Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 November 18 November >

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The result was keep: nomination withdrawn, no other delete opinions. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 05:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's Sandwiches[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lee's Sandwiches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable business. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Optigan13 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added sources work for me, feel free to close. -Optigan13 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established with two newspaper articles entirely about Lee's Sandwiches. I will find more sources to solidify the notability claim. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shaden Abu-Hijleh[edit]

Shaden Abu-Hijleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every external source on this page links to a memorial page for this person, including ones purporting to be from reliable media sources. (Self-published sources are not acceptable.) I have made an attempt to find reliable sources that support the information on this page but I cannot. The person and the events described in the article are at best undocumented and at worst falsified. Midos (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per [1] and the many other WP:RS about Ms. Abu-Hijleh listed at [2]. Andrea105 (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I see no less than 15 newspaper articles referenced. // Liftarn (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject is notable and her death is well attested in books and news sources. (I suggest the nominator uses the "Find sources" links above, and reads what he or she finds.) --NSH001 (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning Systems Australia[edit]

Scanning Systems Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any coverage for this organisation in reliable secondary sources, per the guidelines for notability at WP:CORP. It has been marked as an orphan since October 2008, and at the time of nomination had no inbound links from any namespace (although it is included in a couple of categories). The only significant editing was done in the 10 minutes following creation on 19 December 2007 by user:Ssa-au who returned to add it another category in March 2008. Other than a single surving sandbox edit, user:Ssa-au has no other contributions, which in combination with their username suggests a possible single purpose account with a potential conflict of interest. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Coyle (rugby league)[edit]

James Coyle (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. I'm not seeing the notability or the sources for this BLP article. I will be the first to admin that I'm not an expert on this subject, so if I'm wrong, tell me. JBsupreme (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Paraschos[edit]

Georgios Paraschos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Depending on which cite tags you look at, this BLP article has gone without proper sources for nearly 3 years now. That's too long. And I don't believe this person is notable. JBsupreme (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - he played international football for Greece. I'm not sure how you can possibly think someone would not be notable for this, let alone the managerial stuff. matt91486 (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but there does need to be some referencing to confirm professional appearances and international caps. Steve-Ho (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep - The player is an international for Greece and played in the top level of Greek professional football for several seasons. He has managed many top flight clubs after his playing career ended. I understand the concern about lack of referencing, but it took me five minutes to add two references that verify his international and Greek top flight play. Jogurney (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite easily and convincingly meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - I have no understanding why this was nominated. Nfitz (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadwgan ap Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd[edit]

Cadwgan ap Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Zero notability to speak of. Perhaps his father had some, but it never rubbed off. JBsupreme (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Bearian.Martin451 (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd - his father's article, as he's not notable by himself, but useful nuggets of information exist, so merger is preferred in such cases. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What verifiable information can be merged into Cadwaladr ap Gruffydd? If there is something really worth merging I wouldn't be opposed to that. JBsupreme (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to father as Bearian. Clearly NN. Delink the redlink to his alleged son. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if the material can be verified, otherwise just redirect. No assertion of notability.--Cúchullain t/c 19:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - a future album, by a non-notable band, must be deleted, per precedent. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The good the bad and the small[edit]

The good the bad and the small (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about an unreleased album from non-notable artist, as per WP:CRYSTAL Frmatt (talk) 23:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenio Culurciello[edit]

Eugenio Culurciello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An autobiography of an assistant a new associate professor at Yale University. Top citation counts (via Web of Science) are 91, 11, 11, 9...), which would appear to fall short of meeting WP:PROF. (Subject also doesn't appear to meet any of the other criteria for PROF). Bfigura (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete -- citations are higher in GS, but not that high, and there's no other basis for notability. The article currently says he is an associate professor, but his own web site says he is assistant. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • About his rank: his CV[4] posted at his website says that he is an Associate Professor as of July 2009. Nsk92 (talk) 12:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Adjusted accordingly. --Bfigura (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. His citations in Google scholar are pretty good for his rank but I don't want to rely on citation counts for passing WP:PROF unless they are much better than "pretty good for his rank", and I don't see any other justification for keeping. It seems reasonably likely that he will be sufficiently notable in a few years but this article was created too early in his career and it doesn't do us or him a lot of good keeping it at this point. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the above arguments. What has not been mentioned yet is that WoS shows an h-index of at most 7. That is, taken as a whole, his research output has not yet had much of an impact, especially considering that EE is a relatively active (high-citation) research sector. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, h-index of 10 or 11, associate prof. Highest cite number for silicon-on-sapphire author:Culurciello is 10, that article appears way down the returns for silicon-on-sapphire. Abductive (reasoning) 23:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FromVineyardsDirect[edit]

FromVineyardsDirect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable web-based company. The only coverage of the company consists of press releases and passing mentions in news articles. This article has been proposed for deletion twice (but rejected). -- Atama頭 21:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. good arguments on both side so what we have here is a failure to reach agreement Spartaz Humbug! 19:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laboratories of Democracy[edit]

Laboratories of Democracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod declined. Article's title "concept" is an a non-notable neologism borrowed from the title of the US government article in External links. I don't even think it's worthy of retaining as a redirect. Perhaps this concept could be briefly mentioned and reffed in an article on US government or federalism? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply want to know how the concept of "laboratories of democracy" is anymore of a "a non-notable neologism" (cited from Shawn in Montreal -- reason for deletion) than a concept such as "pork barrel legislation," which you allow on your site. Yes it may be noticed that this concept is not defined in the Constitution (which I'm assuming is the only way you would open your eyes to conceptual belief), but neither is "pork barrel legislation," or "earmarks," etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prpldg8 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My response: Pork barrel is a derogatory name for a common element in politics, for things that have real world existence. Laboratories of Democracy is one concept or metaphor for describing how the US federal system works, but isn't notable in its own right. That's my opinion and it's why I nominated it for deletion. There are other references out there to Laboratories of Democracy and others may disagree because this phrase does have some currency, but I doubt I'll and I may be swayed on this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should point out that mixed in with those Ghits are plenty of examples where schools are cited as laboratories of democracy, not states as Brandeis intended. I grant you that's not an argument for deletion: Maybe that's an indication that article needs to be broadened to state that this is a concept coined by Brandeis to describe X, that has also been applied to any number of things. Also, in the event that the consensus is to keep, I'd suggest a lowercase on "democracy" per our naming guidelines. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bearian makes a good point. I also took a moment to click on Google Book search up top, and read the summaries of those appearing at the first page. This term has been used enough to warrant its own article. Dream Focus 01:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to federalism. The lead sentence clearly states that this is just an idiomatic way of describing an aspect of federalism. The phrase qua phrase (that is, separate from the concept it represents) is not even remotely significant enough to deserve its own article. Powers T 15:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I'm fine with a delete if a merge is found to be undesirable. Powers T 14:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Laboratories of Democracy" is just a figurative discriptive phrase used by Ralph Nader and some state department employee in their political propaganda. Even if the President used this phrase, that in itself would not be sufficient for including it as an article. There would need to be notable commentary about the phrase to show its importance. A search for "black as night" showed up 457000 hits. "Laboratories of democracy" showed only 81,000 hits. There is no Black as night page because Wikipedia does not have articles about phrases according to policy. There is no reason to give an exception to "Laboratories of Democracy."--Fartherred (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amusingly, this was just referenced on the Daily Dish. I realize how this phrase plays into the whole states' rights thing in the US... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bit on "Daily Dish" is close to commentary on the phrase itself, but one mention of the phrase itself hardly compares to the selection of "truthiness" as word of the year for 2006 by Merriam-Webster. The "thousands fo(sic) shcoalrly(sic) artciles(sic) about the concept" link offered by Bearian turned out to be a search by some division of Google called "scholar.google.com." Every entry on the first page of results was documentation of a use of "laboratories of democracy" not commentary on the phrase itself. Even the first item in the search with "laboratories of democracy" in the title turned out to be about supreme court justice Louis Brandeis. That puts "laboratories of democracy" in the same category as "black as night," just not as popular and no more worthy of a page in Wikipedia.--Fartherred (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article as it stands is completely unsourced (no, external links do not count as sources). No one has yet come up with a reference about this topic, just to ones that use the phrase. Without sources about the topic, we're left with WP:NOR, WP:NOT#ESSAY, and WP:NPOV. After deletion, if anyone cares, redirect the name to Tenther movement. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect to Tenther movement would be perjorative, and thus inappropriate. If a merge or redirect is deemed appropriate, Federalism in the United States appears to be the best option (the idea seems to be specifically related to federalism in the US, and federalism takes a more global view). Baileypalblue (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NEOLOGISM is not an issue, and not just because the term is not new, as noted above. WP:NEOLOGISM#Articles on neologisms supports article deletion only when the article is a dicdef, not applicable here, or if the article is unverifiable. Note that "not currently referenced" is not the same as "unverifiable," and not a valid deletion rationale; the burden is on delete !voters to demonstrate that it will not be possible for the article topic to satisfy WP:V. That's not a problem here, because sufficient reliable source coverage exists (see below). Similarly, WP:NOR, WP:NOT#ESSAY, and WP:NPOV are all invalid reasons for article deletion unless it can be demonstrated that these problems are unresolvable by ordinary article editing (WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE). If the subject is notable, and none of the material is worth salvaging, the solution is to stub the article and allow other editors to start over. Thus, this comes down to a simple debate over notability. The subject has multiple, non-trivial reliable source coverage, particularly including reliable sources which are about the concept, rather than merely using it in passing (examples: [5] [6], plus a great deal of material in the various google searches I haven't gone through, due to time constraints). Thus the subject satisfies the GNG and is presumed notable; the fact that such sources are not currently references in the article is irrelevant. Baileypalblue (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more suggestion: if the closing admin believes there could be a viable article on this topic, but is inclined to delete based on current article content, consider moving the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator instead. As discussed on that page, only articles which are going to be deleted should go there, because incubation means moving the article out of main article space, which reduces the number of eyes/hands working it over. Baileypalblue (talk) 16:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive Solutions Inc.[edit]

Progressive Solutions Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A nonnotable software company doing "business solutions" - Altenmann >t 20:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, every tiny outfit in this category seems to imagine itself an encyclopedia subject. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as written no mention of anything notable or significant in the article. MilborneOne (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Marin (investment banker)[edit]

Richard Marin (investment banker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure being the former head of Bear Stearns Asset Management is enough to counter the serious WP:BLP1E concerns. Perhaps something more could be added to the one sentence mention at Bear_Stearns#Subprime_mortgage_hedge_fund_crisis, but I really don't think it's needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Quite a few of the hits from a Google News archive search are about things other than the one event, but most of them seem to be passing mentions quoting the subject rather than about him. This is the most substantial coverage that I could find outside his firing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 11 November 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 20:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sophia and Whitney Schuring[edit]

Sophia and Whitney Schuring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

simply being identical twins does not guarantee an article. 1 gnews hit [7]. LibStar (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. From the article: "They played the characters of "Steffy Forrester" and "Phoebe Forrester" in the soap opera The Bold and the Beautiful to January to October 2001." A recurring role for the better part of a year may be enough to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean keep? LibStar (talk) 07:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. These actresses apparently played twins on a soap opera for about nine months when they were 2 or 3 years old. Due to their ages at the time, I find it unlikely that they did a lot of acting on the show. IMDb lists no credits for them since they left the show, nor has much information about them been located since this article was created a few years ago. My recommendation is to "delete" due to a lack of information, limited prospects of finding more information, and low notability, but that's a "weak delete" because the article seems to be accurate and isn't doing any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no harm? WP:NOHARM LibStar (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no harm. I read WP:NOHARM and I don't think it applies to my recommendation here. I'm saying to delete, but, in fairness to anyone who wants to keep, I admit that the article isn't doing any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my recommendation to a plain "delete" in hopes that this discussion will stop getting relisted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:14, 10 November 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 20:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The pair did two episodes of The Bold and the Beautiful... 8 years ago... nothing before and nothing since. Their career fails WP:ENT. In a search, I only found a bare mention of them in a 2008 article [8] referring to their 2001 role. The long and short is their carrer was too brief and their lack of press allows them to fail WP:GNG. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Niddah. The content is OK, but is best dealt with by merging to Niddah. Fences&Windows 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bedikah cloth[edit]

Bedikah cloth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Minor subject in Judaism and not information for the wider English speaking public. Not an English term and this is an English language wiki. Moved to the Yiddish wiki. Alatari (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC) "[reply]

  • Hence too small to be notable enough for an article of their own. Newman Luke (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a convincing deletion rationale in this nomination. If it gets an article in Yiddish, it merits one here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Niddah. Content relevant there. JFW | T@lk 23:47, 12 November 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 20:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official Association of Professional Table Tennis Athletes of North America[edit]

Official Association of Professional Table Tennis Athletes of North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Was a copy paste. Now it's just an offshoot of the Table Tennis International organizations. Should be a merge at best. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:19, 10 November 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 20:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

V&A Village Fete[edit]

AfDs for this article:
V&A Village Fete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable event, has been marked with {notability} for over a year Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable enough for me as there are plenty of web results and sources for this event. AtheWeatherman 17:43, 11 November 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 20:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Sanctuary[edit]

Project Sanctuary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Psychbabble with insufficient sources available to establish notability. The article on its proponent has already been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Win Wenger), and this article should go as well -- the only sources are written by the "inventor" of these ideas (Silvia Hartmann). This is the sort of thing that sometimes gives wikipedia a bad name... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/keep. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terezín: The Music 1941-44[edit]

Terezín: The Music 1941-44 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I had initially included this article with the Alexander Goldscheider discussion, but it has come to light that the articles should be tried separately, as there are other things complicating the Alexander Goldscheider discussion, that wouldn't apply to Terezin: The Music 1941-44. However, see the Alexander Goldscheider as well for a greater scope of the issue. —Akrabbimtalk 17:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is copied from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Goldscheider, when the two articles were nominated together.

If anybody googles Terezín: The Music 1941-44 there are dozens and dozens of references to this double CD, be it from BBC programs, Simon Wiesenthal Center, conferences, libraries, schools, universities, etc. from around the world. There are many further references under "Theresienstadt: Die Musik 1941-44" and "Terezín: La Musique 1941-44" as this set is known in Germany and France respectively.

Similarly, if you google "Brundibár Romantic Robot" there are 2,090 hits with pages and pages of references, and if you Google just "Brundibár", there are 90,500 hits! - hardly anybody at all knew about this children's opera before it was discovered on the above Terezín: The Music 1941-44 CDs. All the artists on the CDs have their Wikipedia articles in several languages, so does the opera Brundibár and again virtually nobody knew Gideon Klein, Pavel Haas, Hans Krása or Viktor Ullmann before these CDs existed. To say that this is not a "notable release with no significant coverage by any other source" is simply incorrect, if not unfair as well. There were over 15,000 of this 2-CD set (i.e. over 30,000 CDs) sold over the years, a significant amount for modern classical music, let alone with the connotations of concentration camps! This set was also supplied to very many libraries around the world and it is still in demand nearly 20 years after its release. AGRR (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note The production of art at Terizín, music, theater, etc, is a highly notable subject; I recently say an exhibition on it. I have no idea if this particular CD is notable, but the topic certainly is. A rename to Music production in Terezín and some c/e could be the ultimate solution, depending on availablity of sources for the CD, to preserve info. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretful delete: Terezín: The Music 1941-44 AGRR, the notability is not based on the number of Google hits. Each article should contain facts verified from multiple, reliable, independent and substantial sources. I would like to help you, but I can't find anything. I recall an old review in Czech magazine Harmonie or Hudební rozhledy, however, I'm not sure if mentioned review described your product. It was a large anthology of compositions by musicians imprisoned in Terezín. I'm also a bit surprised by your statement that virtually nobody knew children's opera Brundibár and "Terezín composers" before your publishing efforts. I can assure you that all mentioned composers are included in major encyclopedic works on Czechoslovak music, such as Československý hudební slovník (published in 1963). I can also recommend you works by Lubomír Peduzzi, who spent a major part of his career researching lives and works of Jewish composers persecuted by Nazis, or more recent research and publications by Milan Kuna. I admire and support your work and I believe it is important contribution to the music history, but I can't support your articles here without reliable and independent sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Power.corrupts: Music production in Terezín (or perhaps Culture in Terezín) surely deserves an article here, however, the subject of this AfD is this particular CD: Terezín: The Music 1941-44. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unfortunately, I can come up with nothing substantial from searching the library databases for "terezin: the music" at Syracuse University, where I am currently going to school. The only thing I could find was a passing mention in this article. —Akrabbimtalk 20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article from The Independent looks to be significant news coverage (at least in this article). We can only see part of it here, but enough to know so. Perhaps someone w/access can see it all. There is also mention in this Seattle Post-Intelligencer article, but without seeing the entire article I can't asses how significant the reference is (again, perhaps someone else has access and can). And this from the German Poetry blog is a very good treatment as to why such music is uniquely notable, buttressed by this and this.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.This is mainly a reprint of my comments made in the discussion of Alexander Goldscheider article. I highlighted an addition at the end.

I am familiar with all the literature on the subject and I can assure you that virtually nobody knew Gideon Klein, Hans Krása, Pavel Haas outside of Czech Republic until my Terezín 2-CD set. What a pity that Eliška Kleinová, the sister of Gideon Klein, is no longer with us as she could confirm this better than anybody else: she devoted her entire life to promote the music of her brother and others from Terezín, who all perished, and she herself could not believe when I did produce the CDs and she could hold them in her hands. I am not over dramatising this and a lot of my knowledge and experience is first hand, as my father and uncle took part in the cultural life in Terezín (my father appears on a couple of Terezín posters), where they were imprisoned before being sent to Auschwitz, Schwarzheide, with the rest of the family perishing in Bergen-Belsen and Mauthausen. It is also no surprise for me that you may not find much material about Terezín everywhere (be it my CDs or anything else for that matter), as the topic is still, how shall I phrase it, unpleasant to deal with for many! Two Terezín composers may very well have been mentioned in the essential Československý hudební slovník in 1963 - neither Hans Krása, nor Pavel Ullmann are there at all!! -, but nobody heard their music until 20+ years later! And there were no mentions of them anywhere else in the world, whilst hardly anybody can read Czech.

I had enormous difficulties promoting the music myself, but promoting I did and there followed a whole string of products/material by many others on the same topic and, as I said, for instance Brundibár (not ever mentioned in the Československý hudební slovník) is nowadays known all over the world. Of course I realize that Google hits are not a measurement of notability, but frankly I feel an immense joy that there are now over 90,000 hits on Google re Brundibár, and I do take a certain amount of pride that my 2CDs played their part in that achievement. And I am absolutely delighted there are now thousands of people involved. I fully appreciate the efforts and achievements of others. I know Mr. Kuna, whom you mention, personally, he in fact helped me with the information on my double-CD and I credit him right after my thanks to Eliška Kleinová in the booklet accompanying the CDs (avaiable on the Romantic Robot website www.romantic-robot.com). Incidentally, Mr. Kuna's book great and laudable book "Musik an der Grenze des Lebens" was first published by the German publisher Zweitausendeins in October 1993 - after the very same publisher and mail-order company already sold thousands of my "Theresienstadt: Die Musik 1941-44" set since its release in 1991.

