Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 8 May 10 May >

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. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuzkandi Street[edit]

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

This article about a street in a Pakistani town is of no interest. The street is not notable, and there are no sources given, nor do any seem to exist from a search of new sources, books etc. I would've done a Prod, but one was done and removed by the article creator already. This is one of several articles created by this editor about Mardan town. Fences and windows (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable street with 70 houses. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not sound like a notable road worthy of an article. Dough4872 (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2009

My suggestion[edit]

I think the creator of this article Kuzkandi street wants the popularity of his street,so mu suggetion is that kindly allow him and donot delete his article. The above unsigned comment is by IP user 61.5.154.75, a SPA that has edited only the articles created by User:Baghdada. Fences and windows (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's, in fact, exactly what we don't want.--Unionhawk Talk E-mail 02:15, 16 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) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronk music[edit]

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

Article does not assert its legitimacy as a genre. The description sounds like something that could exist, but I've never heard the actual term "Pronk". Google search doesn't turn up any verifiable sources. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 00:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I've seen it used (specifically in reference to The Cardiacs), but it was in an online discussion and I have no idea how accepted the term is or whether it's been used in published works. — Gwalla | Talk 00:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was only able to find one passing mention in a book referring to the Cardiacs by that term. This neologism apparently is used just for that band, as indicated by a google search and even this wiki article itself. Ironically enough, the band's frontman has explicitly repudicated the notion that they are a progressive rock band and instead identifies the band as a pop group. So let us respect his wishes and delete this from wikipedia. --Bardin (talk) 07:27, 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, Stifle (talk) 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also searched around, and can find no significant coverage. Term is not well enough established to pass notability at this time  Chzz  ►  01:50, 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) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodier Homes and Gardens: State of Fear[edit]

Bloodier Homes and Gardens: State of Fear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability per WP:NF. Iowateen (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I turned up nothing other than proof the film exists [1]. Non-notable. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:40, 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. Onetwothree... 01:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScratchR[edit]

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

Non-notable social media platform. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable social media platform??? Oh please:

1) http://ltee.org/uploads/cscl2009/paper251.pdf 2) http://www.aec.at/index_de.php (at http://andresmh.emurse.com/ it says "Received honorary mention at the Ars Electronica Prix 2008") 3) Do you know who is Resnick??? 4) Do you know what is Scratch? Have you seen http://scratch.mit.edu and how many users it has? (it's powered by ScratchR) Just because many people confuse ScratchR (the web platform) with Scratch itself, it doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't give the ScratchR platform due credit!!!Tziortzioti (talk) 06:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources you have provided are trivial mentions, if there is even a mention at all. Notability not established. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ars Prix Electronica 2008 is trivial mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.19.130 (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that Scratch entry in Wikipedia won't be complete without mentioning ScratchR, since a big part of the power of Scratch is its social media platform. But if you feel you know better about educational software, go ahead, I'm not going to spend any more of my time contributing here... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.19.130 (talk) 18:34, 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, Stifle (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm reserving judgement until I know more, but [2] does not appear to be a trivial mention, but it is connected to MIT, so it really can't be used to meet notability requirements. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, doesn't seem to be any serious coverage independent of MIT. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Upon further review, I can find nothing that proves notability. The sources available are either first-party or unreliable, and thus WP:GNG is not met. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:12, 16 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) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetie Pie (film)[edit]

Sweetie Pie (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No proper sources to support this article. Also, no proof of existence. Lexon darkheart (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax? or at least a non-existent film that once was added to imdb  Chzz  ►  01:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting assertion of non-notability in the article about a film that included Paris Hilton in its cast? It began filming on March 12, 2000 in Malibu [3]. It had its world premiere on June 14, 2002 at the Nodance Program in Hollywood [4]. Do the Hilton's own stock in Amazon or IMDB so as to get an embarassment removd? No matter. Complete cast and crew can still be seen at Hollywood.com [5] and many other non-US sites. What strange bits and pieces might be found with some deep sleuthing for 2000-2003 news coverage of cast, crew, or production inre its infamy and dissappearance? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Paris Hilton's first film as an adult (she did do a background bit in Wishman when she was 12). I have been able to add some sourcing to the article, but its not impressive. However, the assertion of it being her first film as an adult is a decent assertion of notability... far better than being removed from IMDB listings (as if anyone could use that for a source). A very diligent search in archives inre Paris and the film may bring gold. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a hoax, but did anyone actually ever see the film? It sounds like a dreadful turkey that will never see the light of day again, and never had any significant coverage. Palm Pictures was supposed to distribute it, but there's nothing on their website about it. The only notability is Paris Hilton starring in it, but notability is not inherited. Fences and windows (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, as the first film of the adult Hilton, it does qualify as notable, whether it was a bomb or not or whether family money quashed it as a turkey or not, and no matter who did or did not see it, as "firsts" do qualify per guideline as notable, if they can be properly verified. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. As per policy, an article about a film is notable as long as it either has coverage on websites other than user-editable websites like IMDB or has not commenced filming yet. And this NY Times article is more than enough to fulfil the coverage on other media condition. --Roaring Siren (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That "NY Times article" is a stub giving barely any information. It isn't "significant coverage". Fences and windows (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to do what I hate, and quote policy. This is from WP:NOTFILM:
  • It excludes "Trivial coverage", which would apply to the NY Times article.
  • As for it being OK as a "first", read the following criterion: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there". (emphasis added)
  • "Films produced in the past, which were either not completed or not distributed, should not have their own articles unless their failure was notable per the guidelines."
So there is no non-trivial coverage, it wasn't a major part of Paris Hilton's career, the details are not sufficient outside a brief mention in Paris Hilton, and it wasn't distributed and this failure wasn't notable. It fails notability on every criteria. Fences and windows (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respects, 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, as the film was completed and screened. And even if it never went into distribution, it being Paris' first credited role as an adult is easily verified. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, as their are 5 "notables" linked to the article who themselves have articles on Wikipedia... Jake Hoffman, Spencer Grammer, Paris Hilton, Cisco Adler, and Ginger Lynn... there might be an acceptable way to merge informations about this film to these 5 other articles. And such can be discussed on the talk page after a keep. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:36, 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 speedy delete (CSD G3) as a blatant hoax. All related articles have also been deleted. --Kinu t/c 02:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair (TV series)[edit]

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

No evidence the show existed, no information can be found online for the show or actors, which is unlikely for a show that aired for 3 seasons in the 1990's. Susan118 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as I was not able to find anything on the series either. The guy claims to have it on tape, so I'll ask him to post something, if he has anything. —Coastergeekperson04's talk@May/09/09 23:06
  • Delete as hoax. No listing on imdb.com for show or actors involved. Suggest AFD listing cross-linked articles as well. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. You know how hard I worked, and you're gonna throw it away in six hours? I demand it stays. Appleton 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete No mention of this on IMDB! An obvious hoax that is now spawning 'list of episodes' 'stars' etc. Someone is very bored. I will notify the vandalism check. Porturology (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suspect hoax; Appleton if not, provide refs  Chzz  ►  01:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Per nom, the article refers to a series that was on in primetime on NBC for three years in the 90s and has absolutely no corroborating evidence provided and even less found. Nah, sorry, blatantly obvious hoax. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 02:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fan a huge fan NBC an I never seen Sinclair or heard before. I think don't exists. 99.29.236.85 (talk) 02:15, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows System 32 File[edit]

Windows System 32 File (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Um....the title is wrong (should be a disambiguation of System 32 if it is to be included at all), and it is talking about a bunch of computer files, not a file. The article is also worded in some ways as if this was a computer help site. I'm not sure this deserves to be on wikipedia. While we are not a computer manual, system 32 is a key component of windows, on the other hand, just because the folder exists, doesn't mean its notable under that title or have its own page, since it could have been named anything, and I would think specific dll's would be more notable. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 22:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or rename to "System 32 Folder" and redirect to Special Folders--Pontificalibus (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poor choice of title and badly written article aside (it reads like it was written by a 10 year old), the folder itself within the Windows structure, is not of sufficient note to warrant a separate article. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yea, he clearly means system 32 folder. Not only does this not warrant a separate article, but most of the content is original research. — Jake Wartenberg 23:26, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston[edit]

Consulate-General of the United Kingdom in Houston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Disputed prod (no reason gievn). Prod reasoning was "Appears to show no notabality and good faith searches found nothing that would give it notabality" Dpmuk (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - 1. The subject has been covered by reliable sources. 2. There is precedent in that consulates are kept in AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Consulate-General_of_Indonesia_in_Houston WhisperToMe (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Weak Keep. OK, say the precedent has already been set, as per WhisperToMe, but this article contains nothing that demonstrates the subject's importance wrt WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since then I have added more content to the article to establish notability. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Keep the fact that the article needs work and that we have other articles on consulates is unimportant to this discussion, but after looking around on Google I did not find enough information to justify a separate article. — Jake Wartenberg 23:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just found information about a Hurricane Katrina controversy involving this consulate. Jake, keep in mind that you may have to use multiple search queries and special parameters, such as '"British consulate" Houston' etc. to find what you want. It is likely that you used one search term to look for everything. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found even more information regarding this consulate. Keep in mind that newspapers and business journals often announce when consulates close. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages or a directory. Fails WP:N. I dispute the claim that consulates have inherent notability. Edison (talk) 02:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this a directory, Edison? How does it fail WP:N? Why? The consulate was involved in a dispute regarding UK citizens and Hurricane Katrina. It doesn't just exist; it is involved in diplomatic issues regarding the region of the host country (in this case Louisiana) and the mother country (the UK), and it was documented in reliable sources. Also, why dispute this when the AFD precedent went the other way? Precedent is important in AFD (yes, I am aware about "Otherstuffexists," but when an AFD is decided one way, it can set a precedent) WhisperToMe (talk) 03:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still failing to see anything here that establishes notabality. Yes there's plenty of reliable sources that mention the Consulate-General but in my mind none of them meet WP:N. Specifically:
    "Houston" UK in the USA - Official government site so not independent of the subject.
    "THE BRITISH ARE COMING English companies operating in city nearly double in four years." The Dallas Morning News. From what I can see of the article the Consulate in only being cited as a source of information and that's trivial coverage as the article's not actually about the consulate.
    "Leasing briefs." Houston Chronicle - Only trivial coverage.
    "Dallas' British Consulate to close in money-saving move." Dallas Business Journal. - Trivial covergae, only mentions that Houston is next nearest Consulate
    "Katrina: Are you a survivor?." BBC - User contributed content so reliability concerns. Besides only one definite and one possible passing mentioning of the Consulate so only trivial coverage.
    "Foreign Office tells 100,000 Britons to flee as Rita nears." The Scotsman. Slightly more coverage but still trivial in my opinion as the article is just relaying advice from the Consulate. The article is in no way about the consulate.
    "Blair defends UK Katrina response." BBC - OK so the consule general gets a lot of mentions in this article but a) the article is not about the consulate general so it's still trivial coverage and b) she's mainly commenting on the governments resposne so to me this in no way establishes notabality of the group giving that response - otherwise various press offices and the like would be notable. Dpmuk (talk) 12:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, limited third party coverage [6]. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WtM is correct in alluding to precedent. Further to that, many, many consualtes have their own articles- take Consualte General of France in Atlanta for example. They seem to be being treated rather like an extension to the rule on embassies- which are almost always notable. In light of the improvements, this article meets WP:GNG, though I would like to see more non-Katrina related material. HJMitchell You rang? 10:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpmuk's analysis of the sources. Trivial coverage doesn't meet the GNG. Karanacs (talk) 13:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dpmuk. It would seem far better to summarize these in a list, perhaps by country. Stifle (talk) 23:10, 16 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) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Western Norway Region[edit]

Greater Western Norway Region (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The category Category:Metropolitan regions of Norway contains a wealth of horrible, unsourced articles on supposed "metropolitan areas" in Norway, but this is probably the worst of them all. Somehow, someone has managed to construct a "metropolitan area" out of a large part of the West Coast of Norway, an area spanning no less than 260 km from north to south. Worst of all, I can find no reference to this "metropolitan area" anywhere at all, including SSB.no, which is of course rather unsurprising as it really doesn't exist in any form at all. Please, for the good of Wikipedia and in order to protect us against Norwegian journalists that cite horrible Wikipedia articles as a pastime, delete this article and preferably also the others in its category, although that is out of scope of this AFD. Aqwis (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. If the Norwegian government doesn't even recognize this region, then who does? Eddie.willers (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a fantasy construction. Although I could see a future article on Nord-Jæren. Punkmorten (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original reseach --Kjetil r (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Bearian (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Bergen and Stavanger are not part of any single "metropolitan region". There is one fairly large town between them (Haugesund), and between these towns, the islands and fjords are fairly rural. The two cities are quite separate, and a journey by road between them takes about four hours. The "statistical division" doesn't exist. Norwegians do refer to a Norwegian region called Vestlandet (Western Norway) which in addition to encompassing Bergen and Stavanger includes a number of cities and towns in counties further north. That article is verifiable and belongs on Wikipedia, this article on the other hand does not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Arsenikk (talk) 11:31, 15 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 WELL THEN. I guess we're done here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Prince Laharl[edit]

Great Prince Laharl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is already in Disgaea: Hour of Darkness, if you type in Laharl, you are redirected to that, furthermore, a google search or a look into the 3rd reference will show that the "Great Prince" part of the name doesn't follow naming conventions. I fail to see why this character deserves its own page when it is already mentioned in the Disgaea page, especially when the plain Laharl page redirects there. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn: BOLD redirected to the list of characters page this is a lesser-detailed duplicate of. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:50, 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 Speedy Deleted at request of author. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graeme Bartlett (talk • contribs) 23:32, May 9, 2009

Miss Dominican Republic 2010[edit]

Miss Dominican Republic 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystal ball page with no substantive content except speculation Passportguy (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Blatant violation of CRYSTALball, clearly not sufficient enough for inclusion at the moment. ceranthor 22:26, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C7orf30[edit]

C7orf30 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish notability besides existence (nor any assertion), WP:NOT a collection of everything that exists, and is not a mirror of pubmed/other related. Seriously, why should there be an article on every single human gene? Needs notability for own article. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, gene encodes "hypothetical protein". Keep or recreate if references establish function. --Pontificalibus (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC) KeepWhen I said the above, the article had no references or text but was just an infobox. Now the article shows it is an acutal gene which does something it should be kept.--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article may or may not qualify for deletion, but WP:CRYSTAL certainly shouldn't be a reason for deletion. Just because one aspect of the gene's action hasn't been demonstrated it doesn't mean that the gene itself hasn't been established to exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am the author of this article. I made it as part of the final project for my bioinformatics class. Our goal was to study an unknown protein and as part of the final project create a wikipedia page detailing our findings. If this is still not a valid reason to keep this page, could any deletion at least be postponed so that this page may be graded by my instructor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotd42 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - documents what a certain gene does. If we're citing "not", I think not paper is much more relevant. For a stubby article, there are enough sources to demonstrate notability. LadyofShalott 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - This is a borderline case. The sources cited point to a function but the precise function remains unknown. WP:CRYSTAL does not apply since the sources that suggest a possible function in turn are based on solid experimental data (protein-protein interaction) or sound theoretical reasoning (subcellular distribution). These are reliable sources and not wild speculation. While several of the protein databases describe the protein as "hypothetical", the Tsang et al. publication provides experimental evidence that the protein is expressed and interacts with other proteins. Hence the protein is no longer hypothetical. Boghog2 (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The gene has been proven to exist it's just that the exact function is not known yet. Compiling a list of all human genes is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology. It is pointless to delete this page now for it to recreated in the future - it is not a company that might be notable in the future but a gene whose exact function is not yet known. In my opinion the fact that it is human gene immediately asserts notability. I think this is a much more worthy article than the countless lists of TV episodes and albums for example. Smartse (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no problem in keeping this article. We are not a paper encyclopedia and there is no shortage of space. But clearly, it requires much work to survive as a stand-alone article. Graham Colm Talk 14:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject is notable and some citations to the literature are given. Speaking as a biochemistry professor, however, I'd give the student a C− for this article. Do a better job summarizing the literature and explaining it to lay-people! The article reads as though you put only an hour of work into it. I'm sure you can do much better than this. Proteins (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but merge to ESCRT, the only peer-reviewed source I can find that mentions this protein is PMID 16730941, where it is listed in a table of proteins that may interact with the ESCRT complex. Not really enough to establish notability on its own, but as a possible component of a complex with a known function, certainly merits a mention in that article. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a good argument for merging - proteins tend to be able to bind to a lot of other proteins. Narayanese (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know, and since this is just a Y2H result it might very well be a false positive. However, it is the only hint of function identified and its only claim for notability. As a comment, I can't see how a predicted mitochondrial localisation and a predicted cytosolic function are at all compatible, but that is OR on my part I suppose. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, evolution thinks this protein is notable. It is just that academia hasn't figured out why yet.--Paul (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I agree with Paul. If the gene had not conferred some advantage in the last fifty thousand years or so, it would not exist in a form that could be recognized today. (Even human pseudogenes can be notable, because they map to functionality present in other species or recent ancestors. See L-gulonolactone oxidase.) --Arcadian (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with all human genes, there is no lack of data available, there is data from both comparative genomics and expression analyses also for this gene. Wikipedia is a suitable place to summarize the information from different databases. Narayanese (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that this is a highly conserved gene throughout numerous species means it must have a notable function in the body and should have a wikipedia page. Meodipt (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This well-documented gene, backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources does definitely encode a protein. While we don't know what this protein does, there is no WP:CRYSTAL issue here whatsoever. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 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. Per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Islamic Faith[edit]

Correct Islamic Faith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Soapbox stuff in a personal essay Nomad2u2001 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. (but seriously, shouldn't this just be speedied or something? I don't think it needs a full deletion debate.)
  • It occurred to me as well to speedy it, but I'm not sure what criteria would apply. Since I can't see any policy based reason anyone could vote to keep this, it may end up getting snowballed though. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mindel[edit]

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

No indication of how this cinematographer is notable. Fails WP:CREATIVE RadioFan (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It looks like he does meet WP:CREATIVE because he has works "in many significant libraries". Drawn Some (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reason as stated above. By the way, if other cinematographers can have article, why not Mindel's? And there's plenty of indication. For one, he was cinematographer on the highly-anticipated Star Trek, which is about to become one of the biggest hits of the year in addition to currently being the best-reviewed wide-release movie of the year. He was also cinematographer on the international box office hits Enemy of the State, Shanghai Noon, Spy Game, The Skeleton Key, and Mission: Impossible III. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty notable. --From Andoria with Love (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:CREATIVE for "played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 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 17:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black tax[edit]

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

Polemic disguised as an article. No reference for the article title. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:17, 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) 06:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk fixing[edit]

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

Article about a single performance on a TV show with no proof that it is specifically notable and no citations to back any of the claims other than footage of the performance in question. At best the performance merits a brief mention in the Michael McIntyre article. Keresaspa (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I can find no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that this performance has started a 'trend'. Certainly not notable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or maybe redirect to Michael McIntyre with a brief mention. Friday (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as neologism. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A stand-up comedian's comedy routine is not a source for accurate information about the world. It's comedy. Fiction is not fact. This is not based upon reliable sources. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 03:12, 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) 00:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Wharton-Tigar[edit]

Edward Wharton-Tigar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think you have to be pretty notable to have an obituary in the New York Times (added ref to article).--Pontificalibus (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite keep; NYT obit provides evidence of notability. Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A search for "Wharton-Tigar" in quotes makes it readily apparent that he is notable, a real-life James Bond indeed. The article is a crappy stub and needs to be expanded but reliable references exist to prove notable and verify an article. Drawn Some (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep expand of course, but notable. BTW, he was involved in the "Himmler Stamp" forgery, where Third Reich stamps were forged by the Allies with Himmler's head, rather than Hitler's head, on the stamps. (Mentioned in the Philatelic_fakes_and_forgeries article, if anyone wants to expand.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:05, 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. Onetwothree... 01:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of grain elevators[edit]

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

A crufty list which is unmaintainable, considering how many grain elevators there are in the world. Since grain elevators are not notable in the majority of cases, a complete list of all of them is not notable either. The notable grain elevators are already covered by Category:Grain elevators and a section of Grain elevator. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's pretty well-established that lists of articles and even lists of items that are important but not notable can be acceptable, this one appears useful. The other option would be to merge it with the primary article since it's not so long. See WP:LIST. Either is acceptable to me but deletion isn't. I too would assume most grain elevators are NOT notable or important and that this list would never be very long. Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I'm not averse to a "list of <foo>" in general, even when not every <foo> listed is individually notable enough to justify its own categorizable article, this specific list seems to be no more than a trivial re-statement of an already existing category. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Andy Dingley. List already exists. I no longer object to keeping it. --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:CLN the existence of a category is not a reason to delete a list. Personally I'm of the view that a list should be deleted if it adds nothing above the category listing. This list already does however add something, for example by including locations and construction dates, neither of which is obvious from a category listing. Dpmuk (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point (and in general, I like lists that present a conceptual "list" as a sequence with some theme, more than merely a set of linked articles). However this country / date annotation isn't going far enough to convince me. Why should I care that one elevator was built in 1900 and another in 1923? Was there a switch in building materials between these dates? The economics of bulk grain handling? Tell me _why_ the history of grain elevators developed over this sequence and I'll be converted. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to List of elevators on NRHP list to set the scope. Listing all facilities in an industry is futile, but since it's limited to a single country's list of historical buildings it's verifiable and manageable. NVO (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This will need a bit of retooling to make it "List of historic/notable grain elevators" or "List of grain elevators of such-and-such qualification", but it's at least useful as a navigation tool. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unmaintainable list and difficult to verify. SYSS Mouse (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cruft is a nice term to toss about when 11 different meanings are tacked to it, whats your definition of it as it applies to this list of the Notable & Verifiable and independantly Articled. :Cats and Lists can co-exist, esp. when this list provides more than a :Cat can, and does. Unmaintainable? ... its easy to remove any redlinks... which have yet to show up. A merge is possible into the Parent Article, but there should be a redir in any case, so whats the difference, the Wiki is not paper. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an obviously incomplete list of pages which in and of themselves are probably questionably notable. Unmaintainable. Ngaskill (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open question - exactly what makes this list unmaintainable? Its not like its 80Kb long, so there is no problems of wading through masses of information, and I am unable to locate any WP:Unmaintainable related documents ? Am I missing something ? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the nice things about MediaWiki (cf other wikis) is its strong auto-categorization features. We have a pretty good "list of grain elevators" at Category:Grain elevators, with no additional maintenance overhead at all. So this list article only justifies its existence if it's adding something that the simple auto-cat can't; frequently this can be describing some sort of historical context to them. I'd like to see this list survive, if it can justify itself in this way, but it does have to be doing something beyond that simple cat page, otherwise it's just duplication. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, if someone creates a new notable grain elevator page, who is going to be responsible for maintaining that this manual list be updated? I believe the category handles this already and accurately.Ngaskill (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to my original "unmaintainable" comment, that was a reference to the number of non-notable grain elevators there are. If this page included all of those, which are currently within its scope, it would be 80KB long. (I'm actually not entirely opposed to a list of notable grain elevators, so long as someone can show that it would add something to the current list/category I mentioned.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice awnsers, but not awnsering my question. What makes this list unmaintainable. There are no redlinks. There is more content than a :Cat could provide. It's limited to the Notable/Articled. You're arguing that it could become something that it currently has not shown any signs of becomming. I believe by adding 1 word to the Lede, your concerns have been taken care of, something that WP:Before should have taken care of. The current title of the Article is the perfect search term for people looking for such a list, as well as fitting well inline into any current Article text. As for "who is going to be responsible for maintaining" ... whom is responsible for any particular Articles? Would that not imply WP:Ownership? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 02:36, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waverly Health Center[edit]

