation for some months, now. TerriersFan (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added that unilaterally. Doesn't mean it is consensus. Schools are organizations and those are not excluded from speedy deletion. Anyway, if it can't be speedied, consider my vote a regular delete "vote". - Mgm|^(talk) 08:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this was the discussion when it was added - Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 31#A7 and Schools. TerriersFan (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district.o or other appropriate unit. , not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:28, 7 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 Grand Erie District School Board. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

W. F. Hewitt Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge into the Grand Erie District School Board article. GVnayR (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merger accomplished. Mandsford (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna merge, please do it properly and include the references. Regardless mergers shouldn't be done mid-discussion. Only after consensus is established. -- Mgm|^(talk) 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Properly speaking, since the Grand Erie District School Board article isn't under discussion, we can edit that one as we see fit at any time. Please feel free to add whatever references that you wish to add to that article. Mandsford (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to add any references. I'm objecting because merging the material while the discussion is still ongoing is bad form. Technically you can edit the other article, but to do a proper merge you'd need to replace this one with a redirect which is bad when there's an ongoing discussion about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district., not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standard practice. Wait till the afd closes to do it, even though its the obvious thing to do. DGG (talk) 09:22, 7 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 Grand Erie District School Board. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Townsend Central Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please merge into the Grand Erie District School Board article. GVnayR (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to establish notability and also fails to be encyclopedic. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district., not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:20, 7 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 Grand Erie District School Board. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waterford Public School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge into the Grand Erie District School Board article. GVnayR (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article fails to include encyclopedic information, establish its notability (A7 organization) or have any merge-worthy material. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the school district., not delete. Inappropriate nomination at odds with our standrd practice DGG (talk) 09:20, 7 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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Old Colony Mennonite School[edit]

Non-notable primary school. tedder (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You have been whacked in the head with a wet trout. Nominations should state why an article fails inclusion guidelines or other guidelines and policies. Calling something non-notable without explanation carries no weight whatsoever. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7 as an organization that fails to establish why it is notable. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say Delete, and also amend that A7 does not apply to schools. ViperSnake151 Talk 23:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying it does. I'm applying it to an organization. Organizations aren't exempt. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schools are certainly organisations in the normal usage of that term. However, in WP:A7 it states "... an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools)". TerriersFan (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great I'll add an exception for videogames and animals too. Just because it's there, doesn't mean it's the result of consensus. The discussion you cited elsewhere (Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_31#A7_and_Schools) was not widely advertised nor was it kept open for a reasonable amount of time nor did it get input from a representative cross section of editors. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ihe reason it was taken out of speedy is because they are not deleted under even WP:AFD, but merged. It doesn't make sense to delete speedy something which is not deleteable at all. That has been explicit consensus now for about 6 months, and practical consensus for at least 1.5 years. We have a few stable compromises and this is one of them. I know you've been trying to change it at AfD, but I don;t see any general inclination to do it. Videogames if entirely browser based are currently included under webcontent, though I am not sure they should be; animals are not entirely clear: consensus seems to be it does not apply to them either, but it is sometimes disputed. (And we do speedy delete schools under other criteria if necessary) DGG (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Grand Erie District School Board as is normal practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:18, 6 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 Google. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain view chocolate factory[edit]

Non-notable neologism coined by one specific website. Lacks reliable sources to establish notability. tedder (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 10:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Mountain View Chocolate Factory is a nickname for Google. Neologism coined by one writer on The Register. Any substance here would belong at Criticism of Google. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google per {{R from other name}} a la Chipzilla. The Register likes to make up such nicknames and use them consistently, and they often stick and are adopted elsewhere. Redirects are cheap, even if this clearly doesn't merit its own article. Jclemens (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google per Jclemens and Smerdis of Tlön. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Google per Jclemens. Cnilep (talk) 20:47, 10 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 keep as a bad-faith nomination by a sockpuppet of banned user Hilary T. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 01:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aline de Lima[edit]

Non-notable singer Skipper T (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Skipper T (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- Sorry, but I'm not agree with you. Her music is not commercial and she has a lot of fans who buy her albums, go to her concerts and like her work. Thirty thousand albums sold without a big market campaign is not at all negligible when a singer is not yet part of the star system. The fact that it takes time for an young artist to be developed does not mean that he/she is devoid of talent. Success is just a matter of time and a lot of work. She invests in her own career.Outilmail (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have received a whack from a wet minnow. Please provide an explanation as to how you came to that conclusion. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close Skipper T (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely as a ban-evading sockpuppet. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 6 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 - WP:CSD#G4, recreation of previously deleted content. Feel free to recreate it if and when he actually plays some competitive football. --Angelo (talk) 07:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Lambo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Page is about a non-notable soccer player with no professional appearances and no notable collegiate achievements; therefore fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 08:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. FC Dallas' website confirms he has yet to make an appearance for them (therefore failing WP:ATHLETE) and there doesn't appear to anything else out there to establish his notability under WP:BIO. This article can be recreated if and when he makes his first team debut. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4. --Jimbo^[online] 19:17, 5 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 13:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg–Malta relations[edit]

another random combination with non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 07:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of multiple, independent sources providing in-depth coverage. The one salient fact, EU membership, is already covered at EU members. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing to see here. Punkmorten (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this right away http://www.einnews.com/luxembourg/newsfeed-luxembourg-malta some newspapers linking those two nations together even. They are in a lot of groups together, with other small nations. I'll keep looking. Dream Focus 21:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&num=100&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesofmalta.com%2F+Luxembourg&btnG=Search I found some articles on their countries newspaper site, which mention Luxembourg. No notable connections found though. Dream Focus 22:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has the Fiji-Iceland article already come up? Did I miss it. Per above. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of of pages thrown up in a google search but they're just coincidence of terms. There are no significant relations to speak of and no reliable sources to be found. HJMitchell You rang? 13:14, 12 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 13:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France–Kiribati relations[edit]

relatively minor relationship that could easily be described in a few sentences here Republic_of_Kiribati#Foreign_relations. non resident embassies. LibStar (talk) 07:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And your case for deletion is? Rolling Rick (talk) 08:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it does seem there's nothing very substantive, so I would approve of mentioning any valid information at Foreign relations of Kiribati. There doesn't seem to be a need for a separate article. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing substantial to say about this. Stifle (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (you've got the wrong process) If it can be covered elsewhere the correct course of action is WP:MRFD, not deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a bit of a deja-vu when I saw information fishing incidents. Here are some sources French Navy escorted Kiribati ship, EU page stating that the Kiribati government allows french vessels to fish in its waters, in 1995, "Kiribati suspends diplomatic relations with France, in protest at the French decision to resume nuclear tests on Mururoa Atoll in French Polynesia.", The French leaders meet with Kiribati officials during the France-Oceania Summit. An article stating that the French President met with the High Commissioner of Kiribati [50]. Seems to be some proof that these two nations have relations. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Yet another nomination where WP:BEFORE evidently was not consulted. It won't be the longest of articles, but I challenge anyone to show me that articles need to be 100kb hogs. The relations are clearly notable. --Russavia ^Dialogue 07:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as the initial author. I'd have appreciated being informed by the nominator that he was putting the article up for deletion... It would seem to be common courtesy, not to mention standard procedure. Anyway, I obviously created the article because I felt it was notable. There are noteworthy relations between the two countries, as has been pointed out. Aridd (talk) 13:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient sources have been identified in this AFD to warrant a keep. Smile a While (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand (i have to admit i didn't know there was a place called "Kiribati" before happening across this.)Bali ultimate (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is no unsourced content in the article, so your rationale is erroneous and misleading. Also, your ignorance of Kiribati is utterly beside the point. Notability in an encyclopedia isn't defined by users' ignorance. Aridd (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (for now at least). The article shows signs of improvement and there is evidence of a relationship. If, given a reasonable amount of time, the article has not been improved substantially, I would argue for its deletion. I worry that people are commenting in these AfDs based on the wider context of all the bilateral relations articles, regardless of whether this one is any good. HJMitchell You rang? 13:24, 12 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. The discussion tended towards deletion, but I don't feel comfortable calling this a rough consensus to delete. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is trying to be a category. It simply lists a good portion of the wikilinks in the creation–evolution controversy page. Although I don't think a category should exist for this either (we have creationism and evolution cats already), we should at least use the proper mechanism if others insist. Ben (talk) 07:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: This article is a list, but it's not an encyclopaedic list. Please see WP:CAT where it notes that Categorization is a feature of Wikipedia's software, enabling pages to be placed in categories which can then be used by readers to find sets of articles on related topics. We shouldn't be using article space to categorise like this. As an example, we have Category:Evolution not List of articles related to evolution. Ben (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists are legitimate navigational aids (See WP:CLN), and there is no conflict with having a navigational template, list, and category on the same topic. This article organizes related articles in a logical, subdivided, and hierarchical manner that helps the reader explore the topic of Creation–evolution controversy. I do think prepending "List of" to the beginning of the title would be a good idea. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 08:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Lists are legitimate navigational aids, but we shouldn't be using article space to categorise. Where is the List of articles related to evolution for instance? It's here. Please see Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Appropriate_topics_for_lists and WP:CAT, and note that not every list needs to exist simply because it is a list - especially when categories are designed for this type of 'list'. Ben (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You refer to Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Appropriate topics for lists, which talks about lists which are too broad ('list of brand names'), too narrow ('list of one-eyed horse thieves from Montana') or on unencyclopedic topics ('list of shades of colors of apple sauce'). But you don't seem to be arguing that this list is any of those, so I don't see that that section is directly relevant. But point 3 in this section of the same guideline does, to me, seem directly applicable - see my !vote below. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redundant to Creation–evolution controversy and a suitable category structure. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. This is a 'subheading-structured list' as described by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists. As another example, we have a list of calculus topics: while that duplicates Category:calculus it presents the information in a different way, divided into logical headings on a single page. This list does the same, and I think makes individual articles much easier to find than ploughing through a category or creation–evolution controversy would. So far as I can see Ben's argument about redundancy doesn't apply to articles related to the creation-evolution controversy any more than list of calculus topics or list of finance topics (which is given as an example by Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, and so presumably falls into the sphere of what that guideline is intended to allow). As for "we have creationism and evolution cats already", I think this is a sufficiently notable and large (in the sense of number of articles) topic that navigational aids like lists and categories are needed. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, though, to renaming to "List of topics in the creation-evolution controversy" or something similar. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is exactly what categories were created for. And don't say WP:CLN. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN. ;) - Mgm|^(talk) 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree completely with Stifle's comments...a category, not a page, is appropriate for the purpose of collecting articles with a common theme. And there's already a category: . If that isn't good enough to capture articles related to the debate, then perhaps we should consider creating a sub-category of Category:Creationism to address this. Cazort (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The navboxes in the related articles are navigational aids. This is just duplication of stuff that's already covered in both articles and navigational aids. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is one big original research in collecting articles which in author's opinion are related to "C-E C", peppered with editorialisms, some of which are opinionated. Judging from the inclusion of "Varve" in this list, one may well include whole geology and biology categories here. The topic is too narrow to have a topic list. A navbox with articles immediately treating the subject would suffice. - Altenmann >t 18:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks encyclopedic and valuable. Should maybe be a list article? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Altenmann. LotLE×talk 20:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article completely redundant given the use of categories, article not encyclopedic or useful anyway. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps I've been talked round. As Mgm points out we have navboxes (Template:Evolution3, Template:Intelligent Design and Template:Creationism2) to serve this purpose, and the more parallel categorisations we have the harder maintenance becomes. I'm not sure whether I agree that "the topic is too narrow to have a topic list" or not, but given the navboxes I won't object to a deletion. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Between Mgm and Mangojuice's excellent points below I am convinced. Delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turn it into a portal. --RandomNumberSee (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's perfectly acceptable to have both a category and a list and this list organizes the information in a far better way than any category could. Edward321 (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists have an advantage over categories, in that they can also include some information on the subject beyond merely the name of the article. John Carter (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any information added would simply be a duplicate of information already on the single article creation-evolution controversy. This article is nothing more than a list of terms related to that single article. Ben (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a far more useful navigational aid than the category or the Creationism portal.--Dr Marcus Hill (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Not sure where to go on this. At minimum, the title needs to be something else since it triggers WP:ASR issues. It also needs much clearly inclusion criteria if it is going to be kept. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Delete" the article. The purpose of the actual text and of the title (both the original one, and the one after the move) is to serve as a list of articles that make up a recommended reading list. You can tell from the "related to" language. We have List of calculus topics, we don't have List of topics related to calculus, which would be overly broad and opinionated. This is not a list of specific topics within a larger topic, or it would consist of far fewer articles: Creation myth, for instance, should be of interest to readers interested in the controversy, but is also clearly not an article about the creation-evolution controversy. Fundamentally, this is a Portal -- a starting point for readers with a specific interest, offering recommendations. In principle, we could have a List of creation-evolution controversy topics article, but it would be vastly different in purpose from this one. Per WP:SAL, a list should always have a clear and unambiguous description of what fits within the list and what does not. This one starts, "The following is a clearinghouse of articles which refer to terms often used in the context of the creation-evolution controversy," and includes such various topics as Plate techtonics, Bioinformatics, Positivism, Theology, Culture wars, arguments for the existence of God, and articles relating to Evolution or Creationism with no substantive relationship to the controversy such as Heredity, Vestigal organs, Creation myth, Global flood. Mango juice^talk 16:39, 12 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Carano[edit]