I do not make any claims whatsoever that I am the only person engaged in this topic, not in the slightest, but my 2CD set was a major breakthrough for the Terezín composers and Eliška Kleinová said that it achieved more than she she was able to do in 45 years. She also summarised the role of music in Terezín in the simplest words as "Music? Music was life!" And it was life, survival, for many, for thousands, tens of thousands - the role of music in many other camps has now been documented as well. And please take a look at the entire article on the 2CD set, the deletion of which we are discussing here. This is ALL it says:

"Terezín: The Music 1941-44 is a 2-CD set with music written by the inmates at the Terezín concentration camp during World War II. Vol. 1 contains chamber music by Gideon Klein, Viktor Ullmann and Hans Krása, Vol. 2 features the children opera Brundibár by Hans Krása and songs by Viktor Ullmann and Pavel Haas. The CDs were produced by Alexander Goldscheider and released by Romantic Robot in 1991."

Frankly, if these two sentences of pure and most basic factual information are deemed not to be worth their place in Wikipedia, then I rest my case. Already the fact that we are discussing it here shows how difficult it still is to promote the music linked to concentration camps!

I am sorry to hear there is no info on "Terezin: the music" at Syracuse University, and it can hardly help when we are discussing here a deletion of a few lines that could help!. - I rather fully agree with Power.corrupts that there should be a full article on the music in Terezín. Perhaps my 28-page booklet in English, German and Czech may very well serve its purpose here. It can be downloaded at www.romantic-robot.com, where it is also possible to find out more about the 2CD set and contact me through my e-mail there for anything not worth including here. Thank you.AGRR (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Thanks for your helpful comment, Mr. Goldscheider. It is quite possible that mentioned composers were unknown outside of Czech Republic, perhaps I'm trapped in a small Czech context, but this is not the point here. In my opinion, the best solution would be an article about music (or cultural activities generally) in Theresienstadt concentration camp. The topic is notable enough and this should be expanded separately. I own several books related to our subject and I can find out more. Would you mind to help me with that article (particularly with my imperfect English grammar)? --Vejvančický (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and refocus as Music of Theresienstadt concentration camp. I presume this is the German name for Terezín. The camp was certainly notable, as a sort of cultural ghetto created by the Nazis to fool international observers. This makes its cultural life and thus its music notable. I suspect that the person from Syracuse could find nothing becasue he searched using the Czech placename, not the German one. I presume my identifiaction is correct as Terezín concentration camp redirects to Theresienstadt concentration camp, which is the name by which its existnece has been most publicised in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was specifically looking for sources verifying the notability of this particular album, released with the spelling "Terezin". —Akrabbimtalk 15:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. Would you be supportive of keeping this in some form (as-is, a redirect/merge to an existing or new article that is broader, etc? And if yes, which approach do you think would be best? I myself think the information is important to keep in some form, though I haven't determined which form, and would appreciate your and others input.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know enough about the subject myself, which is why I'm glad that this AfD discussion has brought the article to the attention of some more knowledgeable editors. I guess it is evident that a Music of Theresienstadt concentration camp is needed, though I wouldn't know whether Terezin: The Music should exist in addition to that (future) article, or be merged into it. —Akrabbimtalk 18:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Terezín is the correct historical name and the current geographical name. Theresienstadt is the German place name, and I see no reason to keep the German name in an English language international encyclopedia. Power.corrupts (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the English WP, and the town is Terezin (to which Theresienstadt redirects), but it was the Germans who ran the concentration camp and I have heard it regualrly referred to in English by its German name. I consider we need an article about the music composed and played in Theresienstadt concentration camp (as the WP article calls it), not merely about a recently produced disc of such music. I see no objection to the present title reamining as a redirect; indeed that would be the normal consequence of renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the work of Epeefleche, I also found a reference in a US Teacher's guide, the geographical spread of the Google results and a Gbooks result "Daybook of critical reading and writing‎ Mary Frances Claggett, Louann Reid, Ruth Vinz - Literature - 1999 - 224 pages", I would say this clearly deserves mention in an encyclopdia, per WP:PRESERVE. The question is then if it should have its own article, or be merged somewhere else with a redirect. We dont even need an AfD for that. I think that the WP:N tail has begun to wag the Wikipedia dog. I would say keep to cut the discussion short, based on relevance, likely N pass, and although I know they are poor respectively weak (but valid) arguments, WP:NOHARM and WP:NOTPAPER. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also say to Vejvančický: "'the subject of this AfD is this particular CD: Terezín: The Music 1941-44.. No, the subject is whether the info meets WP:V, WP:NOR etc. and if so, whether it merits a stand-alone article or should be merged into another article. Power.corrupts (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given that the CD represents the work of a number of composers, it's rather hard to do what we'd usually do, which is merge it. I think it's clear that it meets WP:V--and it is expandable--we should for example have a track listing. There are many possible sources for reviews, not all of them online or well indexed, so it should be possible to expand the references also. Some other possible articles have been suggested above, and they should be written also. Wikipedia is NOT PRINT, which means there is NO DEADLINE--the material can always be rearranged later. DGG ( talk ) 01:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a track listing and infobox.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per nom's thoughtful softening of his position, and per Power and DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanganiau[edit]

Kanganiau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't confirm that this institution exists. There is no Persian-language article at fa: دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی بندر کنگان It has a plausible-looking website at http://www.kanganiau.ac.ir/ which has a link at the bottom to the Wikipedia article. The article at Kangan County does not mention the institution. A [9] for Kangan restricted to the IAU's domain of iau.ac.ir yields no results, but that may be because I am searching in English. Eastmain (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 10 November 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 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hydro massage. Already redirected. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HydroMassage[edit]

HydroMassage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WITHDRAWN per below The references provided for this type of dry water massage bed appear to be advertorials rather than independent sources that satisfy WP:RS. And I can find no reliable sources. It's not so much a form of massage, like Shiatsu, than a product which is the subject here. So I believe WP:CORP applies. This could be a ref on a massage main article but I don't believe it's independently notable at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see it was speedied as I was composing this. This may be moot. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant advertising, probable WP:COI from User:HilaryW2009 who appears to be the marketing manager for the company [10].
  • Redirect to the non-spammy article on Hydro massage. This article wants to pretend to be about that subject (while actually just linking readers to a massage bed company), so we should point the name to the true article on it. --RL0919 (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better. As nominator, I would like to WITHDRAW so we can do this redirect as RL0919 suggests. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected it. If anyone is set on deletion over redirecting, they are welcome to revert and we can continue as we were. --RL0919 (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, thanks. MuffledThud (talk) 11:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for resolving this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brockton murders[edit]

Brockton murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Notability outside of the local news level is not asserted, and WP:NTEMP applies - the sources available are the standard local/national blitz for a few days, and then very little else. Google News has a nice trend chart here showing that outside of Jan. 22-23, 2009 (around when the event took place) and May 6, 2009 (his court appearance), there was no coverage of note to establish this as anything more than temporary. MSJapan (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was moot. Speedy deleted by Orlady under G12 partway through the discussion. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

San Andreas Multi Player[edit]

AfDs for this article:
San Andreas Multi Player (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N and WP:RS. No coverage, 2nd AfD in two months --Teancum (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, shame A7 doesn't cover software... --Taelus (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have access to the deleted version, but could this qualify as G4? KuyaBriBriTalk 20:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged for speedy deletion as copyright infringement of [11], a wiki that asserts copyright here. KuyaBriBriTalk 20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common mistakes in Business Intelligence[edit]

Common mistakes in Business Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

totally unencyclopedic non article WuhWuzDat 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. POV fork. If the salavagable content has been spun out of the main article then it does not need a redirecd and we are well rid of this. SPAs please not that wikipedia is not a forum to advance your opinions but a colaborative encyclopedia. If there is ongoing edit warrinbg in the main article then let me know or see semi-protection. Spartaz Humbug! 05:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Politics of Gatineau Park[edit]

Politics of Gatineau Park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has serious COI, NPOV and copyright issues that render it unsalvageable as an encyclopedia article. The article was started by me as an uncontested split from Gatineau Park when the political content in that article added by one editor had dwarfed the geographic and facility description of the park. This article essentially describes the conflict between the National Capital Commission, who run the park and a critic group, the New Woodlands Preservation League (NWPL) and its subsidiary, the Gatineau Park Protection Committee (GPPC). Since the split almost all the content has been written by one editor, editing under his own account and several IP addresses in the same series, who is a self-proclaimed member of the NWPL/GPPC. To impose his edits on the article he has engaged in repeated edit warring and reverting and has been blocked once for WP:3RR violations. As as an adjunct to the AfD nominations of AfD:New Woodlands Preservation League and AfD:Gatineau Park Protection Committee currently underway, I requested a review of this article by an independent admin, who has not edited this article. After familiarizing himself with the background issues his recommendation was: "Having reviewed this article (and related articles) I believe it has too many issues to resolve, it is just a POV spur of Gatineau Park. Large parts were copy and pasted from the parent article without attribution so rightly large sections should be deleted as copyright violation. If you add some of the unbalanced COI edits it is plainly a bit of a mess. It fails to give a balanced view of the events and those involved. I would suggest it should go to AfD for a wider community consensus." and "I have now looked at Politics of Gatineau Park and my recommendation is that should be nominated for deletion as well, it has multiple copyright and conflict of interest problems." - Ahunt (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uninvolved admin's opinion or not, the bulk of the AFD nomination sounds dangerously close to "The article's messed up and needs a lot of work, let's just delete it instead", which is not a very good course to take on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a work in progress with no specific deadline for getting articles right. Almost every issue the nominator raises should be solved through editing the article, reducing it to a stub if necessary, rather than deleting it. The one reason to delete this article is if it's genuinely a POV fork, because indeed it is a problematic article forked off from a main article. Were that not the case, I'd say to keep this article and work on it. But as it is, this is a 48k subarticle for a 17k main article, which sets off the alarm bells. Still, I'm just afraid deletion is a non-solution here... trying to sweep a problem under the rug. Would people consider merging/redirecting this article back to the main article until such a time as size dictates we actually need subarticles? I.e. work on the main article until the history section is full of valid, undisputed sourced content of such length that it needs to be moved to a subarticle? I'm sorry if that sounds convoluted, but it seems like a better idea than just trying to solve this problem purely through deletion. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 21:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator Ahunt and I have worked on fixing the POV in this article for over a month, but the truth of the matter is that every argument in this article is a Gatineau Park Protection Committee/New Woodlands Preservation League (both articles in AFD) argument, added by a member of those groups (User:Stoneacres). Should this article really exist simply as a WP:SOAPBOX to push the GPPC's opinions? -M.Nelson (talk) 21:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS, I only briefly skimmed through your comment before posting, but re-read again. I support the idea of merging any relevant information to the Gatineau Park article, but it would be difficult to judge what is notable and what is not, as so much of this article is POV arguments. -M.Nelson (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well uh, yeah, reading the whole thing would have helped. I'm just bothered by the idea of deleting an article because the current version has some POV issues. The thing to prove is that this subarticle is inherently problematic, rather than that the current version needs a lot of work that isn't being done at the moment. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is twisting facts to suit his execution warrant. It's petty.
He claims that I have "consistently" edit-warred. Well, no. After he and Mnelson put me in their triple Arrr doghouse, I editted through discussion.
Besides, they have added the other point of view. And the article rests on rock-solid references. A genuine contribution to widespread knowledge on the issue.--Stoneacres (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gatineau Park. I make this recommendation as an outsider who only learned of this dispute today. By merge I think that at most two paragraphs could cover all of this. If you strip-out the POV-pushing there is some objective information on the dispute over the park boundary, and the strange status as non-National Park. Perhaps the editors could devote their energy to developing a NWPL website. However, Wikipedia must confine itself to reliable secondary sources, not primary source materials. Once all the primary material and Original Research goes, only two paragraphs worth are left. I hope that this could be done without having it snowball into a repeat of the present article. Racepacket (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My, what liberties we take with knowledge ... The story related on the site, all referenced, is available nowhere else. To say only two parapgraphs would cover it is a featherweight argument. Racepacket is obviously too busy to examine the article closely before jumping to a rash conclusion.
  • The above comment is the heart of the problem -- if the energy that was placed in the three articles had been invested instead in developing a non-Wikipedia NWPL website, there would have been a place on the web where Stonacres' entire viewpoint and documents would be available in full. The Wikipedia article could then cite to it as an External Reference. Someone who is not involved in the battle, perhaps User:Ahunt, could then write two paragraphs about the boundary problem and the non-National Park status and have that be a part of the Gatineau Park article. Absent non-local media attention and coverage, the NWPL and GPPC organizations do not warrant separate articles, but might receive passing mention in the boundary dispute discussion. We have three options: 1) Wait for the AfD outcome and continue to speculate on what the paragraphs would be while the merge vs delete vote is pending, or 2) Draft the paragraphs now on a subpage so that this debate can be productive and concrete, or 3) Give up and assume the outcome will be delete. The choice is up to Stoneacres. However, it appears the concensus is that the WP:SOAPBOX is not available as a third option going forward. Although NWPL and GPPC may be doing important work, Wikipedia is not the suitable place to articulate their viewpoint. Racepacket (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and are you all mad? Ahunt already created this article by splitting it; now you want to merge it again?
I nominate someone for a Wikki Yoyo award...--Stoneacres (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stonacres: This is a debate on the future of this article, not an opportunity for you to insult anyone who disagrees with you. Please read WP:CIVIL, which says: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few, minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. A behavioral pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." - Ahunt (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article makes a strong case in support of the writer's goal rather than a balanced and objective portrayal of the topic suggested by its title. It makes one side of an argument and in so doing fails to meet the fundamental principle that articles must have a neutral point of view. It should be kept somewhere, but not in Wikipedia. Advocacy, even if the position advanced is worthy and desirable (who knows because we only have one side of this story) has no place in an encyclopaedia. See WP:NOTADVOCATE. Rather than asking whether it can be made into something that has a place here, the question should be why try to change it into something it isn't. The changes it needs would change the whole nature of the article. Rather than asking whether a sow's ear can be turned into a silk purse, the question should be why try? It should go someplace else, it has no place here. --KenWalker | Talk 08:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Did you read the article? Did you even try to see that the opposing viewpoint is interspersed throughout?
Your comments are extremely subjective and inaccurate.
Bottom line, the questions that must be answered are: does the article provide accurate, verifiably sourced, unbiased information, and is it in the public interest to know these facts. The answer is yes on both counts.
Would publicly accessible knowledge of the issue suffer if this article were deleted? Clearly yes.
Whose interests would be served by deleting this article? Only that of the clique that wants to keep the public out of Gatineau Park.
If you want to further the exclusiveness of Gatineau Park, then go ahead and destroy knowledge. That would confirm that Wikipedia is a sham.
Reality is sometimes hard to accept, especially when the facts challenge the established groupthink.--Stoneacres (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article provides the alternate view from that positted by the NCC. Moreover, it provides exhaustive research and citations confirming something is wrong with Gatineau Park.
The public is entitled to know about this. The arguments for deletion are not at all convincing.
A few years ago, Queens University scholar Alissa Apostle said in her thesis that the history of the NCC has been erased and re-written. Does Wikipedia want to be an accessory to this continued destruction of knowledge? --Kingsmear (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Kingsmear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete as per nom, which included some of my comments after I reviewed the article. Most of the article was created with a copy and paste with not attribution so has GFDL copyright problems. Researching the subject as an outsider with no connections to Canada I found that the article also suffered from giving a non-neutral and in particular a NWPL/GPPC view of events. A lot of other organisations have been involved in the local politcs and campaigns but they do not appear in the article and any web search will find them. Just to confuse one of the organisations is the Gatineau Park Protection Coalition which has the same intials at the Gatineau Park Protection Committee. All of these organisations I am sure are doing a lot of good work although you would think it was all the the work of the NWPL. But in the end they are all campaigning on a local issue and rightly some of the more notable points should be included in the main Gatineau Park in a balanced couple of sentences as suggested by another editor. And as the SPA above has commented The article provides the alternate view from that posted by the NCC which is clearly a declaration of a POV problem. MilborneOne (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. It says it provides an alternate point of view. If you read the discussion thoroughly, it says the views of the GPPC/NWPL are interspersed with the NCC's views.
And for your information: the NWPL led the Coalition. It discovered a planned housing development, informed various similarly minded organizations of the problem, wrote all of the briefing notes, 98% of the press releases, and did most of the media relations. Had you read the above completely, you would have known this.
But I guess when you want to kill your dog, you have to convince yourself it has rabies ...
And MilborneOne and Ahunt seem to share an affinity for airplanes...
--Stoneacres (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and merge a few sentences in summary to Gatineau Park as discussed above. The article has been written by an editor with an admitted WP:COI, and has resulted in a POV WP:SOAPBOX attacking the NCC. Even though considerable effort has been made to keep this article NPOV, the article is still solely based on GPPC/NWPL arguments which are not notable. Perhaps one or two items should be mentionned at Gatineau Park, but the controversy of the park and NCC is not notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia page. For comparison, Ottawa editors could consider the controversy over Lansdowne Live!, which has been a major source of debate in the city for over the past year, including many front-page news reports, yet does not have its own article (Lansdowne Live! redirects to Lansdowne Park). Even though a handful of news articles have mentionned "politics of Gatineau Park" issues (and mentionned GPPC/NWPL in passing), they are not notable enough to have their own article. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a weak argument. Arguments not notable? Specious as well. Only a handful of articles is wrong. Have you read all the ones -- 50 or so -- which talk about the GPPC/NWPL?
When you want to kill your dog, you try hard to convince yourself he has rabies.
A real little witch hunt. --Stoneacres (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stoneacres: The issue here is whether to keep this as a separate article, delete it or merge it. Regardless of this decision, Wikipedia will never satisfy your desire to present your perspective of the politics of Gastineau Park. Only a separate NWPL website can meet that goal. By necessity, Wikipedia presents the 10,000 ft high perspective, as filtered through secondary sources, while you want an article that will get into the weeds of detail based on primary sources. How can we avoid a repeat of the editorial disputes that have occupied your time since August? Racepacket (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Racepacket: I welcome your voice of reason. It has been almost non-existent in this discussion.
It's fine if Wikipedia doesn't satisfy my perspective entirely. However, if some good part of it is not presented, then all that is presented by the NCC is propaganda. If the nasty stuff isn't discussed, at least somewhat, then the public will be fed pablum. I'm sure a neutral point of view does not in any way mean sweeping embarrassing facts under the rug, or pulling the wool over the public's eye.
I realize that the full weight of my argument would be better suited to a web site. But Wikipedia has a moral obligation to present some of what I have pointed to. No one else has. And it is clearly in the public interest to do so, and in the interest of balanced knowledge of the issue.
Just deleting the Politics of Gatineau Park would be a form of censorship.--Stoneacres (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a contravention of WP:SOAPBOX. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all relevant content to the main article, which itself is not overly long and would benefit from the expansion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Copyright Violation

I don't understand Ahunt's quoting MilborneOne as saying the article violates copyright. Now, Ahunt is the one who copied and pasted the article from the Gatineau Park parent article. Is Ahunt, with MilborneOne, accusing Ahunt of copyright violation? And can someone explain how such cut and paste would constitute copyright violation, if its purpose was to "split" the article?