Waverly Health Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I downgraded from "speedy" deletion to a 7-day proposed deletion; see talk page. It's just been de-prodded, but I don't think it's ready for prime-time yet. Only the first of the 5 references is independent, and that one is simply the inclusion of this medical center in a list. Also, the language in the lead section is still promotional, but I'm more concerned with the lack of references. WP:CORP specifically includes hospitals, so the bar we have to jump over here is set pretty high. - Dank (push to talk) 19:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That the article is substandard is a call for improvement, not deletion. Any accredited hospital with an emergency room and accepting Medicare funds will likely meet requirements for notablity and verifiablity, there are too many non-trival independent references in such cases to argue otherwise, the industry is well-regulated and monitored. I see some good hits from quick Google searches and they should be incorporated. There does seem to be some conflict of interest and promotion which should be discouraged. I removed an external link in the first boldfaced mention in the lead and added some categories.Drawn Some (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The first question is, are hospitals in a "privileged" class of articles where we can just assume they're notable even when we can't find independent sources, as seems to be true for high schools? There aren't many articles like that. I asked at WT:MED and the only answer I got was: they have to meet WP:CORP. That being the case: give me one independent source that suggests notability. I read the first few lines of each of the 70 or so hits at Google archives/books/scholar, and none of them looked promising; it was all in the nature of obituaries and inclusion in long lists. I like to give articles like this one (a business that offers an indispensable service to a community) a good solid chance to survive, and I've done that here; I took it out of the speedy queue and prodded, which gave it almost 7 days; it's got another 7 days here, and if we don't get solid votes, it will probably get another 7 days. 3 weeks is long enough to find sources if they exist. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try searching for "Waverly Hospital" + Iowa instead of "Waverly Health Center". There is even a 106 page book on the hospital by Baker, although published by an affiliate. Plenty of articles regarding expansions, bond issues, etc. I will say though in this case I would prefer to see an article on Iowa Health System which it is part of with a section on the hospital. Waverly Health Center is not a member of the Iowa Health System or any other. It is independent!!! Drawn Some (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm doesn't being the subject of an independantly written book make it notable? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would, but the fact that the book was "published by an affiliate" of the hospital means that the source is not independent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hospitals, especially those only with 25 beds, are not inherently notable. Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability of hospitals depends on a number of factors, but a 25-bed hospital without any specific claims to fame is unlikely to meet inclusion criteria. JFW | T@lk 10:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Large hospitals are notable, or at least very likely to be; community health centers like this only under the most exceptional circumstances, like national level awards or extensive national coverage for something intrinsically important. I am not immediately aware of any that would qualify, but i don't want to completely rule it out. DGG (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Waverly, Iowa. The hospital will be a significant factor in the town's economy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepReferences have been added. Many other similar hospitals are included. Conflicts of interest and promotion have been removed. --Waverly312 (talk) 18:42, 14 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 Black Kite 21:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaDarius Pope[edit]

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

all claims to notability are for events that have not yet occured, seems to be in conflict with WP:CRYSTAL Wuhwuzdat (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete - lacks notability, lone reference is to a blog and the only google hits are to myspace and this wikipedia article, zero google news hits. Appears to be an autobiography, and a hoaxy one at that.--RadioFan (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unreferenced claims to movie roles and connection with various stars as well as "tour dates" have been removed.--RadioFan (talk) 21:02, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Missler[edit]

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

The only thing the sources say is that he was charged with a minor crime (plagiarism). If that is all he is known for he is not notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: The article has been around since 2005. I notified all the editors with more than one edit of this AfD. Many had left WP or had been banned as sockpuppets, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he is self published except for one book two books (Prophecy 20/20: Profiling the Future Through the Lens of Scripture, not a notable book) and plagiarized once (that is documented, I'm not going to speculate about his other output). Self-published is the same as not published as far as notability of authors go. The plagiarism is not article-worthy in and of itself. If I recall correctly, Missler was one of the many bios started by now banned editor and sockmaster Jason Gastrich in order to try to prop up credibility for his alma mater, the unaccredited LBU. Most of the bios were deleted in short order, a few stuck. I see no reason to keep this bio around. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Question. The article lists two books of his published by Thomas Nelson (publisher), a major religious publishing house. Are you contending that one of them was actually self-published? JamesMLane t c 23:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My error - I thought Koinonia House published Learn the Bible in 24 hours. I have corrected my statement. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • changing to Keep now that it has been added that he was CEO of Western Digital. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Missler is (in)famous online for starring in the hilarious "Peanut butter: Atheist nightmare" video you can view here [7]. I'm indifferent to whether he has an article, but I don't see harm in having it. --Ryan Delaney talk 20:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article: Charles "Chuck" Missler is an author, conservative Bible teacher, and founder of the Koinonia House ministry based out of Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. M. From the website: K-House now reaches tens of thousands through its monthly newsletter, radio shows, cassette tapes, and conferences. More than eight million study tapes have been distributed in the U.S. and in over 35 countries around the world. [8] If the claim is true then the subject may be notable due to his role as the head of a successful church and as a writer.   Will Beback  talk  20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, self-published claims of notability are not acceptable. As it turns out he was also CEO of a major company, though, that issue is now more or less moot, at least as regards this Afd. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are more than enough sources at Talk:Chuck_Missler#Article_sources to prove notability. Even if you ignore any notability conferring from his ministry, he was the CEO of Western Digital, as well as several other large publicly traded companies, and that is more than sufficient. --B (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'd forgotten about his business career. CEO of Western Digital is arguably enough by itself for notability -- I've added that to the article, along with a Wired story covering one aspect of his religious ministry (his peanut butter video, which is frequently linked to). JamesMLane t c 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: although Missler is (in)famous for a number of things, none of these things appear to have gotten any substantial coverage in reliable sources (and on the peanut butter issue, I've yet to see any coverage at all in reliable sources). He appears to fall into an area analogous to WP:ACADEMIC's "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject." I do not think that we have sufficient information on him to create an article that isn't a series of bizarrely-disjointed (and often poorly documented) snapshots. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 01:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the past, this page has been a magnet for people putting grossly undue weight on criticism of the subject. Largely for this reason, my heart wants to agree with Hrafn, though my head has a hard time disagreeing with the "keep" arguments. For now I am neutral. I suppose the article in its current state is not too objectionable, but we'll see if it stays that way. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 02:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One source that is used seems to be clearly unreliable for a BLP. If the article is kept I will start a discussion for its removal on the talk page.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More notable than many actors, pokemons, sportsmen, pornstars, etc. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please nominate some of them and you'll have my vote. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambivalent To be entirely honest beyond his gross and insipid stupidity I have no problem with dumping the entire article. He's not really notable (but then there are a lot of entries that might fit that criteria) and is more a subject of derision with regards to the meme video that did the rounds. At the same time, I agree with Hrafn's point of view related to "lack of independent sources", considering the majority of sources are either video sites or similar public access/contribution sites.Koncorde (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per B. Meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KillerChihuahua and because this article does meet WP:BIO. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utter triviality. He is not a public figure, and that he uses unoriginal arguments is not a public issue. BLP oneevent applies. DGG (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per KillerChihuahua and Ism schism. Willking1979 (talk) 11:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - not a major figure, but I think the collection of mentions in reliable sources adds up, just about, to notability. Robofish (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we need to keep the article, if only on the fact alone that he was CEO of Western Digital. DavidH (talk) 07:35, 16 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) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Preservation[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable web forum and company. The company fails WP:CORP and the article has a strong hint of advertising about it. The web forum fails parts 2 and 3 of WP:WEB, and the coverage in Steam Railway magazine indicated for part 1 is debateable, given the links between the two, and given the fact the published articles were about the contents of forum posts content, and not about the forum/company itself. No44871 (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this page was just about the company what could be done? 80.89.94.28 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC). — 80.89.94.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The company is the part with the least notability. No44871 (talk) 13:46, 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, The Earwig (Talk | Contributions) 18:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The Forum also raised money for charity's and continue to do so. [1] £200 was Raised and I believe there is a current fund raising process raising funds for another needy charity / railway. 80.89.94.28 (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC) — 80.89.94.28 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep Original author of the page. This is a growing forum, with a growing impact on the preservation movement. Contest allegation that Steam Railway reference is not valid as this was written prior to agreements with the forum. Also, have reasons to be suspicious at users reasons for listing, given his recent membership and similarity to a forum trouble-maker. Bluebellnutter (talk) 15:26, 14 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 17:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freesat box[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a manual. The article is a mix of this and WP:OR. Ironholds (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It is covering the same ground as Freesat, except is a considerably poorer article and offers nothing new. Consider redirecting to Freesat#Reception_equipment. --Pontificalibus (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)*Redirect to Freesat#Reception_equipment. The technical details of the receivers are handled there already without the how-to sections and the OR. But "Freesat box" is used commonly enough to describe the equipment to remain as a simple redirect. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. No content. Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be someone's personal playground - blanked with the comment "to be re written". Even before blanking, had no content that wasn't already covered in Freesat. Was clearly created to spamvertise e-book websites (see Talk:Freesat box) No value in keeping. Bonusballs (talk) 12:30, 16 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) 06:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Oswald[edit]

James M. Oswald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Taking to AfD as PROD tag has been removed for nearly a month. Only indication of notability is as the owner of a business, which without recognized contribution or impact fails wp:bio. The only mention of this person I could find is on a social networking site, which calls him the Chief Sales Officer rather than the owner. FlyingToaster 17:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as non-notable. And probable conflict of interest given the user's history. Laurent (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be a notable person. Also, it might be questionable if his company is even notable. TheDude2006 (talk) 18:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability. LadyofShalott 18:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 18:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If he were the "owner" of GL&V, a major international paper company based in Canada [9] , with 1700 employees, he would almost certainly be notable but the president and CEO is Laurent Verreault, and he and his brother control the company [10]. What we need are articles on Verrault, and the company. DGG (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete GLV is a public/listed company [11] -- thus it has no owner(s) but shareholders. A Mr. Oswald is not listed as an officer of the company [12] and everybody could theoretically be a shareholder buying one share; The name Oswald is also not mentioned on the entire website of the company [13]. Not notable, to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esinclair52 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March of the Cornhuskers[edit]

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

Does not warrant a seperate article per WP:NSONGS. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this article is important since it is a fight song that is played at every Nebraska football game and is part of the culture and tradition of Nebraska football. Other fight songs from multiple schools are listed at Fight song and many of them have expanded out pages for example ISU Fights, I'm a Jayhawk, Wildcat Victory, and CU Fight Song just from the big 12 North, six division one teams from over one hundred teams. I also noticed that there are division 2 and 3 teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebraskafan08 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware there are quite a few similar articles, but I am not convinced most of them should have seperate article. WP:NSONGS states:
Most songs do not rise to notability for an independent article and should redirect to another relevant article....Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.
I would suggest deleting these articles and including song information on the releveant university or Team pages. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that professional football teams also have there fight songs on wikipedia, for example Bear Down, Chicago Bears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebraskafan08 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles such as The_Super_Bowl_Shuffle at least use reliable third party sources such as ESPN to establish notability.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like the super bowl shuffle as you point out are rap songs and not fight songs. The Culture of the state of Nebraska is centered around Nebraska athletics, mainly football, volleyball and baseball. A documentary of the Nebraska band and fight songs was created and played on NET1 and helped raise 40000 in pledges (see http://www.nebandalums.org/thealumni/documentary.html)) showing that fight songs are important to the local culture. The film has been added to the permanent collection at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C. (Nebraskafan08 (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I would also like to note that this song along with the rest of the fight songs were played by the University when it recieved the The Sudler Trophy. Which I feel is a significant honor as related to your prior statement that songs with significant honors deserve there own page.(Nebraskafan08 (talk) 17:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What if this page moved onto a page title "Nebraska Cornhuskers fight songs" and the rest of the fight songs were included on the page. Would that meet the wikipedia standards? If so I will make this page.(Nebraskafan08 (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Delete as lacking sources establishing notability. I am most certainly not invoking WP:NSONGS as it seems very biased towards contemporary music and seems to place no importance on songs of historical importance. However, there are no references in this article that convincingly demonstrate this song's notability. Were additional sources added, I would be happy to reconsider my !vote. --ElKevbo (talk) 21:36, 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) 06:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meech (musician)[edit]

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

Declined speedy, I suspect copyvio, non-notable. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:27, 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. Subject meets WP:ATHLETE so that means we keep the article. However, agree that it needs a complete rewrite (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Crutchley[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:ATHLETE. No sources. Reads like a press release. Wperdue (talk) 15:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update I concede that it passes WP:ATHLETE. I have no objections if the other issues are fixed. Wperdue (talk) 22:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Wperdue and it looks a bit like self-promotion. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question. Is the British Basketball League not considered to be the top tier of the sport in England? If so, wouldn't that mean he meets the requirement under WP:ATHLETE in that he has "...competed at the fully professional level of a sport"? Or is it considered only if basketball players are in the NBA or on an olympic team? I guess that's all it would come down to, because with an answer to that, this is a pretty cut and dry "yes or no" answer. Either way, the article needs to be re-written for WP:NPOV. But that isn't a deletion matter as much as it's a "needs improvement" matter. →JogCon← 16:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:ATHLETE as has "...competed at the fully professional level of a sport". The BBL appears to be "fully professional" i.e. no amateur players [14] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pontificalibus (talk • contribs)

Keep - This is truely a factual artical and is not affending the person in anyway but only describing who the shropshire legend is. Josh Crutchley and all the written points here are all true. Whats the problem with this artical. I consider this artical to be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.243.73 (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - conflicts of interest aside, if he is indeed a BBL player then he would be notable under WP:ATHLETE. matt91486 (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Here is the critia that allows this artical to be released on Wikiapedia as it states "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis" as you can see this artical on Josh Crutchley should be allowed and should not be deleted! as he is is playing at Professional Level in the BBL the highest level of basketball you can get in Britain! this is profesional level! and passes to stay on wikiapedia. I think who ever says keep this artical, help to edit it and use words to help maintain it. I did much research on Josh Crutchley across the internet and have much information about him. Keep his Artical. He is infact an Awsome Basketball Player! Watch his Video at *www.JoshCrutchley.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.242.113 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official JoshCrutchley Website with Video Coverage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.242.113 (talk) 20:33, 15 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) 23:12, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Monthly Top 100[edit]

Atlantic Monthly Top 100 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Tricky one - whether the list itself is notable is one thing, but given that 80% of the article consists only of the list makes it a copyvio problem. Having said that, I'm unsure that it qualifies for CSD#G12, so brought here for discussion. Black Kite 15:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Another silly list that needs to diiiiie. Copyvio, lack of notability, no references. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable list at this time. --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with primary article on the magazine, deleting the list, Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources. Drawn Some (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What this was, was a list of "100 most influential Americans" as chosen by ten panelists for the Atlantic Monthly for its December 2006 issue. Honest Abe was #1. Generally, lists of this type aren't copyrighted, because they're a publicity stunt for the magazine, and an effective advertisement when they get written about in Wikipedia. People Magazine wants to remind folks that it publishes a list of sexiest people, and Atlantic Monthly probably loves being mentioned as the source for this, and other thought-provoking articles that you can find every month at a savings of more than 50 percent off of the newsstand price... but Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advertisement for Atlantic Monthly, and there is nothing significant about ten persons' opinions (in 2006) about who they thought the 100 most influential Americans had been. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Mandsford's argument isn't 100% correct--it was a one-time list (as was The Greatest American, albeit a more dubious one, plus we should wait until the copyright thing resolves Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's your argument in favor of keeping an article about this particular list? Has it been referred to in books, newspapers, magazines that don't begin with the letter "A"? Mandsford (talk) 22:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that this is just an advertisement for the Atlantic, and by extension that I am an Atlantic plant. I'm not. I felt that the list was provocative among many intellectual circles and as worthy as other lists currently on Wikipedia...plus I feel, unlike many trigger-happy people, that we must err on the side of KEEPING an article rather than DELETING it, which just decreases the amount of knowledge on this site. In short, Keep, at least until after copyvio resolves, and disregard Mansford's attack and comparison to People. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have misunderstood my argument. There was no attack on any person. None of us are "trigger-happy"; certainly, I can appreciate your frustration on having an article that you've worked on nominated for deletion. I don't believe that there's any copyright violation, but the issue of whether people believe there is would be resolved through this debate. The question most of us would ask is whether the Atlantic Monthly list has been referred to by "independent" sources, one of the requirements for showing notability. Mandsford (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're the one arguing that nobody ever cared about it, and since I can't go online much right now because my parents say so, I'd say the onus is on you to prove that nothing was said about this outside of the Atlantic Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you can find someone else who will agree with you. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 14 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 00:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brooklands photo archive[edit]

Brooklands photo archive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No third-party references, contains self-references. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The self-reference is easily fixed, but I fail to find reliable sources to establish notability for this website. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the reasons above. However, an article on the "Brooklands Society" which runs this archive seems to meet the threshold of notability, since they seem to be a registered charity, mentioned here. [15] Some of the content in this article might be reusable in an article on the Brooklands Society itself. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I recognise the poor 3rd part citation and the issue with WP:RS, we ought to fix that by tagging the problem and editing, not by summary deletion. The history of Brooklands is highly notable, this archive documents that history. There is no issue here with WP:N, and even little in respect of WP:V, unless you fancy a sophist circular argument about 1st party sources.
We cite photos from this archive in many WP articles about early motor-racing, there's even a template for doing just that. I created this article for two reasons: firstly as a target for a "publisher" link from those cites, secondly as a very obvious place to hang a warning not to breach their licensing conditions by uploading these images to Commons. I do care about our referencing policies, but I care far more about our observation of copyright. As one of the people likely to end up facing the mopwork from a well-intentioned but unacceptable image-dump into pre-war motor-racing, I want to keep that warning visible! Andy Dingley (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if you want a target for the "publisher" link in {{cite}}, link directly to Brooklands Society or let Brooklands photo archive be a redirect to Brooklands Society, which I think probably should have an article. If you want a place to hang a warning about not breaching the Society's licensing conditions, that needs to be in the Wikipedia namespace, not the article namespace. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete: No significant coverage in third party sources to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Very weak coverage in third party sources such as [16] did turn up in a GS, but nothing of any substance. As such, I have to recommend merging the material into the parent article, or in the alternative, deleting it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well part of the problem is that there is no parent article - yet. – ukexpat (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - into Brooklands. This isnt an actual Archive, more of a photo history of a specific site (the Brooklands track). If it were an Archive, it's pictures would be used by others, which it isnt. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a photo gallery. Stifle (talk) 23:13, 16 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, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hajra[edit]

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

Non notable clan - remained unreferenced for 1 month. No recent gnews coverage and no significant ghits. JCutter (talk) 14:11, 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 on my interpretation of the consensus here, WP:BLP1E/WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply. As noted many times throughout the discussion, BLP1E applies to low-profile individuals; Mr. Johnston is far from low-profile. Overall, the arguments in favor of retaining the article are stronger than those in favor of deletion, which at times bordered on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This may be revisited in a few months, once the dust settles a bit. On a side note, I'm closing this a bit early, as it's clear that the result isn't going to change. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levi Johnston[edit]

Levi Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Note: Article has been moved to Impregnation of Sarah Palin's daughter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since moved back

In brief: BLP . A7. 1E.

A redirect which existed in this namespace was deleted due to Rfd. Article was created in same space, then deleted by me as a BLP violation; subsequent discussion on the drv indicates editors would prefer a full afd. From BLP not a tabloid paper from the intro should cover it, but also read Presumption in favor of privacy, and WP:1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Given that this individual was deemed, by Rfd, to be only possibly barely notable enough for a redir if his name remained at Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 13, he's not notable. Johnston is not 1E, he's 1E once removed, as Bristol is the 1E (no article on her due to 1E as well.) Arbcom has instructed that "Administrators are authorized to use any and all means at their disposal to ensure that every Wikipedia article is in full compliance with the letter and spirit of the biographies of living persons policy. Administrators may use the page protection and deletion tools as they believe to be reasonably necessary to effect compliance." then clearly deletion in a BLP context is an appropriate choice. Those who read the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons linked to will note that appeals to actions taken under that provision are to go through ANI or appeal to the committee; as there is clearly disagreement whether this was a BLP violation or not (as evidenced by the Drv) I waive any such process-wonkery and strongly urge those tempted to indulge in that kind of irrelevant minutia to also ignore that proviso and approach this as a plain vanilla Afd.