Blatant self promotion, contributor has twice removed speedy request. No significant evidence of notability Dmol (talk) 07:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clear COI from editor, but even ignoring that I can't find reliable sources to prove notability. Quantpole (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Iowateen (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Strong Delete I find sparse sources on people named "Mike Carano" but none seem to be talking about this person. It seems highly unlikely anyone is going to make an effective argument that this page is worth saving. Cazort (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused as to why this page is up for deletion? All information is true. I put a link to my website, but was then warned, so removed it. Did I do something incorrect? Mike Carano http://mikecarano.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecarano (talk • contribs) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO by a mile. Ray^Talk 17:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 02:35, 6 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motswako[edit]

Delete for being a non-notable music genre. JBsupreme (talk) 07:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A little searching dug up [51], [52], [53] (all admittedly from the same source, but it is the only independent paper in botswana) and a bit here [54]. I'm sure a bit more research would dig up some more. My quick look indicates that there is ongoing coverage in reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 11:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage that Quantpole has come up with is good enough to establish notability in my eyes. I also find more (different) sources: [55], [56]. There are more sources if you look, and some of these have fairly detailed coverage. I think this topic is highly interesting. Since it is WP:Verifiable, I say keep it. Perhaps cut out unsourced material on the page if people object. But I honestly think there is potential for expanding this page. Cazort (talk) 17:21, 5 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. overall consensus was delete, and the keep was qualified well Nja²⁴⁷ 08:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baroon dollar[edit]

This product or concept or whatever it could be called has received no coverage in reliable sources. See this Google news archive search (all dates) and this Google web search. Bongo matic 06:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tend to be highly biased towards wanting to keep articles on this subject, since I run a community currency system myself, and I think they're a wonderful idea! But...I can't find a single reliable source. Many of the blogs writing about this actually make some false claims, like "The Baroon dollar will be the first local currency to be used in Australia"...this is not true as LETS have been active in Australia for some time. I say delete. Hopefully the system will catch on, and attract media attention and then the article can be re-created. Perhaps, if people want to include the baroon dollar in wikipedia, it can be provided as an external link on a relevant page somewhere. Cazort (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. See Local currency#External links and Complementary currency#Examples of complementary currencies. Bongo matic 02:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The actual claim is that it is Australia's first paper-based and national currency backed community currency along the lines of the BerkShares and Lewes Pound who have endorsed our project. If the lack of mainstream media attention is any indication I say delete the majority of references to LETS which are either completely inactive, moribund or in their final demise. Community currencies are evolving and taking on a new form. Stay tuned! --Darren Mitchell (talk) 02:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please comment on how the topic can be shown to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines? The key to these guidelines is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Wikipedia does not publish (nor recognize notability based on) what is TRUE, but what is verifiable in such sources. Bongo matic 02:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The one reliable source I can find: [57] says that this system was started very recently, in 2009, and this hardly establishes notability...that source would be useful for referencing a sentence about this currency in another article. If the claim that this is Austraila's first paper-based backed community currency is true and the system grows, and attracts coverage in reliable sources, that and other facts might become verifiable, which might make this system notable, but right now they are not, unless there are some more sources that we don't know about. Cazort (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Article creation appears driven for promotional purpose as much as anything. Hyped blog commentary does not equate to notability in my view. Murtoa (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 7 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 13:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Venezuela relations[edit]

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Venezuela. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor bilateral agreements and minor level of trade as per [58] LibStar (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of why this is a notable topic, nothing to back it up with. Fails WP:N miserably.--BlueSquadronRaven 22:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are an almanac-like reference work, and this is an almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this seems like a WP:USEFUL argument. see WP:NOT as well. LibStar ([[User [talk:LibStar|talk]]) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [59] , [60], [61] [62] , [63]. LibStar (talk) 01:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what is wrong with that? Biruitorul, LibStar, and BlueSquadronRaven all vote in lockstep. Why is my information less valid because I am consistent with it? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well I know at least Biruitorul and I never use the same text on every single AfD and almost always provide reasons. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I, for one, will not be debating the merits of your argument any further. Any closing admin with a brain in his head will see that your non-sequitor of a rationale for keeping this article doesn't address any concerns about its lack of notability, nor any other failings of it compared to any other policy or guideline. You can call wikipedia William Shatner's toupee from now on, for all I care, it won't change it. --BlueSquadronRaven 03:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not an iota of notability. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.

Yannismarou (talk) 23:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion. Clear notable economic relations a quick google check informs me. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub. I can find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is [64] but it's not independent. There's just not enough material for an article in its own right. HJMitchell You rang? 13:27, 12 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 13:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Peru relations[edit]

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Peru. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We're not a directory. Fails WP:N and WP:RS in trying to assert non-existent notability.--BlueSquadronRaven 22:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are an almanac-like reference work, and this is an almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [65] , [66] , [67], [68], [69] . LibStar (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- We're also not a directory, and multiple, independent sources are still required. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And oddly if the argument is valid it should be used wherever it is valid. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N, couldn't find anything on google news search like this [70]. LibStar (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Yannismarou (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. There's a primary source in the article from the greece foreign ministry, a primary source from a greek battery manufacturer that the peruvian navy had bought its batteries, and a reliable source that says a greek online gambling company bought a peruvian online gambling company. There are no reliable sources about this supposed bilateral relationship. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 11 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 13:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greece–Mexico relations[edit]

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Mexico. The diaspora group has its own article - Greek Mexican. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article eloquently says nothing. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are an almanac-like reference work, and this is an almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [71] , [72] ,[73] , [74], [75] [76] LibStar (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- We're also not a directory, and multiple, independent sources are still required. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing a directory with an almanac entry. A telephone book is a directory, an almanac is written in prose. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First we're an encyclopedia, then an almanac, now a work of prose. Anyone else as confused as I am? --BlueSquadronRaven 04:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. --Yannismarou (talk) 07:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia PIllar I: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Almanac entries just need to exist, such as townships. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Overall I am a supporter of such types of articles, however, I feel that as of now this one is a little pointless. We don't need a page that says that each have consulates in each other's countries. I feel its a keep because there is probably some relevant, notable information out there that could be added. Without this information though, I would recommend deletion. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a jot. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub of no established notability and none establishable by me since i fail to find any reliable sources that discuss this relationship in the depth to meet any of our notability guidelines. An additional list of non-notable unsourced content doesn't obviate the need to get rid of the unsourced, non-notable content at hand.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only real relations on the football field. Mexico usually deals with Greece in a Mexico-EU context. LibStar (talk) 01:40, 12 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 to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greco-Brazilian relations[edit]

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Brazil. The diaspora group has its own article - Greeks in Brazil. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, effectively nothing to say about this than the locations of embassies, which violates WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, following the nom sufficient sourced information is now in place to easily show the notability of this relationship, such as cooperation in trade and Greeces significant support for Brazil to gain a permanent place on the UN security council. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources aren't independent (both come from the Greek government, with both breaching WP:GNG and one breaching WP:PSTS), and in any case, foreign ministers visit each other every week of every year. Something more substantive would be appreciated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of the two sources is a secondary source, and it details only one small event. Still fails WP:N. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. --Yannismarou (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We are an almanac-like reference work, and this is an almanac entry. Notability isn't the same for almanac entries, just facts. For instance, towns in the world only have to exist. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin this user has posted almost identical comments at other AFDs including [77] , [78], [79] , [80], [81] , [82] LibStar (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect my argument to be any different here or any of the other articles? It is just as equally valid here and at the other postings. 1 + 1 will still equal 2, here or anywhere else. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- We're also not a directory, and multiple, independent sources are still required. No policy presumes bilateral relations to be notable, and in any case, the salient fact - embassies - is recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece & of Brazil. -

Biruitorul ^Talk 04:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A telephone book is a directory. This is a stub written in prose. Almanac entries don't require the same notability as articles. They just need to be true. All township entries require, is that they exist, and the census data is piped in, just like these articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems reasonably notable, especially with the "high-level contacts" section. With more information on their relations developing in the coming years, this article has the potential to grow. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "The coming years" don't concern us; we're not a crystal ball. What does exist comes from primary sources, which breaches WP:GNG. Also, foreign ministers visit each other literally every week of every year; it's not that unusual, and it's news we'd never think of recording outside this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - According to WP:PRIMARY, "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source." Many of the claims using primary sources within this article are just plain facts, so long as no one makes any exceptional claim then the source can be used. For instance when a primary source gives a known fact, such as "Greece has an Embassy in Brasilia" that is a fact so the primary source can be used. According to WP:PG, "If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, then the policy should in most cases take precedence over the guideline." this means that in some (but not all) cases WP:GNG may be outweighed by WP:V. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 11 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 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Greece relations[edit]

No independent sources provide significant coverage of this relationship. The one salient fact, the presence of embassies, is already recorded at Diplomatic missions of Greece and of Argentina. The diaspora group has its own article - Greeks in Argentina. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable intersection of countries. Nothing more to state than the location of embassies, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombia–Greece relations it seemed as if this article was going to be kept, along with many others. What is the rationale behind removing it from that page and putting it up for Afd on separate pages. Although I must admit sources are quite limited for these articles so I will remain ~~neutral~~. -Marcusmax(speak) 21:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There was serious protest at their being bundled, so I split them. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is clear from here that there is not only a developing relationship but one which the countries regard as important. Naturally, the various aspects need to be followed up to add secondary sources, probably in Greek and Spanish, but that is an editorial matter and a page on a significant relationship should not be deleted meanwhile. Smile a While (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Naturally, press releases from the Greek government about Greece's foreign relations fail WP:GNG, but I welcome further material. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is o.k. to use self-published sources for some information if there is no reasonable doubt about authenticity, presumably the case here. But the article should mostly be based on independent sources, and only independent sources can establish notability. As it stands, this one is marginal. Just one deputy-minister meeting noted. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per press release above. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, is WP:GNG just being thrown out the window? Sources must be independent of the subject - this "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." - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets my standards for notability & inclusion: full ambassadors & embassies, 20 treaties and accords (I can read the Spanish text), large emmigre community, etc. Needs more sources. Bearian (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That it does. Let's unpack this. Embassies are of course documented at Diplomatic missions of Greece & Argentina. The accords are primary sources and their relevance not validated by WP:PSTS. The emigre community has its own article. Anything else? Any evidence an actual article could be written on this, or are we keeping just for the sake of it? - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment material duplicated elsewhere in Wikipedia has never been a reason for deleting. Biographical information on whoever the current president is, appears in dozens if not hundreds of articles. The GDP of the US is defined and discussed in over a dozen economic articles, charts, and tables. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I don't like this mass deletion of country relations articles, as the nominators are not putting in enough effort into improving rather than deleting. Yet, aside from sport and official press releases about trade, the best I can find is that Christina Onassis had dual citizenship and died in Argentina... there must be better sources out there. Did the nominator do the courtesy of telling Wikiprojects Greece and Argentina about this AfD? Fences and windows (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS, as does the above press release. Also, we're not a directory. --BlueSquadronRaven 23:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we are an almanac-like reference work, and this is an almanac entry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll bite... please show me where, anywhere, on wikipedia that it says this is an almanac. I could use a giggle this morning. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rose by any other name .... Wikipedia is a "reference work" not an encyclopedia. My Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't contain charts, graphs and pages of statistics and rankings, but my almanac does. My EB doesn't list every city in the world, yet both my gazetteer and atlas do. My EB doesn't contain plot summaries for movies and TV shows, yet my Leonard Maltin guide does. Wikipedia expanded from being a traditional encyclopedia, and became a hybrid "reference work" many years ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask for your definition, I asked you to point out where this was called an almanac, which you failed to do. Think of it what you will in your own mind but don't try and foist that opinion on the rest of us. This article still fails all standards for inclusion. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.