Is anybody out there?--Stoneacres (talk) 06:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that there was unattributed text in Gatineau Park, which I inadvertently moved from that article into Politics of Gatineau Park when I performed the split. If I had realized that was the case I would have deleted it rather than moving it or edited it out after moving it, but I missed identifying that there was problematic text. The problem was only identified when User:MilborneOne did his review of the article on 17 November 2009, as quoted at the head of this article. Perhaps he can provide more details. - Ahunt (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now come on. What part of the text was unattributed? Ahunt himself kept asking for references and I strove to provide all the ones he asked for. And more. No part of the text I provided is a copyright violation, since it was all researched, written, revised and written by me, with exhaustive requests for citations from Ahunt.
So, I submit that the copyright violation charge is completely bogus and unfounded.
What's going on here? Those who murder knowledge are guilty of crimes against conscience and humanity.--Stoneacres (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Stoneacres: You have been warned before several times about personal attacks and the requirement to be civil, including a last warning on the topic. An AfD is a debate not a "crime against conscience and humanity". It is no wonder that your questions don't get answered since answers just illicit more ad hominem attacks from you. - Ahunt (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt: not an ad hominem attack. A maxim expressing a universal truth. Read John Stewart Mill or John Milton. "A standing invitation to the whole world to prove it unfounded."
Far as I know, no one has been able or even attempted to refute the facts I have brought to public attention. Suppressing valid information is a crime against knowledge. Any encyclopedia worth its salt must seek to expand knowledge, not suppress it out of a bureaucratic and narrow interpretation of the rules.
You are quick to jump to conclusions to justify a point of view. --Stoneacres (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stoneacres: If I were to write an opinion editorial that is then published in a local paper and then write substantially the same content as a Wikipedia article, there would be a question as to whether the I still had the legal rights to the content when I contributed it to Wikipedia. I don't know if similar facts apply here, but If you wrote the passage in question without paraphrasing another document, then you can easily solve the matter, as indicated in WP:DCP. Racepacket (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Racepacket: Far as I know, none of what I contributed to wikipedia was published elsewhere. I don't think your point applies here. And I'm still stymied about what Ahunt and MilborneOne mean by copyright violation. I can't see any such violation, and it is incumbent on them to explain/demonstrate/prove their accusation or to withdraw it. --Stoneacres (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean to imply that there was a copyright problem. I have not tried to compare this article against other online literature, and accept your word that it is all original. Racepacket (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Or if page is merged into Gatineau Park it should contain much of what is presented in the Politics of Gatineau Park section. As well, at least some of the pictures should be kept. They provide factual, unbiased information you won't get from the NCC. --99.246.2.69 (talk) 11:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — 99.246.2.69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete, content fork. Major nature reserves regularly have a storm of politics around them. This fork is now almost three times the size of the main article. Abductive (reasoning) 11:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia is not a soapbox. An attempt to merge would be likely to lead to the same battle all over again. The Gatineau Park Protection Committee/New Woodlands Preservation League editors should recognise that they have a conflict of interest here and should devote their energies to setting up their own campaigning website. Any short summary of these issues in the main article should be done by a non-COI editor. JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abductive: Gatineau Park is the only federal park that isn't a national park. This article explains why. As well, it explains the slew of problems affecting it, all of which is reliably referenced. So what if this fork is three times as long. That's not an argument. The key is: does this article provide readers with useful information? Clearly it does. It is not a soap box, it's an exposé of fact.
JohnCD: it's not clear what your opinion is. First you say delete; then you say, maybe merge, but only if non COI editors work on it. So, which is it?
Okay, so we've established that the copyright allegation slung by Ahunt and MilborneOne was unfounded. Now, as for NPOV, I believe that most of what I've written is fact, and as such it's point of view is neutral. And where there is a point of view it is attributed to the GPPC in quotations, and thanks to Ahunt's edits, to the NCC, Chelsea, etc. So the article offers balance wherever an opposing view has been uttered by other parties. As for COI, Wikipedia is clear: experts on a subject are not to be discouraged from editing, so long as their edits pass muster with other editiors. And, before Ahunt began arguing for deletion, he had participated in balancing this article, and approved several of my edits. In short, his reasons for deleting this article applied to the GPPC/NWPL, not this article.--Stoneacres (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not in my habit to make unfounded observations about copyright violation, I would refer you to Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. MilborneOne (talk) 20:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:COI. If it were not for these issues, this would be a fairly good article, it is well written, aside from WP:NPV, and referenced properly. I do think it needs to be rewritten with a NPV by someone without COI issues. Click23 (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the second part of Click23's contribution. Re-write with contributions from various editors, to soften POV.Good material should be kept.--Ryanslane (talk) 20:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — Ryanslane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
MilborneOne: I checked out the page you referenced. It does not say material should be deleted, only that it be properly attributed. That's not at all the same thing.
Click23: you are saying two different things: delete or re-write. Which is it, and why don't you offer to re-write? I am sure Ahunt will keep an eye on things, as MilborneOne and MNelson will...--Stoneacres (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - MilborneOne and Ahunt: Please stop removing my label - the comments made above were mine, and I had forgotten to sign.
(Keep-' Or if page is merged into Gatineau Park it should contain much of what is presented in the Politics of Gatineau Park section. As well, at least some of the pictures should be kept. They provide factual, unbiased information you won't get from the NCC. --BudgeC (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC) — BudgeC (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
MNelson: I think you meant to say: "eagerly." Mind your adverbs.--Stoneacres (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:M.nelson: Actually it is a total of three SPAs making very similar comments so far, including User:Kingsmear Special:Contributions/Kingsmear. - Ahunt (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Traffic collision. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Motor_vehicle_accidents_in_America[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Motor_vehicle_accidents_in_America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to be much US specific. Was going to suggest a merge, but I think all the issues are better covered in Traffic collision and Epidemiology of motor vehicle collisions. Jnthn0898 (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems like just another unnecessary localized article. Motor vehicle accidents are pretty much the same no matter where they happen, and this article does little to explain otherwise. If this survives, I'll be the first to create "Falling in Australia" and "Heart disease in Peru".Cathardic (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Traffic collision. Unless by some miracle another editor finds a reliable source identifying how motor vehicle collisions in the United States are somehow unique from motor vehicle collisions everywhere else in the world, and not just because there are more or less of them. Ivanvector (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Traffic collision. Nothing about the subject is particularly unique to the USA's traffic accidents. Warrah (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Traffic collision for the reasons articulated above. --RL0919 (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete whichever seems more practical. My initial reaction was that motor vehicle accidents in the US is a notable topic, but really, it's not going to be meaningfully different than accidents in Canada, Europe, etc. Better to make Traffic collision as good as possible (which already seems to be happening) than create a bunch of country specific articles that basically just say the same thing. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect makes sense, as a plausible search term. I add that, if Traffic Collision gets bloated with country-specific data, then they'll just fork it into country-specific articles. But, for now, a redirect and merge of any worthy content is appropriate. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of Autonomous Priories of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta (KMFAP)[edit]

Federation of Autonomous Priories of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta (KMFAP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Completely unreferenced article about one of numerous self-styled "Orders of St. John" claiming to be the legitimate successor of the Knights Hospitaller. Google hits turn up very little other than self-published promotional materials. Historical information copied from other articles. No indication whatsoever of notability, and much more likely to be a hoax. R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I anticipate that, in response to the above comment, the author of the article is likely to come forward with a link to establish that this organization really does exist; that is, it is registered with the New York Secretary of State as a corporation. I don't doubt that that is true; anyone at all can form a corporation and I assume that this one really does exist. The hoax, if there is one, is in claiming succession from the historical Knights of St. John. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails the usual test of these types of hoaxy-looking articles, namely that if they do such notable stuff and have hundreds of years of history and all that, then there should be plenty of reliable sources. There (obviously) aren't. Potential voters trying to find sources should take great care not to confuse this with Knights Hospitaller or other genuine organisations with similar-sounding names. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear stuff of wikipedia

I don`t know if I should write here or in the discussion article. You can find here the historic synopsis relating to our Federation: http://kmfap.com/index.php?topic_id=9 . Further I will contact my collegs to resolve this issue.

Mutch people confuse this order with the SMOM, if you look well ther are two big order the SMOM and KMFAP You can find many articles related with this order, just one picked out from google: http://www.orthocuban.com/2009/04/knights-of-st-john-hospitaller/ Thats because many people can`t make the deference between the two orders.

By its nature and historical origins, the Federation is a Hospitaller Order of Chivalry with humanitarian vocation, entitled to all rights of Sovereignty and it results from the Association, as a Federated State, of historical and lawful Autonomous Priories and Hereditary Commanderies of the old Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, also said of the Knights of Malta, inheriting in this manner all the historical past, rights and privileges of this Old Order . The federative act of the Autonomous Priories of the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, Knights of Malta, that took place in New York one hundred years ago, between 1909 and 1910, constitutes a Sovereign Order of Knighthood, independent and distinct from any other branches claiming the same common origins but not subject to this Federation.

In accordance with its Constitutional Letter the Federation is an elective monarchy, governed by a Grand Master, elected for life - to whom is recognized the rank of Prince - as its Head of State and supreme leader.

Internationally the Federation is a juridical person, subject to International Law, enjoying, in its quality of Sovereignty, the inalienable and inviolable rights, and the consuetudinary prerogatives and privileges granted traditionally to the Sovereign Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, recognized as a Sovereign State by the six great European powers, at the time, in the Treaty of Amiens on the 27th of March, 1802 and later by several legal court sentences of different countries, as well as by those obtained by its own merits and corroborated by the formal recognition of many States with whom the Federation keeps full Diplomatic Relations, at Ambassadorial level, in accordance with the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations .

Domestically, in the U.S.A., at the City and State of New York, where its Grand Magisterial See resides, it exists also as a registered not-for-profit corporation. The high spiritual values of chivalry, the deeds and virtues of the forefathers of the Order and those of its actual selected group of Knights and Dames in more than 60 different countries, have contributed to the international respect and admiration that the Sovereign Order enjoys in present times. Thank you for you time and help. Best regards Gall T. Barna (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the nominator. Warrah (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is pretty obviously a non-notable organization. No independent discussion or mention is provided, and what I can find is this, which provides no discussion of the subject, and this, which are self-published books (if that's even what they are). The article is a strange kind of semi-religious puffery that can barely claim encyclopedic notability in its very style. Drmies (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/keep. Jayjg (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finglas (song)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Finglas (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod, non notable single by a Big Brother housemate who doesn't have an article on wikipedia, charted in top 10 in Irish charts but has not won any awards or received any nominations for the single and is also likely that the stub it is now will never get expanded. BigDunc 16:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have got coverage at the time but more for his appearance on Big Brother and not for the song on it's own merits. BigDunc 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, other than the one source I found above, I'm struggling to find enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article, so I'm now leaning towards Delete.  Gongshow Talk 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NSONG asserts "Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts are probably notable". As a top 10 hit on the Irish national chart, this is not a minor hit. The same policy says that stub articles don't necessarily warrant inclusion, but this is (albeit barely) more than a stub. Note: per nom - although the artist does not have an article, WP:MUSICBIO #2 makes it clear he is notable enough to have one. I42 (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I42 is utterly correct. It may well be that the way to go here is to move the article for the song to an article for the artist; the article on the song is a bit more than a stub, but not that much more, and that is, I think, a good enough reason for a merge. Given that the article at present obviously meets WP:SONG, I want to ask the nominator to reconsider and possibly withdraw. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A wikiproject IMO holds no weight it is WP:NSONG that I am basing my delete vote on. Including 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. If the artist associated with the work does not have an article, or if the artist's article has already been deleted, an article about a musical recording that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant is eligible for speedy deletion under criterion A9. BigDunc 17:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Media coverage and chart success does not seem to warrant a delete. --candle•wicke 04:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FrostWire[edit]

FrostWire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged as needing sources for 23 months. Existing sources consist of an article from "Digital Media Wire" and the one paragraph there is partially about Limewire, not Frostwire. The other reference is to the developer, most of which contains information about Limewire, not Frostwire. Google news search verifies that this software is popular with child pornographers but only in the sense of trivial mentions. Google books search shows many minor mentions that this is a fork of Limewire, but no significant sources about Frostwire. Miami33139 (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete as attempts to turn out reliable sources have failed to turn up anything usable. However I've heard of it; it's got over 700k GHits...I'm not sure but I'm leaning towards delete on the first point. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needing sources is not a valid reason for deletion. On top of that, it is a widely known and used program that certainly has notability. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? Needing sources is a core policy of Wikipedia. The very claim that "it is a widely known and used program that certainly has notability" is something that requires reliable sources. Please start reading our Verifiable and Notable policies. Miami33139 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd like to make a note of an error in your statement. WP:N is not a policy, it is simply a guideline. While we should follow it for a basis for deletion, it doesn't justify deletion in all cases. However in this case, it may apply. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have read those policies and understand them very well. Notability is certainly a criteria for deletion, but there is a reason we tag articles. It's not a countdown to "ok for deletion" timer, its to A) categorize articles, and B) to inform the users that the information in the article is not verified. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Software has received reviews from the editors of CNET and Lifehacker [13] [14]. Creative Commons appreciated their effort to promote free licensing of music [15]. Not the best sources I know; if these are not good enough to show notability then please consider merging/redirecting the page to LimeWire#FrostWire because its linked from a number of pages[16] and little information is better than redlinks. --zvn (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirecting to Limewire is an excellent idea. If you want to get that done I will withdraw this deletion nomination. Miami33139 (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Might as well play it out. If the article is deleted, then all its contents could be moved over to Limewire - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Zvn --SF007 (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Software is a recognized and notable fork created in response to user needs and legal action, and nominator seems to be on an AfD kick. - Tzaquiel (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The legal reasons of Limewire development do not show the notability from mainstream sources. If this is notable, please show the sources. Miami33139 (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, keep it civil please. One man's "AfD kick" is another man's "positive effort to clean up low-notability articles". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's actually already a paragraph about this in the LimeWire article, but this article's got the sources. A merge which basically just dumps the references into the LimeWire article will be fine here. I don't see that letting this play out will result in any better courses of action: we need the references, but there's really not enough material which deviates from that in LimeWire to justify a split. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-recognized fork of a highly-notable software product. It's sufficiently distinct from Limewire that it should not be merged to that article. TJRC (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well recognized can you please source that? Miami33139 (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's difficult to find an excess of documentation for Frostwire's notability online, but from a personal standpoint (which I understand isn't admissible- still), I've heard plenty about this program on websites that follow tech buzz. It's popular among privacy advocates, and if it's acceptable to have a long article about every principal character in Twilight, I think it's certainly acceptable to have a small article about a relatively popular fork of a major P2P program. I don't think a lack of sources is sufficient reason to eliminate it entirely. It's just even better reason to improve the existing page. A deletion notice shouldn't be used like a club to force changes to an article. I think an "undersourced" tag would have been more appropriate.--Thecitrusking (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is clearly information from http://www.frostwire.com/?id=about that shows this is an actual program. It has a website with a reasonable deal of information on it. I don't see why there should be anything else needed for this project to at least have a page. It is also recognized as a reputable project by sourceforge, as proven by it's presence on their website. -- Endelig —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11 -FASTILY (TALK) 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pettao[edit]

Pettao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Pettao is a movement of diet and nutrition for domestic dogs and cats" - No, it's the name of a company that produces pet food and is not used in the context claimed here. The article is thus a promotional hoax. There are no references cited to show the term is notable and I could not find any. Neither could I find any to show the company itself is notable. Pontificalibus (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete whether considered as a 'movement' or a company, I'm not seeing any reliable sources on this. Nothing on Google News, nor on variants like Pet Tao, Pet-Tao, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete More like spamvertisment for a holistic pet food company, with no reliable secondary sources discussing it. Non-notable and most likely spam. Angryapathy (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only the inflated claims in the article, an appeal to holistic sentiment in the pet owner and Wikipedia editor coupled with some pseudo science (the equivalent of a guy in a lab coat in a TV ad), must have prevented this from getting speedied. Drmies (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requested Page Move- The article has been edited and has undergone a requested page move in order to reflect the better title Integrated Veterinary Diet. References to Pettao have been changed to IVD. In addition, the section in the article referring to Pettao has been deleted. Instructions were followed according to Wikipedia Requested Moves. The subject of the article is notable and significant per content therein; also per the history and development of the movement and the prominent educational institutions and veterinary and animal science professionals involved in the movement; eg Chi, Univ. of Florida, Dr. Xie, Pruitt and others. Dougmac7 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Integrated Veterinary Diet" doesn't show up at all on Google itself, much less Google News. So if anything it's even less verifiable under that title than it was under pettao or pet tao or whatever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing the name of the page still doesn't solve the lack of reliable sources or WP:SYN/WP:OR issues, and changing the name to something even more obscure is very much a step in the wrong direction. If this is something that is truly notable, the article name/topic would show up often. I still say delete, and no the move. Angryapathy (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Pettao genuinely a movement, or is it one man trying to sell animal food? There are many integrated veterinary diets under various names. Is this an attempt by a supplier to hijack a generic name as a tradename? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy G11. Definitely a page that's "exclusively promotional". Appropriate tag added. If the speedy is declined, fails WP:CORP and WP:ADS. Tevildo (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Independent notability of the band neither asserted nor demonstrated. Nothing has changed since the last debate in August. Mackensen (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Young Rebel Goombas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Young Rebel Goombas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See the first nomination for details, but basically I nominated this originally because the only way this doesn't fail WP:MUSIC is that two members allegedly won an Emmy. The article was deleted because nobody could find any evidence that they actually had. The article's creator then forwarded a press release to the closing admin showing the they had won a "New York Emmy", not a regular one (although the article was misleading in this regard). Apparently there are regional Emmys as well as national ones. So the question now becomes: does a regional Emmy count as a "major music award" for the purposes of WP:MUSIC, and, if not, does this band qualify under any other criteria there? I think the answer is "no" to both. —Chowbok ☠ 16:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The way it's worded, it looks like the individuals won the award, not the band. The band does not inherit the notability of the individuals in this case. DarkAudit (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Emmy awards are legitimate no matter what region they are awarded from - whether it be primetime, daytime, New York, Chicago, etc. "Farmbooy", the film that Mallardi and Saccente scored and received the Emmy for, received national public television distribution through the NETA. The band that these two composers lead, Young Rebel Goombas, is very popular within the trop-rock world, nationwide. Their music is in regular rotation on all of the trop-rock radio stations, air and internet, including the WBWC out of Ohio (where the syndicated program "Island Time Radio Show" is recorded). This program holds an annual trop-rock awards program - and the band won "album of the year" in 2008.greggrennie|17 November 2009

It's not a question of legitimacy, it's one of notability. And unlike the national and daytime Emmy awards, the New York Emmys get almost no mainstream media coverage. I doubt very many people have even heard of them. Even the main Emmy award site doesn't list them. The only reference to the winners anywhere on the internet is on a Microsoft Word document buried on the New York chapter's website.—Chowbok ☠ 20:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it not seem reasonable that people would be interested in knowing that the two main members of the band are Emmy winners? greggrennie 17:43, 17 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GREGGRENNIE (talk • contribs)

The point is the band did not win the award. The individuals did. So in the end, the band is not an Emmy-winning band. DarkAudit (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way I read WP:MUSIC, winning/being nominated for a major music award satisfies the criteria (#8), and the two individuals won the award. Also, according to #6, an ensemble including two or more notable artists is itself notable. Therefore, the band is notable. BUT, would we consider an Emmy a music award, or does it matter? Ivanvector (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The band did not win an Emmy, Grammy, or Oscar, regional or otherwise. The accomplishments of the individual members must be considered separately from the band. DarkAudit (talk) 20:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason why the Emmy can not be mentioned. It is part of their history. The band already qualifies for listing under other criteria outlined here WP:MUSIC.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article makes no claim that the band won the Emmy. However, the two main members did and two of the other members performed on the soundtrack. Four out of the five band members were involved. It is the same writers, the same musicians, the same publishing company, the same label. This band has thousands of fans in the U.S., Europe and Asia.