Further, as the article made zero claims of notability (I consider calling Johnston a "celebrity father" intensely bad writing, not a claim of notability) it also qualifies under A7. Finally, as a side note, the article is in the space of a redir which had been deleted due to the nn of the subject, it seems unlikely the subject is actually notable enough for an entire article - which contains the date of the child's birth, which has been removed elsewhere as violating privacy of a minor; this makes the article a coatrack for trying to get that irrelevant detail in past those watching the Palin family of articles. The article also highlighted Johnston's "I don't want kids" and "I'm a f - - -in' redneck... Ya f - - - with me I'll kick [your] ass" from his MySpace, which he took down the minute the news media found it, which is precisely the kind of thing BLP protects him from having to endure - his old bs comments on MySpace should not haunt him forever, and he clearly doesn't want them public or he wouldn't have taken them down. As an OTRS volunteer, I would certainly remove should someone open a ticket requesting such youthful folly be expunged, as it is not news, not relevant, and is embarrassing. Wikipedia is not a gossip column, with nothing better to do than embarrass people over trivial details of their past. Add it all up, and there is zero reason to have this article on WP and quite a few not to.

My preferred outcome: Delete article, replace with Redirect to Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy where Johnston's mention has remained stable. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nom Ucanlookitup (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Replace With Redirect. The alleged notability of Levi Johnston is based on the fact that he is the ex-fiance of Bristol Palin. Bristol Palin's alleged notability is based on being a child of Sarah Palin. There is currently no article for Bristol Palin. See WP:Tabloid. The sole, single, solitary event for which this person is allegedly notable seems to be the impregnation of the daughter of someone famous. Tabloid journalism continues to be fascinated with that event, which is fine, but does not justify a Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "sole, single, solitary event for which" Jessica Lynch is notable is the episode in Iraq. In the unlikely event that you propose the deletion of that article (which would be consistent with your stated view), I'll favor keeping it, because we must also consider the sequelae of the original event. JamesMLane t c 15:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh come on, James. I clicked on that Lynch link to find out who she is, and found an article about a soldier who "was injured and captured by Iraqi forces, but was recovered on 1 April by U.S. special operations forces, with the incident subsequently receiving considerable news coverage. Lynch, along with major media outlets, has since accused the U.S. government of fabricating this story as part of the Pentagon's propaganda effort." How can you even seriously begin to compare these people? There might be a comparison if instead the Lynch article said that she "was found to have had sex with someone related to someone famous." Please get a grip.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd say that arguably whatever notability each of these people has ultimately derives from a single event (or non-event) -- via its treatment (decent, feeble, absurd) by the media, and the media treatment (ditto) of this treatment, etc etc. For Lynch, the media brouhaha and repercussions all added up to quite a lot, and from my POV I'd say that it discussed issues that merit discussion. From my POV I'd say that nothing about Johnston (or nothing that I've heard of) merits discussion -- but that's merely my POV. Also, Johnston has undoubtedly been discussed less than Lynch. But their differences (whether factual or merely in my PoV) aside, neither would (yet) be of note anywhere without the sole, single, solitary event -- and there's the link for a comparison between the two; and also, I think, good reason to read and interpret BLP1E with care. (Not that I'm purporting to speak for JML here.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you, Hoary. I'm glad that someone paid attention to the argument I was actually making. Obviously Lynch is more notable than Johnston. My point, however, was that the way "one event" is being used by KC and Ferrylodge, the Lynch article would also have to be deleted, because her notability results entirely from one event plus the things that followed from it. If she had never been captured, we would never have heard of her. For those wishing to improve their understanding of logic, the argument form is called modus tollens: (1) If the KC/Ferrylodge view were correct, then an article about Jessica Lynch would be improper. (2) The article about Jessica Lynch is not improper. (This is not a case of "other crap exists", but rather a clear community judgment that the Lynch article is not crap.) (3) Therefore, the KC/Ferrylodge view is not correct. JamesMLane t c 09:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You could hardly insult me further than referring to me grouped with FerryLodge, as in "KC/Ferrylodge", although your stubborn obtuseness as regards my view leads me to believe you are intentionally misunderstanding and making such comments as a sort of "back door" personal attack. I would appreciate you addressing the issue of the article without further flights of fancy about what I might think about the Lynch article, about which you cannot possibly know my views, or any other random comparison which you wish to make for me - in short, don't speak for me. You have thus far been 100% inaccurate. I advise you not to attempt a career at mindreading. Yours, KillerChihuahua?!? 16:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I take offense at that "KC/Ferrylodge" remark too. And no way does WP:Tabloid (which I cited above) apply to Lynch.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Killer Chihuahua wrote, "Multiple articles about one event is still one event." Ferrylodge referred to "[t]he sole, single, solitary event for which this person is allegedly notable". I interpreted these comments (by both editors) as referring to the same argument -- that there was only one event for which Johnston was notable. In the view of both editors, Johnston's appearance at the Republican National Convention, the publicity accorded to the end of his engagement with Bristol Palin, and his interviews on nationwide television must be discounted as separate events because they all flowed in some way from the initial "one event"/"solitary event", and therefore did not constitute additional events. My phrase "the KC/Ferrylodge view" was intended as a shorthand reference to this thesis. To the extent that anyone misinterpreted my statement as asserting that KC and Ferrylodge agreed on anything else, I apologize and disclaim that meaning. To the extent that my statement identifies an actual point of similarity in the two editors' views, however, I stand by it.
To KillerChihuahua: My reference to what you might thing about the Lynch article isn't a flight of fancy. It's an argument against the stated basis of your position concerning Johnston, by showing that your thesis, applied consistently, would call for deletion of the Lynch article as well. I can understand why you would prefer not to have to face that argument. If you choose to drop the invective and address the substance, you can explain why the Lynch article somehow survives your "one event" standard, or you can bite the bullet and say that it, too, should be deleted, thus acknowledging that your position would represent a substantial change in Wikipedia policy.
To Ferrylodge: I recognize that you made more than one argument -- you raised the one-event issue and you further characterized that "solitary event" as one fit only for the tabloids. You could instead drop the "solitary event" point and say that Johnston is notable for several things, all of which are tabloidish rather than encyclopedic. I would still disagree. For example, when we have a national politician (Sarah Palin) whose prominence is based partly on her strong following among social conservatives, and when someone with first-hand knowledge states that the politician knew of nonmarital teen sex going on under her roof, that gets beyond the tabloids and becomes a substantive political matter. JamesMLane t c 19:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Levi Mr. Johnston has been the subject of many stories and interviews about him and his life. Privacy issues certainly are not a concern as he has appeared in several national media interviews. In September there was not much information or independent notability for Levi Mr. Johnston, but there is now. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I quote WP:1E: "Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry" Your keep argument has been refuted in the nomination. Further, you are not addressing the primary concern: this article is being used to circumvent protection of minors and BLP policy. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Who is a minor here? Levi Mr. Johnston is 19, Bristol Ms. Palin is 18. If the article is not up to standards then work to bring it up to such standards, or protect the article. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Also your 1 event argument does not hold, as he has surpassed the 1 event. The 1 event was getting Bristol Ms. Palin pregnant. That first brought him into the news, but his actions since, and the coverage of those actions since has expanded his notability beyond 1 event to such events as the Tyra interview, and the future tell-all book. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 14:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The infant. As I said in the nomination, the article contains the date of the child's birth, which has been removed elsewhere as violating privacy of a minor; this makes the article a coatrack for trying to get that irrelevant detail in past those watching the Palin family of articles KillerChihuahua?!? 14:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or that's what it might make it for some editors; I'm puzzled by the way in which both you and Collect are so certain that the article is, or would be, a coatrack for this or that. Johnston might not be at all "notable" in WP terms (I haven't yet decided) but if he's 19 he's no longer a minor. I'm also a little puzzled by the repeated use of "Levi" in the nomination. Of course, there's no rule against your calling him this, but I can't help wondering whether it's an attempt to make him seem younger than he is and more helpless than his apparent eagerness for TV exposure would suggest. -- Hoary (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Johnston is an adult, however immature an example. The minor in question is the infant (Johnston and Palin's child). My use of "Levi" cascaded from using "Bristol" to differentiate her readily from Sarah Palin; however, you are correct that MoS and common practice is to use last names. I have edited the nom accordingly. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Remember Mr. Johnston is a living person, and as such we should try to avoid derogatory snide labeling such as "immature". Thanks. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Implying that Johnston might be immature in an Afd discussion neither attacks him unduly, nor is this articlespace. IMO, anyone who appears on Tyra Banks and Larry King to discuss his sex life with his teenage girlfriend stands an excellent chance of being damn immature, but that's just my opinion. Yours may vary. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, just about the whole of the US infotainment industry is damn immature; but that little (underinformed) observation aside, the impression I got from the Guardian pieces I cited below was that Johnston likes to talk about parenthood, shooting animals, etc, but is far less enthusiastic than Larry King is to talk about sex. In another of my opinions, great swathes of WP readers are damn immature, what with their apparently unslakable thirst for details of, uh, well, I'd better not supply flamebait here; but anyway a de facto principle of WP seems to be that it should allow interested writers to serve up suitably sourced, earnest articles about utter trivia because to deny this expository urge would be [please put down your beer glass before you drop it in horror] elitist. -- Hoary (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A clear BLP1E case if ever there was one. And the material about the child violates WP policy about non-noptable minor cildren. Being a hunter and hockey player is definitely not close to any assertion of real notability. The entire topic is a coatrack to connect sexual abstinence as an issue with the out-of-wedlock birth of a child and Sarah Palin. Since the only real assertion of notability is the Palin connection, this does not warrant a BLP ab initio. WP does not in general carry biographies of teenage parents and include full name and birthdate of a minor child who has zero notability asserted by anyone. In addition the use of a "colorful" quote which is no longer available is a clear violation of BLP where the aim is to get a biography right, not to insert irrelevant defamatory material. The interviews, as they are connected to that child, do not convey any additional notability past the child -- which means that BLP1E is still an issue. Interviews directly connected with the "single event" do not constitute a "second event." Collect (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please clarify: delete outright, or replace with the suggested Redir, or have you an alternate Redir suggestion? Thanks - KillerChihuahua?!? 14:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to. If his name is mentioned in another article or articles, a redirect to any such articles is valid, even if it requires a disambiguation page to allow the seeker to determine which article is most likely to contain what he or she is looking for (I am presuming that none of the pages contains a lot of biographical information). By the way, I think this is likely a good idea for articles which appear as redlinks in multiple articles - a number of people are redlinked in many articles even though they do not have an article of their own. Collect (talk) 14:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A celebrity with extensive continuing coverage 8 months past 15 minutes - per references in article. Though the article, as is, needs to be expanded to reflect this time period. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple articles about one event is still one event. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' While he used to be a prime candidate for BLP1E, that is simply no longer the case. His latest media blitz has received significant coverage in reliable sources times 100. He was initially famous for the pregnancy, but has now become one of those annoying people who is famous for being famous, as he seeks out all the media coverage he can get. The sources have been piling up for 8 months, and we now need to cover such a notable situation. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple articles about one event is still one event. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment seems quite unnotable to me. But not only is he a minor obsession of the tabloids and of tabloid TV, this very obsession on their part seems to be making him into a minor star in, say, the Guardian: "the Good Morning America interview provides more evidence of Johnston's admirable levelheadedness in the midst of national media hyperventilation" (this article); "During a bizarre exchange, [Larry] King asked to see the 'Bristol' tattoo on Johnston's finger. King asked Johnston why he got the tattoo" etc etc ad nauseam (here). Collect writes: Being a hunter and hockey player is definitely not close to any assertion of real notability. I strongly agree, but I must always concede that real notability and WP-determined "notability" are two very different things. Collect continues: The entire topic is a coatrack to connect sexual abstinence as an issue with the out-of-wedlock birth of a child and Sarah Palin. Yeah, possibly. I don't know. I'm puzzled by Collect's certainty. It's not at all obvious that this is the interest of the Guardian, in which (I think) Johnston is shown as a stolid sort around whom Larry King and the like make asses of themselves (and a decent contrast to Steve Schmidt). Of course this too would hardly be a reason for an article on Johnston, but to me it suggests that an interest in him can be independent of an interest in his kid's granny. ¶ [After various edit clashes:] A "celebrity"? Well, yes, as I understand the term to mean somebody who's famous for being famous. A "media blitz"? What does this mean in plain English? -- Hoary (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say media blitz, I mean his latest round of interviews. He's basically been going on any talk shows that will have him, and for whatever reason, some shows with huge audiences are allowing him on. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- he's a putz, but he's become a notable putz, and for more than 1 event. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple articles about one event is still one event. Do you know of even one other event? At all? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Was that to me? In which case, I repeat: multiple articles (or appearances) about one event is still only one event. Is he on Larry King because he found the cure for cancer or some other new thing, or because he impregnated Bristol Palin, which is the one thing? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, BLP1E. Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper. Let him be. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BLP1E explicitly states it is for a person "who essentially remains a low-profile individual." It was created for the protection of private individuals who have no interest in being public figures but find themselves in the news; i.e. "Peoria Man Accidently Mows Off Own Foot." This isn't August 2008 anymore. Someone who has been covered extensively by reliable sources all over the world consistantly for over eight months (it would be willful ignorance to assume coverage will suddenly stop), willingly appear on Larry King Live, the Tyra Banks Show, the Early Show, etc. is not by any definition "low profile." Some people might not like the reasons this person became famous, but that doesn't change the fact this person is now very high profile.--Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - BLP issues should be dealt with by removing specifically libelous content, not deleting entire articles. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, but tabloid figures often still meet the threshold of notability. This is a silly situation, which smart people recognize shouldn't be covered by the mainstream media, but it unfortunately is, which makes it notable. If it's on CNN -- and it's not just a brief story, but an ongoing story that's repeatedly covered (which isn't covered under WP:Tabloid), it seems to be notable. There's plenty of sources that could be used. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, actually, it is. "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic.". Johnston got Palin pregnant; that's the event. There's no "ongoing" development, and if you're arguing that there is, the "ongoing" event is either Johnston still talking about impregnating his girlfriend, and/or an infant who is not only not notable, the child is covered by our protection of minors policy. Presumption of privacy applies heavily with an infant, and there is no other thing Johnston has done. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Four events: 1) Bristol gets pregnant during the election 2) Levi breaks off the engagement and claims Sarah Palin knew they were having pre-marital sex 3) Sarah Palin calls Levi a liar. 4) Levi does a long list of interviews, which people speculate are for self-promotion, which the media helps him with because it's a slow news-week... A possible fifth event is their recent remarks about abstinence. The story has been going on for a few months now. Coverage doesn't continue without new ongoing developments. We might personally consider those ongoing developments to be stupid or trite, but that is a subjective, personal opinion which has no impact on Wikipedia policy. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You clearly don't understand WP:BIO, which will tell you what is notable and what is not. That's not four events: that's gossip about the guy who got Bristol Palin pregnant, and is a clear violation of BLP. Breaking an engagement is not noteworthy. Calling someone a liar is not noteworthy. Getting someone pregnant isn't either, and we never would have even heard of him except that he happened to get the daughter of a notable person pregnant. Notable is wrote a best selling book; decorated by three governments; won the Nobel prize; award winning architect. None of what you've listed is even on the scale of "notable". KillerChihuahua?!? 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, Zenwhat, notability is not measurable by any objective criteria, nor is it possible to be judged using the standards at WP:BIO. Rather, notability is gauged by the extent to which KC wants an article to exist or not. It is not relevant that the basic criteria for notability is that the person "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject," as is the case here. Because Levi Johnston has not written a best-selling book, been decorated by three governments, won the Nobel prize or designed a better building than Frank Lloyd Wright, he obviously cannot be notable.
Now, I know what you're thinking, "Sarah Palin didn't do any of those things either... How come she gets an article?" Because KC said so. Again, if all you want to do is endorse articles about non-Nobel-prize-winning, non-best-selling-book-writing non-architects, take it to Loserpedia. This is Wikipedia, and we don't recognize the notability of high school dropouts, even if they are the subject of secondary source material that's reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In respone to KillerChihuahua: We never would have even heard of Monica Lewinsky except that she happened to have an affair with a notable person. We never would have even heard of Jessica Lynch except for her involvement in one event. It's just not enough to keep intoning "one event" while completely ignoring all the subsequent events, just because the subsequent events would not have occurred if not for the initial event. JamesMLane t c 21:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disregard your personal attacks, Bdb484. Johnston didn't get the president pregnant, and there was no discussion of impeachment. You're comparing apples and oranges - there is no second event. KillerChihuahua?!? 23:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"we don't recognize the notability of high school dropouts, even if they are the subject of secondary source material that's reliable..." John Frusciante is a featured article and was just on the main page a few days ago. There are plenty of high school dropouts with articles here, i.e. we recognize their notability. Tparameter (talk) 10:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BIO1E and WP:Tabloid. One notable thing in his life, at most. Hekerui (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Oakshade and Zenwhat. While I don't personally find either him or Bristol Palin particularly interesting, they've both apparently become pseudo-pundits in the abstinence/sex-ed debates (first I've heard of it, but the sources I clicked speak for themselves on that). Not really sure BLP1E applies, since they're obviously not interested in preserving their own privacy, and this isn't a situation where someone is writing an article about themselves or a close friend. They do seem notable enough that someone might want to look them up on Wikipedia to see what the hubbub is about. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Not a public figure outside of this one incident. Somewhat bizarrely, Bristol Palin, who I would argue now is, has her article redirect to Sarah Palin. If she's not considered notable enough for an article, there's no way that he should be. Rebecca (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This may have been a borderline one had he not started doing interviews himself. There is an abundance of sourcing and even he seems to think he's notable enough for mainstream media interviews so all that remians here is regular editing which is not a reason to delete. With Palin a likely 2012 presidential forerunner - or possibly VP candidiate again it's hard to see this guy fading into obscurity. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A few counters. There reason there is no Bristol Palin article is because the article space has been protected using admin tools to prevent an article from being created. If it wasn't there would be an article, so that doesn't provide a counter argument. The one incident is ridiculous. There were multiple instances involving pregnancies, campaign appearances, a public breakup (essentially divorce), and public debates over US educational birth control policies. Further even if one incident is the problem, Lee Harvey Oswald is a good counter to 1 incident can be enough. He is a person with much much higher name recognition than most people covered on wikipedia and tons of RSes. Finally, articles shouldn't be nominated for AFD after 2 weeks of existence. There is no reason not to wait and see how this article develops. The article shows strong signs of rapid improvement. I would endorse a policy on the talk page of the article banning the myspace content from being mentioned. jbolden1517Talk 17:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Massive notability and still making news. The subject is not low profile and, if it matters, the topic is covered in broadsheets too. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's seeking publicity, and getting it, and I see no "event" here; rather he's notable because of his tangled relationship with a family that is going to remain in the public eye for a long time, generating ongoing nonesense -- but the kind of nonesense that this encyclopedia is filled with.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Advocates for deletion keep saying "one event, one event, one event" -- a clear misreading of the record. He impregnated Bristol Palin. Was that the end of it? Absolutely not. The Palin campaign sought to spin the unwed pregnancy into a positive, by emphasizing that the couple would get married. For that reason he was displayed prominently during the campaign. Furthermore, after the election, there was a highly publicized breakup. The couple ended their engagement, which was seen as undermining Palin's "family values" cred. Even more important, Johnston went on national TV and gave an interview stating, among other things, that Governor Palin -- the de facto leader of the Republican Party's powerful social-conservative wing -- had known that he and Bristol were having sex. Palin considered that interview important enough to get out a prompt statement denouncing Johnston as a liar. By virtue of all these events, he's become a notable figure. JamesMLane t c 17:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of that is about Palin not Johnston, and could be documented in one of the 1000 or so articles about her. Bonewah (talk) 16:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Johnston says Palin knew that he and Bristol were having sex. Palin says Johnston is lying. Is that exchange about Palin or Johnston? Well, I'd say it's about both. Trying to say it's about one but not the other is really splitting hairs. Was the Clinton-Lewinsky affair about Clinton, not Lewinsky? Not surprisingly, I don't see a raft of conservative editors saying that the Monica Lewinsky article should be deleted. In both instances, the bio subject had a "one event" type incident that affected a prominent politician, and there were consequences of the one event, and the bio subject received extensive coverage that wouldn't have happened but for the one event and its impact on the politician. JamesMLane t c 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The basic criteria for notability are more than met:
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.[6]
  • Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.
Also in case no one noticed it's NOT WP:ONEEVENT, he's becoming increasing notable, not less, with deeper coverage including full-length interviews. Drawn Some (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preferably Merge somewhere - while I accept Johnston has now become notable, I still don't think there's much to say about him, and the idea of keeping this article while not having one on Bristol Palin would seem a bit odd. Personally, I'd like to see them both covered in an article called something like Family of Sarah Palin (by analogy with Family of Barack Obama, which also contains subsections on people not fully notable enough for their own articles). However, assuming that isn't possible here, my second choice would be Keep. Things have changed from when this article was last considered back in 2008 (and I argued to delete it); he was a BLP1E then, but he's not now. That doesn't mean this information wouldn't be better presented as part of a longer, more general article, though. Robofish (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the reluctance to give him an article when you say he's notable. (Sorry to pick on you, you're not the only one thinking like this.) It is very conceivable to me that one day Bristol Palin will be known only as the daughter of a failed VP candidate and the mother of the very notable Levi Johnston's love-child. I don't particularly care for this kind of celebrity but let's decide whether or not he should have an article based on facts and guidelines and policy and consider him as an individual and not on the basis of his relationship to other people. Drawn Some (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm basically a Mergist. I believe that the fact that some topic meets notability requirements doesn't necessarily justify it having its own article - many less-important topics are better covered in combined articles than separately. I think that's the case here. (By the way, as for the 'It is very conceivable to me that one day...' bit: that may be the case someday, but it's not the case yet. Let's not make judgements based on how things could happen in the future.) Robofish (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main Palin bio was edited by the removal of Johnston's name. In Talk:Sarah Palin there was fierce opposition to restoring the information. (See, e.g., this archived thread.) His notability has increased since then, but I'll go out on a limb and guess that many of the editors who resisted it then would still resist any merge like the one you suggest. Furthermore, while I personally think that a brief mention there would be appropriate, a merge would either port over way too much detail or would lose a lot of valid, encyclopedic, properly sourced information. JamesMLane t c 06:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Johnston has become significant both for knocking up Sarah Palin's daughter and for his advocacy for safe-sex practices. I don't think this is really a WP:BLP1E, situation, but even if it were, the guideline does not say to delete the article, but rather to do a merge and redirect of the information with the article about the event for which he is notable. If that's the case, then someone needs to get to work on Impregnation of Bristol Palin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdb484 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 May 2009
  • Reluctant Keep, as it meets requirements for notability, RS, ongoing coverage etc. The reason I say reluctant, is that I think these sorts of article can actually act to take away information from where it would be primarily useful, which in this case is the Sarah Palin article (under something like the 'personal life' section), with a redirect from 'Levi Johnston'. If there is too much information then it can be split off from the main article in the same way that many of the headings have expanded sub-articles. Doing this would prevent the information from being hidden away in a more obscure article, and place it where it is more relevent. I realise that there is nothing to prevent the Sarah Palin article also talking about the same things, but in my experience it is less likely to happen. Quantpole (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep as stand-alone, or Keep or Merge with redirect, or Merge? Or any of the above? Thanks! KillerChihuahua?!? 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to policy, I don't think there is any reason why it shouldn't be its own article. However, my personal opinion is that it would better serve the purposes of the encyclopedia to merge it with an apprpriate Sarah Palin related article, and redirect. Quantpole (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: We're talking about a young man who practiced safe sex with his high school girlfriend (except once, at least). Take away the dubious notability of the girlfriend and there is no notability at all. No one would be interviewing him today if he had a different girlfriend, or if her mother hadn't been a candidate for vice president. It doesn't matter how many times he is trotted out for an interview, it's still just about the one event. He also doesn't make a very good poster child for either safe sex or abstinence, since he didn't practice either consistently. Other than the value in bashing his girlfriend's mother's position on sex education, he has little news or entertainment value. Let's do him a favor and let him get on with his life. Celestra (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with Wikipdeia's notability guidelines. While I do find value in doing favors and not giving private individuals attention that they didn't ask for, this is in no manner a private individual and it was Levi Johnston who put himself on several national (and international) television talk shows, not Wikipedia.--Oakshade (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with redirect. This unremarkable individual has received a certain amount of attention from the more immature and gossipy rags as a result of his tenuous connection with Sarah Palin, and thus his existence and status are verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore his name is a plausible search term, and should not be a redlink. However, he is not notable enough for his own article because notability is not inherited. Thus, a redirect is the only option consistent with policy and guidelines.