--Yannismarou (talk) 00:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll assume you are a newbie here and try to help you get started with understanding Wikipedia. Wikipedia:Five_pillars says in the very first line: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." Did you "[get your] giggle this morning", or laugh so hard you became incontinent? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While tacit, it is still both accurate and true. Can you show me where it says that almanac entries are banned from Wikipedia? Tonwnship entries only require that they exist, and only used primary census data when they were created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "almanac" argument is nothing but a red herring. Even if we assume that Wikipedia, as a unique reference work, should include almanac-type entries, one still needs to establish the notability of the specific entry under consideration to decide whether it should be included or not. There are currently about 193 nations in the world, so unless you are asserting that the 37,056 articles on bilateral relations between them are automatically notable, some evidence needs to be presented that each specific relationship is notable enough to warrant an article. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since all the primary sourced puff fails to establish that this relationship is a notable topic, and due to my own failure to find multiple reliable sources that discuss this relationsihp in a way that might help to make it notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Are "Argentina-Greece" relations the same thing as "Greece-Argentina" relations? Maybe we should have both article just to be sure who's on top? Per above. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe its in alphabetical order. Dream Focus 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This references looks fine to me. Dream Focus 17:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As described by User:Marcusmax here, "According to WP:PG, "If a guideline appears to conflict with a policy, then the policy should in most cases take precedence over the guideline." this means that in some (but not all) cases WP:GNG may be outweighed by WP:V." The two countries clearly have developed relations, so deleting just because there currently is not a secondary source seems a little silly. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per WP:PRIMARY and my previous comments pointed out by Grk1011 I bode keep, nice re-write. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to continuing improvements. In any event, looking up the foreign relations of countries is a legitimate topic to look up in an almanac or encyclopedia. Even if the article is not all that long, somehow or other I can justifiably see people come here to see "Hey, does Argentina and Greece have any relations"? Well, this article provides an answer. And after all, that's who academic research starts. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject itself is notable. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This decision by Ikip to merge all bilateral relations article is unilateral, there is no consensus. Fences and windows (talk) 00:53, 12 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 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMSN[edit]

Notability of the company has not been established. Article seems to be for promotional purposes based on the fact that it was created by User:IMSN US, a user name that shares the company name. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no assertion of importance or significance. Drawn Some (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable company. Iowateen (talk) 16:11, 5 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 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Coast Guard College Alumni[edit]

Listcruft. The individuals listed have no individual notability per Wikipedia standards; effectively, the list is nothing but a giant roster of College graduates. Additionally, it's not based on independent sources. This would be better handled by a webpage at the College's site or even a private website; however, Wikipedia is not a webhost. —C.Fred (talk) 04:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete members of alumni lists must be individually notable. Such a list could be contained within the main article. Drawn Some (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the nominator has said wikipedia is not a webhost. The creator's aims of recording 'those who attended and graduated from the CCGC and the impact (significance) we have had during our careers and lives.' are best served either on the college's own website or on a personal website. There are additionally potential breaches in privacy to consider, as those listed may not want their details displayed. Benea (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons I stated in the contested PROD: List of miscellaneous information; no indication of independent notability of listed people; Wikipedia is not a web host. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:57, 5 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 Voltage regulator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic voltage control[edit]

An essay/technical guide with no assertion of notability. Link does not work - no other citations Greedyhalibut (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That the article is in poor shape is not a call to delete, but to improve the article. The author appears to be coming back and working on it. I fixed the external link and put a noreferences template. The problem is not lack of notability or verifiability but context, I'll label it for that, too. My inclination is to give it a chance. Drawn Some (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: after categorizing it, it may be similar to existing articles, someone with expertise in this area will have to judge. Drawn Some (talk) 03:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I disagree with the nominator that this article is written as an essay. I also don't see this as reading like a technical manual either. As for notability, a quick search shows it to be notable. For example, it is a section in this book. There is no doubt the article needs a dose of cleanup, but deletion is not the answer. -- Whpq (talk) 14:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Voltage regulator. Given the current article's lack of sourcing, I'm not comfortable with a merge, and per NVO, redirect is more appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Voltage regulator. Which, surprise! is automatic by definition. NVO (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - According to the article, this device is something used by electrostatic precipitators. Is this sufficiently different from a voltage regulator? -- Whpq (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not really. There are thousands of applications employing voltage regulation and probably a dozen or so notable subtypes of the genre. One type will fit numerous applications. We have an article on a Wrench and its derivative, Pipe wrench but not the Pipe wrench to carry in a Ford Pinto. NVO (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per NVO. Drawn Some (talk) 17:57, 5 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Money Entertainment[edit]

(delete) – (View AfD) Both of these articles are about the same non-notable record label, and to say that it violates WP:NPOV would be an understatement. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 02:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The blue-linked artists are linked to articles not about the artists. Drawn Some (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG MuffledThud (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: author blanked the page but the blank was reverted: see [83] MuffledThud (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I just added an article about a non-notable artist from the above label. Apparently this user has a single-purpose account, so I'm taking it to WP:AIV. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 04:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot - The third one is up for speedy under A9, and the second one is not notable.--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources and the version that hasn't been speedied is obviously a re-creation, complete with warning tags. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 6 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kakamine

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

The result was Speedy Delete (Hoax)--Unionhawk ^Talk 11:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kakamine[edit]

Non-notable, non-sourced, fictional, mythological creature mhking (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G3, blatant vandalism/hoax. NW (Talk) ^{(How am I doing?)} 02:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy was declined for some reason, but I say delete per nom (and it doesn't help that the creator's username is Kakamine23). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have found zero references to this in my mythology library. Looks suspiciously like a wierd vanity page. Turlo Lomon (talk) 03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After a Google search, it seems "Kakamine" is the name of a user account that someone uses on multiple websites. Blatant hoax. Acebulf (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. I believe Kakamine is a Hawaiian name. Drawn Some (talk) 03:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G3, hoax. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete. I'm building a snowman right now. JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 5 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 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal thinking[edit]

Contested prod. The proposer's reason was "Non-notable WP:NEOLOGISM, borderline spam for non-notable book, no reliable 3rd-party references per WP:RS, can find nothing supporting notability online." I agree on all counts. It is borderline spam (not blatant enough to speedy delete, IMO), and it completely lacks independent sourcing. The closest things to sources on the page are the book (in multiple translations) and its website. —C.Fred (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MuffledThud (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 02:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's spam alright. Drawn Some (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spam about a vapid, vague self-help coinage: describe the mental basis of best practices and peak performance. Optimal thinking can also be described as superlative realism. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do a search and it yields (a) stuff associated with the books here (b) people using the term "optimal thinking" in regular, everyday speech, not using it to mean some sort of specialized concept. Cazort (talk) 17:34, 5 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 deleted; copyvio. -- Menti fisto 09:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Africanaair[edit]

Unsourced article asserts notability ("first time an African American, owned and operated a private, schedule, international commercial airline"), but there are no meaningful hits on Google or Google Books. The article appears to be written by the airline's owner (User:Bossloubrown signed the article as LBJ = Louis Brown Jr?), and is largely a copy of http://www.knowledgecash.com/infolope.aspx?id=OI173J103451503 — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Failed verification, little salvageable content in the article. It's not quite blatant enough (or non-notable enough) to speedy delete, but this is not the stuff articles are made of. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently it was a failed code-sharing operation with Air France in the 1980s if I am reading the article correctly but it is not verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copyright violation of this website. I have tagged the article for deletion. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 5 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. Nomination essentially withdrawn. All are welcome to edit, but I do encourage those who owe a contractual duty to the subjects to ensure that thier edits are within policy. My kudos on the above-board manner in which this has been handled so far. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Seawright[edit]

Failure of verification and single-event notability. Claims to be the first African-American Miss Mississippi, but that seems to be her only truly notable event. She does not appear on her children's TV shows per the show credits, so that doesn't qualify her. The article also is devoid of reliable sources and is an overly peacock-termed autobiography. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See comments of nominator on 12 May, below. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being the first in recognized competition is notable. Winning a significant competition, award or honor is even a criterion in the notability guidelines for people. OneEvent does not apply to events that the notability guidelines say make a person notable. Tone can be fixed with editing, so the real issue that should be focussed on is the lack of reliable sources. Did you try to find any per WP:BEFORE? - Mgm|^(talk) 17:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a Google search for "Toni Seawright" returned nothing. Now, part of that is an issue that came up with the IMDB link below: her Naked Brothers Band credit is as Tony Seawright. I just did a google search on tony-seawright; it recommended two hits for Toni Seawright, a Myspace page and a Geocities page. It did list the IMDB page, but down about position seven.

I agree that the lack of independent reliable sources is the key issue. If somebody said right now, "Hey, here's where People magazine did an article on her" and it corroborated all the key factors (Miss Mississippi, mother of Qaasim), this discussion would be closed, because I'd withdraw the nomination. (If we had a reliable source, conflict of interest would be less of an issue, because there'd be something to check the assertions against.) —C.Fred (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred, I will attempt to list this in order so that you can have these reliable sources all found when you google: Toni Seawright. Hetr is a link in relevance to her being Qaasim's Mom?:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/07/arts/television/07musi.html

http://www.buddytv.com/qaasim-middleton.aspx. And as it pertains to her being mentioned in "People"?? We don't have that, but we do have a few other magazine/newspaper articles that are just as credible and/or reliable sources of information: As it pertains to the validity and verification of her Miss Mississippi win and Miss America runner-up position:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Mississippi (This is on Wikipedia)

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/20/us/black-is-miss-mississippi.html (NY Times Article)

http://www.geocities.com/missusamagicf/MA1988Delegates.html (Miss America Delegates)

http://www.missmississippipageant.com/pastroyalty/index.html (Miss Mississippi Website)

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Miss_Mississippi (Wapedia's website)

http://www.missmississippipageant.org/pastroyalty/1980/ (Miss MS past royalties in '80's)

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Miss_Mississippi

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,965978,00.html (article in Time Magazine)

http://www.mswritersandmusicians.com/writers/bill-minor.html (Article about a book written by Bill Minor concerning A 50 year Chronicle of Change in Mississippi and his dedication for the selection of Ms. Seawright)

http://www.muw.edu/misc/famoalum.html (Ms. Seawright's inclusion of Famous Alums from Mississippi University for Women)

http://www.aascu.org/anniversary/MUW/alumni.htm

http://www.mississippispageantupdate.com/honorpage.html

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:stwyetlLmQoJ:wapedia.mobi/en/Miss_America_1988+toni+seawright+miss+mississippi&cd=44&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (founf on wapedia)