Also, the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences has a category of musical composition as part of the Emmy award program - so an Emmy can be (and often is) a music award.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GREGGRENNIE (talk • —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Perhaps so. Still it seems a stretch to say that a New York Emmy is a "major music award". —Chowbok ☠ 20:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Emmy award is an Emmy award no matter what chapter it comes from and a musical composition Emmy is still an Emmy award for music. It is awarded by the same Academy in just a different venue.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And... I am writing this as a member of the Academy and as an Emmy judge - the past two years.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while it seems some of the members might be seperately (and marginally) notable for activities completely unrelated to the band, that notability doesn't magically rub off on the band itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria says independently notable musicians. So the band does qualify. Also, Richie Cannata is hardly a marginal musician. He is a Grammy winning performer that has been on dozens of major hits spanning the past three decades.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source? I can't find a reference to "Richie Cannata" anywhere on the Grammy website.—Chowbok ☠ 20:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richie Cannata received a Grammy for his work in Billy Joel's band. Cannata played on every major hit Joel had between 1976 and 1981. After that he recorded with Elton John, The Beach Boys, Bon Jovi, Gregg Allman, Donald Fagen, Steve Winwood, Linda Ronstadt, Roseann Cash, Max Weinberg, Michael Bolton, Rick James and dozens of others. He is a legendary saxophone player. his website is http://www.richiecannata.com.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is true that having two notable members makes a band notable, but this band has only one, Richie Cannata. Richie Saccente is not notable, and this search does not suggest we should consider him as such. Winning a regional Emmy, and we can discuss how glorious this is, is probably not enough in the eyes of most editors (including this one). Now, then, considering that the band did not win the Emmy, we can't add that possible notability to their account. In other words, the requirements in WP:BAND are not met. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the reference to the Emmy award - even though it is a legitimate piece of the history of this band and contributes to the notability of the members. The band has a large following in the trop-rock community and I will address the objection regarding "notable members" again in the next few days.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 06:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete that. It could be a notable award. Need to see how much press coverage it gets by using Google news search. Dream Focus 01:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[17] 518 Google news results, so yeah, I'd say the award is notable do to coverage in major newspapers. Dream Focus 01:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep [18] I read the information there. Reading what various band members have done, they do appear quite notable. The group is notable, because its members are notable. You have people who have performed with major acts, and done quite a bit on their own, joining together to make a band, so its notable. Dream Focus 01:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: I am an attorney. I am familiar with the musicians and their distinctive accomplishments as Emmy award winners for the scoring of the nationally broadcast documentary, Farmboy. Also, I have served as an elected member of the Board of Directors of the National Academy of Arts & Sciences- NY, which is the regional chapter bestowing the coveted EMMY award for the NY television broadcasting area. I have also served as Chair of the "television academy's" membership committee, NATAS-NY. The commentaries reflect a misunderstanding and / or unfamiliarity with the EMMY awards process and the distinctive accomplishment reflected by her award winners. I will consult with the band members and will provide a commentary for inclusion of the Wikipedia article as submitted. I expect to provide an informative commentary on the Emmy awards and the band's public distinction in the public eye. Ray Oliver, Esq. RAYOLIVERESQ http://oliverlawyers.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by RAYOLIVERESQ (talk • contribs) 19:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that this is only this user's fourth contribution since signing up a year ago; the third was also related to this deletion, and the first two were him writing his biography for his user page.—Chowbok ☠ 21:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:(chowbok) The number of contributions made to Wikipedia have nothing to do with my qualifications and past positions in media and with the Emmys organization. The number of my contributions has everything to do with my unfamiliarity with Wikipedia and its requirements to have an article meet requirements for posting. Wikipedia's programming is not "intuitive." Entries take a significant amount of time in discerning what needs to be done. Even, for example, the failure to "sign" a comment with 4 tildes. It was technically difficult for me to post my comment. Now, as I stated there is a general misunderstanding of the "distinctive" Emmy awards process and organization. Numerous celebrated media and tv personalities are part of the organization and have won Emmy awards. The band members are distinctive and publicly renowned for their achievements in music as recognized by the Emmy judging panels. Note that all New York entries and nominations are judged "outside" of the New York television broadcast area. NY entries are generally judged by distinguished panel of judges in Chicago, Los Angeles and the Dallas Ft Worth broadcast market. This system preserves the integrity of voting and ensures the distinction of an Emmy award. The musicians under review have achieved the highest standard recognized by the television academy. Lastly, the earlier "autobot" (?) deletion is the result of not knowing what needed to be done in order to have the entry published or even get to the link for posting. This has nothing to do with my extensive experience in entertainment law, participation with the television academy and networking with colleagues in media. RAYOLIVERESQ RAYOLIVERESQ (talk) 23:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The musicians included in the band have achieved the highest standard of "excellence" in media as judged by a distinguished panel of judges in Chicago. Judges include past Emmy award winners and heads of the largest studios, tv networks and celebrated actors and personalities. The media coverage of the NY television Emmy awards is contractually placed with the television network that offers the most beneficial return to the television academy. The broadcast contract is awarded to the network that offers the highest return to the television academy for broadcast rights to the "celebrated" EMMY tm awards ceremony. Ray Oliver, Esq. RAYOLIVERESQ (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The assertion that the broadcast of the Emmy tm awards ceremony is not performed by a national network is misfocused. There are more than 42 broadcast licensing rights issued to cover the awards ceremony as a "newsworthy" event. Television coverage of the entire ceremony is deliberated at NATAS-NY offices by the board of directors and granted to the best monetary and sponsorship offer made. As stated, I have served on the NATAS-NY board of directors and chaired the television academy membership committee. Ray Oliver, Esq. RAYOLIVERESQ (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Note that I also served as legal counsel to the television academy for investigation, prosecution and licensing of the EMMY tm logo and trademark. Ray Oliver, Esq. RAYOLIVERESQ (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It must also be noted that besides being an Emmy recipient, S. Cosmo Mallardi is a Broadway conductor and has music directed several iconic Broadway shows throughout the U.S. and in Asia. Music directing a work by Elton John in the Asian theater, as well as producing the official Japanese cast album of AIDA is an honor, a privilege, and most notable. --GREGGRENNIE (talk) 13:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As previously mentioned, members of this band are notable. The Emmy award received by two of the members is also notable and lends to the notability of those members.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My name is Dirk Burhans; I am the author of CRUNCH, A History of the Great American Potato Chip (University of Wisconsin Press, 2008). I have known one of the band members for four years and am aware that the band has a wide following. As long as it is clear that the band members won the Emmys, and not the band, I can't see why there should be a problem with the Emmy mention. I have checked the New York Emmy Award page ( http://www.nynatas.org/en/cms/?843 -- see link at bottom for 2007 awardees) and found that two of the band members did win a 2007 Emmy for Musical Composition and Arrangement. Debating the significance of a New York Emmy versus a "regular" Emmy seems to be a quibbling point. --Burhansd (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The text of the winners list says CRAFT SPECIALTY: Musical Composition/Arrangement: Farmboy. August 31, 2006. (WSKG). Richie Saccente, S. Cosmo Mallardi, Jacob Gorst, Composers. Who is Jacob Gorst? Is he a member of the band? If not it looks like this was a separate collaboration between three musicians not an effort by the Young Rebel Goombas. NtheP (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Jake Gorst is a co-writer on both Young Rebel Goombas songs and cuts from Farmboy. Search http://www.ascap.com/ace/. He is also the owner of Jonamac Productions, the music publishing company handling YRG's music. Again, the point is that Saccente and Mallardi won Emmys - which makes them notable as composers and musicians. Young Rebel Goombas includes several notable members, making them qualify for listing.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the message above is User:Burhansd's first contribution to the site.—Chowbok ☠ 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To hopefully clear up the confusion on the part of various contributors to this discussion I have moved the Emmy reference to follow the biographical information on Saccente and Mallardi and deleted the Awards subheading. This is the second time I have made a change to this in the past few days. The first time somebody reverted the text back to the way it had been previously.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and others seem to be under the impression that we're debating whether the Emmy information should be included in the article. This is not the case. There is no question that if the article is kept, the Emmy stuff should be in the article, and you didn't have to delete it before. The question here is whether the article should be kept at all. The Emmys are relevant in figuring out whether they qualify to have a Wikipedia article, that's all.
That is not the case. I recognize what the overall objection is and am actually quite surprised by the acrimony voiced in some of these comments. Mr. Oliver specifically addressed the Emmy issue because he is an attorney for the NATAS-NY and some of the comments made here did indeed reflect a lack of knowledge on that topic and were misleading. The main objection appears to be whether any of the members of this band are "notable" enough to make the listing worthy of being included on this site. This also surprises me because this band has a large fan base and is a significant part of a rapidly growing genre. Several members of the band have long established careers in different avenues of the music industry - from mainstream pop to Broadway theater - and have been recognized and awarded by notable organizations in their respective fields. That fact alone makes the band qualify according to the guidelines outlined at WP:MUSIC.--GREGGRENNIE (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; even if New York Emmys are considered 'major', this band does not inherit notability from its band members (who in turn do not inherit notability from their Emmy-winning band). Whether above users are attorneys, friends of the band, or Robert Christgau is also irrelevant; the band fails WP:BAND notability. -M.Nelson (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A Google News Archive search returns no results. A Google search returns unreliable websites such as Amazon.com, Twitter, Myspace, Facebook, etc. There is no indication that this band passes WP:MUSIC. I agree with the nom and the previous "delete" opinions which believe that a local Emmy rewarded to two members of the band (but not the band itself) do not establish notability. As to the number of notable members of this band, I concur with the argument advanced by Drmies (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The argument that paper ancyclopedia's have an article on this subject is sufficiently compelling to blow the delete arguments out of the water but I strongly suggest that someone stubifies this and starts over Spartaz Humbug! 05:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish fundamentalism[edit]

Jewish fundamentalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There isn't a single source in the article. This was noted a year ago and has not been changed. The concept is highly subjective.

  • Comment. The article does cite three sources, although they are not in-line and in my view only one of them is both WP:NPOV and WP:RS. As currently constituted, this article is very heavy on original research and reads like an essay. But there probably is a valid topic here, albeit difficult to get one's hands around because of the potentially imprecise (and contentious) meaning of "fundamentalism." The phrase "Jewish fundamentalism" turns up 671 hits on Google Books and 765 on Google Scholar (there's considerable overlap between these, of course).--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Delete - The article introduces two definitions of fundamentalism and fails to even clarify which one it is describing (I presume the second). Over half of it reads like shallow comparison between the Reform/Conservative sects and the Orthodox/Haredi sects, but without good references it mostly boils down to a lot of original research and weasel words. If this was the first time the problems were noted, I'd lean towards keeping and waiting for better references, but this page has been in a sorry state for over a year and none of the problems have been fixed (and I suspect most of them are unfixable: too much opinion, too much intrinsically POV subject matter). --ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Current content is hodgepodge of personal opinion. No academic work cited, could be recreated with suitable content but current page is beyond hope. JFW | T@lk 23:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#ESSAY, WP:OR, WP:POV. per ShadowRanger -> Simple background for the article is not clear. The term 'Fundamentalism' has been rarely used with Judaism in an academic sense. If it is just a connotation for extremism, than maybe an article could be put together, but certainly not this sub-level piece. One sided assumption that the article is about religious extremism, yet the same might be said about other brnads of Judaism of the Progressive Judaism stream, certainly Reconstructionist Judaism and Reform Judaism are extremists as well on their side of the platform (lady arrested this morning at the Western Wall for wearing a talit and attempting to read from a Torah). 'Fundamentalism' might seem to infer an adoption of violent means, and the maybe you would have to include the Zionist underground groups before 1948. --Shuki (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The points raised above are compelling justifications for significant editorial changes to the article, but the topic itself is certainly notable and there are reliable sources available for improving the article. The subject has been the topic of considerable scholarship, and Google Books and Google Scholar bring up lots of reliable sources. Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on Jewish Fundamentalism, so it seems very odd that Wikipedia would not, as the topic itself is suitable for an encyclopedia entry.Michael Courtney (talk) 14:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If there's something to be written on this topic, someone can create that article when they feel like it. But we don't need to keep an article just because it's suitable for an encyclopedia entry. This is an essay. A blog post. We can delete it without prejudice to the topic. - - Lisa (talk - contribs) 14:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only one source seems reliable, and even that one is not used with inline citation. The article seems to be a bunch of OR and written like an essay. This is not to say that an article on this topic cannot be recreated if done properly, but the present article does not hold up to WP policy. Shlomke (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment yes, only one source is reliable, but its an academic paper, so its use may be a form of synthesis itself. the article as it exists is not salvageable. the term has some significant usage. i would support reducing it to a stub, if someone can find a reliable third party source that shows the common use/definition of this phrase. i note that the islamic and hindu fundi articles are welll defined and npov, but the christian is problematic, so maybe someone could see if there is a parallel npov def along the lines of those 2 articles. google search lists wp as the first hit, which is not good considering its quality, the academic paper as third, also not good, and a nation article [19] which of course is pov. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep --Eliscoming1234 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The topic is notable and there are available references meeting Wikipedia standards for sources. The need for more references and quality contributions to this page is already posted and does not justify deletion. Lady Farmer (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Jewish schisms as a sub-topic to give the subject greater accurate context within the over-all structure of Jewish life and religious observance or lack thereof. For example, Kahanism became a movement that was marginalized and banned. The vast majority of Jews officially oppose "fundamentalism" of any sort, and certainly do not class themselves as any sort of "fundamentalist" which is a pejorative term. IZAK (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Migration of Kambojas[edit]

Migration of Kambojas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. {{Hoax}} tag has been on article for several weeks with no action taken to delete article or refute hoax claim. Article appears to be synthesis essay. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question While the article is indeed a sythesysed mashup of primarly sources; Is there nothing salvageable in this article that would warrant a keep? --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think probably not. If you would have time to look through some more Kamboja-related articles you will see that there has been a consistent use of them to push a fringe view that the Kambojas created virtually the whole of Asian history. It is nationalist POV-pushing on a vast scale. They do seem to have been an important tribe and are thus mentioned frequently in some texts and epigraphy, but ridiculous claims are being made about them. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine enough. I want very well acquainted with the history of Kambojas so I thought I'll ask for someone who knew it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as patent POV pushing and synthesis with no salvageable content. A closer look is at the other related articles is appropriate and required, if not for AfDing, at least for trimming to neutral versions. -SpacemanSpiff 05:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have marked {{Kambojas}} for deletion here. -SpacemanSpiff 05:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a POV fork from more factual Kamboja articles. Priyanath talk 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Abecedare (talk) 07:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, synthesis of primary non-academic sources and POV. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax/WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horsie Yaramatsu[edit]

Horsie Yaramatsu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Rissa (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with all speed How did something like this pass under the radar all these years? This is in all likelihood a hoax. DarkAudit (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what a load of codswallop! No sources, "until recently known only by an elite few" - fails WP:V, WP:N. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--can we speedy this as a hoax? I'll apply the template; the article's inconsistencies might be enough to sway an administrator, and then we can be done with this quickly. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dolphin Music. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Williams (entrepreneur)[edit]

Rob Williams (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

wikipedea in not the news and is not a memorial duffbeerforme (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep That article is not a news article, and is not a memorial. It does, however, tell about the memorial fund that was established, but in an encyclopedic manner. It simply needs to be expanded, which is no cause for deletion. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright or Merge any relevant info into Dolphin Music article. It would seem to me he is notable because of his company, and there won't be enough material to make this biographical, as over half the article is concerned with the manner of his death. Can one be an entrepreneur with only one company? MSJapan (talk) 19:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Dolphin Music. Blueboar (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Dolphin Music.--Staberinde (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Burgess(Rugby League)[edit]

Tom Burgess(Rugby League) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD which was contested by the article creator; this is a non-notable young athlete who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Burgess(Rugby League)[edit]

George Burgess(Rugby League) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD which was contested by the article creator; this is a non-notable young athlete who fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolved athletic brand[edit]

Evolved athletic brand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODDED by creator. A Google search for "evolved GuerillaHouse" (the latter is the parent company, added to search to disambiguate commonly used "evolved") reveals no WP:RS indicating this company meets the basic notability requirements of WP:CORP at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought that only worked that way for contested PRODs. If the speedy wasn't declined by an admin, it should still be able to be speedied? DarkAudit (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so. But hey, be my guest. If I'm wrong, I'd like to know. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically, it may be prudent not to, although it remains my opinion that this fails to make a minimal showing of importance. But I don't think that rules out giving the opinion that it ought to be deleted on that ground, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as spam. Tagged as such. AfD should not have to deal with cases like this. Wikipedia is not to be used as the extension of your marketing department. DarkAudit (talk) 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is this spam? It does not promote the company. The only crime here is that the author has a possible COI, but that's not something we can confirm. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I deleted the CSD template, but at this time it does not meet WP:CORP. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep it. We're all just making a big deal out of nothing. No, it's not advertising, it is a real company with a devoted fan base and written objectively as possible. Their is more information to come, please keep in mind the author is new to Wiki and was following a template from another company. There is more information to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karitakon (talk • contribs) 11:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Overall, consensus seems to suggest that the subject is in fact sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Dobkowitz[edit]

Roger Dobkowitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual is a producer on a game show and is not notable. Article is filled with original research without reliable sources and has been tagged as unreferenced since December 2008. Biography includes anecdotal unreferenced stories all related to game shows and includes minimal actual biographic information. Appears to be an extension of a fanpage. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP standards. Only one reference and two external links. Willking1979 (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Producer on the Price is Right for most of its existence. Actually a stronger case than Kathy Greco. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 15:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was a "producer on the Price is Right for most of its existence." Why is this a stronger case? Simply because he worked on a television show for 20x years does not make him notable. If that were the case we'd have innumerable articles about every person in the television industry, from production assistants to stage hands. How is this person more notable than any other game show producer? Sottolacqua (talk) 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with Woohookitty. Roger was with Price from its return to television in 1972 until his ousting by Syd Vinnedge in mid-2008. And no, it's not an extension of a fanpage – it's a well-known fact that, after Roger was fired, the quality of the show dropped considerably. (You know, Sottolacqua, it's really interesting that all the game-show articles you've nominated for deletion were all edited by me at some point or another.) Daniel Benfield (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a debate about the production quality of The Price is Right. This is a debate of whether or not Roger Dobkowitz is notable enough to warrant an article here. Please keep discussion on topic. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Possibly Merge into an article like list of Price Is Right staff with Greco and others? Dobkowitz brings up over 22,000 Google hits, at least some of which are legitimate news sources. The article needs to be sourced and I'd like to see more sources specifically regarding his departure and contribution to TPIR. That said, having created 18 of the show's pricing games, if there is a source (reliable, not third party like golden-road) that can source this information, that would prove notability (creating a significant number of the games on the longest-running game show is notable to me. People know these games, and they are referenced outside the show). TheHYPO (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This has no bearing on my opinion of Keep, but I have a personal problem with this AFD: it really seems like Sottolacqua is going on a personal vendetta against TPIR articles. The Pricing Games articles didn't pass his AFD nom, so now he's nominating these articles. I could be wrong, but it looks this way to me with this many TPIR articles nominated consecutively. TheHYPO (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the footer template for all things Price is Right:
How could all of this information possibly be notable enough on its own to warrant this many individual articles? Sottolacqua (talk) 21:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the show is a long-running program? Because the show has so many intricate facets that can't be discussed on just 3-4 pages (main worldwide, US, pricing games, 1994 Davidson)? I'm not sure, but it's probably one of those. Daniel Benfield (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Dobkowitz has won four Emmys as a Producer. Probably should be in the article. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 21:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four Emmys=1 page on Wikipedia; reference found by Jim Miller added to the article. J04n(talk page) 01:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JimMillerJr and J04n. Steam5 (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep. Four Emmy awards alone passes WP:ANYBIO as an Emmy is certainly a "notable award or honor." He was also senior producer of a show on the air for three and a half decades, played a significant part in the creative forces of the show - creating some of the show's more recognizable games, is regarded as an important figure amongst his peers (WP:CREATIVE), has played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (WP:CREATIVE). He also was an on-air presence on the show with hundreds of apperances and has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following which passes per WP:ENTERTAINER. That's 4 specific instances guidelines of meeting the guidelines for inclusion, and with more time I could probably find more. Yes, the article needs some cleanup and a bit more sourcing, but there's no question it's suitable for inclusion.DJBullfish 21:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If he's so freaking notable, where're the sources? Source the article, don't just blindly argue to keep it and then let it rot in its unsourced state forever. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • His notability is being attributed to his Emmys (by me at least), I did add a source for that before I !voted. J04n(talk page) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just of note, contrary to what's mentioned, Dobkowitz has been in many media as of late, and was also part of production to the Match Game hosted by the late Gene Rayburn in the 1970s.Mitch32(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!) 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per addition of sources; reasonable assertation of notability with a 30-plus-year career and five Emmy wins. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 19:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Greco[edit]