    The reason I think the article's previous content and history should be deleted is because it is not encyclopaedic in nature and is in conflict with the guidelines and policies I cited a moment ago.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The relationship's over, the election's over, and he's still giving interviews. No intent to remain a low profile person per WP:BLP1E is evident, and the sourcing is just fine. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came into this discussion tentatively planning to vote for delete, if at all, but y'all have convinced me. He has an ongoing high profile, and we're getting to the point where his name is invoked in the media without parenthetical explanation, i.e., assuming that the audience knows who he is. Kestenbaum (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:BLP1E (thus bypassing the argument about the letter of the policy). I have little knowledge, and no opinion, of the degree of coverage of his relationship with the governor's daughter in our articles on the 2008 campaign, but firmly believe that information about him should stay there -- and personal details not relevant to his notability should not be in the encyclopedia. Having a biography in his name would be bait for precisely that. RayTalk 03:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The spirit of WP:BLP1E is the protection of private individuals who find themselves in the news with no desire to be (it's all in the WP:BLP talk page history). Of course, someone who willingly goes on several national and international television talk shows and seeks a book deal and modeling career does not fall into that description. --Oakshade (talk) 03:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E is to avoid providing a platform for extensive revelations regarding people of limited public scope, which is only partially based on a concern for the subject's privacy; here I was also referencing a desire to respect the privacy of other private figures involved in the situation, whose lives would necessarily be examined in an extensive examination of Johnston's (consider, for example, Governor Palin's daughter). It is also tied in with WP:BIO1E, which is about limiting coverage of people who are relatively unimportant aside from one event. Goodness knows, it's a royal pain patrolling biographies of genuine public figures to prevent irrelevant remarks of low English quality, to say nothing of poor moral taste, from appearing. We don't need to extend our troubles further. RayTalk 03:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bristol Palin, where there should be an article already. --Evb-wiki (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh? Neither seems to have any genuine notability whatever; but as for WP-style "notability", I get the impression that he's more of a sleb than she is. Whose "media blitz" is bigger/glitzier? -- Hoary (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If Notability is not inherited, then this is an interesting case--the media created this notability. We have the ex-boyfriend of a daughter of a losing vice presidential candidate. How many degrees of removal from actual notability do we have here? In short, WP:BLP1E, and a creation of the media for that 1E. Eauhomme (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:BLP1E should not be taken literally and should include those notable for two events, especially if the second event originated from the first event. This will probably not get deleted through this afd because, as is always the case with an afd whose subject is in the midst of running the Larry King circuit, the WP:ILIKEIT's outvote those arguing for deletion based on actual WP guidelines. I would hope the nom, or someone else, renominate the article for afd a few months after the talk shows get sick of him. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ferrylodge puts it better than I ever could. Sceptre (talk) 11:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E definitely applies here. Further, the argument that he is famous for being in the news has the effect of reading BPL1E out of existence. If someone is famous for 1 event, then that person is obviously famous. To claim that fame itself is a separate event means that no one would ever be covered by BLP1E. Bonewah (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP1E states very clearly "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." (underline added where italics are at source) There is absolutely nothing "low profile" about this person any more. After August, 2008, this person did not remain "low profile" and after over eight months, has emerged much higher profile. --Oakshade (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Although BLP1E does say: Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them (my emphasis). Johnston's "profile" seems moderately high (however improbably so), and there's no sign that he's unhappy about this. Indeed, he seems to want to raise his "profile", or at least to keep it high. As I understand it, smarmy talk show hosts aren't ambushing him in the street; instead, he's volunteering to appear in their studios. -- Hoary (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares what he wants? Why should his desire to be famous effect our thinking in this regard? Bonewah (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's relevant to the policy being used to justify deletion, i.e. "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual..." Bali ultimate (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the policies, yes - the primary argument. The "deletes" position is that stretching your 15 minutes of twice-removed fame for a completely non-notable act (having sex with your girlfriend) into a somewhat lengthy media tour is still One Event. The "keeps" argue that yeah, its one event, but he is not keeping a "low profile". Some are also arguing that the multiple appearances/interviews are more than one event, but they are mistaken. The "deletes" counter with - it was not a notable event at all, so its not even really one event, its no events, which the media is covering anyway! - that's the (heavily simplified) nutshell version. there are other arguments as well, of course, but that's how his desire plays into this discussion. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that 'low profile' in this context is synonymous with low importance, low notability, not ones desire to be famous, but I expect im going to be in the minority here. Still, I dont think it matters either way, we all agree he is famous, whether he wanted to be or not, and if we take that fame to be another 'event' then BLP1E has no meaning. We should also make note of WP:BIO1E, which is slightly different from WP:BLP1E. Bonewah (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of notability beyond an ancillary role in an event briefly in the media trough before most of them moved on. The remaining references are covered either by slow news day or perpetual slow news day type sources, except the occasional passing mention. I would prefer a redirect, but have no problem deferring to the RfD discussion. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 19:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep For better or worse, Mr. Johnston is still a notable and high-profile personality, and the article more than meets WP:RS standards. Whether this is the case in six months is another story, and I suspect this discussion will have a sequel later in the year should the AfD close as Keep or No Consensus. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mr. Johnston recieved international mainstream media attention due to his 2009 interview with Larry King Live per the Chicago Tribune's Levi Johnston takes his case to Larry King, The Politico's Levi: The Palins 'blew us off', The Guardian's Hunting and tattoos: Bizarre moments from Levi Johnston's interview, Los Angeles Times Levi Johnston's shockingly candid answers to CNN's Larry King, etc... for some examples. This widespread coverage for this event makes Johnston more than notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unenthusiastic keep. Seems to have no genuine notability whatever, but he's neither a minor nor merely a helpless pawn in the continuing Palin soap opera, and he's got an adequate amount of "media attention" to merit an article according to my considered interpretation of those policy paragraphs that have been obligingly pointed out by those who favor deletion. Perhaps in an ideal world Wikipedia wouldn't hinder his return to oblivion, but then ditto for these and many other slebs; in this world, many people avidly consume junk and want to pursue it here: who's to stop them? -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clear case where BLP1E does not apply. that he is the father of the candidates grandchild does not necessarily make him notable. If that were all, and he had never been interviewed on national media, BLP would possibly apply--conceivably it might apply even if though media made a issue out of it. Once he took part in the convention, it no longer applied. His subsequent activities have only added to it. Applying "do no harm" is ridiculous under the circumstances. DGG (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets WP:N and 1 event doesn't apply. To quote:
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not 
in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person 
is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially 
remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.
I just don't see how we can claim he's a low-profile individual. Hobit (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He's been written about over a span of months by numerous major news sources from multiple countries, not just in passing, but as a focus of stories, so he's notable. He gives interviews and is actively trying to publish a memoir, so he's not trying to be low profile. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might anyone at all show me some cites where the word "Palin" is not prominently mentioned? Elsewise, I would suggest that the BLP1E is clearly evident. Collect (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The standard isn't that cites don't mention Palin at all, the standard is that the cites aren't primarily about Palin while only mentioning Johnston in passing. Would we demand that cites about Laura Bush not prominently mention George? --GRuban (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any cites which are about Levi which do not specifically state "father of Bristol's baby" or the like at all? Where a single fact is mentioned in all the articles, I submit that it is implicit that the article exists substantially because of the iterated fact. Note that I said "prominently mentioned" which is what I was talking about. Absent any such cites, I submit that the BLP1E us proven. Collect (talk) 17:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat, that's like demanding cites about Laura Bush that don't prominently mention "wife of President George W. Bush" or the like at all. It's an unreasonable demand, and not among the BLP1E requirements. Notability is not inherited automatically, but you certainly can become notable through your relationship with a notable person, if that relationship itself is worthy of note, as this one is. "Unmarried teen father of the grandchild of a highly conservative vice presidential candidate" is pretty notable, and does not come along every day. --GRuban (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what WP:BLP1E does say. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Since the guy has appeared, alone, without any Palins, on multiple national television interview programs, he is not low profile, and of his own free will. The "presumption in favor of privacy" means that we assume he's attempting to be private unless we have evidence to the contrary, not despite any evidence to the contrary! --GRuban (talk) 18:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which would make sense except that all the interviews focus on the Palin connection. "Appearing without the Palins" does not make him separately notable if the focus of the interviews is on -- the Palins. Collect (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fawn Hall always "secretary of ollie north." Laura Bush all cites, "wife of president." Donna Rice "girlfriend of gary hart." Chesley Sullenberger "heroic pilot of US Air flight 1549." Sirhan Sirhan "murdered RFK." Jack Ruby "murdered Lee Harvey Oswald." Michael Carroll "won UK national lottery." "Lottery winners" cat[17] has about 10 of these. Jessica Lynch "captured by iraqi forces." Elizabeth Smart "kidnapping victim." "Kidnapped american children" cat[18] has about 30 of these. Etc... It's not my intention to make an otherstuff argument; but to point out that time and again, people who become known for one event or one key relationship frequently are deemed to pass our notability requirements.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really dont see how that isnt an otherstuff argument. And I want to reiterate, low profile is not relevant to notability, People notable only for one event provides guidance here and doesnt make any mention of low profile at all. Bonewah (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell my argument is: There are many, many people who are notable as a consquence of one event and its aftermath. I've provided some examples of this phenomenon. Notability stemming from one event is not, on its face, disqualifying. Did the event itself, the circumstances surrounding it, the people involved, and the implications (social, political, whatever) of the event achieve a wide degree of public interest and coverage extending beyond the brief temporal window of the "event?" If so, then in my opinion notablity is satisfied, as i believe in this instance.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different deletion arguments here, which is why Bonewah is confused due to not being able to find "low profile" in one of them. WP:BIO1E is a notability argument - that Johnston is only notable for one event. Well, he's notable for a relationship, which, if you read the examples, isn't the sort of thing WP:BIO1E considers a single event. The ongoing coverage of his actions in unrelated nation-wide and international sources goes to show that he is quite notable. WP:BLP1E is a privacy argument - it specifically mentions low profile, which he isn't. --GRuban (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all confused, please reread my post. And by what reading of WP:BIO1E did you determine that a relationship is not a single event? What examples listed there do you think support that view? Bonewah (talk) 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand i probably won't convince you. But not only am i convinced he's established as notable even if we assume this was one event i don't see it as one event, but rather events. 1. Romeo and Juliet phase. 2. Announcement of pregnancy in the middle of a heated campaign in which the mother of the girl was a noted cultural conservative strongly opposed to pre-marital sex. 3. Embracing of Johnston at the GOP convention, signals that all was good, boy was going to do the right thing by girl, marriage in the works. 4. Various speculation (much of it of a mean and opportunistic variety, but some reasonable as part of the Culture Wars context of the campaign, perhaps reaching its sordid/politically relevant height with Tina Fey saying as Palin on saturday night live in response to a gay-marriage "question" that: "I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers." 5. Break-up, semi-public feuding between the Palin and Johnston camps. 6. Johnston going on the talk show circuit, shopping memoir, calling abstinence only sex education "unreasonable, Bristol Palin taking a job as a public advocate for pre-marital sexual abstinence. These things are all connected, of course. But i don't see them as one thing, but many things.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to Bonewah's contention that opponents of deletion are making an "otherstuff" argument: I take that essay (it's not a policy or guideline) to reject an argument that says "I found one article somewhere that's similar and that, for whatever reason, has escaped deletion, so this one must be kept, also." By contrast, if there's a significant number of reasonably high-profile articles that share a common characteristic, the existence of those articles may be taken as showing the community's judgment that the characteristic, whatever it is, doesn't support deletion.
Here the common characteristic is: The article is the bio of a living person, who doesn't have major career achievements (no Nobel Prize yet), and whose frequent appearances in the mass media would not have occurred except for a single initial event. Bali ultimate and I have each noted several articles that meet that description and yet survive, either having survived AfD or having never been nominated despite extensive editing. JamesMLane t c 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, how notable was the one event? Having sex with a teenager isn't very important. The teenager is someone notable's daughter, or we would never have heard of LJ. Also, see Arguments to avoid: Just because OtherStuffExists doesn't mean a thing. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, having sex with a teenager isn't very important. Right, if the teen hadn't been the daughter of SP, we would never have heard of it. I agree: whether the daughter of a candidate for Veep is pregnant is an entirely trivial matter. I agree, anything calling itself an encyclopedia shouldn't bother with "in-universe" accounts of trivia. However, there's no mere epidemic of articles on trivia; they are instead endemic or indeed pandemic. And no wonder, given that WP:NOTE has nothing to do with notability as the term is understood by you (I infer), me, and most of those who are in blissful ignorance of Wikipedia. Instead, it's little more than an alternative guideline about verifiability. This is repeated in the "basic criteria" of WP:BIO, which say nothing whatever about the intrinsic notability of the person, or the need for any achievement (intellectual, creative, destructive, etc). These "basic criteria" are followed by "additional criteria". There is a slight ambiguity here about the relationship between the basic and the additional criteria: does a biographee have to satisfy (a) the basic criteria and any relevant additional criterion or (b) the basic criteria or any relevant additional criterion? I have my own ideas on this, and given an eighth day in this week I'd lay them out for you -- however, for now all I need say is that: (i) the additional criteria are for certain kinds of people; (ii) Johnston doesn't seem covered by any of these; (iii) the kinds of people covered do not exhaust the kinds about whom biographies are written (rescuers, pranksters, freaks, criminals, and crime victims are among those who do not seem to be covered); ergo (iii) we needn't worry that there's none that covers Johnston. ¶ The fact is, US presidential politics has elements of tragicomedy, soap opera and/or circus, and thus even mere bit players -- Donna Rice, Billy Carter, Gennifer Flowers, John Hinckley, Jr. etc etc -- are avidly (and perhaps also regrettably) written up by the press. This makes them "notable" in the WP sense. Johnston has got at least a moderate amount of the same treatment; therefore he too is "WP-notable", even though you and I may happen to think that Larry King Live and the like cynically cater for a laughable booboisie. -- Hoary (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet your position is keep? You betray your own better sense, then. Policy is supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. If someone isn't notable, say so and why. If the policy on notability is just a rehashed version of V, then it isn't addressing this accurately. Remember that IAR, our oldest policy, trumps all other policies - if your common sense tells you something is best for the encyclopedia, do it, and ignore that the letter of the rules doesn't cover or even disagrees with it. You are aware that covering such talk-show-circuit non-entities will make Wikipedia more like a tabloid gossip column than a serious encyclopedia, yet you say "keep" anyway? This makes no sense to me. Even NOTE leaves room for interpretation. Some people are notable for one event. And some, regardless of how much they court the press, are not. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[out] Well, not quite. Rather, I recognize that a number of Wikipedia's guidelines are far divorced from my own sense, and I recognize that I can neither ignore these guidelines nor cheer on while others do so, but instead should (a) work to change the guidelines, (b) find policies that trump them, or (c) cite "IAR", which is something that people should only do after careful thought, and openly. I don't think IAR allows me to interpret WP:NOTE and the like to mean what I think they should mean; rather it allows me to openly acknowledge that they mean something else and to flout them all the same, IFF I have a very good reason. ¶ I'm not aware that covering such talk-show-circuit non-entities will make Wikipedia more like a tabloid gossip column than a serious encyclopedia. I certainly concede that it's fully compatible with making it so, but as long as the write-ups for tabloidy personalities and events are done scrupulously, as this one is, I'm untroubled. ¶ We agree that OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no defense of this article, but EXPRESSLYPERMITTEDCRAPMOUNTAINS might give pause for thought, and I therefore proffer for your consideration the WP:BIO criterion "Is a Playboy Playmate". We read that "As of April 2009, 666 women have been Playmates of the Month." (Christian conspiracy theorists take note of that number!) What this means, as I understand it, is that WP-"notability" is obtained by the mere display of your tits for the center pages of this venerable and fading publication for the male shopper. No other achievement whatever is needed. Just how obscure are these people? Consider the list "Notable Playmates": a typical entry reads briefcase model on Deal or No Deal; contestant on VH1's Rock of Love with Bret Michaels. The "Playmate" article tacitly admits that the great majority don't even reach this level of "notability"; ergo, well over five hundred of these people are complete nobodies. Now, does their inclusion harm WP? I don't suppose it does. The typical person arriving to read up on, say, Fibonacci number is I think unlikely to be troubled to learn that the same work of reference/trivia would tell them of Janet Lupo that Family reactions to her appearance in the November 1975 issue were mixed. Her father was very upset about it, but her mother liked it. Eventually, her father did come around, and he became very supportive of her decision. After touring the United States, Canada, and Japan to promote Playboy, Lupo started working as a bartender at a restaurant owned by a friend's husband. (All of which we can anyway flag with "{{fact}}" if we wish.) ¶ Back to Johnston. If, or so far as, you are interested in my own intuitions or beliefs (which I don't think should be a factor), my hunch is that he is actually important to Gov Palin, as Palin repeatedly (endearingly or tiresomely) packaged herself as a "mom" rather than as a stateswoman, driving her brood to hockey matches and otherwise concerning herself about their welfare. She, McCain, her own or McCain's handlers, or the Party, also chose to display the brood, together with Johnston. This may for all I know have been a reluctant concession to a sexist infotainment industry that has little interest in the offspring of male contenders; but whatever the reason, that's the way it was. And however improbable or depressing or silly it may seem, Johnston now has a "media presence". -- Hoary (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC) tweaked 15:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, KC, the question isn't how notable is the one event. The question is whether the one-event policy applies here at all -- does it require us to lump multiple events together just because, if it weren't for the first, none of the later ones would have occurred? Many of us believe that such a reading of the policy is totally unjustified and is countered by numerous bios of people who would be unknown except for one initial event. Your reference to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is rather surprising, given that I expressly addressed that essay, in the comment to which you were nominally responding. For the reasons I stated, which you choose to ignore, I disagree with your assertion that the existence of other articles "doesn't mean a thing." JamesMLane t c 23:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The current count on KillerChihuahua's failures to assume good faith by making accusations of personal attacks stands at 1, 2 and 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. — Bdb484 (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an AfD, traditionally a place for good knockabout fun. Heat, kitchen, etc. -- Hoary (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • AGF is not a suicide pact. If there is a personal attack, calling it such does not violate AGF. Your harping on this is verging on harassment. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note In order to gain more input and consensus, this Afd has been listed at related deletion sorting list. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Excellent move. Those go on top of Alaska, Politics, and Living people; and who'd disagree that what we most need are tens of kilobytes more rational debate (and bitching) to wade through on the significance or insignificance of Mr Johnston. Still untapped are: sex 'n' gender, politics (incl. political football), Christianity (What would Jesus say?), business (because the business of America is business), events (what with it all stemming from one event, or one non-event), conspiracy theories (the "Illuminati" must be behind this), and my personal favorite, organisms. -- Hoary (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. Hope all is well in your world. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion Hoary. I have gone ahead and listed this article on those deletion sort pages, with the exception of business. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 02:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yo, Ism! Even though I've no great big Cadillac (gangsta whitewalls, TV antennas in the back), I'm not complaining. Peace to you too! -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - Not notable per WP: BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. As pointed out, Bristol doesn't even have an article. Levi certainly has no lasting notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Changed to regular delete after some thought, since there is a half-way decent argument that 1E doesn't apply (I don't buy it though)--ThaddeusB (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right that B. Palin doesn't even have an article. The result is bizarre indeed. As of a few seconds ago, when you click on Bristol Palin you are taken to a text that starts Personal life [edit] In 1988, she eloped with her childhood sweetheart Todd Palin. You think (or anyway I thought) "Huh?" but the URL confirms that yes, you're reading about Bristol Palin. That oddity aside, and for better or worse, BP may soon get her own article; see this. -- Hoary (talk) 02:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the fundamental question here is: Is being famous the same as being notable? I would say no. This is an encyclopedia - in theory, people should do something independently notable to get an entry. People who are only significant as part of a larger event, don't need their own entries. Levi fits in that category. I would, however, support a redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did Mary Jo Kopechne or Jessica Lynch do anything independently notable to get an entry? Both have bios solely because of something that happened to them. You seem to be leaning toward the view that people should have to earn an entry, as if it were a reward to the bio subject (who must "do something" before he or she can "get" (i.e., deserve) an entry). I disagree, and see the standard as service to our readers. If enough readers would be curious about this person and would want to read about him or her, then that's notable enough, regardless of the person's merit. I agree with the point made by GRuban and others: The issue isn't whether readers (and talk-show hosts) should display this high level of interest. JamesMLane t c 18:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This Afd was added to the following delsorts. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 10:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) - Removed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Listing in every category is ludicrous, and verges on misuse of that practice. Collect (talk) 11:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this appears to be a bit disruptive. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and makes it harder and harder to read. Could we perhaps just put all of those in a box on the top with a nice little hide/show button? --SB_Johnny | talk 11:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they are inappropriate categories and need to be removed. I have taken this to ANI. This is a violation of WP:POINT. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
IPOF, it appears to be seeking specific groups to weigh in with a specific goal -- making the value of the AfD quite problematic. "Sexuality and gender"??? "Conspiracy"? "Organisms"? Collect (talk) 11:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add this Afd to these sorts. Another editor did, I just noted it on this page. I agree, there are too many. If anyone wants to remove them from specific listings, you have my support. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the categories following Hoary's suggestion. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 12:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to take any blame for removing several categories. Organisms? Indeed. Collect (talk) 12:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (weak) and redirect per user:Eauhomme Hobartimus (talk) 12:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However dubious the notability may be, notability clearly exists based on the sheer breadth and depth of sources covering the kid. All of the arguments for 1E either fail to see or (sometimes admittedly) intentionally ignore the fact that the letter of the policy and the intent of the policy don't support deletion for biographies like the one in question here. Deletion would, at the end of the day, be a subjective editorial decision on our part that ignores the vast amounts of objective reliable sourcing (for better or for worse) out there that clearly indicate notability.   user:j    (aka justen)   13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet currently all we can say about his supposedly noteworthy status is that he got Bristol Palin pregnant, which is already covered in the Public image of Sarah Palin#Teen pregnancy which is the suggested target for the redirect. There is simply not enough of interest to support a stand-alone article. He's not noteworthy enough; its the one event, and filler. I'm not arguing that we remove his name completely - read the nom, my I suggest a redirect to where LJ is already covered in the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can say what the article says, it's not a stub, it's a fine stand-alone article. You seem to be saying that what he did somehow isn't "worthy" of notice. Well, that's not what Wikipedia:Notability means, it's not a measure of worth, it's merely a measure of what reliable sources write about. Plenty have written about him. There's not enough of interest? It's clear that Larry King at least thinks plenty of people are interested, and I'm afraid we need to trust his judgment on this over yours. We don't make that kind of judgment here ourselves, whether people should be interested, it's clear that enough are from the coverage it has gotten. We don't decide what the world finds notable, we merely reflect it. --GRuban (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have managed to mis-communicate my view, if you took from it that I am somehow rating "worth". I am saying he did one tiny thing to a child of a notable person, and everything else is just irrelevant details abotu him, or gossip about the one thing. Is that clearer? KillerChihuahua?!? 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not he should or should not be notable isn't for us to decide, it's for third-party reliable sources to decide, and they seem to (again, for better or for worse) have decided he is noteworthy enough for extensive and (ridiculously) ongoing coverage. Anything he says about fatherhood, childhood, teenage pregnancy, politics, the mother of his child, or the grandmother of his child becomes headline news, seemingly on at least two continents. While I may find the situation extremely bizarre, his notoriety doesn't suggest to me "supposed noteworthiness," it's suggests to me plain and simple notability. By the most objective test I think we can come up with, to boot.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless we are speaking past each other and misunderstanding each other, I must say you are in error. It is entirely our decision as to whether he is notable, and whether he should have his own article or be part of a parent article. No one but Wikipedians makes these decisions. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, ma'am. Wikipedia:Notability has a formal definition: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Reliable sources make someone notable. Wikipedians don't. --GRuban (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement goes on to read "it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." which is later explained:
In other words, Wikipedians do ultimately determine what is and isn't notable. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate on what areas you believe Levi Johnston should be excluded per wp:not?   user:j    (aka justen)   01:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOT is only an example of a reason something might not be notable. I was quoting the entire guideline & did not mean to imply that I meant NOT applied here. The most relevant part of the quote is Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. BLP1E would fall under this general principle, as would other "editor's discretion" type cases. I feel this is one of those cases where notability is not established by multiple RS mentions alone - with or without an appeal to BLP1E. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But we're not talking about mere "mentions." We're talking about extensive coverage solely of him. And I think wp:blp1e has been a nonstarter as an argument because a key component of it is that the subject "essentially remains a low-profile individual," which clearly isn't the case here. That leaves what you're calling editorial discretion, which I believe sounds far too subjective and potentially non-neutral to be a workable criteria for deletion discussions.   user:j    (aka justen)   01:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "editor's discretion" is whatever consensus says it is. If this turns out to be keep, I am fine with that. That said, I do also think the 1E & NOTNEWS/TABLOID criteria do apply. As you noted below this gap is unlikely to be breached and I respect the keep opinions, as I am sure you also respect the delete opinions. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Sometimes I want to bang my head against a wall, but that's not your fault. (Although I would bet you sometimes feel the same way.) In all seriousness, I do see where you coming from and respect your views in this area, even though we differ on the matter. Now hopefully on to some infobox tinkering I've been putting off for a few days...   user:j    (aka justen)   02:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see, from your !vote above, that you believe it falls under wp:notnews. Looking at the two possible areas in which I believe you could be referring:
  • Routine news coverage. At this point, we're simply not talking about the sort of "routine news coverage of announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" that is considered under wp:not. I certainly feel as though a lot of the coverage has a tabloid angle to it, but the coverage is not "routine" and has spread far beyond the arguably less reliable sourcing inherent with tabloid journalism.
  • Single event. I think the viewpoint that he achieved notoriety because of a single point is somewhat accurate. However, as per wp:not, the coverage of him has "go[ne] beyond the context of [that] single event." The coverage is no longer solely about him becoming a father. It's about his opinions of teenage pregnancy, his viewpoint on the role politics can play in personal lives, what activities he's engaging in his personal and professional life, and a whole host of other topics tangential to but beyond the sole context of the single event that led to his initial notoriety.
It doesn't seem like it's possible to bridge the gap between those advocating delete and those advocating keep, because we seem to have fundamental disagreements on the two areas above and others. I believe that there is clearly exclusionary language that precludes deletion under wp:oneevent, there is clearly support under wp:n, and there is nothing applicable requiring deletion under wp:not. But all of that's just my interpretation.  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   01:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The textbook case of WP:BLP1E. Just because someone has been In The News does not mean that we need an article on them. If I want to know what Levi Johnston is up to, I'll go read People or watch Tyra. This is an encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A textbook case of WP:BLP1E not applying when editors claim it does simply by stating so. WP:BLP1E states very clearly twice it is for "low profile" individuals. This person is not in any manner "low profile". --Oakshade (talk) 19:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cmt - Come on, guys. Don't you know we're using the "articles-in-anyway-related-to-Sarah-Palin" standard. If someone doesn't like it, delete it. If it pleases everyone, keep. --Evb-wiki (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was this comment really necessary? Assuming good faith, what we actually have is legitimate argument about whether Levi is notable in the encyclopedia sense. Some think being widely noticed is enough, others don't think so.
It wouldn't make a lot of sense for anyone to say "delete" in bad faith anyway since any "damaging" info in the article is already in Sarah Palin related articles. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a close call. This is not a "textbook case" of WP:BLP1E, because Levi wants to be famous. He's trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame. But he still fails WP:NOTE, because he's not (yet) notable. However, if he were able to keep giving speeches to anti-Palin groups and doing TV appearances, he might become notable. But for now, all he warrants is a redirect, which is all Bristol Palin has -- and, frankly, at this time he's not more notable than Bristol -- or even Trig Palin. AyaK (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rush to agree that Johnston hasn't (yet) achieved any real notability. The question is rather that of whether he has achieved Wikipedia-"notability". It seems to me that he easily satisfies WP:NOTE (which you choose to cite). I invite you to reread it. Now, if you were to claim that WP:NOTE was wrongheaded or mistitled, I'd probably agree, but that's another matter. -- Hoary (talk) 00:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see FerryLodge and AyaK. The tabloids media can't get enough of anything and everything Palin-family-related and Johnston is trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame. Besides having sex with Sarah Palin's daughter and then talking about it to the media, what exactly has he done? McJeff (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think part of the problem is that this article is like a safety valve. I haven't edited the Saray Palin article, but if it's anything like the Obama article, people will not allow you to add info just because it's covered in reliable sources (contradicting NPOV and UNDUE). We could find 1000 sources dealing with Bristol and Levi, but if you call them a part of Sarah's article, then they get 1 sentence or less in Sarah's article, and if they have their own articles they can get maybe 100 refs. This whole thing is similar to an Israel/Palestine aticle. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject has been cited in a huge number of national news articles over a time period of many months. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In the grand scheme of things, I feel like Levi, and the entire controversy could be adequately summarized in a section in Sarah Palin or another pre-existing article on the 2008 campaign. Bristol Palin's pregnancy wasn't really notable outside the context of her mother's candidacy. --Pstanton (talk) 17:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several months ago I would have agreed with BLP1E, but he has continued to do interviews and push his own notability. If he were just Tripp's father, and he didn't court publicity, then I'd agree with deleting this. Now though, I see him as having garnered notoriety for the pregnancy, the break-up, the custody complaints, his comments on the Palin household, etc. Yes, these are all related issues, but I don't see them as singular in the sense of 1E. That, coupled with his obvious courting of the media, convinces me that deleting the article to protect him for BLP hardship isn't warranted. Dragons flight (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DGG makes a very strong case. Also, the sheer bulk of coverage on this one individual and his own keeping himself in the media makes this an obvious case of a needed page. Content of a page has no affect over need for having a page. BLP issues can be cleaned up. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete mention on Bristol Palin's page is enough. - Schrandit (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mention on Bristol Palin's page? There is not Bristol Palin page. TharsHammar Bits andPieces 19:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:BLP1E carries the day here. Much hay is being made about a series of talk show appearances and interviews, but all of that still only stems from his notability for being the father of a candidate's daughter's child, nothing else. Levi Johnson has no notability independent of who he happened to have sex with. Additionally, we may need to rethink just what the threshhold for notability is these days. "Being mentioned in a lot of sources" is fast becoming a meaningless point in the era of super-saturated 24/7 media blitzes. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E states explicitly twice it is for "low profile" individuals. This person is not "low profile" by any means. Johnston is more than just "mentioned in a lot of sources", but is in fact the primary subject of multiple sources.--Oakshade (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The primary subject of multiple sources, all for one event. Thanks for making my point for me. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which "one event" are you referring to? The original private event with Bristol Palin? The photo opps with John McCain months later? (That event heavily covered) The breaking up with Bristol Palin months later? (again, that event heavily covered) The multiple events of going on a talk show circuit (yet again, those multiple events heavily covered by secondary sources) months later? The point is, terming "one event" for a person who has been covered heavily by secondary sources for several events spanning over eight months is opposite of reality.--Oakshade (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing but "the original private event with Bristol Palin", all else is just coverage because of that, not separate or in addition to. Tarc (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a feeling that the sexual intercourse was not a "single event" so stating that it was from who he had sex with is a little short of the whole. :) But the word "event" does not mean one action or idea, but one moment. Based on the above idea, famous runners that only run would not be allowed on Wiki because that running is one event. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. BLP1E is normally used to remove articles where the subject is notable only for a single event, particularly a single event that portrays the subject negatively. This is a use I very much agree with. This particular case is different, however; while the source of his original noteworthiness in the media is a single event, he has voluntarily extended his public role well beyond what it would have been solely based on his relationship with the Palin family. We could, using the same argument extended in some comments above, delete the articles on basically all one-hit wonders and people with one single focal point of notability - like some winners of American Idol, or even some non-winners. Wouldn't even have to limit it to the entertainment industry, really; what about Mohammad Atta? Even Chelsea Clinton, whose personal notability also extends from her proximity to presidential politics? Harper Lee only wrote one book, after all. Anyway, my point is this: the notability of every famous person started somewhere. When a famous person extends their public role beyond that one event, we shouldn't get into deciding the precise threshold where "one event" is converted into wider notability. Nathan T (formerly Avruch) 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge content elsewhere When I judge article content, first I read the name of the article, and I expect content on the subject. The subject in this article, supposedly, is Levi Johnston. However, the entire article, every bit of coverage about his life, is because he had unsafe sex with the daughter of a notable politician. The only content on the subject in the article outside of that, is:
"Levi Johnston was born to Sherry Johnston and Keith Johnston in Wasilla, Alaska. He has one sister, Mercede Johnston. Johnston is an avid hunter. He attended Wasilla High School, where he played hockey."
None of the stuff mentioned in that blurb is remotely notable. To me, this proves his notability is limited to him impregnating Sarah Palin's daughter. The news coverage of the relationship between Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin and the Palin family is semi-notable, however, Levi Johnston as an individual is not notable for anything. If this had happened to in the family of someone who wasn't a politician, or had Sarah Palin not been in the running for the Vice Presidency at the time, this wouldn't have even been in the news. Besides that, even the article reflects this:
According to Courtney Hazlett of MSNBC, there has been speculation that Johnston gave interviews to King and Banks in hopes of landing an endorsement or modeling job.
The media doesn't care about this story anymore and Levi Johnston is just trying to make a name for himself by appearing on talk shows as the kid who had sex with Sarah Palin's daughter. Having said that, and how the article is about Sarah Palin's daughter getting pregnant, and not Levi Johnston, his notability is pretty non-existent. The article on Levi Johnston should either be deleted or redirected and merged into the Sarah Palin article, in the section that talks about her family. — Moe ε 23:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In this article, there are too many reliable sources detailing mulitple events for it to be merged into the Sarah Palin article. That would be undue. Yet, there are mulitiple reliable sources concerning multiple notable events in Mr. Johnston's life. A merge to Sarah Palin would be undue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • General discussion regarding burden of consensus with respect to BLPs moved to talk page. –xeno talk 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 00:04, 14 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. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Onetwothree... 01:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battlestar Galactica terminology[edit]