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Miss-Mississippi

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:5in-JcsdylwJ:history.nasa.gov/SP-4310/ch13.htm+toni+seawright+miss+mississippi&cd=68&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (foto and appearance of Toni Seawright at the dedication of the John C. Stennis space center w/Gov. Ray Mabus)

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Mississippi_University_for_Women

http://www.sos.state.ms.us/ed_pubs/Publications/Souvenir_Booklet/2008/SECTION%20III%20-%20Mississippi%20Traditions,%20Accomplishments.pdf

http://www.mswritersandmusicians.com/actors/index.html (listed credit)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pyizSEqEP2IJ:www.yeahbaby.com/celebrity-namesakes.php%3Fname%3DToni+Toni+Seawright,+Miss+Mississippi&cd=38&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (entered in Celebrities named Toni)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:OpyPWtsN8ZMJ:www.jimmyspageantpage.com/america_2.html+toni+seawright+miss+mississippi&cd=42&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.muw.edu/misc/famoalum.html. ALso, this is some of Ms. Seawright's verification of her acting credits:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:61MwBY6Eb7QJ:thepiratebay.org/torrent/4458129/The_Naked_Brothers_Band_-_3x01-02_Mystery_Girl%255Bh264%255D%255Bghalen%255D+toni+seawright&cd=74&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (her Naked Brothers Band "Mystery Girl" credits)

http://www.tv.com/everybody-cried-at-least-once/episode/1184949/summary.html?user_rating=0&rating_ref_type=103 (as Qaasim's Mom in this NBB episode called "Everybody's Cried At least Once"

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:oJM_ObstUHgJ:www.theharmonygroupllc.com/pg07.htm+Toni+Seawright,+Miss+Mississippi&cd=18&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:5pFTpp_yPP0J:www.tcg.org/publications/at/sept08/delta.cfm+Toni+Seawright,+Miss+Mississippi&cd=33&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:jnFg_h8jcl0J:www.brooklyneagle.com/archive/category.php%3Fcategory_id%3D12%26id%3D20913+Toni+Seawright,+Miss+Mississippi&cd=35&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (This is the Delta Rising, Mississippi Project showcase)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:5pFTpp_yPP0J:www.tcg.org/publications/at/sept08/delta.cfm+toni+seawright&cd=73&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:UhqhPRhH9zQJ:abclocal.go.com/wabc/story%3Fsection%3Dnews/local%26id%3D5739345+Toni+Seawright,+Miss+Mississippi&cd=40&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (Article on "Hear Our Song" a production dedicated to benefit performances for Brain Tumors and other causes)

http://www.eurweb.com/story/eur41025.cfm

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:v1PlZEz9C6IJ:broadwayworld.com/bwidb/sections/people/index.php%3Fvar%3D69511+toni+seawright&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (includes her Broadway and touring credits)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:oJM_ObstUHgJ:www.theharmonygroupllc.com/pg07.htm+toni+seawright&cd=27&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (Hear Our Song review)

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:z60nd7NZlBEJ:www.nytimes.com/1993/03/19/theater/review-theater-another-excursion-to-a-hip-land-of-oz.html+toni+seawright&cd=32&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (New York Times review of "The Wiz)

http://www.allstars.org/content/Caribbean_Life_Satchel.pdf (Josn/Satchel Requiem). This is some of Ms. Seawright's verification of singing/songwriting/composing/backing vocals credits:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:MMnJSYQNHNIJ:gogo-music.net/releases/gogo-015.php+Toni+Seawright,+Miss+Mississippi&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us ( A House Music Project released Internationally By Ms. Seawright)

http://www.traxsource.com/index.php?act=show&fc=tpage&cr=titles&cv=2382

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Toni+Seawright

http://www.yeahbaby.com/celebrity-namesakes.php?name=Toni (celebrities named Toni)

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Toni+Sea

http://www.discogs.com/artist/Toni+Sea (vocals for RuPaul)

http://www.reverbnation.com/kristenmaxfield

http://ebcinfo.org/default.aspx?p=13244&maid=421&feed=podcast (as a singer/songwriter/composer

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:6m3QD-_D13MJ:www.mswritersandmusicians.com/writers/bill-minor.html+toni+seawright&cd=50&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (Bill Minor's review about his 50 Year Chronicle to Change in Mississippi and his dedication to the selection of Ms. Toni Seawright for Miss Mississippi.

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/07/20/us/black-is-miss-mississippi.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/B/Black%20Culture%20and%20History

It is true that her name appears in one of the credits with a y on it. I'm trying to get that rectified as we speak. I have given you a host of things to look up found right under google. I know it's a lot, but I pray that it is enough for your consideration of withdrawing the deletion of her article and helping me to perfect it. I ask that you help me maintain her board. I thank you in advance. DenieceBetts (talk) May 6, 2009 2:59am

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2981622/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Mississippi and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1211136/ and http://broadwayworld.com/bwidb/people/Toni_Seawright/ are her Naked Brother's Band credits. Mystery Girl Pt.1 or 2 should be her other. She's appeared on the show twice as Qaasim's mother. Go to Turbo Nick and you will see both appearances in "Everybody Cries at Least Once" or "Mystery Girl" where she makes a cameo appearance. You can also google Ms. Seawright and you will see that she's released sang backing vocals for a few wellknown artists as well as has her own international dance project released a year and a half ago. There are host of other things that can be found on google concerning Toni Seawright. However, the accomplishment of making history as the first African American to win Miss Mississippi should be enough to be entered into Wikipedia. User:DenieceBetts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.208.35 (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C.Fred is obviously not a fan of either, but, Deniece Betts is a manager of Toni Seawright. I think the animosity to have Toni Seawright's entry deleted comes from the fact that C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) continues to put in Qaasim's article on Wikipedia that Qaasim is 14 and was born in 1995 and he was born in 1996. It is my responsibility and duty to correct Qaasim's board as I edit Toni Seawright's boards as well. As a publicist through G-Q Media, I correct for the both of them as it is my duty to make sure that they are represented and shown in the best of light. I speak for the both of them because I am granted power of attorney to do. Nonetheless, the historical achievements of my client are factual and can be googled at any length to prove data and entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Mississippi This can be argued and proven at anytime on various sites. We appreciate C.Fred's "concern".. but it's hard to see where he's coming from with the entries on either board. When C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log) continues to alter and change truth about Qaasim Middleton, it affects-not only his reputation and validity of his age when others ask-but also makes him a little upset becuase of the misinformation put in his article by C.Fred (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log). I will continue to edit Toni Seawright's board throughout the week with factual information and links as I have the time to do so. I will, also, continue to edit any misinformation put on the boards by C.Fred or any other user who gives false and/or misleading information pertaining to my client's son. I As far as Ms. Seawright's board is concerned, we ask the boards to give us the time to edit and reference all articles pertaining to the validity, professionalism, achievements and reputation of Toni Seawight. Thanks in adance, DenieceBetts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.208.35 (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions: (1) What's all this stuff about "boards"? (2) Are you saying that you are writing in the interest of the article's subject and a son of hers rather than Wikipedia and that you want to control the content of the article? -- Hoary (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; she has a substantial, verified claim to fame and there is enough material out there to maintain the article in its current state (which is vastly improved from when C. Fred nominated it, FWIW). Mango juice^talk 15:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My concerns with this article when I nominated it were the lack of verifiable, independent resources and, secondarily, that it was being turned into a PR piece. Independent editors have come in and found the sources that I missed on my search and crafted it into a neutral, properly-sourced article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 12 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Eric Clapton Project[edit]

non-notable future album per WP:HAMMER. The article contains nothing but speculation about a (possible) future album, but there is no title, release dates, singles, etc. Tavix | Talk 02:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The nomination has it. This falls under Wiki not being a crystal ball, too, doesn't it? IL-Kuma (talk) 07:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as rather hazy speculation. This kind of content should generally be avoided in articles. One (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything has been said. Blatant speculation. Too early for an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Jake Wartenberg // ER 22:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rlendog (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:25, 9 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Audrey Seiler[edit]

Non-notable individual mhking (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of WP:BLP1E. An individual known for a single, not particularly important news event. Ray^Talk 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RayAYang. Drawn Some (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^ ^ ^ JBsupreme (talk) 06:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1) Negative information check 2) Undue weight on it check 3) No significant effects on law or country check 4) Only minor news coverage check --> Clear case of BLP. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:30, 5 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 00:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed four engines[edit]

The subject of the article is already covered in the articles Flat-4 and H engine. The author is trying to create a term to include both flat-4 and H-4 engines. The term he has created is not only non-notable, it is also confusing for those looking for the article Opposed piston engine No signature (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once again Wikipedia is the proud father of a neologism with ZERO Google hits elsewhere, not even a mirror. Drawn Some (talk) 03:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a completely non-notable subject, causing confusion in two genuine articles. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 07:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge or something. The term is used and is a type of engine as evidenced by this. So the above statements that it is a neologism with zero google hits is incorrect. Note that the article title is plural which is contrary to the manual of style, and a search on that string in quotes turns up nothing. -- Whpq (talk) 15:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here, don't take my word for it, try it yourself, it's up to four hits total all on Wikipedia because of this AfD. Google search for "opposed four engines" Your Google book page is not viewable by me and it would still be a neologism. Are you sure it's not a typo or something? Drawn Some (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need this search. I don't know why the Google Book link doesn't work for you. -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 21 total references to it in the singular all of which are completely trivial with no discussion of the concept. The count Google gives is higher than what it actually produces, even looking at "similar pages". Drawn Some (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Google Book link is working now, Google has algorithms and rules for restricting the display of copyrighted content, probably I couldn't look at it because you just had. That is a non-trivial discussion, are there any other non-trivial references available? All of the web references are trivial. Drawn Some (talk) 19:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about the issues raised by SamBlob. Perhaps the page should be treated as a sort of disambiguation page with a very brief description and then pointing towards the in-depth articles. With the references available this will never be much more than a stub without WP:OR. Drawn Some (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is clear that the nomenclature is used, but there's not a lot in substantial referencing. Converting to a disambiguation page given the current sourcing seems to be a viable solution. -- Whpq (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a fork, containing nothing that won't be duplicated from either the H-4 or flat four articles. And a trivial fork at that, getting only about 1% of the Google hits that "flat four" gets. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is not viable because almost the entire article comes from an earlier version of Flat-4 when User:R69S decided to confuse the flat-4 and the H-4. After his references to H-4 engines were deleted from the flat-4 article, he set up an article of his own to include both flat-4 and H-4 engines, both of which are adequately represented in their respective articles.

What is an opposed four engine? Is it a flat-4? If so, it's covered. Is it a four-cylinder H-engine? If so, it's covered, and if that article isn't enough, then the article H-4 engine can be created, although I'm not sure how notable the H-4 configuration is. Is it a four-cylinder opposed piston engine? I don't think so, as the text of the article does not mention these engines. Is it an ambiguous term used by User:R69S so that he can have a single article about both flat-4 engines and H-4 engines? That's what it sounds like to me!

At the very least, this article should be redirected to Flat-4, although I'm not sure who would search for a plural title. No signature (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Having read the source shown by Whpq, I realize that it is referring to the flat-4 engine. No signature (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Having a n article on the general type of engine should not be precluded because the major sub-types already have pages. Even if the title is a neologism, it could still be used as a descritpive article title, and the article is not about a neologism, clearly this type of engine has existed for a while. If any merging occurs, it should be in the opposite direction, moving the sub-articles into this one, but that is an editorial decision that should be based on utility.Yob Mod 10:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article is not about a general type of engine. It is about two different types of engine grouped together under an ambiguous term. The supposed "opposed four engines" [sic] covers the flat-4 and the H-4 engine, which are two entirely different configurations. No signature (talk) 20:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The H-engine was, once upon a time, a good way to get the maximum power in a compact envelope for use in aircraft, stuffing 16 or 24 cylinders together into a very small space. Only one person/manufacturer has ever tried to apply this principle to a 4-cylinder (70 years ago) and he may have made 5 of them. In order to accomodate this vanishingly rare (if not trivial) event we have to have an article that will forever confuse other significant articles. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:39, 8 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 04:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Power (actor)[edit]

Apparently non-notable actor, referenced only to his IMDB entry and the actor's own website. Checking his career against the criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER, the only possible match appears to be his role as Garth O'Hara in the Irish soap opera Fair City. The article claims that he was a "lead character" in Fair City, but Garth O'Hara is mentioned neither in the article Fair City or in the List of Fair City characters, so I see no evidence that Sean Power has "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" or that he "Has a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following."