Kathy Greco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual is a producer on a game show and is not notable. Unlike other articles about game show producers (such as Mark Goodson, Jay Wolpert and Merv Griffin), individual has had no career outside one single show. Article is filled with original research without reliable sources. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BLP standards. Willking1979 (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Producer of the #1 rated show in US Daytime for most of our lifetimes. She's notable. And if she isn't, then Roger Dobkowitz isn't either. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 14:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How and why is she notable? What sets her apart from other television producers of the thousands of other programs in the history of television? Simply restating an argument that "she's notable" isn't a valid reason. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Layman's opinion, having stumbled upon this: Kathy Greco has been gaining more visibility lately, moreso in behind-the-scenes vids. than anything else. I saw the name and came over to check it because I happen to watch TPIR regularly. If you produce the #1 game show in television history, I think that's a notable achievement.
Thus, I think it's a keep. CycloneGU (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Bill Gates has only been a "producer" of one software company for his whole career. The number of projects a person is involved with is NOT the condition of their notability (is Alan Ludden not notable? He is recognized pretty much for Password, and nothing else, but that isn't an issue with his notability). The 16k google hits for "kathy greco" indicates that there's more than a handful of people talking about her. TheHYPO (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill Gates is far more notable than someone from the production staff of a television program. Allen Ludden was seen every day on television as host--Kathy Greco is not even an on-air personality. Why have separate articles for only two producers instead of creating articles for Barbara Hunter, Stanley Blits, Sue MacIntyre, Adam Sandler, Phillip W. Rossi, etc.[20]? According to IMDB, Rossi joined the show the same year as Greco, yet he's not notable enough to have his own article, but Greco is? Sottolacqua (talk) 21:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply refuting your own point as to why Greco can't possibly be notable: quote: "individual has had no career outside one single show". This is in your nom, therefore I assume it is part of your logic that having a career in one show only diminishes notablity. I dispute this in that contributing to a 40-ish year long program that is extremely notable is an achievement, even if she never bothered to quit and go produce other programs. I do not deny that Alan Ludden and Bill Gates are not MORE notable than Greco, but I dispute your claim that contributions mainly to one project is not a contra-indication to notablility. TheHYPO (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gates is not notable for contribution to one product only. His philanthropy is equally as notable as his connection to Microsoft. Again, Ludden is easily recognizable as a decades-long game show host. The article on Greco currently includes no information that relates to her notability, nor does it contain any references. If she is notable, what is she notable for? The article currently includes a very brief career history (which only includes job titles and minimal information about day-to-day duties, none of which is sourced and which may or may not be current based on the promotions listed), the statement that she created one pricing game, an explanation of her nickname and anecdotes about her appearing on Family Feud and an instance where she "danced the gator." These are hardly criteria for being notable, nor does this random trivia meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet Bob Barker is notable because of his hosting TPIR. If he stopped at Truth and Consequences, chances are no one would know who he was today. It's usually because of one thing that someone becomes notable. Kathy Greco appears in behind-the-scenes vids. on the TPIR Web site. She's been with the show for years. What if she retires in five years? She is still not notable? WTF? CycloneGU (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barker is notable because he was seen on television five days per week for fifty years. Appearing in behind-the-scenes videos on a television show's website is not criteria that proves notability. She has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. In fact, if you Google her name, outside of IMdB and Yahoo! TV, nothing even related to television shows up in the first page of results. Even if you Google Fingers Greco, it results in no sourced material or relevant references. She is not notable, and the article as it stands now contains nothing but unsourced trivia. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being the executive producer on the biggest game show in television history is notable. That is why someone created this article in August 2006 (mind, she wasn't exec. producer at the time). Clearly, other people think she is notable enough to have an article. Just having that status is notable enough even if only for a stub. It's not like we're creating an article for someone who is the set designer for "Will and Grace" or something. CycloneGU (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
She is not the executive producer now, nor was she ever. She is a producer. This AFD is about proving why she is notable enough to have an article, which again currently contains no notable information. She meets no criteria listed in the General notability guideline. Sottolacqua (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She has a definitely notable role, but there are no reliable sources about her. The only Google News hits I found were false positives. If there's no chance of this ever being more than a stub, then it shouldn't be an article at all. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Would fall under WP:NPF, but there is no reliable sources about her. Click23 (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died on their birthdays[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of people who died on their birthdays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All the reasons that got this deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who died on their birthdays still apply. The only thing these people have in common is that they are among the 1/365th of the population that has the same birth and death date. It does't make them more or less notable, isn't the topic of serious interest, just some trivia. Fram (talk) 09:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as the nom says, it's a list of people who have died on their birthday, and I doubt any of them are notable simply for that reason. (Also per Wp:IINFO.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the speedy as G4 (recreation) is declined then delete. List of pure coincidences. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it personally baffles me that the CSD was declined but oh well. For all the same reasons it was previously deleted. Redfarmer (talk) 11:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, all the people on this list seem to have established notability based on something other than that they died on their birthday, such is why they all seem to have articles? Unomi (talk) 11:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... which is not a reason to keep this list. It is not because every item in a list is a bluelink and referenced, that the list itself is on a notable topic. I can create a list of people whose name has no vowels but e, including Ellen Degeneres and Jeff Beck, and it would be deleted on sight (I hope), even though it is also pretty unusual. Fram (talk) 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it is illogical, but newspaper obituary authors seem to make a point of deaths on birthday, as shown by the Google News hits. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - creator seems to work on a number of lists of this type: List of supercentenarians from the United States, Veterans of the Spanish Civil War who died in 2007, List of Italian supercentenarians, List of oldest dogs, and List of Holocaust survivors. I agree that this particular list does not have much reference value, but it is limited to people who otherwise meet Wikipedia's notability standard and is no more offensive that some of the trivial categories that we have in place. As a list, it provides more details than it would as a category, with not only birth and death dates, but also a brief summary of each member's significance. When I was in grade school, I was puzzled by the textbooks which made much of the fact that both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams died on July 4, 1826. (Wikipedia does also). Although meaningless statistically, these coincidences have recognition in popular culture. The search "died on his birthday" has 387 Google News hits and "died on her birthday" has 291. Racepacket (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's as relevant as a lot of lists that reside on Wikipedia. I don't know whether 365/1 (or rather 1461/4, since someone can be born every four years on Feb 29, although of course they will only qualify if the number of years they live is exactly divisible by 4, of which there's a 1 in 4 chance, so perhaps it really is 365/1 - but there again, since a lot of people go out and party on their birthdays, and drink to excess and put themselves in more danger, perhaps it's slightly less than 365/1... and... and... why is my head hurting so much now, help!!) - anyway, this all got me thinking, and as a result I'd like to keep it in because it's an interesting anecdote, if you'd asked me to tell you three things I knew about Ozu one of them would have been that he was born and died on the same day, and also that Shakespeare supposedly did but no one's 100% sure. It's something people talk about, as a result I vote for "keep". --Tris2000 (talk) 14:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - hah, just realised that in fact it's much less than 365/1... if you include stillbirths! In England and Wales in 2005, which has excellent healthcare, there were 3,484 stillbirths versus 645,881 live births in 2005, so that's 186/1 that a baby is stillborn, and that's for a modern country the numbers are far worse in the developing nations. So in effect, you can't work it out really. However, it's been a fun waste of half an hour of my life as I have come to this conclusion. :-) Tris2000 (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the original AFD got it right. Lists of coincidences are not encyclopedic or useful, and the underlying fact/oid itself has no encyclopedic significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is absurd. There's absolutely nothing significant about dying on your birthday. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a legitimate argument.—Chowbok ☠ 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Also, would like to suggest that Tris2000 read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no matter how one attempts to dress it up, this is trivia. There's even a whole section of unverified ones! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:IINFO. Warrah (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Otherwise we should also have List of people who died on 29 February because chances for hitting that date are awesomely tiny 0.068%.--Staberinde (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although I conceed that it is effectively trivia, which does go against Wikipedias guidelines, I do still feel it merrits inclusion as it is a list of people who share interesting circumstances surrounding their death. Whereas it is being argued most frequently that this is no more useful then a list of people who died on a specific day of the year (which we do actually keep in the specific dates articles (eg. February 29#Deaths)), what makes this differet is that whereas everyone will die on any any day of the year (death is the only thing more certain then taxes) very few wiil die on their birthday, which is an interesting circumstance surrounding their death that they share, same as if they were all to have died in a road traffic accident, long before their life expectancy in their thirties, in public, from breast cancer, in aviation, by hanging, by starvation or after being tasered (all of which are listed) it would merrit a mention. However, since I see this is most likely to fall victim to WP guidelines, I feel at the very least the information should be kept in the form of a catagory, if not an article MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, a category would be likely to fail category guidelines and find itself at WP:CFD. Redfarmer (talk)
  • Delete trivial facts should not be emphasized in an encyclopedia. i would accept the article if there was a major book on the subject, or even on the subject of irrational beliefs and fascinations around birthdays and deaths, that said how irrational this fascination is, just like people being excited about sharing a birthday, or, (dont get me started) linking WP article subjects birthdays to that days article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlike living to a particularly long age (as in the other lists linked above), there's nothing particularly important about dying on one's birthday, and I doubt there are any reliable sources that claim otherwise. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlike living to a very old age, data which can be scientifically useful, this is just trivial. Also, records of extreme age are limited by their rarity...that's not the case here. This list could grow to be thousands of entries.Ryoung122 13:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Hopkins (musician)[edit]

David Hopkins (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Artist fails WP:MUSIC. Article fails WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hi. Have you checked for sources, per WP:BEFORE? If the assertions in the article are accurate, he would seem to meet a number of WP:MUSIC criteria (and just has to meet one). Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 11:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. The notability criteria he is closest to meeting is "Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart." He released a charted single (In a Day) with a group, Lir, so it makes the group notable but not all the members of that group. I searched Allmusic and Billboard.com without finding indication that anything Hopkins has released individually has charted. Mm40 (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hopkins appears to meet criteron 1 of WP:MUSICBIO, with what looks to be non-trivial coverage in Hot Press magazine and the Boston Herald. Unfortunately, one has to subscribe in order to view the full articles. There's also an album review available at RTE.  Gongshow Talk 16:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a better view of three Hot Press articles, which demonstrate Hopkins' notability.[21][22][23]  Gongshow Talk 16:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gongshow's good work. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What Drimies said.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The above references found by Gongshow have been incorporated into the article. J04n(talk page) 02:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obviously. Meets most of the requirements in WP:MUSIC.CygnusPius (talk) 17:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His music has been featured in a major movie, and on a notable long running television show, plus he has played in a very notable band The Who, and been an opening act for other notable bands. Dream Focus 00:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Engine (boogie-rock band). This has been hanging on for four weeks now, with more sources constantly promised: the WP:Article Incubator will give its proponents another month to try to bring it up to standard. JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engine (boogie-rock band)[edit]

Engine (boogie-rock band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, concern was: "no evidence of notability". Looking through the article's references I don't see any citations that meet WP:BAND's criteria of non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. If citations can be found for the features in Kerrang! or coverage in reliable sources of the band's national tours, that might be enough to establish notability. Otherwise I suggest deletion per WP:BAND. --Muchness (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, no reliable sources that I can find at the moment, but this might warrant revising. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the author of this page, I think it would be pretty mean-spirited of you to delete it- particularly when I've gone to so much effort to gather information from as many sources as possible! I have also written to two of the bandmembers to request additional information from them, in order to upgrade the quality of the material I've included. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be about collating and distributing information in this manner? Delete it if you must, but I think it would be a great shame; the reason I chose to describe this particular subject is because of the scarcity of information about this great little band elsewhere. Yehia Tawfik, 27/10/09, 15:36 UTC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehia.tawfik (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly was not my intention to be mean-spirited in nominating the article for deletion, but all articles in Wikipedia have to meet a minimum threshold of notability and this band looks like a borderline case. Hopefully this AFD discussion can uncover some sources to more firmly establish notability. --Muchness (talk)
  • In that case can I please request a delay before deletion? I will attempt to uncover additional sources ASAP. Many thanks. -Yehia Tawfik —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.79 (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magazine reference and specific gig dates & details have now been added. Is this sufficient to merit non-deletion? Please advise! - Yehia Tawfik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehia.tawfik (talk • contribs) 17:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Official band press release (c.1989) reproduced here:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1111686&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=33090417824&id=727887322
Group modulator lists this item (and all other images at this site) as being in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehia.tawfik (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:46, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No significant discussion of this band in any reliable source has come to light; notability cannot be verified. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compared to the majority of articles on other bands in Wikipedia, far more sources, links and references have been listed and cross-referenced in this case. Mentions in national magazines are evidence of notability, aren't they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.79 (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mentions rarely establish notability--WP:N requires significant, in-depth discussion in reliable sources. And what mention are you talking about--"a favourable write-up in Kerrang!"? I can't verify how favorable that write-up was, or how many paragraphs it contained, but if that is the only substantial reference in a reliable source, then that would not be enough to satisfy WP:N, no. What other articles have is not the topic of discussion here; if you find any that you think are less notable, feel free to propose deletion. Drmies (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would suggest that those seeing to reflect notabity take a deep breath, read WP:BAND carefully, and either add sources reflecting that it meets one or more of those criteria or point to existing sources that indicated that it meets one or more of those criteria (and which one or more criteria the article meets).--Epeefleche (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guidelines have been read and please let everyone be assured that this article is still being worked on. Further resources do exist, but time is needed to collate them. Hence the request for a delay in deletion. Thankyou for re-listing. On a seperate note, feedback for this article has been warm and positive from many different sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.79 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am the author of the Facebook page and have the authority to upload material from the band themselves. I can also trace and upload a Kerrang review of their 'Autowreck' album which was given a 5 star review for "This whiskey soaked belter"Italic text' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berryfields1967 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • Comment. Contact has now been established with the drummer from the band who are the subject of this article, and press articles which will further cement notability will be forthcoming within days. Thankyou for your patience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.79 (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Per the recent comment above, I have relisted one final time to give those who are working on this article to provide press articles. Due to the fact that this band was active from 1979 - 1997, sources from old newspapers and magazines may be difficult to obtain. Therefore, one more week may be helpful for the editors of Engine (boogie-rock band) who are trying to collect sources. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Advice to those who are working on this article: If you can uncover old newspapers and magazine that provide significant coverage in reliable sources about Engine, please scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing site. Then post the links to this AfD. Even if you already have an account on these sites, you should create another one if you don't want your real-world identity linked to your Wikipedia one.

    These sources must be independent of the band or its members. Myspace and Facebook do not aid in establishing notability. Press releases do not establish notability. Only coverage in books, magazines, or newspapers will establish notability. This coverage cannot be only passing mentions (eg. one or two sentences); it must be at least several paragraphs long.

    If reliable sources about this band cannot be found within the next seven days (by 24 November 2009), this article will be deleted. Cunard (talk) 08:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The article with its many references establishes without a doubt that the band existed--but none of them provide any kind of significant discussion of the band. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree; however, there may be some print sources, which is why I relisted the article to give the new editors another week to provide sources. My opinion is to delete unless sources that establish notability are provided. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again. Watch this space! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.65 (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have reviewed the sources in the article and the changes you have made but am unconvinced about the notability. To save this article from deletion, you must find independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this topic. So far, none of the references in the article has been able to satisfy this. Cunard (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the score as of 20/11/2009: I live in the Middle East, and I'm trying to research a subject from the pre-Internet days, with a particularly difficult title to search on the Web. I have included every single source and reference that I have been able to find so far, plus my own background knowledge. I know for a fact that items ascertaining notability exist (i.e. interviews and reviews with photographs in the mainstream music press), because I have them in my possession elsewhere. However, at this late stage it seems probable that those who would like this article to be deleted are going to get their way; nothing else of significance has been forwarded to me - yet. I hope to receive more material by your cut-off date; however, as this is now looking increasingly unlikely, could you please advise me whether I would be able to re-submit this material at a later date, once I have been able to augment it with additional sources? Thankyou for your help, and my apologies for taking up anyone's time unnecessarily at Wikipedia. The site is excellent, and I recognize the need for strict standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.65 (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • When the AfD debate is closed, the article will be deleted. If you would like, I will ask the closing admin to move the article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Engine (boogie-rock band) so that the content will not be lost. Then, you can work on the article with the help of the editors who patrol the article incubator. Best, Cunard (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (22/11) Just received the following message from the band's former drummer:

Well hello there! Ape here (or Diamond Dave if you prefer) once of the mighty ENGINE! Now galavanting all about the place with a cheery bunch of rockers called The Jalapenos (now in our 13th year!) Got your message, always great when people get back in touch so thanks for that. I'm gonna' try and send you a couple of jpegs in a few days time once I have had chance to sort it all out for you etc (4 gigs a week at the mo - so really busy.) As you may have noticed I am not on line very often, so please bear with me on this. Still seeing the lads from the 'old firm' on a fairly regular basis, usually Wad every couple of weeks and Yozzer every 3 or 4 months (he lives a lot further away from me.) Wad's doing well with Connie Lush - latest booking is a support to Buddy Guy. They may still yet get one in with Robert Cray too. Saw him play on a bill with Wilko Johnson recently and they were great - he has become an ace blues player - brill slide etc! He goes all over Europe with the group and has a blast. Yoz keeps his hand in with a local guy (to us) called Paul Kappa - think it's kappaband.com - he basically 'deps' when the usual bassist is not available. He recently did a tour of the north east of England with the band. However he has a full-time day job so can't commit to too much fun and games on the road! Anyway - I will get back in touch as soon as I can, cheers for now, Ape, AKA Diamond Dave.