Battlestar Galactica terminology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prodded and prod2ed -- with a last-minute removal. Oh, well. Anyhow, this wholly fails several policies and guidelines: WP:OR (interpretation of what some of these terms mean), WP:IINFO (are these terms used exclusively in the fictional world? what about the terms that also show up in the real world? it's a mix!), WP:DICT (it's all a bunch of definitions), WP:RS (there are no citations to any sources, reliable or otherwise). --EEMIV (talk) 13:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Blatantly obvious fancruft. Let them dump this stuff over at Wikia or private wikis where it belongs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic here (the particular fictional language of BG) just isn't notable. BG isn't that closely examined in any sort of independent published sources. The rest is trivial dictdeffiness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 22:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Much as I love the show, this is unsourced OR fancruft. Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge those parts of it where there is something to merge. As a separate page, it's just a collection of miscellaneous. DGG (talk) 02:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for all it's problems, it is a useful resource. I'm watching the series and NOT an fan, so I don't know what these terms are. You have a page for BG objects, why can it not be extended to include verbs not used elsewhere? M-streeter97 (talk) 11:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Battlestar Galactica, where it has context. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for those proposing merge - While I agree a merge to the main BSG article or some such might provide context, can you address the issues this content faces in terms of WP:DICT, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:IINFO? I don't see how moving this content diminishes any of these concerns. --EEMIV (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, a good chunk of this terminology is already duplicated elsewhere, as it is existing military lingo.Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:59, 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. As noted, there is another, possibly more notable, band by this name, and anyone will be free to create an article about it. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Belles (band)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Hell's Belles (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A German tribute band that, as far as I can tell, fails WP:MUSIC completely. Yintaɳ  12:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for deletion as A7. Ironholds (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A7 removed. At the very least a quick Google news search should have been carried out which brings back among the free results: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]...and there are loads more subscription/pay-per-view results. I know people get annoyed when WP:BEFORE is pointed out to them, but... --Michig (talk) 14:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC) See also Google Books results, and this from SPIN.--Michig (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note - There are two AC/DC tribute bands named Hell's Belles, as mentioned in the article. This is the German one, the other one is American. It appears all your links are referring to the American version. (Compare the band member's names in the WP article and those in the articles you linked, for example.) To avoid further confusion I've added German to my rationale above. Yintaɳ  16:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite right - my mistake. Delete this one, but the American tribute band should have an article here. The incoming links to the article appear to be all for the American band. I suppose we should let this run its course before overwriting it with a new article, but if nobody objects I'm prepared to replace it before the AFD term is up.--Michig (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I prefer to delete this article first, just to prevent future confusion about which band is which. A clean edit history might be better than one based on a non-notable band with the same name. Yintaɳ  18:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overwrite as a new article on the American band. I can't find any sources on the German band (and I can read enough German to recognize a non-trivial news source), but the American band of the same name seems notable per Michig's sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PrismaStar[edit]

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

nn company Losr2300 (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC) — Losr2300 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am confused. How is Businessweek, PC World, and other 3rd party sources on the article not sufficient proof of notability? The article needs some cleanup (convert links to references), but I believe notability is firmly established. Turlo Lomon (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the Business Week article is about the guy, not the company so that one doesn't count. The Czech PC World article is actually about the product AnswerOil and only passingly mentions PrismaStar as the company the made it. Also not really sure if that short article can properly be called a "feature piece." The ZDNet one is also only about AnswerOil and doesn't mention PrismaStar at all. It's status as relaible soure isn't exactly clear either as that "article" is technically part of a blog. The TechCrunch is a blog of unclear reliable sourceness that once again only mentions AnswerOil. So in summary we have one article about the guy, two questionable sources about thr product, and one article about the product that only has a trivial mention of the company. The only one that even says PrismaStar in it is the last one. While you could make a case that AnswerOil is possibly notable, unless reliable sources can be found that actually talk about PrismaStar I would say we should delete. Spiesr (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A Google search for "PrismaStar" brings up nearly 6,000 results. It's definitely a working company. The articles only make fleeting references to PrismaStar in the same way articles about the iPod only make fleeting references to Apple. People are talking about the product, not the company. In this way, the Wikipedia article can be used to list and describe the activities of the company as it expands beyond AnswerOil. It's a real company mentioned in established publications; TechCrunch is one of the largest technology sites on the Internet with nearly 2 million RSS subscribers, it's unfair to dismiss it as a place of "unclear reliable sourceness". — 87.194.220.249 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Hello, This is Josh Tabin, CEO of PrismaStar writing from our London office. I have NEVER written anything in Wikipedia (including this article), so please excuse me if it is non-standard for me to write here in this format/discussion. One of our outside investors (from the well-known venture capital firm Draper, Fisher Jurvetson, which, incidentally, would be another outside reference source) told me about this new Wikipedia entry, and when I came here to see it, I saw this discussion about how we, "will be deleted without reliable sources that actually talk about PrismaStar." If it's ok, I can have one of our staff post some links that verify PrismaStar as a company, and if you guys want to delete any other content that is "non-verifiable", that would be fine with me. -J. Tabin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.59 (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC) — 82.69.42.59 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Another comment re: the "unclear reliable sourceness" of TechCrunch -- Mr. John Biggs of TechCrunch wrote about his own personal experience with PrismaStar's unique technology, and further, if he is considered such an unreliable source, why would his comments also be picked-up by THE WASHINGTON POST? Are they too an unreliable source? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/27/AR2008052701091.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.42.59 (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC) — 82.69.42.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This company seems notable enough to me. They (and their product) have been written about by some well-known and reputable publications. Google turns up quite a bit of info. I am not entirely sure how it does not meet criteria set forth by WP:ORG. →JogCon← 15:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side comment. I'm not trying to start any issues outside the discussion for AfD, but the nominator registered a new account on May 2nd. Then within 20 minutes, nominated 5 AfD's, then never edited anything else afterwards. That just seems strange to me. →JogCon← 15:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is the product AnswerOil that is notable, not the company PrismStar. Think of Rubik's Cube, it is notable, not the company that produced and manufactures it. I am very concerned about the promotional tone and obvious conflict of interest. My suggestion would be to move the article to "AnswerOil" and do a complete rewrite after reviewing WP:SOURCE and WP:COI. There is no use putting forth opinions in an AfD that don't rely on Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Drawn Some (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to play Devil's advocate, but both the creator and the toy company that marketed the Rubik's Cube have articles on Wikipedia. But humor aside, I do understand what your saying. I suppose it's just a difference of opinion. I feel that even though the company makes the product, it's the product that makes the company. I don't disagree that the item in question for this AfD needs some revisions, but the corporation itself seems to hold up to WP:ORG. Perhaps someone with a neutral point of view who is still familiar with corporations (or just is willing to take some time to do the work) can clean it up so we don't have the conflict of interest or bias. →JogCon← 19:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be sure, I did a lot of looking for references on both before coming to the conclusion that the company doesn't meet WP:CORP and that the software is notable. Also, Ideal Toy Company probably wouldn't be notable if the Rubik's Cube were its only product. ;-P Drawn Some (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm going to remain neutral. Both sides present valid points. I'd like to see what a neutral party could do to improve the article, because as it stands now, the substance seems a little weak for full inclusion on it's own rather than as a sub-topic on AnswerOil. →JogCon← 20:12, 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) 06:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Substance® (design)[edit]

Substance® (design) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Can't find any trace of him on the internet, likely non-notable Passportguy (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete sufficient notablity is not claimed, and certainly not established. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - close to blatant spam so I would almost say speedy delete. Completely NN - ghits for name and company name yeild only 2 - one of which was this article. Also it's COI and I've marked the original poster for UAA as promotional. -- JCutter (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam- and possibly hoax-tastic. Ironholds (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, vanity page. Daniel Case (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for reasons stated above. Dialectric (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This is spam and should have been speedy deleted as such. Pichpich (talk) 03:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why it is you have aproblem with this link. Substance® design work has been reproduced in print in numerous design anthologies and published worldwide. Is that not proof of validity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princewith2spleens (talk • contribs) 12:25, 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 09:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Ui-Beom[edit]

Kim Ui-Beom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication that this person has competed at a professional level; according to the infobox he has played 0 games. Fails WP:ATHLETE. PC78 (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: Has competed professionally in a FIFA international competition with coverage in sources [28][29][30][31]. The fact that he plays/ed at the fully professional level and we can prove that with sources creates a presumption of notablity under WP:ATHLETE that I do not believe has been rebutted, and therefore I must recommend keeping the article, but improving it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure that I agree, but I did goof, it isn't professional level. I think there is a possibility of a presumption of notability under WP:FOOTYN #3. It (#3) certainly isn't a settled thing, if you look at the discussions on WP:FOOTYN you can see that, with some opinions running towards automatic notability, and some running against it. I personally would argue that competition in an international FIFA competition (FIFA U-17 World Cup) probably *should* create a presumption of notability. The possibility under #3, plus the coverage in sourcs, pushes me to the point of keeping the article, but I've weakened my support. Jo7hs2 (talk) 12:35, 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) 06:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greeble (game)[edit]

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

Newly released minor iPhone game with no cites other than primary source. Goggle search only returns iTunes listing and forum posts publicising game. Article is simply an advert for game with no notability. Escape Orbit (Talk) 11:30, 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 speedy delete (CSD G3) as hoax. --Kinu t/c 18:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolpha' Conti Frommel[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rudolpha' Conti Frommel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another hoax by apparent mass-hoaxer. I cannot find any trace of the pruported father Karl Maria Luitpold Prinz von Bayern ever being married nor having children Passportguy (talk) 11:21, 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 speedy deleted by Dank, CSD G3: Blatant hoax. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelmine Helena'[edit]

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

Hoax page likely made-up with information from Helene_Sedlmayr Passportguy (talk) 11:14, 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. Nja247 09:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Federici[edit]

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

(Bad speedy - not mine - declined; PROD - mine - removed by an author whose sole edits in his/her three days here has been to remove PROD tags for various dubious (IMHO) reasons. The PROD stood for 7 days.)