I have done a google news search for him, but the process is a little difficult because he shares the name of Seán Power (politician) (an Irish government minister) and a similarly-named major property-developer. However, a Google News search for "Sean Power" actor returns only 8 hits, none of which appear to amount to substantive coverage.

In the meantime, the article appears to being used for self-promotion by the actor himself (see this discussion on my talk page.). I have just removed a large chunk of unreferenced autobiographical material, which had been reinstated after I removed it before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable actor. Iowateen (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and warn that re-insertion of deleted unreferenced material after warning is a form of vandalism and can result in banning. Drawn Some (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- comment was that a threat; is destubification vandalism? pohick (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, destubification isn't vandalism but an editor with a conflict of interest re-inserting unsourced promotional material into a BLP after being warned is a vandal and should be blocked. Whether or not someone considers enforcement of policy threatening depends on their viewpoint of it I guess. Drawn Some (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Easier to look over the removed material and take the assertions one-by-one... source them and then put them back, as I have begun to do. Lots with which to work, and sourcing answers all concerns of questioned viability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, however stern talk of banning might be better done on a user page, rather than AfD, where it might appear as a deterrant to article improvement. pohick (talk) 15:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not currently meet guidelines for inclusion. decltype (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep. Its sad to opinine delete because something is difficult to reference, but the search for WP:V is a satizfying way to improve the project. And again, bad that an inexperienced editor does not understand COI of ADVERT, but those are perhaps reasons to suugest adoption. Now, I had not looked at the earlier versons, wanting nothing to modify my opinion... but unmentioned by the nom is his being a co-star in all 21 episodes of the popular BBC comedy Lead Balloon, which meet the inclusion requirements of WP:ENTERTAINER as being a significant role in a notable television series. If the article is being subject to spamming, that is a matter for cleanup or maybe protection... not deletion. Searching for his name in relation to Lead Balloon was more successful. Mentions certainly, but sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here. The claim to be one of the stars of Lead Balloon is a claim to notability here and it ease easily verifiable... and significant appearance in a notable series speaks for itself. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And now... after taking a look at some of the earlier versions, I can understand the nom's bringing it here. However, there were many specific assertions made in earlier versions... such being the creator of an accalimed theatre production for instance, that may be sourcable. Its late here and I will not be able to return to the article for about 18 hours... but I think it is one that can be further expanded and be a worthy inclusion to Wiki. Just a matter of checking through earlier versions and properly sourcing the other assertions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His role in lead balloon satisfies notability. --neon white talk 09:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Neon white. No fans of Lead Baloon here then! Snappy (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ENTERTAINER requires "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions". One notable role does not meet this criteria. The article also appears to be cluttered with off-topic references - e.g. this NY Times reference doesn't even mention Sean Power. Dlabtot (talk) 15:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The claim to be one of the stars of Lead Balloon is a major claim to notability here and it is easily verifiable... and significant appearance in a notable series speaks for itself... 21 appearances = multiple. Even dismissing the one cite that verifies Colm Feore on stage, the article now is well sourced and notability is a lock. And did you notice that the nominator did not even mention Lead Balloon in the nomination, but only spoke of the lessor assertions? Kudos to User:Pohick2 for excellent work in saving this article from the trash bin. And your quote from WP:ENTERTAINER assumes incorrectly that ALL those attribute must be met. What guideline encourages us to do is consider the entire body of an actor's career, and not dismiss parts and ignore others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF please. The unspammed version of the article to which I had reverted said "known for playing Marty in Lead Balloon. In 2005, he played Garth O'Hara, a lead character", so I looked at the lead role as the most likely basis of notability, and reported all the checks I had done. If others reckon that there is enough coverage elsewhere to establish notability, that's fine, but I made no attempt to hide or disguise anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith all around, as I earlier acknowledged the difficulty you must have faced when looking at the earlier versions. My discovering that Marty was co-star in a well-received and notable series cinched it for me. I do understand how you might have overlooked "known for playing Marty" and gone directly to "Garth O'Hara, a lead character", and I do appreciarte your sharing what checks you did take. We simply use different reseacrh methods. I just wished to stress that others, as you kindly note above, may wish to dig through the earlier spammy versions, find the other unsourced assertions, properly source what they can, and return some of the informations. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Kudos again to User:Pohick2 for sourcing Power's critical acclaim as an actor, playwrite and stage director. Nicely done. Does even more to prove notability than the major Lead Baloon role. Excellent improvements per WP:AFTER. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was requested to revisit this. I spent well over an hour looking at sources, etc.

To meet notability requirements: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions."

To me multiple means 3 or more. Two very clear, extreme, incontrovertible examples might be interpreted as multiple in a pinch.

notable work/significant role

Lead Ballon/Marty
???????
???????

He also had a significant role in Stuck but I'm not convinced it's notable although it ran in four "world" cities. I might be able to be convinced of this but that still leaves it one short because it's not clear cut. You would have trouble with an AfD for an article on Stuck and I really don't think it is notable.

As far as sources: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject."

There are 20 listed now. I am being very generous with my assessment of them, some of the ok's are really trivial.

trivial
not mentioned
not mentioned
own website
own website
ok
review, possibly reliable?
ok
ok
theater
pay per view, assume ok
ok
not mentioned
not mentioned
pay per view, assume ok
pay per view, assume ok
not mentioned
not mentioned
trivial
trivial

So I'm trying to check information, like "Best Actor Toronto Fringe 1996" because it might be possible to convince me that is a major award, maybe. But the reference given doesn't show that. The website where the reference is supposed to be doesn't show that. I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying, the reference doesn't support it. It may or may not be true, but I'm not gong to take Mr. Power's word for it.

I'm not going to try to pick them all apart this way but the summary above shows that some of them are very weak or non-existent and some of them didn't pan out as far as saying what they purport to say. This is an AfD for a BLP and things like this bother me normally and in this situation I'm being asked to re-evaluate after the article is salvaged and this is what I find. At least 30% of them don't mention him by name and most of the rest are trivial.

Also Mr. Powers has an excellent photographer but the web designer who came up with the "bubbles" transition in the photo gallery should be bitch-slapped.

So I have to stick with my original opinion that Sean Power is not notable and the article should be deleted. If it can clearly be demonstrated 1/2/3 major work/significant role that he meets the requirements as I interpret them or if my interpretation is completely wrong I will look at the information again but it's going to have to be laid out for me, I'm not spending another ~~hour and half~~ two hours on this and I'm not going to argue nuances. Drawn Some (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been significantly expanded, and is now well-referenced. Congrats to those who have done the hard work.
I'm not going to oppose the keep, since there seems to be consensus for that, but personally I'm not persuaded that it's as clear-cut as some editors suggest. He may just scrape through the "had significant roles in multiple notable [productions]" clause, but so far as I can see only Lead Balloon meets that test: his role in Fair City seems to have been minor, and none of the stage appearances seem to be in WP:N notable productions. (Note that WP:ENTERTAINER refers to multpiple notable roles, not just one, as MichaelQSchmidt seems to suggest above). Trying to apply the WP:N I have read all the references provided (apart from those which require a subscription), but none of those seems to be significantly about him; he gets a mention in most of them (though not even a name listing in some), but he does not appear to be the subject of any of these reviews, and most of them give him very brief mentions.
This looks to me like a borderline case -- he's one good decent news article short of meeting WP:N and one major role short of meeting WP:ENTERTAINER (unless STUCK is a notable production, and it doesn't quite seem there to me). However, Power is young and clearly going places, so I expect that he will before long be clearly over the threshold of either WP:BIO's general criteria or the specific criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER, so it would be folly to delete the good work done in documenting his career so far. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict with Drawn Some's comments, but it seems that we simultaneously reached similar conclusions, only Drawn Some has set it out in much more detail than I did. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually we didn't reach the same conclusion. We both said he doesn't meet criteria, you said you wouldn't oppose the keep regardless of not meeting the criteria and I said delete. Opposite conclusion. Drawn Some (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that would have been better phrased as same assessment, but difft recommendations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you both for stepping back in,. The 21 episodes of Lead Balloon, whether you count 21 as as one event or 21 as 21 events, still grants verified notability. His recent work as creator, actor, and director (3 DIFFERENT notable positions) in the critically acclaimed STUCK are also a verified assertion of notability... either in it's critical reviews or in it's awards (even if only one is sourced), or both. Either assertion for its notability is sufficient. Bothe are more so. So here we have an article about a television actor, a film actor, a stage actor, a director, and a playwrite. Guideline encourages us to look at all relevent factors toward inclusion and not hangon only those that might support exclusion. Enough reliable sources have been presented, and others have been offered to meet the simple requirement per policy for verification of other facts presented in the article as, even if a few do not mention him by name, they are required by policy to verify other facts as presented... else those facts would be speeedily removed from a BLP as being unsourced... and it would not do to have that happen again. The two uses of his website are allowed because it is not sourcing something the subject wrote, but offer archived reviews from The Village Voice... their opinion... not his... and when THEIR archives are opened through diligent search or the reviews are found hardcopy at a local library, there can easily be an exhange of sources. The combination of all considered factors allows a conclusion of notability... through multiple notable work in notable different areas of notable productions. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 11:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Schmidt, please re-read WP:ENTERTAINER. It clearly refers to "significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions" " (NB multiple), so his role in Lead Balloon alone does not meet notability requirements unless you count each episode as a separate role. That's quite a stretch of the guidelines. :(
You refer to "His recent work as creator, actor, and director (3 DIFFERENT notable positions)" ... which again doesn't add up, because you haven't demonstrated that either his directing or his playwriting has been the subject of significant coverage. You mention two reviews in Village Voice, but I see only this one which gives him only one paragraph of coverage in an article about four plays. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BHG, please re-read WP:PEOPLE, the parent of WP:ENTERTAINER. You forgot to mention that he fails those other sub-criteria too. What an editor is "supposed" to do is, starting at the top of the page, is to slowly move one's eyes downward reading for how a person qualifies for inclusion.. and how an editor's eyes should actually lock on and read the "Basic Criteria" to see how the provided sources clearly pass those basic inclusion criteria of WP:PEOPLE through his works and their coverage and verifications through the parent criteria of WP:GNG and WP:N. Guideline does not suggest one then continue down the list of subordinant criteria in order to find ones that exclude a person in contradiction to the quite clear basic criteria and the parent criteria. So I need not bother arguing about his meeting or not meeting secondary criteria, or interpretation of "multiple" in secondary criteria, when he meets all the primary criteria, through policy, guideline and WP:COMMONSENSE. I was quite proud of the work done by User:Pohick2 in improving the article even in the face of disdain and so asked you back to see how your concerns had been properly addressed. I see that your opinion of that article has not changed in the light of initial concerns being addressed. I will not then engage in a tennis match over interpretation of one part of sub-guideline in contradiction to its parent guideline. And did you somehow overlook that the internationally touring STUCK has been the subject of multiple reviews and acclaim on both sides of the Atlantic? That's a home run as far as WP:N and the WP:GNG are concerned. So thank you and happy editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply, Schmidt, I am quite familiar with WP:BIO's main criteria and with those in WP:N, and my eyes don't need to lock onto them -- I can recite them by heart.
  Now, if you had read what I wrote rather than having to refresh your memory of the notability guidelines (see, I can do sarcastic too!), you would see that I assessed the article against both the specific and general notability criteria, so I'm not asking you play tennis over a sub-guideline. As I noted, he'll probably get there, but so far the coverage of him (as opposed to things he has been involved in) is nearly all trivial, and some of it appears to not even mention him.
  You appear to be having a bad faith day, because you pile on the misrepresentations of my views. Did you miss the bit where I said I wouldn't oppose keeping it, or where I congratulated those involved in having expanded the articles? It'll [WP:AGF|AGF]] and take it that you don't read those bits, because otherwise you wouldn't be saying that my view was unchanged. --00:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  I apologize for any misperceptions and my frustrations, as you have been dutiful and civil. We have differences in our interpretations, and I accept that this will not change. I think he now has significant coverage in reliable sources per the GNG, and others want justthat little bit more. Well, I have done more here to address the original concerns of fluff than I have in many other rescues. It stays or it goes now based upon what other editors opine and how an Admin determines the condition of the article based upon improvements, comparisons with the version that was nommed, and his/her own understanding of guideline and policy. Thank you for your continued civility. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing Admin: The basice citeria for WP:PEOPLE begins "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.". Simple and difficuly to misunderstand. The next section "additional criteria" list some additional standards, of which WP:PEOPLE is one, but specifically states among its cautionary caveats: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included" and "Should a person fail to meet these additional criteria, they may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." Continuing on past these preliminary instructions in order to then find some way to exclude a notable person is not what guideine expects or desires. This individual's notability has been asserted, properly established, and properly sourced through WP:N and WP:GNG. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the name seens familiar and I see multiple examples of Irish television series and multiple sources from UK newspapers such as The Independent and The Daily Telegraph. --can dle •wicke 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the name seems familiar is not part of our notability guidelines. There are a lot of links in the article, but most of them don't even mention Sean Power. They certainly don't qualify as significant coverage in multiple independent third-party sources. Dlabtot (talk) 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if that came across incorrectly but taken as a whole I have given valid reasoning. Thank you. --can dle •wicke 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, well referenced article, exceeds all notability guidelines. Editors delete votes seem to be ignoring WP:N and WP:GNG in their concentration on a subordinate set of criterias. Ikip (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Closing nominator please note this article has gone through signifigant improvement sine the nominiation. Ikip (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A huge amount of work has gone into expanding and referencing this article, but I am still not persuaded that Power actually meets any of the notability criteria. I went through all the refs yesterday and concluded that there was no evidence of him having won significant awards, nor of him having played multiple notable roles, nor of multiple instances of substantail a coverage of him independent reliable sources. Since then we have lots of assertions such as that the "delete" !voters are ignoring WP:N. Please could those advocating a keep set out simply the evidence for an each of these claims, such as