  • From the above, it looks like no extra material will be forthcoming before the cut-off date you stipulated, so I would indeed be grateful if you can put the page in the 'incubator' (whatever that is!) Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.65 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Please incubate this article to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Engine (boogie-rock band) after you close this AfD. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop press! I've received a cache of press articles and listings for national tours which I can now reference to ascertain notability. Problem: Flickr is banned where I live, so I can't post them there. Solution: someone else is doing it for me, then I can post the links. Getting there...! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.74.145.65 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedily deleted by Secret. Non-admin closure. [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 18:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IHOPU Student Awakening[edit]

IHOPU Student Awakening (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Event does not meet notability standards. No references at all, cannot be independently verified. Written with considerable personal commentary or POV statements. Was originally a direct copy-and-paste from the school's website and marked for speedy, but original author removed the speedy notice himself; then marked for PROD, which was also removed by author. Author has failed to respond to notices pointing out problems with article. Additionally, this article appears to promote a movement. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Spam for non-notable event. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Copyvio and other problems notwithstanding, the original article doesn't cite any references and fails WP:N and WP:V. Ivanvector (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Copyvio, notability, and everything above. Angryapathy (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Sandstein  07:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric D. Snider[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Eric D. Snider (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A vanity page for a non-notable writer and singer/songwriter. It appears the bulk of his work is either self-published or written for obscure web sites. His music CDs also appear to be self-produced. His one claim to notoriety, a 2006 scuffle with Paramount over attending movie screenings, seems like WP:NOTNEWS. Warrah (talk) 02:36, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This is actually the third nomination of this article, not the second; perhaps this nom should be renamed. Anyway, at the time of the previous AfD I rewrote the article to remove vanity elements, then successfully argued to keep this article based primarily on the variety of mentions in mainstream and notable sources like NPR and USA Today. Now, for this nom, I am undecided. On one hand, the sources are still verifiable and notable themselves, and I think this article could merit inclusion in an encyclopedia: for instance, serving as a data point for someone researching the relationship between film studios and film critics. On the other hand, in principle I support deletion of borderline-notable BLPs, and I freely admit that this article's subject has borderline notability: his appearance in the mainstream sources have been rather minor and incidental. So I stand neutral for this AfD. alanyst /talk/ 15:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The "high profile" firing was from a low profile newspaper, the Daily Herald of Provo, Utah. The NPR interview was for an isolated 2006 incident which has no resonance today, thus violating WP:NOTNEWS. And Dr. Demento plays a lot of wacky songs by obscure singer/songwriters. Warrah (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see how having some songs on a single radio show is relevant - notability is not inherited. Of the remaining references, all but one are unreliable. I couldn't find anything better with a search, so this appears to fail WP:N.--otherlleft 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unreliable sources. Not a career covered by secondary sources that would establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of good sources, and per WP:MUSIC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the sources used as coverage don't seem too reliable. The few reliable sources concerns only one event.--PinkBull 20:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hellmouth (band)[edit]

Hellmouth (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Band. I can't find any sources that aren't primary. Made harder because the name has some historical significance, but for band references there are few. Shadowjams (talk) 06:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks good. My original reasons for deletion are no longer relevant. Shadowjams (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Discussions on renaming or possibly merging the page should take place on the talk page. NW (Talk) 03:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Werlé[edit]