Now, we look at the article itself; superficially, not an obvious deletion, but still a deletion, I feel. The reference used is clearly not independent; it seems Federici is quite the man for self-promotion. As one editor notes on the article talk page, the books referenced are self-published works; and as another editor points out "It was posted in the same two-week time period in which there was a flurry of internet postings by this person about himself: directories, blogs, listings with adoption agencies, reprinting mentions in the press, etc. Just about the only thing distinguishable about this entry from the others is his failure here to tout certain questionable credentials and having a photo." The good faith search by editors more familiar with the subject than me (I'm just here to tidy the article up and start the deletion process) is detailed on the article talk page, though to very little avail.

Okay, so we have no really good independent and reliable sources - well, what about WP:ACADEMIC. That relies on being held in high esteem within his own scientific community. This doesn't look promising; neither does this when you get past the bad formatting and inherently POVish tone. I would also urge editors to read the talk page for more information and not take his google hits (which all look surprising similar) at face value, but instead to build up a better all round picture before coming to a decision. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 10:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't say I'm an "uninvolved" editor on this one as I am the main editor of Attachment therapy, a pseudoscience. Ronald Federici is considered by opponents of attachment therapy to be a proponent of attachment therapy. I understand Ronald Federici maintains he is not. I am aware of the recent flurry of activity on the web between Federici and others attempting to close down opponents websites and opponents fighting back. He also appears in the APSAC Taskforce report on the subject of attachment therapy and attachment disorder as a proponent of some controversial coercive practices but an opponent of others. However, on a search, leaving aside the controversy, the only thing of note I could find is that he appears to have been part of a team, inculding some notable names, who went out to Romania and assessed Romanian orphans and published their results in peer reviewed journals, about 10 to 12 years ago. This is respectable work but I haven't found anything comparable published since. I don't see that being a psychologist, whether controversial or not, is sufficiently notable when there are very limited peer reviewed or notable publications.Fainites barleyscribs 13:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the peer-reviewed articles Fainites mentions are not directly relevant to the kind of work Federici now appears to do. Jean Mercer (talk) 23:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also cannot say that I'm not "uninvolved," having both taken aim at, and been a target of, Mr Federici, but I think I can provide some objective evidence abut the man. Let me quantify and report several items. First, in approximately the same time-frame as when this article was created, Mr Federici also created 22 blogs which consist almost entirely of his (dubious) CV and/or of links obviously designed to drive traffic to his websites (he has at least 9 domain names under his direct control): 11 of these blogs are at WordPress; 3 are at BlogSpot; 6 are at Zimbio; and one each at Vox and Netlog. Next, stretching back 4-5 months, there have been appearances of essentially the same promotional material (usually the same wording and organization) at 28 websites, including BigSight, LinkedIn, Naymz, Ziki, Xing, WAPR, Biznik, VisualCV, Livebiznet, Ikarma, … and Wikipedia. Third, his credentials, especially his academic achievements, are inconsistently reported in these places — and even on his own website(s). Fourth, there have been a handful of quotes from the man in a few breaking news stories, but nothing else to substantiate a claim that he is an "internationally recognized authority" on anything (much less who is doing the recognizing). Fourth, his only book (both editions) is self-published ("Ronald S. Federici & Associates"). Fifth, I am unaware that he is the lead author of any articles indexed in PsycInfo, and several articles reported to be "in press" in his current CV were also "in press" on his CV of almost a decade ago. And sixth, his ubiquitous list of Fellowships and Diplomates are all, arguably save one (ABN), identifiable as vanity boards. In sum, the only evidence for the criterion of notability appears to be the Wiki article itself. Larry Sarner (talk) 07:44, 15 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 09:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burma-Greece relations[edit]

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

another random relationship with no evidence of notable relations. non resident embassies. Greece has close to no relations with Burma due to the EU embargo. Consider what the Greek govt says: There have been no high-level visits to Burma. The EU has in any case placed Burma under embargo because of its poor human rights record. There are no bilateral economic or trade relations they are in any case also the subject of an EU embargo. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even looked at this discussion? appears to be no argument just consensus. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No direct links between themDr. Blofeld (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no exchange of ambassadors, no reliable sources that cover this relationship. While i'm sure a greek official has, at one time or another, opined on Burma, that's not the stuff that establishes a topic as encyclopedically notable.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent coverage of the article's stated topic. Fails WP:N --BlueSquadronRaven 16:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Greece which now contains the material. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:04, 15 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 17:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy See – Malaysia relations[edit]

Holy See – Malaysia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

according to this article, Malaysia is one of few countries not to have diplomatic relations with the Holy See. secondly the source states that no country is allowed to have the same ambassador for both Italy and Holy See, yet this article implies this. LibStar (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you don't think the fact they actually have no diplomatic relations and hence don't really talk to each other makes for some relationship? If anything this would lead to a lack of coverage. LibStar (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Foreign relations of Malaysia, which now contains the content. But a borderline case. Maybe just enough refs to stand alone, and could probably be expanded. Certainly, do not delete and raise red flags to discourage anyone who wants to expand the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:02, 16 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) 06:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idukki AR[edit]

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

This is a personal essay on proposed changes to administration in Kerala. See A Report on the Reorganization of Administrative Divisions in Kerala Porturology (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [for the same reason]:[reply]

Thiruvananthapuram AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kollam AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Pathanamthitta AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Thiruvalla AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alappuzha AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kottayam AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Muvattupuzha AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ernakulam AR (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Report on the Reorganization of Administrative Divisions in Kerala[edit]

A Report on the Reorganization of Administrative Divisions in Kerala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, original research Pontificalibus (talk) 08:40, 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) 06:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Informal communication networks[edit]

Informal communication networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure what this is. An essay? At any rate, it isn't an encyclopedia article. My db tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:47, 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. Any possible merit of the article notwithstanding, this blatantly violates the GFDL and common sense dictates removal. --Kinu t/c 21:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of airports of Markham[edit]

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

Prod was removed, so sending to AfD. I tagged it with a Prod tag because it is an unnecessary list of airports for a small regional town, and it is currently a content fork of the two respective articles. The creator had copied the text from the two pages and redirected both to the list page, but I undid that based on standard MoS issues while prod'ing. ∗ \ / (⁂) 07:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree this list with two entries is unnecessary. Additionally, it's not a list, rather it's a combined article on the two airports. On the other hand, Markham is most definitely not a "small regional town". Read the lead of Markham, Ontario. :) — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a list, nothing more than a Fiji mermaid of the separate articles, which still exist. Whatever dispute led to this needs to be worked out. Frankly this is silly. Drawn Some (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a list just a copy of two other articles and probably a cut and paste GFDL violation as well. MilborneOne (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I'll admit my knowledge of the GFDL is not brilliant but I'm nearly certain this doesn't meet the terms of it as it's not properly attributed and therefore is a clear copyvio. So tagged. If it's not speedied as a copyvio I vote delete as it's totally redundant and two seperate articles makes a lor more sense. Dpmuk (talk) 20:16, 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 Nomination withdrawn and no calls for deletion are registered. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths through interference with the anus[edit]

List of deaths through interference with the anus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:SALAT, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". The people on this list were not known for their cause of death. In fact, the cause of death is only mentioned once in the articles for both Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford and Edward II of England. Additionally, there's no inclusion criteria for the list. The "See also" links don't have any real relation to each other, either. Radiant chains (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, I'd like to Withdraw this nomination. Radiant chains (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Of course the cause of death is only described once for each. Death only happens once, and the cause or causes are not needful of being described repetitiously. The list entrants are notable for their manner of death, hence inclusion of the description of it in both biogs and hence also why they've been accepted as notable and referenced inclusions on List of unusual deaths. Every single entry on the latter is a person otherwise notable for activities beyond the notability of their manner of death. Re inclusion criteria, thank you for pointing that out and I'll remedy it without delay. Otherwise, the critique of seealso inclusions is or rather may be a justification for reform and development, not for exclusion and deletion. This is a new article and it needs development time, much the same way that other, even regionally-restricted death-by-cause lists of similarity benefited from:

Move to close this nomination without prejudice until it's had that time of a suggested 7 days.BumLawd (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Radiant chains.--ThoseStarsBurnLikeDiamonds stargaze 07:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest you, point-by-point, deal with the refutation of that nomination immediately above.BumLawd (talk) 08:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, but make sure that each individual item is cited. DGG (talk) 08:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep: Original editor has added very specific criteria for inclusion in list. Additional info is well-referenced and has potential for much expansion. Radiant chains (talk) 08:52, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ennennennium (2nd nomination)

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:CSD G1 by Kwamikagami. (non-admin closure) Radiant chains (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ennennennium[edit]

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

    Sole author (with a history of disruption) removed CFSD without explanation. Sole author removed prod without improvement or explanation. Sole author deleted AFD tag before it was complete - and for that reason I will report to vandalism. http://www.klucha.net/wiki/Ennennennium probably says it all. The author has used the general rules of element naming to creat an article on the provisional name of the 999th element. The author does not ascribe any properties to this element. As there are now 118 elements on the periodic table and the last 20 or so are highly unstable - it is very unlikely that this will ever be synthasised. Worse! if this is allowed we can have ∞ articles about made up names for non existent entities. Stop it now! Porturology (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is of course completely unnotable, but I deleted it as patent nonsense. There's a drip line, beyond which isotopes are not merely unstable but don't even exist. We don't know where the drip line is for heavy elements, but it's quite possible that there is a physical limit to the number of elements. To state that "it seems like it will take several centuries [for 999] to be discovered" is just blowing hot air. kwami (talk) 06:28, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jazmine Sirena Mejia[edit]

    Jazmine Sirena Mejia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Only source to MySpace, sole hint of notability is "sister of vocalist", does not show notability. American Eagle (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete I would have speedy'd this as there is no assetion of notability at all. --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I agree with both Pontificalibus and Percxyz. Hollathag (talk) 20:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Hollathag[reply]
    • Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The only "claims to notability" are that she's related to somebody in a band, and that she has self-made videos on YouTube and music on her MySpace page. None of this gets even close to meeting WP:BAND. — Gwalla | Talk 06:16, 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) 00:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert Davidson (composer)[edit]

    Robert Davidson (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Completely non notable. The article gives no indication of this person's significance to society and has no appropriate sources. It does not look as if sources can be found; that however is not the issue for a sourced article about a "nobody" still should be deleted. Yardleyman (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • He is mentioned in the entry on Brisbane as one of seven "younger composers" based in the city: "Younger composers include Gerard Brophy, Stephen Cronin, Robert Davidson, Kent Farbach, Stephen Leek, Peter Rankine and Nigel Sabin." --Canley (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I believe the references and external links show he's notable in his field. Mark Hurd (talk) 08:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I believe the body of the article must allege that the subject is notable in his field, not just the sources. If there is no credibly sourced allegation of notability within the article itself, the article fails WP:N. Therefore, Delete. Yardleyman (talk) 20:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The proper response to a situation where the references show notability but this is not reflected in the article is to add the assertions of notability to the article and cite them to the references. BTW, putting "comment" in bold usually means that you're not saying whether you think it should be kept or deleted. — Gwalla | Talk 21:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Has coverage in multiple reliable sources. WP:N doesn't pertain to assertions of notability–see the section at WP:FAILN, which states: Although articles should demonstrate the notability of their topics, and articles on topics that do not meet this criterion are generally deleted, it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Radiant chains (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Obviously the article needs work and expansion, especially to describe his compositions and career more fully. But that's not grounds for deletion. It's grounds for improving the article and tracking down further sources some of which were (bizarrely) moved to the talk page. In addition to the references in the article, his work is discussed in L. Sitsky, R. Martin 2005, Australian Piano Music of the Twentieth Century. New York: Praeger/Greenwood.[38]. His compositions are not only very frequently played on ABC Classic FM,[39] he was the subject of a whole programme on that station.[40] See also this page in The City of Empty Rooms by Tom Shapcott. See [41] for a list of his compositions and who commissioned them and his entry[42], in International Who's who in Music and Musicians, Routledge, 2000. Also this article about about him and his ensemble in Fast Forward Weekly. His work also appears on Anthology of Australian music on disc (sound recording). 3rd series. CSM:22-CSM:30. Several of his works appear the soundtrack of the film The Burial, which the won the grand prize at the 2009 London Independent Film Festival. [43]. He and his group were also the main subjects of a dissertation: J. Burgess 2004, High Culture As Subculture: Brisbane’s Contemporary Chamber Music Scene Brisbane: University of Queensland (Abstract: [...] The dissertation addresses this question through the application of subculture theory to Brisbane's contemporary chamber music scene, drawing on a detailed case study of the contemporary chamber ensemble Topology and its audiences.) Also, before proposing an article like this for AfD without even trying to find sources or improve the text, it would at least have been helpful to seek input from WikiProject Contemporary music and WikiProject Composers both of whom have banners on the talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 11:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Contemporary music and WikiProject Composers - Voceditenore (talk) 11:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, per Voceditenore, Canley's radio find and the fact that he's mentioned in New Grove (trivial mention or not, of countless (probably) young Australian composers they chose to mention him). --Jashiin (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep (SNOW) per Voceditenore and Special:Contributions/Yardleyman — the nominator keeps editing articles he nominated for deletion. Not notifying the bannering projects displays the same neglect of etiquette. Some counselling seems in order. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:52, 14 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. per WP:SNOW J.delanoygabsadds 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The Game 2.0 (mind game)[edit]

    The Game 2.0 (mind game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. From The Game 2.0 (mind game): "The Game 2.0 was "discovered" on May 7, 2009 by Chase May, a senior at Roseburg High School in Roseburg, Oregon. The next day, he printed the rules and distributed them among the student body." Radiant chains (talk) 04:55, 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. Nja247 09:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerre and Mary Joy Stead[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
      Jerre Stead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      Mary Joy Stead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Highly promotional articles, including plenty of peacock terms, about a married couple who have donated piles of money to various causes. Simply donating big amounts of money and being executives in major corporations don't make someone notable, and nor does writing a few books. Example quote: "Mary Joy enjoys helping others to succeed and reach their goals and dreams." Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete Mary Joy Stead as non-notable per WP:BIO. Keep Jerre Stead, notable per WP:BIO but will require cleanup. The author appears not to have a COI but to be a resident of the same small town in Iowa. Drawn Some (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Jerre as a notable executive. No evidence for M.J. being notable. DGG (talk) 05:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Jerre was an a--hole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.215.243 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is not a valid delete reason. JuJube (talk) 22:31, 9 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 04:46, 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 keep. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Miss Dominican Republic 1977[edit]

      Miss Dominican Republic 1977 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      Miss Dominican Republic 1977 (Handpicked Contast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      Non-notable. A page for a beauty contest that didn't happen.  Mbinebri  talk ← 02:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 04:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, Merge and Redirect into Miss Universe 1977 It's interesting enough that Miss Universe was held in the Dominican Republic, and yet they did not even hold a local pageant for their entry. But I agree it's not notable enough for its own article. Gigs (talk) 04:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to Miss Dominican Republic 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment After some thought, I agree with this redirect as the most appropriate action if the circumstances (i.e., no pageant was held in '77) were included in the Miss Dominican Republic history section. In fact, I'm kind of surprised it's not there already.  Mbinebri  talk ← 18:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - This article should have its own page, as any of the others years does for any pageant. It just needs to be worked on with information from Dominican Republic newspapers. There was a scandal in the local press, when no pageant was held. Headlines news where placed in page, for any user to work on. Also the representative of the Dominican Republic was a finalist, as they always are when a country hostess the constest. Oppose to merging or redirecting the page Miss Dominican Republic 1977.--Juliaaltagracia (talk) 18:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I added second page to nomination per admin recommendation.  Mbinebri  talk ← 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - I have not included that information in Miss Dominican Republic article, because that article needs to be fixed. It includes information from 5 different pageants as if they were only one. Also there is no information available in the Internet to put for references. You can only retrieve the headlines news from the http://ogm.elcaribe.com.do/ogm/consulta.aspx.
      • Delete the second nomination Miss Dominican Republic 1977 (Handpicked Contast)

      User: MRDU08 (talk | contribs) made that page and invented the information. This is not the first time he has done that. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 23:28, 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 04:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep whether or not there was a contest there should be an article because there was a Miss DR that year and how she became to be is important regardless and there is no better title. But has anyone looked at this or tried to confirm the information on the Spanish Wikipedia? I suspect there is some hanky pank going on with the article, you might investigate that as well. There are/have been several competing beauty contests at various times to add to the confusion. Srta. Aurora Sardinas was in the Miss Universe 1977 and was in the finals. How she got there may not be verifiable on the internet. Someone with access to DR newspaper archives may have to go look at microfilm in the basement of a library if the hanky-panky can't be figured out. Drawn Some (talk) 09:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don´t know if my comments are not clear, but I have provided headline news about the contest from the data bank |El Caribe Newspaper which has files from all the Dominican Republic newspapers since 1942. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 04:06, 15 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 05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Revolutions of 2009[edit]

      Revolutions of 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      No evidence from WP:RS indicating this term has gained widespread use. Even if this had been the case, the article appears to be original research that has POV issues. --Kinu t/c 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete - for reasons above. JCutter (talk) 04:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Keep Mimzy1990 (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC) — Mimzy1990 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      This isn't a vote. Please provide a policy/guideline-based rationale as to why you think this article should be kept. --Kinu t/c 17:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Original research without evidence that the incidents mentioned are indeed Revolutions. The Governor of Texas' proposal of secession from the US is nothing new and is not revolutionary in itself. Now if Texas was to actually secede - and do so with force - then we could consider an article. But that article would still not be called "Revolutions of 2009" (or whatever year). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. This isn't history, it's a case of one editor's political wishful thinking. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the term is not widely used, the article is badly written and hardly sourced, (some of the sources are questionable at best, a Wordpress blog for example). Because of the lack of references and the way it is written it looks more like an individual trying to push his/her unique point of view on the various events in 2009 rather than writing a good, balanced Wikipedia article. FFMG (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per deleters, without prejudice to recreation in say 3 years, if there actually turn out to be any. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - "Wars and rumors of wars". There is no evidence that the events of the first third of 2009 will have a deeper or more lasting effect than the events of any other year. More to the point, there is not a significant mass of reliable sources using the term "Revolution of 2009", directly or indirectly. --Art Carlson (talk) 08:16, 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 List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:14, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Organized to Do Jehovah's Will[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Organized to Do Jehovah's Will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable JW publication Jeffro77 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Just a note that this is a notable JW publication. If a JW has four books in his car, this is likely one of them (1)Bible, 2)Reasoning book, 3)Bible Teach book, 4)"OD" book (this one)).--AuthorityTam (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Presence of book in a JW's car isn't really the benchmark for notability on Wikipedia. However, if the book is actually notable enough for inclusion, suggest maybe a Jehovah's Witnesses organizational manuals for this book as well as Pay Attention book, as they're not really 'reference works'. Pay Attention is certainly more notable (or notorious) than this book, but it isn't easy to find reliable (rather than self-published) sources for it either.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Material from that article has been copied to:
      Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications_for_adherents#Organized_to_Do_Jehovah.27s_Will
      Suggest redirect there.
      --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:21, 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 redirect to Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications_for_adherents#Shining_as_Illuminators_in_the_World. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Shining as Illuminators in the World[edit]

      Shining as Illuminators in the World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable JW publication Jeffro77 (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Material from that article has been copied to:
      Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications_for_adherents#Shining_as_Illuminators_in_the_World
      Suggest Redirect there.
      --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:24, 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 keep. Even with the SPAs, there's enough comments from regular editors to determine consensus (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Arick Wierson[edit]

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

      Reason Syntheticlife4m (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC) This doesn't apply to Wikipedia's guidelines for notoriety for living biographies. Looking at the references provided, this appears to be a momentary person of minimal local fame, not a major political figure or celebrity with any potential of lasting importance. If anything, it sounds more like a boost for one's own resume, especially with the "accomplishments." Some of the reference links are dead links or lead the a different page than listed.[reply]