That STUCK is a notable production. Where are the refs which establish STUCK as meeting WP:N? I see only a few brief reviews in mostly marginal sources
That Power was a lead character in Lead Balloon. This ref from the article describes him as one of several actors supporting a vehicle created for Jack Dee.
That Power meets WP:N through being the subject of multiple instances of substantial coverage in WP:RS reliable sources independent of the subject? The vast majority of the refs either mention him in passing or don't mention him at all. e.g. this is so trivial that I wonder why it's used as a reference at all. It seems to do nothing other than to boost the reference count). The claim about his role in Stratford is based on this promotional blurb from a theatre hosting his later work this NYT ref which doesn't mention Power's name
That Power has won major awards. Where, for example is the evidence that the "Best Actor Toronto Fringe 1996" is a major award?

am concerned that some contributors here seem to be relying on the mere existence of a long list of references, but most them look like very thing gruel to me. I'm happy to accept that I may have missed something, so please can someone set out clearly what refs support what cliams to notability? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hope the nom and I are allowed to disagree in our different interpretations of guideline. I accept that the nom is in good faith being diligent. She took the original article, looked at it with proper concerns for sourcing and reduced it to this before nominating it for deletion. Per AFTER, POTENTIAL, PRESERVE, ATD, RESCUE, and CLEANUP, myself and others went through it to address concerns and the present version is what is now under consideration for deletion.

STUCK is a notable production ("has won significant critical attention") per in-depth articles or reviews by experts respected in the genre. So here's 9 (guideline says "multiple", not dozens upon dozens): OOBR, Vue Weekly, RTE Entertainment, The Stage, Financial Times 1, Fast Forward Weekly, Financial Times 2, Gay-Ireland, The Post. Awards: Ontario Arts Council, Chalmers Awards 1998 (page 7)
Power was a lead character in Lead Balloon (21 episodes (entire run of series) co-starring with Jack Dee). Co-starring in a notable series, even one that was originally created as a "vehicle" for one actor (in order to garner funding and audience base), does not reduce the notability of the co-stars. He was not a minor player, a walk-on, a cameo, or a background extra. He was a major part of the series and part of plot and story of each and every episode. However, he has also been part of many other productions ("significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions") in television (Moving Wallpaper, Lead Balloon, The Wild West, Holby City, Fair City, The Big Bow Wow) and film (2:22, Played, Tara Road, Cowboys & Angels, Bad Karma, Joe's Wedding, Twisted Sheets, Life with Mikey) before, during, and after his acclaimed works on stage.
Power meets WP:N, WP:PEOPLE, and subordinant criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER ("significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, or other productions") and WP:CREATIVE ("has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition" and "has won significant critical attention") through his being the subject of multiple instances of more-then-trivial yet less-than-substantial coverage ("If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability"). Guideline accepts that sources may not always be substantial and so instructs that these not be trivial. A mention in a list is trivial. Repeated reviews and critical acclaims of a performance are not trivial.
Power has won major awards ("The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them"). Toronto Fringe Festival and Chalmers are awards determined by peers and industry... not some neighborhood bake sale award ("standards have not yet been established to define a major award").

The article is not in the same unsourced sorry state as the original and is a far cry from the 3-sentence stub that was brought to AfD. So, this up to other editors (and the closer) to determine if she is in good faith being too strict in her interpretation of guideline or if I in good faith am being too liberal. I find Sean Power notable through looking at his entire body of work... the major and minor pieces that make up his life, and have included as much information for the reader as can be reasonably presented without overburdening the article. And for concerns of the one or two shorter provided sources, core policy WP:V demands that EVERYTHING in an article must be verifiable, but does not mandate that a one sentence, non-notable, non-controversial factoid in an article must itself be suported by dozens of in-depth tomes. IE: If I include in the article that person "A" did something "B", policy requires I source that "A" in fact did "B" though WP:V. What guideline DOES mandate is that ALL assertions of notability be supported though proper WP:RS, and that has been done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. From this discussion, I believe I can understand why the nom was brought in the first place. However, I believe that, in large part thanks to MQS, the article has been massively improved and it now meets the GNG. HJMitchell You rang? 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has received several non-exclusive but far from trivial mentions in reliable independent sources. In other words, meets WP:GNG. decltype (talk) 00:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I checked the discussion on the nominator's talk page, that they requested we look at. I am concerned by what appears to be a lapse from WP:BITE. Nominator may have had valid concerns at the time of the nomination. I question whether scaling the article back to insignificance, and then nominating it for deletion, is appropriate. Surely the permissible choices shoudl be one, or the other? Anyhow, without regard to whether the article's content once lapsed from compliance with WP:COI it now seems well referenced and to have been largely written by individuals who are not in a COI. Geo Swan (talk) 01:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I only knew him from Lead Balloon, and I can see from this article that he has got notability aside from this role, including stage work. Whoever did the sourcing and writing, well done. Fences and windows (talk) 03:29, 12 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shell to Sea Fleet[edit]

This article is not notable - it's about a few people in canoes and small boats protesting. The wider issue is covered in many other articles e.g. Shell to Sea. Note that this is related to an ongoing discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Corrib_Gas_Articles_.26_Shell_to_Sea Smartse (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When we write articles about protest movements, we should be sure to cover them in a balanced way. A better place to describe this movement in context is in the Shell to Sea article. The picture included in the article shows eight people paddling around in small boats. This is not a protest on the same scale as thousands of people gathered somewhere in a public square. EdJohnston (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —ww2censor (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I previously suggested merging this into the Shell to Sea article but no one supported the idea. Perhaps now is the time to do that. ww2censor (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. Snappy (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything not in Shell to Sea and then redirect. This is getting to be ridiculous, there is a big brouhaha over at the conflict of interest noticeboard as well. Drawn Some (talk) 04:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & Merge whatever info is relevant into Shell to Sea . G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 08:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete which explains why it's not a valid option. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well then straight delete, most of this stuff is covered in s2s already. G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥

Keep I don't really have a problem with a merge but there'a strong possibility the fleet will mobilise again very soon, which could mean its section on the S2S page will grow out of proportion to the main article, necessitating a new fork. I've had a look at Wikipedia:Notability, and I don't understand exactly what part of it applies here. Anyone care to enlighten? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone belive this topic warrants an article almost the same size as Stena Line, one of the largest operators on the Irish Sea?

Comment That's not a very large article for such a large operator. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Or is this just a very large article for a very small topic? G~~ain~~Line

^♠_♥ 14:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One reason it is not notable is WP:NTEMP. The references provided only mention the fleet in passing (and some make no mention of it) - this sentence is worth bearing in mind ""Presumed" means that substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability" (from WP:N) Smartse (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable in itself. In fact, in my opinion, the whole Shell to Sea, Corrib gas controversy and related articles have blown to an undue weight and non neutral standpoint to they point that they are being used as campaigning and almost attack articles by some editors with obvious conflicts of interest. The whole suite of articles needs looking at and something done. Yes the topics involved are notable, no issues there, but the articles themselves are not really appropriate as written. Photos with no evidence they depict what is said for them to be depicting, photos of people committing illegal acts where persons are identifiable, and really really slanted POV. Canterbury Tail talk 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have been trying to do some work on these as has user:falcon9x5 but as you can see its been frustration at almost every step. Any input would be more than welcome. G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 16:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole thing is a news story that will be historical insignificant. The fact that it was covered in the press makes it news, not encyclopedic. WP:NOTNEWS. -Atmoz (talk) 17:54, 5 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 04:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of hotels in Bahrain[edit]

Not notable and is just a directory of businesses. Mohummy (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We just went through this with List of supermarket chains in Bahrain. Wikipedia is NOT a directory. There is nothing in this article that establishes notability of hotels specifically in Bahrain. Information such as this can be useful, but on places such as Wikitravel, not Wikipedia. →^Jog_Con← 01:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Wikitravel. Drawn Some (talk) 04:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've struck it, but we couldn't move it to Wikitravel even if we wanted to, because the licenses aren't compatible. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just figured out what was bothering me about this list. It is not what it purports to be, that is, a "List of hotels in Bahrain". It is actually a list of hotel BRANDS in Bahrain, which is utterly non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hotels in London are notable, but not those in Bahrain, as with supermarket chains in the United Kingdom and Bahrain respectively. Dr B Badger (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most blatant piece of systemic bias I've seen all week. The location of a subject is entirely irrelevant. The entire world is equally important. -- Mgm|^(talk) 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr B Badger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hilary T. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Drawn Some. The article is mistitled, it's not hotels in the country, it's a list of brands. Specific buildings can be notable, a random list of brands in a particular country is not especially when they have no strong connection to the country in question. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It list specific buildings. I doubt reading the name, someone might go to the round building by mistake. If wealthy white English speaking nations can have articles for supermarkets and such, then why can't this nation? I agree this is a clear example of system bias. Why is this one nation looked down upon? It even list which hotels are used for diplomats. Dream Focus 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same argument as Dream Focus Wikipedia Bias What makes the supermarket chains in Europe more notable? Canadian (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree that supermarket chains in Europe are more notable. Anything provided as simply a list and nothing more is not material that belongs in an encyclopedia. My opinion would be different if the article contained some information as to why these supermarkets, hotels, and whatever else was notable within the country. What makes the fact that these hotel chains are in Bahrain are notable? And that goes for ANY country. If an article came up for AfD that simply listed the major hotel brands in the United States and offered no other information, I would vote in the same manner. To me, it's a clear case of Wikipedia not being a directory; regardless of what city, country, region, hemisphere it is in. I really think Mgm hit the nail on the head with "Specific buildings can be notable, a random list of brands in a particular country is not especially when they have no strong connection to the country in question" →^Jog_Con← 06:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As others have noted, Wikipedia is not a business directory. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTDIR; also, none of the individual hotels is notable, so why would they be so collectively? - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has already been said, Wikipedia is not a directory - or a tourist guide. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to go to make sure you don't go to the wrong building. Such lists, whether they be hotels, supermarkets, cinemas (these all exist) or petrol/gas stations (is there such a list I wonder), don't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. I can't believe this was tagged for rescue. how would you rescue it? LibStar (talk) 08:20, 11 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) 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duane Storey[edit]