Wolfgang Werlé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marginal BLP. Not everybody critical of Wikipedia is notable. This discussion might as well be had. Grsz11 04:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Why we have to delete something just because a legal claim, this is history, Wolfgang must leave this in the past, but we cannot change history, he murder Walter Sedlmayr and deleting this article is not going to change that. I understand that Wikipedia got a legal claim (check http://www.chillingeffects.org/international/notice.cgi?NoticeID=30443) but that is not a reason to delete the article, that happened, that was real, and we have newspapers and some other books saying that, or is he also going to fill a claim in order to burn the books and the newspapers? Landiatico (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For two reasons - To delete this under these circumstances is to set a precedent that anyone who doesn't want facts about themselves "out there" can use legal action to stop them. Given increasing use by companies and governments of tactics to control free speech, this is an unwise precedent to set. Secondly, I disagree with the section on Biographies of Living People famous for one thing in this respect. If the one thing is sufficiently notable, that should be enough, or are we doing to insult the victims of murders by removing all their pages as in most cases, they are famous simply for being murdered. To remove this page would be an insult not only to this victim, but to all victims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.82.74.174 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It has nothing to do with legal action, as a German decision would have no effect on an American-based site. It is about the fact that this man is not notable except for one event and some subsequent media coverage. Grsz11 04:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Neutral - IMO, he makes himself more notable by protesting, but the core of the matter is that he was convicted for murder, the victim is still dead, and that's pretty much the limit of my interest. If he and his half-brother have issues with that, they should be sure not to kill anyone in the future. Update, changed my mind. I have no opinion on this as long as we keep the names in the original article. - Denimadept (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sure, not everyone who criticizes wikipedia deserves an entry. But if you manage to get yourself into the new york times and the guardian with your criticism, then you just might. And if you have a famous murder to your credit, well I think that that's pretty much a lock. I mean really, what else are you asking of this poor Werle character to make himself notable? I think that he's done more than enough, personally. Blowfish (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but rename to Murder of Walter Sedlmayr). Notable both for murder and for C&D. I've suggested on the article talk that a separate article on legal action could have some merit, but certainly outright deletion isn't the right approach. LotLE×talk 06:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Some of the Keep comments here seem to give reasoning along the lines that we should keep the article to "get even with Werlé who wants to censor it (and who is a bad guy)." That is, in itself, a really bad reason for keeping an article, and not one I advance. If we keep, it should be only because the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article (which I think it is, obviously). LotLE×talk 23:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That seems to be exactly the issue for a lot of people, and it's been an issue before. Grsz11 04:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The murder and the Wikipedia action represent notability for multiple events. WWGB (talk) 07:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see that the coverage makes him notable. Were it not for the lawsuit, we would be deleting or redirecting as a clear BLP1E. As for the lawsuit, I believe that the lawsuit itself may be notable, but the coverage of Werlé within those articles is incidental, and would be better suited to an article on the lawsuit, or a more general article about lawsuits and Wikipedia. I'm trying to assume good faith re the creation of this article, but it seems a lot like it was created as soon as it became evident that the subject did not want an article, so much so that he is willing to go down the legal route. We need to do the right thing here and make this go away. Kevin (talk) 08:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Kevin, saying "I'm trying to assume good faith" before doing the opposite isn't helpful. Your words strongly suggest you have concluded (not unreasonably, IMO) a certain amount of inappropriate purpose in the creation of the article. I also think this is irrelevant - however an article got here, the text of the article, and the notability of the subject deserves to be evaluated on its merits. RayTalk 17:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - largely per Kevin above. The subject is already marginally notable, if at all. Being a murderer isn't enough for a BLP on its own, and the self-referential Wikipedia stuff doesn't drag it up into notability, IMO. Marginal BLP, plus the subject doesn't want it? Nuke, plz - Allie ❤ 09:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but consider reframing the article as Murder of Walter Sedlmayr or similar. What's notable (and a useful encyclopedic subject independent from Walter Sedlmayr) is not so much the perpetrator as a person, but the murder itself and its legal ramifications (including the associated censorship lawsuits to which not only Wikimedia but also many German media have been made subject). It appears that the murder and the trial were very big news in Germany for a long time; for instance the NYT of July 18, 1990 notes that "The country's most popular newspaper, Bild Zeitung, did not even treat the fall of one more obstacle to German unity as the most important news this morning, displaying the article under the slaying of Walter Sedlmayr, a well-known Bavarian television actor."  Sandstein  11:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WWGB.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject was the perpetrator of a reasonably popular murder in Germany, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox, something that applies when the deletion constitutes the action. See the Mohammad Cartoons controversy. This recent lawsuit is also unprecedented (AFAIK) in it's coverage, and therefore constitutes new relevant information which suggests keeping the article. And it's hard to argue that we should maintain an article for the lawsuit without pointing out why the lawsuit was needed. Biccat (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for all the reasons outlined above. --Tris2000 (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above - murderers have no right to dictate to us over matters of law... Colds7ream (talk) 16:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the attention towards this case is partly sensational (by the press) and partly conflict of interest by our editors. The event of the murder is well enough covered in the article of Walter Sadlmeyer. It's bordering on BLP1E in my opinion, and I think we should have deleted it, though I doubt that is still gonna happen. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "conflict of interest": ouch. Here's the key point, in my opinion: we must not remove the names from the original article. If we delete this article, we must be certain to keep the names where they do belong. - Denimadept (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely agree with you there. I don't dispute the inclusion of the names is warranted. I just think that at the moment the attention towards this case is skewed. There is no proof yet that this is gonna be a turning point in history just yet. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 01:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Kevin correctly points out, were it not for the lawsuit, this would be a clear WP:BLP1E. However, the lawsuit is clearly a significant second and separate event where the subject is involved, and the coverage of the lawsuit is not incidental to him, as he is the plaintiff. For that reason, I oppose the inevitable separation of closely linked information that would arise from deleting the article, as being unhelpful to our readers and thus to Wikipedia. RayTalk 17:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The coverage of the lawsuit is not incidental to him. - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, extensive coverage, in multiple languages, for more than one "event" -- I find it difficult to make sense of this AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E is not a bright line. Suggesting that because this person is now encyclopedia-worthy because he is known for two events is not a reasonable argument. This article as it stands contains one sentence about the man, a paragraph about the murder, and two paragraphs on his dispute with Wikipedia. Disputes with Wikipedia are pretty common (didn't Daniel Brandt sue multiple times?) - this is one of the reasons why we have WP:OTRS. They don't all reach this level of publicity, though arguably it's the press out for a story. Evidently, this is a textbook case of an article not being about its purported subject. The coverage here is incidental, since if you remove the name he's no longer identifiable. See also WP:109PAPERS. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think Daniel Brandt's lawsuit was covered by the New York Times, the Guardian, or by a number of other major papers[30]. --Bfigura (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brandt was never convicted of murder, and therefore his story lacked the sensation factor that the press like to latch on to, along the lines of the proverbial missing white woman. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Two sources of notability (crimes, and Wikipedia lawsuit) take him past WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, and both are adequately supported by reliable independent sources testifying to his notability per WP:N. There's no cogent, policy-supported reason for this article's deletion. (I'd add to the nominator, Grsz11, that if you're not personally convinced that the article can and should be deleted on the basis of policy that it's not helpful to bring it to AfD.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This page hardly constitutes a biography. When was he born? Delete Werle's "biography"; keep his name in the article on Sedlmayr. Sedlmayr's biography should have as many facts in it as possible. DoD300 (talk) 01:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that putting this material in the Sedlmayr article, whatever the result from this vote, is a good idea. The lawsuit which is covered on this page is about Sedlmayer the wikipedia page, not Sedlmayer the person. If a move is required, it should be to a new article discussing this lawsuit, rather than to Sedlmayer. Blowfish (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Wikipedia community already set a precedent when it removed the article on Daniel Brandt based on his wish to see it deleted. So submitting to an individual's complaints is already a policy precedent. There was no reason to delete the well researched article on Brandt which had many more references, and he was known for many more things than his fight with Wikipedia. So restore Daniel Brandt or delete this article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's a very valid argument. Brandt is certainly much more notable (as far as long-term exposure goes) than Werle every will be, Streisand effect or not. Grsz11 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - That's NOT a very valid argument. The Brandt article was deleted on grounds of notability (see here) and in an atmosphere that included legal action on the part of Brandt. I believe the current block against recreation may be as a result of office action. There's no policy support in that dispute for the idea that individuals can opt-out of having articles about themselves on the Wiki and in fact the community has specifically rejected that proposal. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've seen the "other stuff exists" argument. I've not seen the "other stuff doesn't exist" argument before. RayTalk 16:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can pretend it was deleted for non notability after 14 nominations for deletion where 13 were defeated ... because that is what the last person wrote when he deleted it in number 14 ... or we can correctly conclude that the Wikipedia community has agreed that a person who wants his biography removed, despite notability and verifiability, can have it removed. Brandt was able to apply more pressure by outing Wikipedia editors and publishing personal information on them in his blog. Now that we have a precedence, we should allow others to opt out too ... or bring back the Brandt article.
  • Comment:So, you're saying, and please correct me if and where I'm wrong, that we have to be bound by the hidden logic of a precedent that was established with the aid of blackmail? Blowfish (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A precedent, is a precedent, is a precedent. Just like any other system of laws, we abide by precedents, or revert them to be consistent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're running against WP:BURO here. A misplaced concern with apparent consistency is one of the defining characteristics of a bureaucracy. Wikipedia is governed not by bureaucracy or law, but instead, by consensus on a case by case basis. Even when there's policy, discussion of its applicability happens on a case by case basis. If there is a consensus here to keep, and a consensus there to delete, that's entirely possible, and it may occur for reasons that are unarticulated. That doesn't make it less valid a consensus. RayTalk 20:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I truly think WP:ONEEVENT is probably the most misquoted and misunderstood guideline in this encyclopedia. "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." Low profile? Hardly. Wolfgang Werlé isn't someone who played a marginal role in a trivial matter than lasted only one news cycle. He's the convicted murderer of a well-known victim in a case that appears to be very widely publicized. (Or, in the event his claims of innocence are true, he's been framed for said murder, which only makes him more notable.) The murder alone satisfies WP:ONEVENT and makes him notable. Throw the Wikipedia suit in there and that only establishes further notability. — Hunter Kahn (c) 05:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Slightly off topic here, but in response to the above contributions, Daniel Brandt still has Wikipedia articles in the French language version [31], plus Esperanto, Spanish, Hebrew, Polish and Portuguese. Not English, though.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - Per Kevin and Alison. Marginal BLP on a murderer, and the subject doesn't want the article. Those two statements lead me to say that there is no need for this. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - the subject not wanting the article is completely irrelevant. I want the subject to spin on a broken broom, but I doubt he'll do it. - Denimadept (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a BLP, we don't just use sarcasm to prevent it from being taken care of appropriately. Please act more sensible, this is a biography of a living person here, not a playground. This AFD must be gotten right, we don't just care about the subject's wishes, we also care about the fact that the subject is only marginally notable at best, as a matter of fact it's almost a BLP1E. Those two facts combined mean that this article should be deleted no matter what, clear case of WP:IAR. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Renaming to Murder of Walter Sedlmayr is one possibility as mentioned, but deleting the article because the subject has said that he does not want it is daft.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 16:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As ianmacm write here, and Sandstein does above, I also feel the Murder of Walter Sedlmayr would be a better home for the content of the article that the current name Wolfgang Werlé. But that is a renaming issue (or perhaps "merge" or "spinoff"), not an AfD one. On the content itself, it's definitely notable. If the precedent of the Brandt case is that WP is "opt out" by living bio subjects, that's a really bad precedent that should not be followed, especially if it was ever applied to a hugely notable figure as opposed to the only marginally notable one where it's come up already. LotLE×talk 18:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Clearly if Tom Cruise asked for his article deleted, it wouldn't be. This is a different issue. He's hardly relevant and there is no need for this to remain. Grsz11 18:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There really is a need for this to remain though. You seem to be making the twin dishonest argument, Grsz11, to those making the one that Werlé "deserved" to get an article he doesn't want. We should neither keep nor remove an article because the opinion of the bio's subject... not to "get even with them", but also not to defer to them. The only issue must be notability. If you have an argument about that, that the extensive coverage hasn't reached notability, make that one instead! LotLE×talk 18:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has renamed this article to Murder of Walter Sedlmayr, with which I fully agree. In this form the article meets WP:GNG, due to substantial media coverage over a period of more than fifteen years.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This might (or might not) be the best solution, but shouldn't we make some consensus here before making any moves or other actions? Somebody seems to have reverted it, and an edit war wouldn't be useful right now. Blowfish (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable for the murder and Wikipedia issues. We shouldn't simply ignore the fact that the subject chose to sue Wikipedia and attract a great deal of media attention simply because we are Wikipedia. There seem to plenty of reliable sources to establish the notability of the incident. Also, I have an issue with people using "subject asks for deletion" here. It's one thing for a non-notable person to ask us for courtesy deletion. However, allowing high-profile convicts whose notability is established (even if only by the coverage generated by the Streisand effect) to have their articles sent down the memory hole seems like a bad idea. Yes, the article does seem to have some COATRACK issues. But those can either be fixed by regular editing (to add more biographical detail) or a rename. Bfigura (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sadly, when you try that, you get filibustered by users that don't want to compromise, reverted by automated processes, and then accused of vandalism for undoing those mistaken automated processes. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Renamed article is fine. Also, subject didn't request deletion but requested name not be included in initial article about Walter Sedlmayr. That's clearly not consistent with Wikipedia policy. Also, claims that notability is due to Wikipedia related issues are misguided in that a) Wikipedia related material must be treated just as other material (some people think WP:SELFREF says otherwise. They should read what it actually says) and b) the surrounding controversy and related issues likely met notability even without the Wikipedia material. Given renaming, there is no credible deletion argument. Follow: To clarify since the renaming keeps going back and forth I see renaming as the most reasonable thing to do and under the rename think it should be kept. Without the renaming I weekly favor keeping since the ongoing controversy has made Werle notable and we don't actually have any reason to think that he would see an article as substantially worse than mentioning his name in the main Sedlmayr article. JoshuaZ (talk)
  • Comment: I've reverted the title change Lulu of the Lotus-Eater made from Wolfgang Werle to "Murder of Walter Sedlmayr". Although I have as much respect for WP:BOLD as the next Wikipedia, I think it's a complete insult to the AFD process, WP:CONSENSUS and to all the Wikipedians participating in this discussion for someone to make such an article change right in the middle of an AFD discussion. Such a title change may very well be the decision of this AFD, but since we're already deep into the discussion, it only makes sense to wait until the outcome... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is just plain wrong. An AfD discussion cannot result in "rename", that's a separate issue. By renaming the article, I clarified what it is in the content that merits a "keep" under notability, which is exactly the correct thing to do during an AfD discussion. One is not barred from improving an article that is under AfD discussion, under the crazy theory that it "must stand or fall" on the merits of the article as written at the time of the nomination. AfD's frequently can, do, and should result in article improvements. That said, I am obviously not going to edit war over it or revert the title. I encourage other editors to work on this though. LotLE×talk 19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    "An AfD discussion cannot result in "rename"..." Why not? Consensus could easily develop on "keep and rename" Blowfish (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not be overly bureaucratic here. Murder of Walter Sedlmayr is a better name for the current version of the article, which is well sourced. Since there is a consensus that Wolfgang Werlé is not an ideal name for the article, it would be better to rename it rather than rehashing the WP:BLP dispute.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 19:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not accurate to say there is a consensus yet. We are building a consensus in this AFD process; there's no reason not to wait just a few days for the outcome. And Blowfish is right, an AFD can result in a "Merge" ruling. It happens all the time, and it may possibly be the outcome in this case. For the record, I'd also like to state that I am not necessarily opposed to a merge to "Murder of Walter Sedlmayr" if that's what the consensus decides. However, if such an article were made, I would insist that it have to include the information about the Wikipedia dispute. Since it's related to the murder, I would imagine it's not a problem to keep it in that article. But if an issue is raised that it would not fit into the "Murder" article, then I'd vote we keep "Wolfgang Werlé"... — Hunter Kahn (c) 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The murder and the lawsuit are tangentially repated at best. The content about the lawsuit isn't appropriate in a biographical context - this guy's life is clearly defined by other things. It's not appropriate in the article on the murder victim, because it's entirely irrelevant to it. Any association of the dispute with the subject without a supporting biography is inexcusable. There are plenty of controversies affecting Wikipedia, this one isn't any different. It may have been more widely reported purely because of the press desire for a sensational story. The content relating to the lawsuit should go in an article under a title that reflects action against Wikipedia, and not hung upon the murder or offered as a sham biography. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The lawsuit is more than appropriate for Werle's biography. It's one of the things that makes him notable, and it's far from unprecedented to include information about lawsuits brought forward by people in their Wikipedia entries. What I was saying was I would support a merge to a "Murder" article as long as the Wikipedia lawsuit information could be transferred to it. By your logic, it would not be appropriate for a murder article. Therefore, I'd have to withdraw any weak support I had for the merge, and maintain my support for the biography page... — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would be appropriate for a biography, if we had one, but IMO "Wolfgang Werlé is a German who was convicted of the 1990 murder of actor Walter Sedlmayr" on its own does not make a biography. The lawsuit and the murder aren't particularly related other than by coincidence. Plenty of people have asked for information to be removed - this case is no different. The murder conviction is a red herring, since he is deemed to have served his sentence (he is specifically an ex-convict) and gets to enjoy the rights and privileges of a free citizen. It merely happens to be something the press have latched on to for the sake of sensation - we explicitly do not follow suit in this regard. Strip that away, and you've got just another news story, albeit a widely-reported one. In this respect, he is no different from any other private citizen, and his request is no different. To deal with it differently is to deprive him of basic human dignity. We haven't historically dealt with them by retaliating, so we shouldn't do so here. The lawsuit is not unique. The applicability of laws is not unique. The current article title is inappropriate, and the two different subjects covered should go in two separate articles. The current situation would be like having an article ostensibly about me but discussing the visit of Pope John Paul II to Paris and the death of Princess Diana, on the basis that on the day of the former I walked across the location of the latter. Such is not the nature of biography. 81.111.114.131 (talk) (no longer forever) 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't see the parallel, unless you murdered pope John Paul, and were trying to prevent princess Diana from telling anyone about it. In which case, that would make for a pretty awesome biography. Blowfish (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work that has been done on the article today has been designed to establish the notability of the Sedlmayr case as a whole, rather than to be a WP:BLP of Wolfgang Werlé. As somebody else pointed out, we don't even know Werlé's date of birth, but there is ample reliable sourcing about the Sedlmayr case and the ongoing lawsuits it has produced.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a relatively easy keep. Ironically enough, it would be a marginal "keep" save for coverage of the subject that has been caused by the ruckus his lawyer has raised about the ludicrous German "privacy of murderers" law. Given that extensive coverage, as well as the marginal (but not non-existent) notability that this subject already had before that, this is really quite an easy call. UA 20:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if exclusively for the New York Times coverage. This is a perfect example of an action producing the opposite of its intend result. Its funny actually. This is why its important to hire a lawyer from the country you intend to do business. Mr. Stopp is clearly unfamiliar with the United State's Laws and the character of its citizens.--OMCV (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, just a thought I want to throw out here. There currently is no article for Manfred Lauber, who was convicted of the same murder as Walter Sedlmayr, and is involved with the same Wikipedia lawsuit case. I obviously don't think it's advisable to make a page for Lauber at least until the AFD process is complete. However, if the result of this AFD is keep, then that presumably means a consensus/decision will have been reached that Werle is considered notable enough for an article and, since Lauber is noted for the same things, that Lauber would be notable enough for an article too. But I also think it would be redundant to make an article for Lauber that basically says the same thing as the Werle article. I wonder if (again, in the event of a "Keep" decision) this article should be changed to Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber, and encompass both of them, since both of the elements that make them notable are shared between the two. (Like how we have an article for Sacco and Vanzetti, instead of separate ones for Ferdinando Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti). Again, this is just an idea. Any thoughts? — Hunter Kahn (c) 22:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not seen articles that indicate that Manfred Lauber participated in the recent C&D's. Those seemed to be only on behalf of Werlé (though obviously, Lauber would have identical standing, if any, in such an action if it occurred). I have no opinion at this time about wheither Lauber merits a WP article, but if he does not have the additional notability conveyed by participation in a well-covered legal action, his notability would presumably be lower than that of Werlé. Of course, if we just do the obvious and sensible renaming, the issue becomes moot, since both half-brothers would be naturally mentioned in the article about the murder, even if only one participated in the subsequent legal action. LotLE×talk 00:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazingly, the above assertion about Wolfgang Werlé's lawyer is incorrect. Dr. Alexander H. Stopp is qualified to practice at both the Frankfurt and New York State Bar Association, to which he was admitted in 1992.[32] This means that he has presumably heard about the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and knows why this type of lawsuit would be tossed on First Amendment grounds. The only logical explanation for all of this is pandering to the whims of his client.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That brings up another question where does a lawsuit have to be filed to effect Wikipedia's Florida servers. I also know Lawyers aren't always able to practice in every state, would that play a role here? By the way since Stopp's "Dr." comes from University of Augsburg I don't think we should recognize him as such considering how Germany has been treating English speaking PhDs.[33]--OMCV (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per subject's request. — Jake Wartenberg 23:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but Daniel Brandt aside, there is no policy that supports this recommendation. UA 00:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Whose idea was the legal challenge in the first place?--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 23:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was agreed at the time of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required in 2008 that the English language Wikipedia would not remove information about the case that was already in the public domain. The Sedlmayr case as a whole easily meets WP:GNG, but it is less than ideal to frame the current brouhaha as a WP:BLP1E of Wolfgang Werlé. This is why the current version of the article would be better renamed as Murder of Walter Sedlmayr.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject request should absolutely not be a criterion for deletion! It's a basic freedom of the press rule! --Wizard IT (talk) 12:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article about the privacy case which doesn't mention his name in title and make sure that the article focusses on this current and entirely notable case and not on details of original conviction which a bio of him will inevitably do. Either that or delete this and start an article fresh on the privacy case. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good plan, maybe we could call the article Murder of Walter Sedlmayr? LotLE×talk 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, because such an article would not and should not be about the murder, which can itself be adequately covered in Walter Sedlmayr. It would be about the lawsuit and the privacy dispute. It's an entirely separate issue from the murder. Treat it as what it is - a privacy dispute between someone wanting to make a fresh start (as they are legally and morally entitled to do) and the world at large. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Walter Sedlmayr; Werlé has no importance outside Sedlmayr's murder and subsequent related events. --NE2 20:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information on the murder could be moved to SedlMayr. The current dispute, however doesn't belong on that page. If anything, we could move information on the murder and trial to Sedlmayer (or to a new page), and content regarding the new dispute to Werle lawsuit to a new page, something like "Werle privacy dispute." So I think that the main alternative to "Keep" should be "split". Blowfish (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current dispute is related to the murder, and as such relates to Sedlmayr. --NE2 22:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance isn't transitive. And for that matter, it's debatable whether the current dispute would belong on a page entitled "Murder of Walter Sedlmayr". The only way that all of this material fits together on one page is as a biographical page for Wolfgang Werle. Otherwise, the links between these events are too tangential. Blowfish (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - (Per Kevin etc.) Others seem to see the irony of us having this article because of the lawsuit as funny; I see it as embarassing and rather childish. The guy asks for his name to be removed and the first thing we do is give him his own article. We are trying to build a respected encyclopedia here! In response to comments such as "no policy supports deletion": policy is descriptive. If enough people think a policy needs to change it will change. Suicidalhamster (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've raised this example before, but if someone connected with Michael Jackson's estate rang us up and asked us to take down the Michael Jackson article because they were tired of all the references to the child molestation allegations, would we take it down? Either the guy is not notable, in which case there's no problem in taking down the article, or he's notable, in which case the article is in the public interest and we shouldn't be allowing him to censor otherwise appropriate content on the grounds of his personal discomfort. And the appropriate way to change policy is to raise it as a policy change proposal, where all interested parties can take part, rather than doing it unilaterally in an AfD where people who may have an interest in an opt-out policy may not know it's being discussed. - DustFormsWords (talk)
  • Your analogy fails. It would be more accurate to describe this as "Michael Jackson's doctor complains about his name being in the article on Jackson, and we respond by creating an article about him". People that turn up in news stories are not public figures by virtue of this. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or more accurately yet, Michael Jackson's doctor, already notable but with a BLP1E context, complains, and his complaint is widely reported with significant coverage in independent reliable sources. But the point is that either the article deserves to exist or it doesn't, the fact that someone's complained has nothing to do with the deletion process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because this may not be the ideal location, users are still entitled to suggest what they think is the best course of action. Additionally, you seem to belive notability is a very clear black or white issue. In my experience, articles can be borderline, some AfDs would come out keep, others would end up delete. In such cases, it makes more sense for BLPs to be deleted. Suicidalhamster (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per many above. A misreading of ONEEVENT is no reason to take this down. The subject meets the GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per Suicidalhamster. This is indeed childish and an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Imagine that: Anybody could just add personal information about someone he doesn't like to Wikipedia, and if this turns out to be illegal in that persons country, the Wikipedia Foundation has to deal with the lawsuit. At least we're now getting a test case to see whether German law does apply to text hosted in English, too. The right of re-socialisation is nothing peculiar to German law, in Anglo-Saxon law you have it. But where in England or Australia former convicts have a right to chance the name, preceding cases in Germany established that in these case people can sue the press for giving their name. Of course, this was before the advent of the internet, so W.W. will have to change his name anyway. But when you guys now create an article on him, that really is an embarrassment for Wikipedia. Zara1709 (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As mentioned previously, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required decided in 2008 that the mens' names would not be removed from the English language Wikipedia, since the information was already in the public domain and had First Amendment protection. This was before Dr Alexander H Stopp succeeded in bringing the matter international coverage in the New York Times and elsewhere in 2009. The difference between German and Anglo Saxon law on this issue has been noted, but the real issue here is whether Wolfgang Werlé is worth a separate WP:BLP, or whether the information should be covered elsewhere.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 08:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that discussion did not achieve that conclusion. That discussion achieved no conclusion at all, because some editors were of the opinion that wp:blp would not apply to former criminals. I am no legal expert, and back then I knew even less on the issue, but that opinion ("criminals don't have a personal rights") is contrary to the laws in the developed countries I know (I could quote cases from Germany, Britain and Australia, if necessary.) If the policy (!) of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons had been followed over a year ago, Wikipedia would now not be involved in an unnecessary and potentially costly lawsuit, but no administrator was brave enough to take a stand in the issue, and back then I was still naive enough to believe that you should actually try convince people by argument. No, if you are discussing issues on the internet many people are actually not interested in a balanced discussion of all legal and moral concerns involved, but are simply seeking another flame war. As a result, the decision finding process is at Wikipedia is highly inefficient (I spent a whole month on the discussion!) and quite painful. In this case, the 'pain' consists in a lawsuit, which, in my estimate, Wikipedia has a 60-80% chance of loosing. And currently you are only making it worse! What do you think, will the judge say, when he learns that Wikipedia responded to the cease-and-desist letter by creating an article on W.W.? That aside, W.W. as person is not notable, we don't even know his year of birth! If you want to keep the article, you should be searching a source for that, instead of digging up old and futile discussion. Zara1709 (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What lawsuit? German law doesn't hold in the USA, and the USA has no such law with which to bring suit. If they sue WP in the USA, they'll be tossed out of court, I earnestly hope. - Denimadept (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal threats on the Internet are meaningless and often counterproductive. To give another example: back in February this year, a teenager in the United States posted a video on YouTube showing him abusing a cat, which led to widespread outrage and condemnation in the media.[34]. I could post the youth's name and give a link to the uncensored video here, but am not going to. Suffice to say that anyone could find these things on Google with a bit of work. The best form of privacy on the Internet is not to draw attention to the information in the first place. Dr Stopp has given this story a publicity boost that it need never have had by issuing legal threats like confetti since the release of his client in 2007.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what's your point? In Germany, the law concerning personality rights allows to demand the removal of names from media sources in cases like this, in Australia and England former criminals simply get new names, if necessary. I am just describing the legal situation. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, W.W. is not notable. (Are your trying to find a source for his year of birth, yet?) As far as wp:blp is concerned, his name should have been removed from the article in the first place, which is why we are now seeing an interesting test case. I would agree that the understanding of personality rights in Germany is problematic in the age of the internet, and the W.W. will have no other option but to change his name anyway, but this solves neither this deletion discussion nor the blp issue nor does it help Wikipedia in the ongoing lawsuit. Zara1709 (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fantastically interesting reading of wp:blp. That policy might (and I'm being very generous here) allow one to argue against the inclusion of a stand alone article. I don't think it does but reasonable people might differ. But to suggest that Wolfgang Werle isn't sufficiently notable to be included in articles on events in which he was the instigator is absurd. There is no way that verifiability could be grounds for scrubbing the name; and therefore this encyclopedia should resist all attempts to have German law imposed on it. Blowfish (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that WW (as you call him) is probably not worth a standalone WP:BLP, but the Sedlmayr case and its ongoing controversies are notable. I live in the UK, where there have been cases in which people released from prison have been given new identities in order to avoid unwanted publicity (eg Mary Bell, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, Maxine Carr). This is a better way of doing things, particularly in the age of the Internet. The current German privacy law dates from 1973 and requests like this one from a Hamburg court [35] are likely to collapse outside Germany's borders.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 10:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So let's agree that we should focus on the notability of W.W. Obviously, there are several independent news sources for the incident involving him and Wikipedia, but there aren't any sources on him as a person. For a start, we don't know his year and place of birth. The cases you mentioned attracted enough attention to lead a non-trivial to a coverage of the perpetrators in reliable sources; The Sedlmayr murder attracted quite some attention when it occurred, but nobody wrote a book about it (unlike the case of Mary Bell e.g.). If you want to include the information on the current lawsuit somewhere (you might want to start a section on Germany in the article Personality rights), that would be fine with me. If you want to have an article on the person, however, you should be trying to establish notability. Zara1709 (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of Werlé is established by the existence of reliable sources giving extensive coverage, in relation to the murder and the lawsuit. You are of course entitled to your opinion on whether this is sufficient according to Wikipedia's notability standards, but your view is evidently not shared by a great many people contributing to this AfD. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some bizarre tendency to conflate notability with availability of information. This is erroneous. It is entirely possible for someone to be notable, but for whatever reason, to not have certain facts about that person. Werle's year of birth, for instance, is an absolute red herring. If we had it, we would include it, but it's absence is not somehow to be some kind of magic bullet that consigns him to non-notability. We do not know Jack the Ripper's date of birth, for instance, and I submit that it does not matter. Many figures, past and present, have an aura of mystery about them but are notable nonetheless. Blowfish (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We dont know who jack the Ripper was so it is a different case. Andcertainly we do not publish articles on all conviction murderers who get substantial publicity. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 16:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that we don't know Jack the Ripper's birth date, nor birth name. However, we do know the name of Frederick Douglass, or Jesus, or Crazy Horse, but not their birth dates (we have "circa" in those... and we well could in Werlé's article if we wanted to). I don't think the lack of birth date is a good reason to delete those other rather notable bios either. LotLE×talk 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? Seriously? You're comparing the guy to Jesus? You mean the supposedly-lived-2000-years-ago might-actually-be-more-than-one-person inspiration-for-over-a-billion-people Jesus? Apples and oranges much? We are missing details on that guy because he was walking the Earth around 2000BW, before even Bruce Forsyth. Our documentary record of the time is less than complete. I'd suggest that had he not been an ex-con who had been jailed for murder, the lawsuit would have passed unnoticed. It stinks of moral panic sensationalism. The article as it stands is not even remotely arguably a biography. The fact that we are seemingly unable to find any biographical data in our information-rich environment points strongly to the conclusion that he's a private individual. The basic premise is that if a subject is notable, we must know stuff about it. It seems to be the case that the event is notable, but the person is not. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean to be posting, 81.*, over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesus. 76.171.26.63 (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. He electively became a non-private person by willfully committing notable acts. Namely, an extremely famous murder, and years later, an attempt to silence media that would print his name. His notability has stood the test of time, since the fame that he acquired many years ago persists, as you can see. That our knowledge of him is much stronger in some aspects of his life than in others matters not one wit, because, again, notability is not the same thing as having perfect knowledge of a subject. Blowfish (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think by suing to try to get his name removed from the Walter Sedlmayr article, Werlé has made himself notable enough to merit his own article. Blackeagle (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh is it a BLP11/2E now? I don't see valid reasoning in this argument. Note to closing admin: Please remember that this is not a vote, the strength of the argument is the main focal point. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if, for a change, people actually familiar with BLP policies participated in AfDs. Replying to this is a waste of time. It's almost criminal. Event with media coverage #1: Murdering Walter. Event with media coverage #2: Suing the Foundation. The "context of one event" statement no longer applies. "BLP11/2E" FFS. Aditya Ex Machina 10:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He should have thought about the consequences before doing what he did. We are an encyclopedia and are not censored. However it is difficult to see notability beyond his crime, I would support a merge into the article on the victim.. Himalayan 10:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not being censored does not really apply to BLPs, and is a weak argument at AFD. In fact we usually do censor BLPs to prevent us from being libel for the content. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - BLPs are "censored" exactly the same as every other article - material that isn't verifiable is removed. We just do it more aggressively with BLPs. You can feel free to delete unverifiable material from the article at any time (although completely blanking it is not in the spirit of the AfD regardless of whether it might otherwise be supported by policy). - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Murderers of notable people make themselves notable by that act. The murderers of John Lennon and President Kennedy both have articles along with many other assassins. If it were not for the act of murder, Wikipedia would have had nothing to say on any of these criminals. There is nothing essentially different in this case, only the degree of notability is somewhat less, but nevertheless still there. SpinningSpark 15:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Walter Sedlmayr. This has become fairly standard practice for living people who are known primarily or only in reference to a crime, particularly one whose notability stems from the prior notability of the victim. So Mikhail Markhasev redirects to Ennis Cosby, etc. Chick Bowen 01:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That argument would be more persuasive were it not for the post-murder interaction with the media which has very little to do with Sedlmayr. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet it is currently covered in the Sedlmayr article anyway, meaning that everything Werlé is known for is there in some form. Also, I'm not convinced his current newsworthiness is all that big a deal. He filed a probably fruitless lawsuit. It struck a nerve in the media only because it reminds them of previous concerns about Wikipedia and privacy, concerns that we already cover in detail. Chick Bowen 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets the GNG, and has been involved in two discrete, high-profile matters, so BLP1E can't apply. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral was going to be delete per respect for marginally notable living person's wishes, but moved to neutral per Streisand effect - deleting the article would likely increase rather than decrease the very publicity this person wants to dampen. OK, that's not the real reason I'm neutral. The real reason is that in the English-speaking world, he's in that fringe area of semi-notability between "low enough we should honor a request for deletion by the subject" and "too notable to honor such a request." His own actions aren't helping though. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm... should notability assessment be differential across languages? I'd argue no, but it's an interesting idea. Blowfish (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per many others notability for 2 different events is established making it not a BLP1E and meeting the notability guideline - as such no policy reason for deletion. Davewild (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The strength of freedom of the press and the right of self-defense in the U.S. are considered to outweigh the privacy rights of those convicted of criminal offenses. --Meisterkoch (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a notable topic, although I'm not sure it's appropriate as a biography. I would support moving the article to a more appropriate title. Reach Out to the Truth 05:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Landiatico, Blowfish and others. Tomas e (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the first test of WP:PERPClick23 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I recognise it's difficult to be impartial about this article, because the notability of the subject is tied up with the existence of the article itself; I nonetheless think he is notable, by our standards. He was widely covered by independent sources when first convicted for the murder, and again when he tried to suppress information about it more recently. Perhaps a rename or merge might be appropriate, but I think notability is fairly clear here. As for the demands that we remove the article: I've been sympathetic to such requests before, but in this case, given the amount of press attention it has received, I don't think we should acquiesce unless we actually have to do so. Robofish (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid extraction quotient[edit]

Liquid extraction quotient (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. {{Hoax}} tag has been on the article for over a month with no action taken to delete article or refute hoax claim. Article claims subject "is the commercially sensitive property of Monsanto Company; they have not released any technical information to the wider scientific community", therefore I would also question the subject's notability. KuyaBriBriTalk 04:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Completely blatant.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 05:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Declined I don't see why that's blatant (which is more of the 'Bus found on moon' 'Elvis works in a chip-shop' kinda thing). If it's been there this long, 7 days won't hurt. GedUK  10:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not quite obvious enough to be a blatant hoax and therefore deletable as vandalism, but the article essentially sets up a non-falsifiable and therefore unverifiable claim. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am less sure that this is a hoax than when I first put the {{hoax}} tag there, but nevertheless this fails WP:V, as a secret of Monsanto. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely incoherent nonsense, hoax, likely by prankster at a tech institution. It has been around since 2004 (!) Thanks to User:Suffusion of Yellow for spotting this one and tagging it as hoax. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hard-Nut the Nigger[edit]