      • Objection!! Admin Don't Delete!! This is so clearly some disgruntled current employee of Wierson. I can tell by the IP address of the latest attempt. I will look into this and report the name of the user. Outragous! Like him or not he built the biggest media group in NYC. And I am sure he stepped on a few toes in the process. But that deserves to be out there! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.185.158.21 (talk • contribs) — 161.185.158.21 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      Please do not attempt to find out the real world names of Wikipedia editors, or threaten real world action on the basis of editing here. Both are strictly prohibited.. DGG (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. So far, all of the participants (including the nominator) have few contributions outside this subject. Perhaps in part that was because the nomination was not properly linked into the deletion logs, and in part because two of the IPs objecting above to the deletion also removed the AfD notice from the article. I am completing the nomination now. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I'm not happy with the shenanigans, but it looks to me he's notable (New York is kind of a major market). There may be problems with the Controversy section that need to be cleaned up (and soon) as well as too much detail as to specifics on other issues, but a notable producer in a major market, particularly with that many sources, is likely notable. Shadowjams (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep clearly meets WP:PEOPLE. --Pontificalibus (talk) 06:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep major broadcast figure, well referenced article. DGG (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep seems notable. Looking at the references provided, at least 7 of them are reliable and verifiable Rirunmot (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - It looks a lot like this was a false alarm - the user who created this is a brand new user whose only contributions are a few select AfD's. Ulterior motive? Luminifer (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment regarding original nomination. "Local fame" makes no sense when the locality has 8,000,000 people in the city limits and 18,000,000 in the metro area. The metro area would be the 60th largest country in the world by population if it were a country. Drawn Some (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - looks like a bad-faith nomination from where I sit...although the article could use a little cleaning. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I agree entry should stay but I am also suspicious that the "controversy and criticisms" section might have personal issues associated with it. Vintageriesling (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Nom seems to have made several of these AfDs, all aimed at linked articles. Taelus (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • KEEP - The AfD seems targeted and not based on merit. I found this release about Wierson bringing the BBC to the New York market which gives a somewhat clear indication of the level of executive that Wierson represents: http://news.prnewswire.com/ViewContent.aspx?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/03-20-2009/0004992029&EDATE= Ps: I later found the same one sourced on the page in questions. 24.105.157.254 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I'm undecided, but I do question the validity, which is up to Wikipedia to decide. So far many of the links aseem to just be standard press releases, which other periodicals will print just for content's sake. It says in his entry, that he's left office, so does that mean he will still get press blurbs? It's kind of like when a local TV anchor gets an entry, but never makes it past one TV station. I agree it needs cleaning up though,since there seems to be some embellishment, instead of straight facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.18.63 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • COMMENT I agree with above that press releases are generally inferior to legitimate third-party articles by reputable news sources; however, given that there are releases largely being emitted by the Mayor of New York, I think they do have some secondary relevance that a private company release would not have. The fact that news journalists pick up on these is a fact of life - that is how news is made. After reading these comments and scanning the citations and checking the links, I am comfortable with the releases in the context that there are many reputable news sources cited as well - NY Daily News, NY Times, Broadcasting & Cable, etc. In general it seems that this fellow Arick Wierson is a significant player in the New York media market - which is more than just the largest market in the U.S., but significant in that New York happens to be the "media capital" of the country and perhaps the world - where national and even international trends are established and then spread throughout the world. 201.73.223.130 (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • DELETE This page serves no purpose, it's a feeble attempt at self promotion. Trevor Scotland who worked at NYCTV was arrested for embezzling $60,000. Coincidentally two managers resigned a week after the arrest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisdale79 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Notability is established by dozens of reliable and verifiable sources about the subject. Alansohn (talk) 22:22, 15 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. Onetwothree... 01:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Ravnos[edit]

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

      I tagged this article with {{notability}} over a week ago, and nothing has been done to improve it. There is still nothing in the way of independent sources, failing the general notability guideline.

      I urge the closing administrator to ignore the inevitable "we should ignore notability" keep votes, as this does not constitute a specific, itemized exception to a guideline, but rather an attempt to subvert the intention of the guideline of being in general applicability by attacking it in specific cases, since consensus has not shifted. Mintrick (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep No valid reason has been given for deletion. An article needing improvement is not a reason for deletion and allowing only one week is ignoring guidelines on Wikipedia not being on a dealine. Edward321 (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is a valid reason for deletion, and this article doesn't meet that requirement. The week's notice was a courtesy. Mintrick (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The notability tag is only listed as from April 2009. Stating you tagged it over a week ago is insignificant as a week is not enough time and many of the article's contributors and / or people interested in the subject to potentially contribute can be entirely unaware that the tag was added so recently. Though notability is a reason for deletion, you have not sufficiently proven that notability can not be established. Looking at the other "Clan" articles for Vampire: The Masquerade notability has been established for at least one of them. Therefore, there is no reason to believe this article could not meet notability as well. Stating that "[the] notice was a courtesy" already reveals your agenda and intention to delete rather than attempt to improve the article. Additionally, although this is not entirely related to the topic of Ravnos, clicking on your own contributions a number of articles you have made are currently up for deletion many of them for the very reason you cite here "notability". I can't help but feel this could be more a personal attack than a serious effort to improve Wiki.JasonFrankTed (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar. Tiptoety talk 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I'd like to point members of this debate to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability discussing how to reliably determine notability for RPG games. With some of the suggested methods, it would be quite easy to establish notability for this article. As such, any talks of deletion should also take proposed rules and guidelines determined by that project into account. Also, I find it kinda in poor taste that this article was nominated for deletion without the nominator notifying the page's author or major contributors as Wiki guidelines suggest. 24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar. Tiptoety talk 04:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


      Criteria as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability discussion

      (Wikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing games/Notability#Criteria)

      A role-playing game or game topic[2] is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:

      1. The game or topic has been a subject[3] of multiple, non-trivial[4] published works whose sources are independent of the game or topic,[5] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a summary of rules or in-universe information.[6]
        • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the game or game topic.[7]
        • Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or staff writer. Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability, so online reviews must come from multiple sources or be supported by additional coverage.
      2. The game or topic has won a major award.
      3. The game or topic represents a significant milestone in the development of role-playing games.
        • This criterion includes the first game to use a game mechanic which was later widely adopted; the first game within a given major genre of setting or the first to use a setting which was later widely used; the first to be published in a certain way, for example online or print-on-demand; or which is otherwise described as a significant step by multiple reliable sources. Generic role-playing games do not prevent future setting-specific games from counting under this criterion.
      4. The game's designer or setting is so historically significant that any officially associated works may be considered notable; or it is the focus of an active WikiProject
        • This includes licensed games of significant franchises.

      Specifically:

      "Coverage from an online review website can be considered non-trivial for the previous criterion if the coverage includes work by at least one professional reviewer or staff writer. Multiple reviews on a single website do not impart additional notability, so online reviews must come from multiple sources or be supported by additional coverage."

      Can easily be established.

      "This criterion includes the first game to use a game mechanic which was later widely adopted; the first game within a given major genre of setting or the first to use a setting which was later widely used; the first to be published in a certain way, for example online or print-on-demand; or which is otherwise described as a significant step by multiple reliable sources. Generic role-playing games do not prevent future setting-specific games from counting under this criterion."

      Vampire: The Masquerade and it's clans were the first in a long series of White Wolf games, including the later spiritual successor Vampire: The Requiem to format their character classes and back story in this manner. It can be established notability due to the successor games of White Wolf. White Wolf and Vampire itself have already established notability further granted by "The game or topic has won a major award." 24.190.34.219 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment even if the above were an official guideline, there is only evidence that Vampire is, not that Ravnos is notable. For Ravnos to be notable, the coverage must refer to Ravnos, or the unique element must be found in Ravnos. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - a week isn't long on wiki and we haven't got a deadline. It is a pretty central plot element of the game it belongs to. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete there's no evidence of substantial independent coverage in the article - a single exlink to a gallery site is hardly substantial. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per calisber. This article can be improved. Ikip (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete since no reliable independent sources cover this fictional clan of vampires in the realityverse. Then redirect to whichever of the iterations of the game is most popular.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Other clans in this game have been previously nominated for deletion, and always kept: Followers of Set (AfD discussion), Tremere (AfD discussion), Assamite (AfD discussion). As pointed out in each of those discussions, deletion of one of these articles in isolation from the others would be nonsensical. Nominate them as a group - or, better, discuss a merger on Talk:Clans and Bloodlines in Vampire: The Masquerade, as outright deletion is unlikely. —Korath (Talk) 19:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment is it really that unlikely? So far there are two delete !votes with reasoning that addresses notability, and no keep !votes with reasoning that addresses notability. Isn't it possible that some clans have had sufficient coverage and others haven't? Percy Snoodle (talk) 08:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. WikiProjects don't get to set lower notability bars for articles in their purview. Stifle (talk) 23:15, 16 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. Article has improved since the AfD nomination, and non-trivial sourcing has been added to establish WP:CORP notability. No consensus to delete, and all recent comments agree on keeping the article. Jamie☆S93 12:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Boardex[edit]

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

      Speedy A7 declined as a borderline case. The creator believes that the size of the database built by this company is by itself an assertion of notability. Problem is, there does not seem to be reliable third-party sources about this company on the Net, and Google returns a few hits that are about another company with the same name, though capitalized differently. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • (the following is copied from the article talk page. I'll leave a note for the editor letting them know the AfD is the place to make these arguments. No opinion on deletion, just boldly lending a hand.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

      There over 20 academic articles, conducted by highly qualified professors from world class institutions, that state BoardEx is the primary source of information and analysis.

      All these articles are found by going to Google Scholar and typing in BoardEx.

      In addition, there have been 5 articles in the Financial Times that quote BoardEx as a source of data that substantiates an important point.

      BoardEx meets every criteria for being Notable, if not indeed important, from both an academic and organisation perspective.

      Looking at the bottom of the BoardEx website it lists a number of clients that are well know, reputable companies.

      Surely anyone suggesting deletion needs to employ a bit of basic research before expressing an unqualified and what appears to be personal opinion based on no facts.

      If deletion is based on consensus then my view is of no value as sadly the others did no research before making theirs.

      Glfmwood (talk) 17:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

        • 20 academic articles? Where are they, so that we may take a look at them? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Please see below for cross section of academic papers based on Boardex plus press coverage.

      http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1121503 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1343990 Towards Overcoming Limitations of Community Web Portals: a Classmates’ Example http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1361776 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1230856 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962110 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1293864 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1293864 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/592415 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1361143 ftp://ftp.cemfi.es/pdf/papers/Seminar/InternationalCEOPay_18Nov2008_final.pdf http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/corporate_governance/MediaMentions/WSJ_7.19.05.pdf http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1213358 http://www.linkedin.com/companies/boardex http://www.library.hbs.edu/go/boardex.html http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_boardex http://www.women-omics.com/901-0-women-board-candidates-have-chance-to-shine-at-uk-event.html http://www.heartwoodwealth.com/documents/Heartwood_FTSE_CEOs_050109.pdf http://project.hkkk.fi/gsf/seminar_papers/cohen-frazzini-malloy_cheerleaders.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5555/is_200305/ai_n21926052 http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:IXV4wl_h0kEJ:www.citywomen.org/uploads/epwnwob.pdf+%22boardex%22&cd=98&hl=en&ct=clnk http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cracks-appear-in-city-glass-ceiling-but-pay-not-equal-yet-423015.html http://www.google.com/search?q=%22boardex%22&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLF_en&start=130&sa=N http://www.google.com/search?q=%22boardex%22&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7GGLF_en&start=130&sa=N http://www.london.edu/assets/documents/facultyandresearch/Solving_the_Exec.pdfhttps://www.aric.unibo.it/AssegniRicerca/Autofinanziati/_doc/2008/ID%5B4648%5DBoard2009.doc http://www.press.unibocconi.eu/articolo.php?ida=1937&idr=9 http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/movers_and_shakers/article2651574.ece http://blogs.chron.com/lorensteffy/2005/07/if_companies_ar.html

      I hope this satisfies your concerns

      CDT007 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

      • Okay. I looked at the first three of the above-mentioned references. None of them have anything whatsoever about Boardex. So they are basically useless in this discussion. Sorry, but I must assume that the other 17 are just as useless, unless you can show otherwise. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      I use BoardEx as a core new business tool. It not only holds the data claimed but it's the most comprehensive and accurate dat on leading business people available anywhere. The service is notable in that it is changing the way businesses use their contact networks to better effect. The list of articles given above is independent testrimony to the extent, quality and value of the service; many of them could not have been written without the BoardEx database and its analytical software showing the relatrionships between its data subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapier66 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      *Keep' - We have an article about a vegetarian themed video game (Steer Madness) which is sold less than 1,000 copies while we have here a tool being used by fortune 500 companies.[8] --Maverx (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      That game has nothing to do with the notability of this. Iowateen (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      *Delete I went through most of the references supplied. None actually mentioned Boardex. I think that CDT007 maybe meant that these articles used Boardex in their research, but this does not equate notability, neither does being used by Fortune 500 companies. What we are looking for are sources writing specifically about Boardex without which it would be impossible to write a proper encyclopedia article. If it is an important product these sort of sources should not be hard to find. --Leivick (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep New sources added show notability. --Leivick (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I found three sources on BoardEx (not in passing as part of a research paper) and added them to the article. The Management Today article is on EBSCOhost and the Financial News articles are on LexisNexis. Shubinator (talk) 16:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Article now well referenced to demonstrate notability. Well done to Maverx and Shubinator on the referencing. Paxse (talk) 17:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Article has been nominated to DYK, sources have been backed-up by extensive referrences.--Maverx (talk) 05:22, 15 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 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      بیوانفورماتیک[edit]

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

      Speedy declined by SoWhy two times, its time that English Wikipedia isn't a foreign language article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep for three weeks and see if someone will translate it. Seems to be an article on some sort of biological subject. After it's translated, we can decide if we want the article or not. I see no good reason to delete it before it can be translated. I posted a machine translation on the talk page. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  14:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. The Farsi article linked by SoWhy has an interwiki link back to the English article Bioinformatics. The machine translation is consistent with the idea that this article is about Bioinformatics. We already have an article about Bioinformatics, so we don't need another one written in the wrong language. Since the Farsi Wikipedia has its own article on this topic, no transwiki is needed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Obviously not English. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete We already have Bioinformatics covered. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete; this is the Wikipedia english version. Clearly not English. PMK1 (talk) 13:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Provisional Keep, lets wait until someone who can read Farsi has a look at us to tell us whether any content can be salvaged either into our article or the article at fa.wikipedia. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      • Speedy delete (A2) per above. Already in the Farsi Wikipedia. MuZemike 17:07, 4 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) 02:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relisting comment. The arguments that deletion should wait until the article is translated makes some sense. It now has another 7 days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep I agree with the arguments that this be kept until we know what the article is about. This could be a very important, wikiworthy topic. But until it is translated, we can only speculate until it is wikiworthy or not. Give it a reasonable amount of time to be translated, based on how many Farsi speakers we have. If not translated by then, or if translated and it has serious issues, delete. Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Ah, this is an obvious Strong Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johndowning (talk • contribs) 03:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speaking as someone who actually contributes to Wikiproject Translate, I find the idea that "any content not in English should be deleted" is very irritating and annoying (as well as contrary to the usual Wikipedia practice, to the relevant guidelines, and to common sense). There are reasons we don't speedily delete material just because it's not written in English.

        Wait for a Farsi-speaker to translate it properly, and then check it against what we have at Bioinformatics, please.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Redirect to Bioinformatics per Wikipedia:Redirect#Alternative names and languages and add {{R from alternative language}} to the page. The history should be kept behind the redirect, so that there is no time limit for the arrival of a Farsi-speaker. Cunard (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep until it is translated Rirunmot (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete translation can come from Persian Wikipedia page. Hekerui (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete This is the English-language Wikipedia. Nick-D (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems unlikely that anyone will search for 'بیوانفورماتیک' in the English Wikipedia; interwiki links would be more appropriate if they're not already in place. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've proposed the redirecting of this article because even though it's an unlikely search term, it's not improbable since "بیوانفورماتیک" probably means Bioinformatics in Farsi. There is strong precedent to redirecting non-English titles to their subject topics: see Category:Redirects from alternative languages. Cunard (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category is misleading. There is some precedent (but not policy) for roman character sets redirecting to their articles, and some non-roman character set languages redirect too, but in each case I found they were proper names that redirected, not the common names for generic topics. As a policy matter, there is tremendous potential for abuse in creating a swath of redirects that only a tiny subset of the user base can understand, not to mention a correspondingly small benefit. Shadowjams (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Why are people advocating "keep until we know whats its about/its translated"?. We know what its about and we already have a detailed article about the subject. Why should we waste time translating something if its duplicated better elsewhere--Jac16888Talk 19:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - This is english wikipedia, there's strong evidence we have a topic on the same thing, and "wait for it to be translated" is not a good argument, particularly when you have 2 weeks in which to do it. How long do you propose we wait? Foreign language articles don't get a pass; if this were written badly in english it would have been gone now. Shadowjams (talk) 20:10, 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. Ok, 10 days is long enough. There's enough discussion to conclude that consensus hasn't changed from the previous AFD (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Unspeakable Vault (of Doom)[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Unspeakable Vault (of Doom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Webcomic tagged with notability questions and lack of sources since Aug. 2008. As you go through it looks like there are a bunch of refs, until you check and see they all go to the website of the webcomic itself. Full of excruciating levels of detail, trivia, running gags, etc. but nothing like a reason why it deserves an article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep UVoD has been popular enough to appear in print media, a German board game company has produced an independent board game based around UVoD, and that a card game company has produced a modified version of one of its card games based around the comic. See the Appearances in popular culture section of the article. Currently the links are formatted as standard external links rather than as references with footnotes. The German game is, I believe, a free-standing independent creation, not just a "special edition" game that is just a re-themed version of some other game. The Munchkin game is a re-themed version however, as that is what the company specializes in making. Also, I would ask all editors to please read the previous AfD for this article. Soap Talk/Contributions 00:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep as per Soap. Edward321 (talk) 01:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  02:49, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relisting comment IMHO a little more discussion about the sourcing would be helpful. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep UVoD is big and known enough to fit into wikipedia. -- Zoltan 10:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.134.142 (talk)
      • Comment Some comments about the sources. Per the German Wikipedia article on the publishers of the board game based on this webcomic, it seems they are specialists in translating the works of Steve Jackson Games, the makers of the Munchkin version of this webcomic, so the importance of these two sources should be tied together somewhat. Considering these two sources as a single source as I'd advise, also including the Dutch translation as the same sort of thing, that leaves the only other indication of notability (that's been included in the article, at least) as the mention by Anders Sandberg, which, if you read it, isn't anything more than a passing example of a trend, in an article that's only 7 lines long in the first place.