Marginally notable--at best--blogger. No actual accomplishments, much self-promotional puffery. CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He appears to be quite a character, non-notable in so many fields; perhaps some day he will achieve notability in one of them. I hope he recovers from his facial injuries. Drawn Some (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not really sure why you think the subject isn't notable. At the bare minimum Duane was nominated for a Canadian country music award in web design. Other nominees included in other categories for that ceremony included Aaron Pritchett (with a wikipedia page) and Jessie Farrell (also with a wikipedia page). The iPhone (WPtouch) theme he co-developed for WordPress has fluctuated in the top 10 most popular WordPress plugins of all time, and has passed 100,000 downloads. He's been invited to speak at various WordPress conferences, and organized the two first WordCamp (WordPress) conferences in both Vancouver and Whistler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmackdale (talk • contribs) 07:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC) — Rmackdale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It does seem counterintuitive that he doesn't meet any of the standards of notability in WP:BIO guidelines and I too was surprised at that after reading the article and seeing his achievements in so many areas. I have no doubt that he will at some point meet one of the standards. How is his eye doing? Drawn Some (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the entry with additional information, including one independent profile in a Whistler newspaper, and some excerpts of Duane's as a technology authority in a Vancouver paper. I've also added a few of his IEEE electrical engineering publications, and a reference to a patent application of Duane's that is currently being processed. Also, with regards to WP:BIO it states notability is achieved (amongst other criteria) if "1 - The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them, or 2 - The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." With regards to 1, Duane was nominated for a Country music award, which is not a trivial award. With regards to 2, Duane is a respected member of the WordPress community, has released approximately 7 open source WordPress plugins, and helped developed the first iPhone theme for WordPress that has achieved approximately 100,000 downloads and fluctuates on the official list of WordPress's top-ten most popular plugins. I believe both of those criteria in WP:BIO are currently met.

I found his accomplishments in photography to be even more interesting than the things you mentioned. I especially appreciate his shots of the aurora borealis, something I hope to see someday myself. Drawn Some (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- kelapstick (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps only marginally notable as a blogger, but he certainly seems to meet additional criteria of notability in other areas of activity. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think the area for which he might be considered notable is as a photographer, but the two external references that are provided are both bad links. Other than that, I don't see enough in terms of WP:RS. PK T(alk) 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added additional references in the photography area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmackdale (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only claim to notability remotely reliable enough is the claim that he was nominated for an award.. in fact, it was a website he designed for a musician that is nominated for the award. No reliable sources seem to say anything about him other than that he's a blogger, photographer, and web designer. An article is untenable. Mango juice^talk 15:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think that's accurate. The award was for web design, and the two people involved were nominated as the designers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmackdale (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Things like awards are not, in themselves, enough to guarantee that a subject will be feasible to cover with enough independent reliable sources. In many cases they are good indicators, though: someone who is nominated for a Grammy has received enough attention that substantial coverage is likely. I realize that if the website wins the award, it is the creators who are honored, but still, I know that any coverage of the award will focus on the site and not on its creators. Mango juice^talk 17:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not proven notable. If he was notable, the article wouldn't rely so heavily on links to his web site, and his FlickR pages. It's almost laughable that the article suggests fame by the fact he photographs celebs at public events. Anybody can photograph a celeb at public event and post it on FlickR. We need material written about him. I could be easily persuaded to change my mind, if the sourcing was fixed to show content about him, instead of content by him. --Rob (talk) 18:51, 12 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 2009 World Series by Renault season. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Barcelona World Series by Renault round[edit]

Does not satisfy general notability guidelines, not as notable as for instance Formula One, MotoGP or A1 Grand Prix. D.M.N. (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficiently notable to be covered by the press, even if it's less notable than the series that D.M.N. mentioned. If someone wants to spend the time to work up the article, let them. There should be plenty of reliable sources. Royal broil 03:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "Sufficiently notable to be covered by the press", do you mean motorsport press or national press as it were? Because I strongly doubt the national and international press cover this series which in my view would mean that it fails notability. D.M.N. (talk) 07:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see it as being notable, and there is nothing in the article to change that IMO. Only coverage in the article is 1 source. TJ Spyke 00:40, 28 April 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 00:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article for the series. I think the race series on it's own is notable enough for inclusion. However, there is not that much independant press coverage for every race in order for each one to be covered in its own article. →^Jog_Con← 01:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as per JogCon. Also nip this one in the bud: 2009 Spa World Series by Renault round? Fences and windows (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. D.M.N. (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also 2009 Monaco World Series by Renault round. We can wait until this AfD is resolved, then act on those two accordingly. Fences and windows (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sounds good to reach a consensus before we act on all the articles at once. →^Jog_Con← 11:14, 8 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 World of Warcraft#Community. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft Radio[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable website, has been here for several months with no proof of claims of notability, only sourcing is self-published. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it's not notable. Afkatk (talk) 05:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability other than a source about the site's hacking, which is nowhere near enough real-world context. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 17:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World of Warcraft#Community as a plausible search term if nothing else. Otherwise, I cannot find anything that can provide any verifiability of this page. MuZemike 17:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As stated previously, only notable reference is criticism. I have attempted to improve the page to verify claims, but am unable to do so, existing references are either vague or non-existant. 86.5.58.234 (talk) 13:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google shows 9,500 hits for it. I searched the official World of Warcraft site and added references to two places it was mentioned at, getting praise at one place which has a broken outdated link to a page no longer at their site, and it also listed in their community section. With millions of fans, only a small percentage have their sites recognized. There are interviews done with the staff at Blizzard even. The article needs to be written better though. Dream Focus 01:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I get 165 hits, none of them reliable. And nothing in Google news. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching in English. Dream Focus 01:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, 165 hits. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have some strange Google settings going on. When you click on my link, do you see 9500 hits? Perhaps you have a censor program of some sort going on. Dream Focus 04:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nope. I use the proper Google search. What you're looking at is the count of every reference for your search criteria. My search is for every unique page that mentions the search criteria. If one page says "World of Warcraft Radio" 1000 times, your count would be 1000, while mine would be 1. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:GHITS show nothing, anyway. Ignore how many there are and focus on what they contain. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 23:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; Google results alone do not equate to reliable sources, either. Even with the added sources, the real-world coverage still amounts to nothing more than a trivial mention by the official WoW site. This is far from enough to justify notability. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 02:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World of Warcraft has 11.5 million monthly subscribers. Being mentioned on any site that has millions of people hitting it, makes you far more notable than being mentioned in a newspaper of magazine of far fewer readers. And of course, not everyone who goes to that site will read through every page, but that's the same deal with newspapers and magazines. And it counts as independent of the primary source, it not connected at all to Blizzard. Dream Focus 04:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't base articles over any asserted form of "popularity". A brief mention or two on a single site, no matter how big the site is, is still brief, and far from enough to establish real-world context and therefore notability of the subject. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 18:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no reliable sources independent of a subject discuss the subject, as appears to be the case based on this article and my own research, then no notability can be established, verifiabilty is tricky, and its a clear fail. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World of Warcraft#Community - Non-notable group/web project. Apathetic as to whether it is a simple redirect or article is first deleted. --EEMIV (talk) 12:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World of Warcraft#Community - there's a chance that someone could use it as a serch term, so a redirect is reasonable; but the group itself is non-notable. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. No coverage in reliable sources to show notability, but may be searched for. Quantpole (talk) 22:30, 10 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 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Malta relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies. Google news search shows up only Eurovision and sporting relations. LibStar (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for all the usual reasons. JJL (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin, editor has the exact same comment in 6 other AfDs. [84][85][86][87][88][89][90] Ikip (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations task force deletions. – Ikip (talk) 05:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to satisfy notability guideline, and Wikipedia is not a directory. It is more encyclopedic to have 203 sections or even articles about "Foreign relations of..." than 20,000 or so such stubs. Edison (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of third-party sources indicating notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability. And ask that personal attack on an editor be redacted in all the places it appears now. Collect (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Both countries are EU members, and whilst that would normally lead to there being something substantial to say about the countries' relations, it doesn't seem to be so in this case. Stifle (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks all indications of notability. No assertion of notability, no verifiable sources, no references, ergo, not notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no factors apply to show notability. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per what everyone said. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 12:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NEW EVENTS HAVE MADE THESE AFDs IRRELEVANT We could really use some help with Foreign relations of Argentina by country, the first of many comprimise merges. Eventually these articles will be merged into the "diplomacy of..." articles.
PLEASE HELP US Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. So much energy has been wasted in these arguments, which could be used on merging these stub articles onto one page. I strongly encourage the nominator to withdraw the AFD nomination. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unsourced stub on a relationship for which i can find no reliable sources that would begin to provide the information needed to begin approaching a key guideline for inclusion, notability.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:11, 11 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 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rising of the Storm[edit]

Previously Prod'ed and recreated by the same author, declined another prod to bring to AfD. Step hen 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. Doesn't pass WP:NALBUMS. FireCrystal (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Elexorien#Discography as a plausible search term. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources to warrant a stand alone article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Certainly not notable, just cruft. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:04, 9 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) 09:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elexorien[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, no reliable sources found to verify the tour or albums. Also don't forget Category:Elexorien albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 02:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to meet WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes criteria 4 "Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" in which they will tour South America. FireCrystal (talk) 05:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That tour is future event and doesn't confer notability in the present. Drawn Some (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. While I usually hate using the term weak keep, I'm going to go with it for this band since my searches in all my usual metal haunts only pulled up these two albums reviews; [91], [92]. While I feel that is enough to pass WP:MUSIC#C1, I have to admit it's pretty thin. As for the album (if the band is kept), I'd say add these 2 reviews to the infobox, and then merge the lot into Elexorien#Discography, then delete the album article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:18, 2 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 00:20, 5 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 Sponsorship scandal. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Brault[edit]

WP:BLP1E, right now the article is focused only on him the individual criminal, which is not notable, the Sponsorship scandal article more than adequately covers him. MBisanz ^talk 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sponsorship scandal per WP:BLP1E. Ray^Talk 09:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 29 April 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 00:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge to sponsorship scandal per WP:BLP1E. I would also like to add that this article could be improved to meet the criteria. Acebulf (talk) 03:20, 5 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. Wizardman 01:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uconnect[edit]

Non-notable company, no reliable sources to find. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would appear not to be a business but a product; an interior telematics and infotainment technology. As such this product fails to meet the standards for independent notability apart from Chrysler itself. Like the angel with a flaming sword who guards the gates of Eden, I refuse entry to the non-words "telematics" and "infotainment" into the English language. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:47, 28 April 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 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable product. Iowateen (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Evolution-Data Optimized which is apparently what it is. Drawn Some (talk) 04:11, 5 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 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sayokan[edit]

Primarily an advert for an non notable art, no secondary sources and no claim to notability Nate 14 81 12:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 12:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn new art. Would be nice to have a Turkish martial arts page, though. JJL (talk) 13:56, 28 April 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 00:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Nate 14 81 11:55, 5 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) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! theme music[edit]

This article is filled with conjecture and trivia and lists only a single reference: an estimation of the royalties Merv Griffin received from the song's use. The level of detail is far greater than what is necessary. Additionally, references to alternate versions and random solitary incidents where the traditional music was not used far outnumber the usefulness of the other information within the article. The article should be trimmed down to a small paragraph with some referenced history and reincorporated into the main Jeopardy! article. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insanely detailed trivia. A summary in the Jeopardy! article should suffice. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 16:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of the nominator appears to promote merging a reduced amount of content. In that case we don't need any deletion. We can simply redirect and discuss what to merge there, or find someone who has access to sources to actually do it. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Jeopardy theme music is pretty iconic. There are lots of RS references, as typified by a Google Books search. Current article state is in need of referencing and cleanup, but all indications are that that is possible. Jclemens (talk) 05:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep concur that the Jeopardy theme music is iconic and oft-referenced. JJL (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this can go into the Jeopardy page if it isn't already there.Nomad2u2001 (talk) 02:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the book search, and the fact that it's used separate from the game show in popular culture. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – at the very least the "Think!" cue (for those who don't know, the music they play while the contestants are writing down their Final Jeopardy question/response) is easily notable enough for its own article. MuZemike 15:51, 5 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) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Oblivion's Guide To Teenage Dating[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dr. Oblivion's Guide To Teenage Dating

Disputed PROD. Non-notable, short-lived indy comic with one review as ref; fails WP:N. 9Nak (talk) 15:03, 28 April 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) 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of an obvious rd candidate. JJL (talk) 00:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough reliable references exist to create an encyclopedia article, nor are they likely to ever exist. Current article is unsupported by references. Drawn Some (talk) 00:46, 5 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. Wizardman 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XODI Extended ODI Cricket Ratings[edit]

Lack of coverage in Reliable sources; may not meet Notability; also possible OR. , so speaks rohith. 15:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this page in the mistaken belief that the article Cricket Rating Systems needed subpages. I have no problem with its deletion. The site itself doesn't appear to have been updated for nearly two years. Crico (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —, so speaks rohith. 15:16, 28 April 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 00:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTMANUAL. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 5 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) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Cromwell[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Tagged for notability since November. Last AFD turned up an interview and one trivial source; interviews generally aren't enough to carry an article. No attempts to improve since last AFD. Yes, he has a wide repertoire, but there is almost no significant coverage of him anywhere. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A quick search brought up this: Modern Drummer interview, and Classic Drummer Magazine had a feature on him in 2005. Quite a nice discography. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 20:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two features in magazines dedicated to drumming is enough.--Michig (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of them is an interview, which is generally not considered sufficient per WP:MUSIC ("except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves…"). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website indicates a past feature in the magazine. We don't know if it's only an interview, or also something else. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 20:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how that guideline came to that wording, but it's impossible for articles to be written about bands or musicians without conducting interviews. A feature is usually a interview molded into a different format anyway. The musician talked about themself, but because of how the piece is written, you never know. What really matters is whether the interview was an editorial decision on the magazine's part or whether the group/musician asked them to for promotional purposes. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent point, and should probably be brought up on Wikipedia talk:MUSIC. — Gwalla | Talk 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 29 April 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 00:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put some work into the article just now, added a bunch of citations and tried to make the tone more encyclopedic. Many of the references I added are articles about other musicians, but they do all mention Cromwell briefly. That allowed me to add some content, and verify some of the content that was already there. With this much coverage over multiple decades, including the interviews in drummer magazines mentioned above, this is more than enough for WP:MUSICBIO criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anyone who has played with Neil Young is automatically notable. Drmies (talk) 04:40, 5 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. Wizardman 01:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kopyś Castle[edit]

Delete no references, barely any context, and no indication that this castle is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did you search? I ask so I won't repeat the same search myself. DGG (talk) 19:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google has 94 hits including WP, no mention of the castle other than in context of surname or town; a redirect to the town may be fine, but I'm not convinced that this building could sustain an article and is sufficiently unlikely search term as it would already contain "Kopyś" which our search software would present as a "did you mean" choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you know the Belorussian name, google hits won't say much. Next time try JSTOR. Ottre 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom, no context. Kopys was clearly an important medieval town, and the lack of references may well stem from cultural bias in Russian academia. However, I don't think anybody has mentioned the actual castle since 1975. Ottre 20:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nn; found one other passing mention [93]. Will reconsider if other (foreign language?) sources are found. JJL (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone has redirected. Is that the done thing during a deletion discussion? Bearing in mind my rescue of another Belarus castle article also nominated by Carlo, the naming will probably be an issue in sourcing. Fences and windows (talk) 00:49, 6 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. Fram (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liahavichy Castle[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this castle is moatable or notable. No refs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was apparently destroyed in the early 1700s, see here. I don't know how that affects the notablility. Drawn Some (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That link would appear to affect the verifiability of the topic. But it's surely better to keep relisting until consensus is reached instead of improving the article. Mokumoki (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Mokumoki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. That said, it's a castle, it must have quite the history behind it, even if only through its occupants. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major architectural structures like castles are always notable, and as military bases of significance as well. That it was destroyed does not influence the notability, as long as reliable sources exist. DGG (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete If someone gives it some meat and turns it into an article, I'd be happy to see it kept. If not, it completely lacks encyclopedicness. Articles are more than a 6-word substub. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:52, 29 April 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 00:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: With no prejudice to re-create a proper article, as Mgm notes. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourcing improves. --Chiliad22 (talk) 01:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as single-line substub, without prejudice against creating a proper article. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. The only source is [94], but that cites a Belarus encyclopedia. I was going to suggest mentioning the destruction of the castle in Great Northern War, but the site doesn't say when during this 20 year war it was razed. I wondered if there was a misspelling, and indeed Liahovichi turns up this[95], but I'm not sure the extra info is enough to construct an article. Here's what we know in total:

Liahavichy Castle was a fortified Belarus castle, one of the most significant in Belarus in the 17th century. It was built at the end of the 16th century by the hetman of Liahovichi, Yan Eromin of the Hadkevich family, on a hill in the Belarus town of the same name. It stood on the bank of the Vedz'ma river, surrounded by a moat adjustable by a dam. In the centre stood a two-storey palace. Eromin's son, Yan Korol, the hetman of Great Lithuanian Principality, reconstructed and fortified the castle. The castle and surrounding settlement was destroyed during the Great Northern War of 1700-1721. Is this enough for an article? Fences and windows (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC) I got some more from another sources quoting "Arhitektura Belarusi. Encyklapedychny davednik" ("Architecture of Belarus. Encyclopedia") - ed.: A.A. Voinau and others, Minsk, Publishing house 2)"Belaruskaia Encyklapedyia" by Piatrus' Brouka, 1993.[96]. There was yet another spelling, Lyakhovichi. Here's a coat of arms:[97] Fences and windows (talk) 23:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescued. I've finished with my rescue of the article. I hope it's OK now. A problem with sourcing was the bazillion spellings. Fences and windows (talk) 00:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and sources added. It would be nice if they were in-line, but there you are. Hobit (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True. Maybe someone can pick up the baton! Fences and windows (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per F&W's good work in finding the alternative spellings. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kudos to Fences and windows for finding and adding sources. Edward321 (talk) 14:12, 6 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) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guelph Daredevils[edit]

Article has claims of importance (professional team), but gsearch not turning up existence let alone notability. Zero ghits, zero gnews hits, not listed on SOCA's page at canadacricket.com [98]. Either wishful thinking or not notable. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable. The article provides one reference which actually doesn't have any information about a team named "Guelph Daredevil". As indicated by the nominator, a search for the team name in quotes literally turns up no results in Google News, and only this wikipedia article in the Google Web search. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The claim that this is a "professional cricket team" is very difficult to believe for a local league team in a country where even the top level teams are not professional. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 29 April 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 00:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per my comment above. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A hoax. Iowateen (talk) 02:13, 5 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) 16:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Too Deep (novel)[edit]

The article fails WP:CRYSTAL because the only things known about this book are trivial and all cited from one source. The production of the book has not yet gained enough attention to warrant an article. Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--given the light-blue Crystal Ball here. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ag97 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Drmies (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 02:20, 5 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 I withdrew my nom, apparently I searched for Giant CAMPS instead of Giant CAMPUS. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 04:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercamps[edit]

National summer camp, no assertion of notability, no sources. Searching "Cybercamps" or "Giant Camps" (their new name) turns up nothing non-trivial/ secondary on Google or Google News. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 17:07, 28 April 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, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am not coming to the same conclusion that searching for these on google news turns up nothing--perhaps you were searching for the wrong name: it is named Giant Campus. Check out these searches: [99], [100]. This yields a number of fairly detailed articles in secondary sources. Some highlights: USA Today coverage of cybercamps: [101], under the heading "For the future entrepreneurs" on this CNN money article: [102] This is way above the threshhold for keeping, in my opinion. Cazort (talk) 00:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, it appears I did search under the wrong name! Slap on the wrist for me... too bad most of it is behind a paywall. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 04:53, 5 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. Nja²⁴⁷ 08:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ECOST.com[edit]

Non-notable subsidiary for failing WP:CORP PirateSmackK (talk) 17:31, 28 April 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, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete under A7. E Wing (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notabe company. Iowateen (talk) 02:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per this Google News Archive search. Here are news article from The Dallas Morning News, one from Memphis Business Journal, and another from Los Angeles Business Journal. This company easily passes WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote Changed to Keep per Cunard. Iowateen (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. It does have mention in business pages, but bear in mind that these "articles" are often regurgitations of corporate press releases, referring to single events such as a merger rather than explaining why the company is notable. I'd be happy to see it deleted, but equally as happy to see it expanded using non-self-serving secondary sources. Fences and windows (talk) 22:43, 5 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 00:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sapna Babul Ka...Bidaai episodes[edit]

Contains almost no information besides a list of episodes, half of which simply state "need details" (no inprogress or underconstruction tags shown or in the edit history) and the information that is present reads more like a TV magazine than an encyclopaedia entry. Any information that is of use- such as the most notable episodes- would be better placed in the show's main article, though would, I feel require a re-write to make it encyclopaedic. HJMitchell You rang? 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC) NB: Apologies for the delay in creating the rationale- I assumed Twinkle had done it for me! HJMitchell You rang? 22:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total fancruft. No encyclopedia should list every episode of a daily soap opera. Fences and windows (talk) 22:36, 5 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. Fram (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justin fox[edit]

Non-notable journalist who, while has authored a couple of articles, fails WP:CREATIVE. ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:35, 28 April 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, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With some effort, I am finding significant evidence that this man in influential. Much of it is in blogs, but some of it is in proper articles from reliable sources: [103], [104]. His 2001 article in Fortune ([105]) has 15 cites: [106], most in high-profile peer-reviewed journals. This suggests he is a figure who is both influential in academic and financial news circles. While I am open to more detailed discussion if people dispute my recommendation, I am inclined to recommend a keep based on these observations. Cazort (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cazort. Iowateen (talk) 02:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Salon call him "Time magazine's excellent business reporter",[107] then I think he's notable. There's an article in India Times reporting on Fox reporting on Bangalore's economy:[108].There are sources out there, just need adding. Fences and windows (talk) 22:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Other editors have found sourcing that shows notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:41, 7 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.

[1] Nicholas J. Rengger, Moral Evil and International Relations, in SAIS Review 25:1, Winter/Spring 2005, pages 3-16

[2] Peter Kivy, Melville's Billy and the Secular Problem of Evil: the Worm in the Bud, in The Monist (1980), 63

[3] John Kekes, Facing Evil, 1993

[4] Timothy Anders, The Evolution of Evil (2000)

[5] Duntley, J.D., & Buss, D.M., The evolution of evil, in The social psychology of good and evil (2004). New York: Guilford. 102-123. Full text

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]