        That being said, the Pegasus Press page does have a pretty big assertion of notability (they publish Germany's most popular roleplaying game) on it, which, if true, lends more weight to the fact that they decided to make a board game of this webcomic.Orbital Delegate (talk) 11:20, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Charles James Andrews[edit]

      Charles James Andrews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      non-notable person. I can't find anything linking him to the Concorde, which implies either 1) this is a hoax or 2) his position on the project was too unimportant to justify coverage. Either way, delete. Ironholds (talk) 01:33, 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. Nja247 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Ashley Renee[edit]

      notability is unverified? how about the wiki entry for fetish model? she's noted as an award winner there...then there is http://hollywood.premiere.com/movie_stars/celebrity-filmography-Ashley+Renee 2 million google hits, 80 some thousand for ashley renee and bondage...c'mon look around

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

      Contested prod. Notability is unverified. See WP:PORNBIO. Has she made unique contributions to the bondage genre? No reliable secondary sources listed or found to support this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 19:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Unless more secondary sources or a unique contribution emerge I see to reason to keep. - Schrandit (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, per WAS 4. A glance at her film career shows she has appeared in countless movies over her 20+ years. (Most actors in this genre don't last beyond a few years.) Since BDSM is such a specialized niche in the porn world, shouldn't the standards for notability include any awards for this genre? (I assume that there is one.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contributions) 01:19, 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. -- User:Docu 02:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

      Croatia–Mongolia relations[edit]

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

      Contested prod. The "sources" found don't really establish the notability of the relationship as such. Even putting aside their dubious provenance (including a self-published portal and non-independent state news agencies), what we have are a "cultural cooperation agreement" (er, ok) and the concurrent meeting of the countries' culture ministers (would a meeting of their first deputy assistant heads of sanitation services also qualify as notable?), a pretty small loan Mongolia made from Croatia (I can understand that loans can become notable issues, say like the Dawes Plan, but let's not open the Pandora's Box of claiming notability for individual financial transactions of any stripe), and finally, three reports on a trip the Croatian President took to Mongolia, which in addition to having about zero significance beyond the week it happened (nothing we'd ever mention in the President's biography, for example), resulted in a pledge to -- you guessed it -- "boost bilateral cooperation in a various fields". All very nice, but nothing more than the normal course of international relations, and not something we should bother recording (or would bother, outside this series of nonsense articles). There are no sources discussing this relationship as such, and when one stops a minute to really consider the underlying issues - no cultural/historic/strategic ties, no significant trade, no article that could ever link to this one, deletion becomes an attractive option. Biruitorul Talk 01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Can you point me to the Wikipedia rule of presidential biography inclusion? It would be a great rule if one existed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Not much to say, not much of an article. Johndowning (talk) 03:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep The material cited by the nom is just sufficient for an article. The argument is a mix of strawman (sanitation services) and denigration (size of loan). DGG (talk) 08:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a moment. The meeting of culture ministers deserves gentle mockery - it is, again, news, something we'd never consider mentioning outside this series of nonsense articles. As for the loan: millions of dollars are routinely loaned - and? Do we take note? Of course not. It happens every week of every year, and only here, where we strain beyond the bounds of the absurd to "demonstrate" notability, are these things picked up on. - Biruitorul Talk 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete there is little third party coverage, although all I could find was a head of state meeting in 2008 [44] [45], although I believe more than this is required to justify an article. LibStar (talk) 09:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - How do the sources found not establish notability? Obviously me an Biruitorul have different standards, but things like two heads of state meeting eachother. FYI the title of this article is Croatia-Mongolia relations, and one of the article I said says, "boost bilateral cooperation in a various fields". That goes hand in hand with the title. Not everything has to be like Canada-United States relations to be notable, there is no clause of notability that says just because the relations aren't the strongest the world has ever seen doesn't meen they are not notable. Please see Talk:Croatia–Mongolia relations, for the refs in question -Marcusmax(speak) 13:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Everyone wants to "boost bilateral cooperation in a various fields"; that doesn't mean there's any substance to such words. And as for head of state meetings, again, about zero significance beyond the week it happened (nothing we'd ever mention in the President's biography, for example); and of course no article that could ever link to this one, etc. - Biruitorul Talk 14:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No assertion of significance or importance. Drawn Some (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per sufficient sources. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep The sources seem good, there just isn't alot to say on the topic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taelus (talk • contribs) 21:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - No notability recognisable, and the article doesn't explain what is supposed to make those "relations" non-trivial. Two heads of state (and other officials) meeting is daily routine, and at best a short-lived news item, especially if the visit had mostly recreational character as seems to be the case here. Paying interest on loans is also routine. Do we really need an extra article to cover 150k USD of mutual investment and less than a dozen exchange students over the last 30 years? --Latebird (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Update - I have began updating the article, my work is not done yet but I have cleaned it up and shown notability. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep - The article is definetly notable. It just needs a bit of improvement. this may help. ResMar 23:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Beyond a claim of inherent notability, the article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      There are "ample reliable and verifiable sources" for many non-notable topics. And which policy or guideline exactly supports your claim of "inherent notability"? --Latebird (talk) 09:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you give some examples of topics receiving coverage in the media, yet Wikipedia considers them non-notable? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Has failed to establish notability. One of the 37,000+ potential articles of bilateral relations that doesn't rise to the level of needing an article. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 05:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are showing regional bias. While it may not be a New York Times headline of a BBC headline, it is important to both Croatia and Mongolia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      To be honest, I have serious doubts that those "relations" are very important for Mongolia. The given sources just show that the Mongolians are hospitable people, but not necessarily that those visits had any deeper impact. --Latebird (talk) 09:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      But the article isn't about "big impact" relationships, it is about all relationships found notable enough that the media took notice and recorded. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      It's not any media coverage, it's significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." What are you calling original research? There are seven references, more than trivial and less than exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Subject is notable, like most articles just needs expansion.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:43, 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, and merging these articles like this into the diplomacy of articles. Lets all work together to merge these articles instead of arguing about them. Thanks. A HUGE amount of effort has been taken in this AFD arguing for and against its deletion, when this energy could be used much more effectively to merging these articles. Ikip (talk) 16:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete A gathering of disparate sources on events that have no inherent notability, and that we wouldn't mention at all, anywhere, were it not for the "rescue" attempts. Whoever thinks Mesic's visit is worth portraying as a factor in the decision to keep this separate article should seriously ponder if it and all other such state visits are worth mentioning in the Mesic article. Computer says no. Dahn (talk) 23:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      If it isn't worth noting, why do the media outlets report on them? I think what you are saying it is no interest to you. Some people have no interest in sports, others have no interest in international relations. By having a media source record the information they have declared it notable. Wikipedians don't determine notability, the media does in what it chooses to report.

      It's not any media coverage, it's significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." What are you calling original research? There are seven references, more than trivial and less than exclusive. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Richard, I have already answered elsewhere. Several times. First of all, by stating that it's my opinion, you add nothing new; yes, anything can be translated into "that's your opinion", even, brace yourself, your opinion. The point here is to present those opinions and expose them to scrutiny.
      That said, your whole comment about what "some people have no interest in" is either beside the point or poison thrown in the well. For one, I am not against these articles because "they don't interest me", I am against them because they make no sense, because they are about nothing of contextual significance, because no one could possibly expand on such subjects without veering into trivial nonsense, and because they set a slippery slope. All of these being things which you apparently don't care much about, but which go against wikipedia rules. Because, you see, just like it's neither accurate nor especially logical to claim that the argument I make relies on me not "being interested" in some subject, it certainly isn't a valid reason to vote in favor of a subject because you find it interesting. The entire argument you're constructing in relation to that is therefore outside the scope of this discussion.
      But the main point here is the following: you are appealing to special pleading, theorizing that events which would be considered of no relevancy in any other case establish something relevant here and here especially. Furthermore, you are telling us that a random collection of those trivial facts will result in something notable, but you also tell us that notable is subject to interpretation - the "it's interpretable" argument, let's note, you only use in your favor. And, finally, the media coverage, which is minimal by any account, does source a phenomenon, but random events - much more is needed for sourcing just about any other article, but you tell us that it will do here. Because... Dahn (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      A reliable source, is a reliable source, is a reliable source. Your attempts to belittle the sources used in the article by all appearances gives the impression you have a regional bias. The sources are reliable enough for Google News and are not blacklisted by Wikipedia, they should be reliable for you. Notability is when a reliable source takes notice of an event. How else can I describe your disparaging remarks? I have never said "[I] find it interesting", but I have said that notability is defined as the media taking notice. So when a reliable source says it is interesting enough to write about, then it is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete an article on a relationship of so little interest to the two countries involved they don't care to exchange ambassadors. There are no non-trivial treatments of this relationship in reliable sources to be found.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I read the article, and it clearly indicates there is a notable relationship between the two countries. They are meeting with each other, about culture, working at becoming more like each other. What more for an article about relations between two nations can you want? Dream Focus 15:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • More than a random collection of trivial facts, maybe? - Biruitorul Talk 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Random is an odd choice of words, since every fact involves Croatia and Mongolia. You must not have a mathematical background if you consider that random. Random facts would be better represented by the DYK column such as today's random facts: Microsoft attempted to tap into the Chinese computing market in 1999 with a prototype computer known as Microsoft Venus and Polish merchant Jan Dekert was a vocal advocate for the enfranchisement of burghers during the Great Sejm in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Much more random. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep due to considerable improvements since nomination. Numerous books devote paragraphs to the role of Croatia in defending against the Mongol invasion of the 1240s. Thus, there is a clear historical moment of importance between these two countries that is absolutely of interest to military historians in particular. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      LOL! You've given me my laugh of the day, AN. And I particularly like your informative edit summary for your !vote above. Deor (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      A war in which actual human beings died, possibly even ancestors of our contributors and readers is nothing to laugh about. And as opposed to what, this informative edit summary? Regards, --A NobodyMy talk 03:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No third-party coverage of the topic stated in the article title. Also, I'm curious just how far relations progressed after the 13th century. My guess is, they didn't. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you look at the reference section of the article, you will see third-party coverage of the topic in the article title and as the article demonstrates after the Mongol invasion, relations renewed again in the late twentieth century. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per the considerable improvements since the nomination, the meeting of the worthy goals of WP:CSB, the guideline of WP:POTENTIAL, and the opportunities presented in Google Scholar, Google News and Google Books (not to mention what might be discovered at a public library), that might work toward further expansion and sourcing. Allowing continued improvement serves to better the project. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:57, 15 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 00:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Axial Analytics[edit]

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

      No assertion of notability Ironholds (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete Not notable does not meet any notability criteria. Johndowning (talk) 03:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. No indication that this is notable, and it's completely unsourced. It's also written like an advertisement. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Almost entirely promotional. The company may be notable, but the article doesn't show it. Tintenfischlein (talk) 08:35, 15 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 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Jason Rodgers[edit]

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

      This person is a non notable sportsman in an amateur football league. Despite the claim that he played one game for the Hawthorn Football Club, I can find no mention of this person on any Australian Football League database. Article is also without a single reference. Jevansen (talk) 13:18, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as far as I can tell it is a non-existant club in a non-existant competition. The AFL competition in NW Tasmania was the NW football union, it amalgamated in 1986 and Tewlong not only wasn't a club but I can't find any record of such a place existing Porturology (talk) 08:16, 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. There is a relatively solid consensus now. I agree with the delete reasons–subject requests should be given due consideration. However, I have seen the ticket myself, and the subject has decided there is no longer a need to delete. Therefore this discussion is closed. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Christel Miller[edit]

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

      Subject requests deletion (otrs:2009042310054812). BJTalk 07:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep the subject's appearance in Glamour and Outsmart magazines are clearly evidence of notability. Agricola44's points that the name generates other people with the same name in Google is not evidence that this particular Christel Miller is not notable. Indeed, she is her appearances in well reputed, widely popular magazines as well as her extensive list of films in film festivals are ample evidence of notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.232.131 (talk) 23:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Unless a valid reason for deletion surfaces. The mere fact the subject wishes the article to be deleted is not enough, because it counters the whole point of WP becoming comprehensive. The reason needs to meet WP guidelines or policies or at least make legal sense. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, not because she wishes so, but because her work doesn't seem notable. Punkmorten (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I figured out how to edit the page to make it accurate and more presentable so I no longer am requesting it to be deleted (user: christel miller)
      • Keep Apparently, the subject does not want it deleted anymore, and it seems to meet notability requirements. Timmeh! 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. With all due respect, none of the above "keep" motions (including the one given by the subject of the article herself) make any credible case for retaining the article. The burden is on demonstrating notability, but in this case none is unfortunately to be found. For example: (1) most of her arguably notable works given in the article were actually red-linked (now removed), (2) most of the "news coverage" e.g. Glamour Girl is actually from Rice University media relations, their alumni magazine, film festival rosters, and the like, (3) she is not actually credited in Itty Bitty Titty Committee (according to its WP page), and (4) graduate theses are not really notable publications. (Why the article also lists several dissertations evidently written by other individuals is not clear.) The rest of the article is bio-material having no additional claims of notability. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment There is an obvious conflict of interest in Christel Miller editing her own article. Drawn Some (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The original article was so spammy as to be deleteable. The present one is not. There seem to be enough sources for notability. For those who think it relevant, the subject no longer requests deletion. I would tend to be very skeptical about edits made by the subject to make an article acceptable, but in this case she seems to have done a very good job in objectively removing the excess. DGG (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep Outsmart mag (no indication thatis is not a reliable source) + glamour mag (no indiction that it is trivial) = multiple coverage which = noatable. 14:17, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment. Again with all due respect, the "keep" motions made after re-listing are completely unconvincing as to the sole relevant criterion of the subject's notability. The assertion by DGG that "there seem to be enough sources for notability" is not supported by any specifics. The rest of his motion relates to the quality of the article, which is unfortunately irrelevant to this debate. The unsigned comment following his is even weaker because of the cited sources. "Outsmart mag" is evidently not notable enough to have its own WP page, so a mention in this publication is probably not very significant, perhaps something like that of a neighborhood newspaper. The glamour mag citation comes from Rice University's public relations magazine, which again has the same issue of significance. Moreover, the second citation seems to be from something like a "top 10" list, rather than a substantive article specifically on this individual. (A link to the actual article would tell us definitively.) The other issues I mentioned above are still unresolved as well (entries in her publication list that are not actually authored by the subject, not actually credited in Itty Bitty Titty Committee, etc.) Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        • Comment. I did some additional web searching for independent sources, but could not find any. For example, aside from this WP page, the top google hits for "Christel Miller" point to a real estate agent in Maryland, a toddler, and various facebook pages. There is a brief freebase page, but that document says that it was auto-generated directly from the WP page, so it's not independent. I'm afraid we're left with the same conclusion that there's nothing of significance to be found here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
          • Comment. I've looked at some of the more specific movie-related sources too, but have found nothing to support keeping this article. For example, neither IMdB nor Rotten Tomatoes seem to have entries on the subject. There just doesn't seem to be any real evidence of notability, at least none that is able to reasonably be found. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contributions) 01:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Relisted per no consensus: I've relisted this debate because there appears to be no clear consensus about whether this article should be kept or deleted. If it wasn't for Agricola44's comments, I would mark this a keep, but because the evidence provided by that editor is substantial, I think that we can't be sure. The majority opinion is to keep it, but there is strong evidence from the other side, so the debate has been relisted. The Earwig (Talk | Contributions) 01:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I've reverted an inappropriate non-admin closure. "No consensus" is an admin decision, because it indicates the debate was contentious, which means non-admin closure is inherently inappropriate.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I had a look at the ticket, and the subject has replied that there is no longer a need to delete the entry. Just FYI. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:21, 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 merge to Theatre of France. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Perspectives on Theatre of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment[edit]

      Perspectives on Theatre of the French Revolution and the Enlightenment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Redundant due to Theatre of France Anshuk (talk) 01:05, 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 00:55, 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 merge to Bowin Cars. seems the simplest solution, per Exit2DOS2000 DGG (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Bowin Koala[edit]

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

      Listing here because I'm not sure. An individual "class" of cars, built and used for a single race (which it was never finished). Can't find news, books, anything online but that's probably because we are talking about late 1960s Australia, so asking for greater community review. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Question: AFD is a big step for something you are not sure about isn't it? Wouldn't a better first step to be to ask the articles major contributors as to whether the car is notable? --Falcadore (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer I think it is perfectly appropriate. This is the place for a discussion. If there is any question as to whether or not an article should be deleted, this is the place as a prod would not invite discussion.Postcard Cathy (talk) 03:11, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It seems to be real enough, there's a wiki [46]. But, I see absolutely no reliable sources on the web for anything about Bowin racing though. There may be a notability issue here, if no one found it fit to write about Bowin in anything other than a fan wiki, and the pages here on Wikipedia. If someone has some magazine or trade press reliable sources, they should come up with them, otherwise consider this a delete !vote for all the Bowin articles. Gigs (talk) 09:33, 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 00:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge - without Cites to provide WP:N & WP:V it cant stand up as a Article by itself, but worthy of inclusion in Bowin Cars untill such time as a spinout is possible. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:11, 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      InnoPath Software[edit]

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

      Appears to be a vendor of software the third party references are poor unclear on its notability, reads more like a promotion for the company. This appears to have been nominated before and result was delete. I'm not sure if you have to do this differently in this case. Sorry if I've done this wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_22#Innopath Holkingers (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Week keep the article does leave a lot to be desired, but I think the the company in itself is notable. Google News lists 436 news items for the company,[47] far above out normal notability requirements. --Salix (talk): 13:00, 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 00:54, 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. Listed for 13 days with only the nominator arguing for deletion (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Onward State[edit]

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

      nn website for alexa rank 947394. Losr2300 (talk) 15:34, 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 00:52, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      InYourSpeakers[edit]

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

      nn website. alexa rank as 4020127. Losr2300 (talk) 15:37, 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 00:51, 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. Wizardman 01:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Emi Gal[edit]

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

      No independent, in-depth coverage of this subject in reliable sources. Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 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 00:50, 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. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Hera Pheri 4[edit]

      Hera Pheri 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Fails WP:NFF. No indication that principal photography has commenced. There was initial talk of the film being shot in 2007 but the no development since then on. LeaveSleaves 17:40, 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 00:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. The most recent source I could find was from February 2009, which stated that "something might happen after June" [48]. No basis for an article at this point. PC78 (talk) 11:46, 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 merge to Dual clutch transmission#Honda. --GedUK  20:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Next Generation Transmission[edit]

      Next Generation Transmission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Neologism for a crystal ball product feature. MBisanz talk 19:57, 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 00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Why not? Replace the contents of the page with:

      #REDIRECT [[dual clutch transmission#Honda (Motorcycles)]] {{R from merge}}

      And the history will still be there as well as marked that it's a redirect from a merge.-- OlEnglish (Talk) 08:44, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Ryan Humphrey (artist)[edit]

      Ryan Humphrey (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Fails to meet notability standards as per Wikipedia:Notability (people) Brianga (talk) 20:33, 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 00:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep as there are secondary sources supporting notability. Symplectic Map (talk) 01:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep as per Symplectic Map. Secondary sources exist and this article should be given a chance to incorporate them. Nanowolf (talk) 07:07, 15 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 00:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Keisha Evans[edit]

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

      Since 2007 no sources for notability have been added. Some indication is needed to define how she is notable in the field of her work. Having a webpage doesn't define notability. So currently nn bio, delete, close to A7 feydey (talk) 22:22, 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 00:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete non-notable. Hekerui (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete no real content, few legitimate sources. Questionable (at best) notability. -anabus (Talk to me) 07:21, 15 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 01:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      National Beard Month[edit]

      National Beard Month (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      I took a chainsaw to this article to remove everything I couldn't source (previous version), and was left with 5 words. Gnews search gives just 3 articles, all about a group not yet successful in making this official. Gsearch comes up with a lot of blogs, but very little in the way of reliable sources (and I can't say the source I used is definitely reliable, either). Keep and expand? Redirect somethere? Or shave it off? Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Possibly merge to Movember, which is a similar article, only with mustaches instead of beards. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shave it off (delete), I love the pun that Fabrictramp implied, and I don't really see anything supporting this claim or any sources that would help expand the article, so it is best to remove it. Tavix |  Talk  23:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Interesting to note that the original version of article claimed it was January! Suggests a certain uncertainty. PamD (talk) 07:57, 7 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 00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shave it off per above, no reliable sources about this event. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Shave it off per awesome pun. It's amazing how making a decent joke will garner support for a deletion discussion. Better than canvassing. But, on a serious note, this article should be made gone. Though November makes note to being "No Shave November". Perhaps some sort of mini-merge there? Otherwise just take it down. Greg Tyler (t • c) 19:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Simple Groupware[edit]

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

      While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published groupware system, I don't believe it meets the general notability guidelines. Any editor is welcome to prove me wrong, though! KhalfaniKhaldun 05:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja247 09:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, non-notable software, absolutely no showing of importance; Google news search yields mostly a collection of letters to the editor and false friends. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep an open source software project under active development for more than 5 years. It's listed side-by-side with Oracle products, Notes, etc. DiplomaGuide.com lists Simple Groupware as something you might need to know to be a "Groupware Specialist", along with "Microsoft NetMeeting, Microsoft Exchange, IBM Lotus Domino Server and Lotus Notes". They didn't pick a very good name, so searches for "simple groupware" can easily find lots of irrelevant junk, but we shouldn't hold that against them. RoyLeban (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But you don't know if there is relevant sources. Iowateen (talk) 03:02, 9 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 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Non-notable software. Iowateen (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - There are more than letters to the editor sources on google news, it's just that they're not especially recent. It's an enterprise level open source suite that's been developed and commented on by a number of WP:RS ([49], for one). This isn't advertising and the suite's notable. I'm fine if you say the showing isn't enough, but to say "no showing of importance" suggests there hasn't been any research done. Shadowjams (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep:
      GROUP DYNAMICS: exploring web-based groupware tools, Linux Magazine, September 2007.
      DIY document management system with Simple Groupware, Linux.com, September 2006.
      PHP, WAMP and XAMPP, oh my, Network World , 09/18/2007. — Rankiri (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I voted Keep above the line. Responding to Iowateen. I get really tired of Deletionists. You didn't say why you think it's non-notable, whereas my previous response listed 3 reasons why I thought it was notable. We should be thinking about what we CAN put on Wikipedia, not looking for excuses to remove things (or, rather, not looking, and using that as an excuse to remove things). The sources listed by Rankiri above are certainly sufficient (I just added those to the article). RoyLeban (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't read the discussion until now since it doesn't matter when I post a comment because the AFD lasts for a week. Iowateen (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Vote changed to keep: per Rankiri. Iowateen (talk) 00:26, 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 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Deviance in modern film[edit]

      Deviance in modern film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      essay Postcard Cathy (talk) 00:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. No need for an essay with POV issues on a topic we already cover at Media violence research and Media influence. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 03:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - The 5 given references are reliable and verifiable. The subject is interesting Rirunmot (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Interesting and wiki worthy are two different things! There are many boring (IMO) articles here but they belong here. I can write articles about interesting things that happened to me in my life but that doesn't mean they belong here.Postcard Cathy (talk) 19:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Delete for being WP:SOAP. Eddie.willers (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Wow, I never advocate delete, but this has to go. The core of the article -- both "deviance" and the use of film history -- is vague. The film history -- the only objective merit -- is often incorrect. Rest is soapy beyond belief.--Junius49 (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. POV-laden; soapbox; mis-representation through cherry-picking of the one scholarly article it draws from; clear personal essay. –Whitehorse1 22:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete subject to recreation from User space. It might become a useful article after a lot of work, but it will need an essential re-write. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 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 00:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Thornton-Eildon Football Club[edit]

      Thornton-Eildon Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      New User:Varbas removed a prod tag from this club, which has a total of seven Google hits. Resurr Section (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete it's not really an argument, Junkcops, he said delete. I got 735 ghits. A bloke called AndrewConvosMy Messies 08:25, 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.
      1. ^ http://russell2009.fr/pdf/whhr-rusnewslet7WEBfron.pdf
      2. ^ A game "topic" includes sourcebooks released for a game, mechanics of games, and characters, locations, fantasy races or other elements of a game's setting.
      3. ^ The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the game, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.
      4. ^ "Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. An analysis of the manner of treatment is crucial as well; Slashdot.org for example is reliable, but postings to that site by members of the public on a subject do not share the site's imprimatur. Be careful to check that the author, publisher, agent, vendor. etc. of a particular book are in no way interested in any third party source.
      5. ^ An "independent source" is a source which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. Independent does not mean independent of the publishing industry, but only refers to those actually involved with the particular game or game topic. Releases by the publisher of a game do not establish notability; for example, reviews in Dragon magazine cannot be used to establish notability of products released by TSR or Wizards of the Coast. Third-party sourcebooks on a topic are in general not independent references for the topic they cover, since their authors have a financial interest in that topic.
      6. ^ It is not sufficient to show that a game or game topic is notable within a particular fictional setting; sources must establish that the topic is notable from a real-world perspective. Hence, unless a source contains a non-trivial amount of coverage of a game or game topic from a real-world perspective, it does not count towards this criterion. In particular, in-universe and game-mechanical descriptions of a topic do not meet this criterion.
      7. ^ Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the book. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material). The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its author, publisher, vendor or agent) have actually considered the book notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
      8. ^ http://boardex.com/client_list.htm
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_9&oldid=1142643657"