Hard-Nut the Nigger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is mainly a procedural nomination. {{Hoax}} tag has been on article for over a month with no action taken to delete the article or refute the hoax claim. The only sources on the article are a bulletin board discussion and a blog. For my part, I can't seem to find any RS to refute the hoax claim. The bulletin board discussion claims the article subject existed circa 1940 but only appeared in print once, so I would also question the subject's notability if it indeed is not a hoax. KuyaBriBriTalk 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Searching just by Hard-Nut and Beano reveals some non-contemporary sources; [36]. It makes me wonder if the name is misremembered by a single blogger. Anyway, I don't think this character is notable. Also, article also fails to tell us why this character is of encyclopedic interest. Abductive (reasoning) 06:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacks significant covearge in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it isn't even necessary to prove this to be a hoax, as even if "real" the character only appeared once 40 years ago and is unlikely in the extreme to ever return. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial character in fictional work.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because, while it doesn't seem to be a hoax, the character only appeared on two pages of the 1940 Beano Annual and didn't make much cultural impact then or since. (Emperor (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization One (band)[edit]

Civilization One (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No third party sources, appears to fail WP:MUSIC. Durova360 06:26, 9 November 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 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The references provided by Gongshow were just incorporated into the article. They're WP:N. J04n(talk page) 05:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos for, as always, adding refs to the article itself. You're doing a great job.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, thanks J04n. Nice work!  Gongshow Talk 01:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Adonis[edit]

Jason Adonis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Queried AfD Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:PORNBIO. What's your reason for declining the speedy and nominating for AfD? --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: He's a fairly common name, and I noticed it was deleted so I wanted to see the contents to see if it asserted notability. AA appears to have put it to AfD so that question can be hammered out again. I took a look to see if I could find references, and I did find 2(?) publications via Google, and I imagined I can find others. I'll be busy over the next day or so, so I'd appreciate not closing it in favour of delete due to lack of sources until I've had a chance to search for some myself. Thanks! - BalthCat (talk) 15:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Thanks for reopening this for consideration. Unfortunately I did not find what I thought I'd find. Apparently he's prominent but still not notable. No AVN/GayVNs (though at least one nom.) There are two Google book results, but I can't access them to see whether reference to him within is notable, and that's really all that's left of my keep, so I realise it's not v. strong a case :) - BalthCat (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - I don't think it fails WP:PORNBIO.- --Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 04:25, 17 November 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 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Danieley[edit]

James Danieley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ACADEMIC. Speedy declined saying "he was a university president". However his contribution to academic research appears to be zero. No results on google scholar or google. His professorship then seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. This leaves his presidency of the college, but again we don't have significant coverage in reliable sources. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Made the New York Times twice [39] -- once for becoming Elon president, but also for becoming Chairman for Lay Life and Work of the United Church of Christ - a major denomination. (which someone ought to enter into the article, to be sure). Mentioned numerous times elsewhere [40] (notable photographer with multiple event photos of Danieley), [41] book stating his work at Elon ("Transforming" is the term used) oncluding integration of Elon etc. Notability established clearly. By the way, college presidents do not generally contribute to journals -- his notability comes from deeds and not from research. Collect (talk) 11:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete presidency is of only a very minor institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This seems very helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.33.66.65 (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, passes criterion 6 of WP:ACADEMIC: "The person has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution or major academic society." Nyttend (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Does appear to pass criterion 6 of WP:PROF, as a former President of Elon College. Kinoq (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Very minor"? See [42] Rankings by major groups and journals. USN&WR ranking alone means it is not a "minor institution." And, of course, a major position in one of the primary Protestant groups in the US. Collect (talk) 08:44, 14 November 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 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being the president of a respected college for 16 years is enough to satisfy WP:PROF. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clear and obvious keep as college president. Misuse of Google, in searching for careers before the late 1990s. And even then, GNews archive gave the NYT results. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, speedy close. Clearly meets both tests 5 and 6 of WP:PROF, as well as the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Batman Family enemies. Per PRESERVE but the arguments that this lacks sufficient evidence of independant sourcing for a standalone article is persuasive Spartaz Humbug! 05:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abattoir (comics)[edit]

Abattoir (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article about a minor character who appeared in a handful of comics. Fails the general notability guideline and also fails to meet the verifiability policy that articles "should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." In fact, there are no third-party sources at all provided here. *** Crotalus *** 14:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Calling him a "recurring villain" is a bit much when he appeared in a grand total of 5 issues over 20 years, two of them posthumously. *** Crotalus *** 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, Abattoir isn't really a character so much as he is a plot device. There really isn't much to say about him other than simply repeating the handful of stories in which he appeared. Abattoir was nothing more than a plot device used to justify Batman's "no-kill" rule and show Bruce Wayne's tactics as superior to those of Jean-Paul Valley. He probably rates a mention in Batman: Knightfall, but nothing more. The appearance in Blackest Knight is even more minor, and completely trivial (there probably aren't any dead characters in the last 25 years of the DC Universe that haven't appeared in that story). *** Crotalus *** 20:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnotable minor character who has appeared in only a few of the comics. Completely fails WP:N and too minor for redirecting/merging anywhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:41, 10 November 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 03:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In spite of being selected for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron, no sources appear in the article. This means that no sources exist, and the article should be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 06:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flawed reasoning. You can't assert that no sources exist just because no sources appear in the article. I don't care if the article is kept or deleted, but this sort of comment needs to be challenged with a clue-stick. Hiding T 17:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Article Rescue Squadron would have found sources if they existed. They are very good at that. Sometimes the sources they find are primary and/or unreliable, but the fact that even those are absent speaks for itself. Abductive (reasoning) 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stopped adding references after 4. There were more. The statement above is lazy and dismissive. Mjpresson (talk) 06:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's still lazy reasoning. You can't assert "no sources exist", because it is unprovable, and that sort of statement needs to be challenged to teach people how to debate points in a collegiate manner so that we can engage with each other and reach a proper consensus. Hiding T 16:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. There's a short entry about the character in The Essential Batman Encyclopedia (p. 3).SPNic (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete character so minor that it's very unlikely any non-primary sources would exist. If they do, let's see 'em. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has now been adequately referenced with 4 inlines and 3 externals. The body is well wikified and links to several other articles and has an informative fairuse pic. I don't see any problems and I don't even like comics. Took about 20 minutes. Geez, people.....Mjpresson (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only one of the sources provided is reliable. You have linked to Comic Vine, a forum/wiki. It doesn't count. However, the The Essential Batman Encyclopedia is reliable, but not independent; it is copyrighted by DC Comics. So it doesn't count either. Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the company that controls Batman says this is an essential character, then they are the final authority on that. Primary sources are fine for some things. Dream Focus 16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only secondary and tertiary are allowed for notability. If your notion was adopted as policy, then other corporations such as AIG, Blackwater Worldwide and Halliburton could stink up Wikipedia with whatever they want, and we would have to take it, because it was published by them. DC Comics is a for-profit corporation, and this book and this character are its products. Abductive (reasoning) 20:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully most people can see the difference between a company publishing a book about their fictional characters, and other types of information. If a company claimed a certain person was great and important for whatever reason, that could just be hype, so you'd have to consider doubting it as reliable. This is a fictional character, and there is no possible reason DC would include them in a list of notable Batman villains, if the character wasn't in fact notable. They are the authority on the importance of their own fictional characters. This isn't just some press release you could dismiss as hype either. This is from a book they published on these things. Dream Focus 00:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character recently resurfaced in October 2009's Blackest Knight #1 - newcomers to the character will be curious where it came from and there's no reason to not let Wikipedia be a source for information on it. He's enough of a villian to get sidelong mentions in posts like this one, it seems like his villianhood is established to me. I added a 6th Appearance according to Unearthing Batman's Rogues. More information about his appearance in Batman Annual #22 is needed - the quick summary in the reference didn't give me enough to go on. (I too agree that primary sources are appropriate for info, but not notability. However, I also see this character in the unofficial DC Universe guide and other sources that are third party enough for me). Netmouse (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm of two minds when it comes to character pages like this. The lack of secondary sources makes me want to say delete. However, the sheer number of character articles we have makes me want to say keep, and yes I realize that this is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. I'm inclined to say that unless we can get Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) set as a policy, we should probably keep this and other articles like this. I do think there are alternatives to deletion. The suggestion to redirect it to [[List_of_Batman_Family_enemies#Foes_of_lesser_renown seems like a good start. Perhaps a more detailed list split alphabetically would serve for these types of fictional characters, since I've observed that many appear closer to fan pages than encyclopedia articles. Still, keep for now and hopefully we can come up with some enforceable guidelines for fiction in the future. AniMate 01:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per our First pillar as character is covered in a print specialized encyclopedia, i.e. is verifiable in reliable sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 14:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They still count as reliable sources by any reasonable or logical standard. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you are saying is that anybody notvoting to delete based on lack of reliable third party sources is an unreasoning brute. Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will be kept due to the proven existence of sources that any reasonable and honest editor would call reliable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason to delete is lacking independent secondary sources. That is always the reason to delete. Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If true, but it is not the case here as sources sufficiently independent for Wikipedia's purposes have been indicated to exist. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason? I always thought it just an excuse if someone didn't like something and wanted to destroy it. Dream Focus 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool it with the ad hominem stuff, please.--chaser (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This onerous requirement of independent, third party sources that analyze the topic is what allows Wikipedia to be a resource for the perplexed, to be an encyclopedia, to be respected for its scholarship. Get rid of that requirement, and Wikipedia would lose its uniqueness. Abductive (reasoning) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately this article concerns an undeniably notable recurring villain from the astonishingly significant Batman franchise and that is worthy of inclusion as an entry in a print encyclopedia even. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deny its notability, and have the lack of sources on my side. You wish it was notable, and have a keyboard and an internet connection on your side. Abductive (reasoning) 00:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not about "sides". The sources discussed above and that are cited in the article prove notability, which is why the majority of participants in this discussion are arguing to keep. I cannot be persuaded that a published encyclopedia verifying the existence of something that also appears in published books that we can also see excerpts from on Google Books as well and that concerns a recurring villain in the Batman universe is somehow so damaging to the paperless encyclopedia that anybody can edit that it would need to be redlinking rather than even at worst redirected. Obviously the editors who wrote and created this article find it worthwhile. It is not a hoax, it is not libelous, it is not a copy vio. It is not so minor of a villain that it is omitted from the aforementioned print encyclopedia. There is no need to go in circles here. Myself and others find these reasons compelling. Have a nice night! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not striving to convince you. Your belief system is well known, as is your penchant for arguing passionately. Abductive (reasoning) 00:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the absence of sources independent of promotional material produced by the owner of this fictional idea that would establish independent notability for the fictional idea independent of the fictional work it inhabits. None have been provided here, and i can find none on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The references look fine to me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements made after nomination and per the untapped non-primary sources that may well be included per WP:WIP, WP:DEADLINE and WP:IMPERFECT [43] [44]. Subject is notable per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep or merge I note, FWIW, that about half the article is not plot summary, but RW publication information. The same can presumably be done easily for any fictional character in a series . There is enough information here to justify an article, according to the GNG. But I continue to think that minor characters of this sort should nonetheless usually be merged into a combination article--one that is not just a list but contains a paragraph or two of content, including the list of appearances. (the list article gives only first appearance; it should include every one of them--that's encyclopedic information.) The argument pro and con is actually one of arrangement, not of content. The encyclopedia would contain the same content, merged or not merged. This article does not belong in AfD in any case, because at least a redirect would certainly be appropriate, and no reason whatever have been given why it would not be. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Abductives statements. Click23 (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus seems to be that this song is sufficiently notable. A need for editorial work is not a valid argument for deletion in this case. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song)[edit]

Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. I am nominating this page for deletion because it completely lacks third party notability. The only part not failing WP:NSONGS is that this charted on an official chart. Other than that, a google search returned no credible articles about this songs, other than download links. We don't need such two line article in Wikipedia --Legolas (talk2me) 03:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There is no purpose in keeping such an article. There is a lack of coverage to build anything beyond what it already is, which by the way is very little. • вяαdcяochat 05:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 04:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a real album (yes? if it's not I'd nom it for speedy) by a notable artist. It's not even that bad of a stub right now. These are useful, cause no harm, and fall within the notability criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I must ask that how can you say that the article passes a stub class? The article consists of three lines. Its even leser than a stub. And also it was just something released for download, its not an album. It was released for free download. --Legolas (talk2me) 08:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's 8+ lines rendered, 36 lines in wiki text. I don't think you'll find my AfD history to be particularly slanted towards keeping non-notable articles, but this is clearly stub class. To the point, it's a charting record from a notable artist. Shadowjams (talk) 09:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Barely charted, don't see it progressing beyond stub class (yes, it is a stub). Rehevkor ✉ 16:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Barely charted" isn't an excuse, the fact is that it DID chart. And read WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT regarding your second argument. Bravedog (talk)
It's not an excuse it's an opinion. And I never said no one was working on it or that is was poorly written. Did you even read what or wrote or are you just eager to launch some kind of attack? Rehevkor ✉ 00:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The artist is obviously notable. The song exists, and charted in Canada. The issue, however, is that all I can find are passing mentions of the song in articles about Lady Gaga. For this to pass WP:NSONGS, "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." Therefore, without any context, I don't see how this article will ever grow beyond a stub, given the sources available at this time. So, I vote the article to be deleted, though I would not oppose a brief mention of the song in Lady Gaga's article. Will change vote if significant coverage of the song from WP:RS exists.  Gongshow Talk 16:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It passes WP:NSONGS - it has charted in Canada. Without breaking WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, another song by this artist barely charted at all (Beautiful, Dirty, Rich at number 83 in the UK) and is at WP:GA level. "We don't need such two line article in Wikipedia" is not an excuse for deletion per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Dale 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shadowjams and Dale.The song reached the Canadian top 100. Dale's example of Beautiful, Dirty, Rich is a good one and WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT arguments are redundant here. Bravedog (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons Dale mentioned. --PlatinumFire 18:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without a WP:WAX violation, surely this means that this should be deleted too, despite topping the UK charts? A song charts, there are sources to prove that it exists - it should not be deleted. Whilst thinking the best of everybody, I also feel that there's a little US-bias here - had the single charted in America, the votes to keep would be coming in thick and fast. But as Canada is "foreign", there seems to be hesitation. Not accusing anyone of anything, just a POV. Bravedog (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the WP:WAX non-violation, so I won't address a hypothetical case involving the "Baby Cakes" article, other than to say if and when it should ever come up for AFD, I will be happy to scour the web for significant coverage in WP:RS, or confirm a lack thereof; in other words, the same process I have followed for this nomination. As for the US-bias POV, while understanding that the comment was not directed to anyone in particular, I would just like to state that my vote and justification holds whether the chart in question originates from the US, Canada, or any other nation. WP:NSONGS is clear in articulating that a national chart will suffice to indicate "probable notability". Similarly, WP:NSONGS is clear in articulating that notability alone is not enough to assure that a song article is appropriate, and that is why I have kindly requested for evidence of any "significant coverage" which would help to establish a "reasonably detailed article" (e.g., a song review, an article describing the song's lyrics, music, recording process...really, just anything so long as it provides some significant details beyond triviality). In my view, sources that confirm the song's existence, or list the song's chart peak, are great, but such passing mentions prove only that the song is notable, not that the article meets WP:NSONGS, because in addition, the song must still meet the "significant coverage in reliable sources" standard. Again, if such coverage exists, I would appreciate evidence of it so I can change my vote accordingly.  Gongshow Talk 01:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The song appears to be notable, that notability appears to be documented in at least one reliable source. So, the article should be kept. If this were a single off of an album, though, I'd recommend a merge without a second thought, because the material really is thin for a stand-alone article. But this wasn't a cut off of an album, so that does not work - and a merge to the artist doesn't really fly, either. So we keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Important note - since this AfD started, a series of extra citations have been added to the article. I have alerted User:Legolas2186, User:Bradcro, User:Rehevkor and User:Gongshow about this issue. Dale 21:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the reasons stated above. Just because the article is small doesn't mean it should be deleted. I'd like to also point out that it was released in March of this year so it hasn't actually had any Christmastime publicity yet, not that wait and see is an excuse. It charted in Canada and is by a very well known artist. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The series of 2 additional citations consists of (1) a credits listing which proves the song's existence, and (2) a chart listing of the song's peak position. While I appreciate the efforts to include any reliable sourcing, these do not address my objection's rationale. Per WP:NSONGS, charted songs are only "probably notable", not inherently notable. Songs must meet the WP:GNG standard, meaning "significant coverage" must exist. By that, we must look for a RS to "address the subject directly in detail" and provide "more than a trivial mention". To date, no sources appear to offer a single sentence about the song. Until such coverage is presented, my delete vote stands, for what it's worth.  Gongshow Talk 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Lady Gaga. I would like to point out to other editors who are mentioning the article Beautiful, Dirty, Rich's subject as another promo-only, single-chart-appearance song from the artist, and that it is at good-article status. However, there is a good chunk of reliable information regarding the song's background, writing, composition, and other information. The sources in this article do little more than prove who the song was composed by, that the song exists, that it was released as a single and that it charted. There is simply not enough reliable information to warrant this song's article. WP:NSONG even says, "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." There is nothing left to say. Redirect this to the artist's article and give it a brief mention there. Chase wc91 23:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough coverage. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it charted. With work, the article can be tidied up considerably. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 19:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmet Haberal[edit]

Mehmet Haberal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This non-encyclopedic article would need a complete rewrite even IF the subject is notable, which has not been established. Onthegogo (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to be notable and is certainly unencyclopedic. Laurinavicius (talk) 23:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has multiple, reliable sources. But most of the information is unsourced, does not conform to Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines, and should be removed. Sebwite (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. Just moved it to Talk:Mehmet Haberal/Biography. Let's see how notable this subject is with the remainder. Sebwite (talk) 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources show clear notability on several fronts. Rewriting doesn't involve deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agree with Sebwite. See my note [next] Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The timeline section looks like a copy-paste; I don't know if it is, but I suggest it be rewritten. The article's generally in need of attention. Shadowjams (talk) 08:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The article looks like written by a 3-year old child. Does it qualify to be a Wikipedia article seriously? camoka4 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Ergenekon Terror Organization: There is not a such terror organization, it is just the name of an oparatation made by Turkish state against people who blamed to commit a military coup. --Cemyildiz (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 03:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is notable on two fronts, with accelerating Google News hits. Turkish Wikipedia article gets a lot of page views, suggesting that subject is of interest there. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus appears to be that there are not enough reliable sources to pass the relevant notability guidelines. NW (Talk) 04:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamilia Wawrzynia[edit]

Kamilia Wawrzynia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENT, WP:BLP1E. Model trips on runway, gets Wiki article? Coverage amounts to inclusion on various blooper reels hosted on Youtube - although I'm not so sure that really counts as "coverage," especially when much of the time the source doesn't even mention Wawrzynia by name. If it is, it's certainly not significant. The content of the article is an in-depth description of her falling with statements that any real information on Wawrzynia is nonexistent, ending with the rather ludicrous idea that this incident makes her one of the most famous models in the world.  Mbinebri  talk ← 03:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Worthless. BLP1E Racepacket (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article creator has modified/added to the article that Wawrzynia (Wawrzyniak now?) has appeared on two magazine covers amidst a handful of runway shows sourced to her user-submitted Fashion Model Directory profile, as well as unsourced editorial claims—i.e., nothing to establish her as more than a very minor model still lacking coverage.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. No real assertion of notability, and the article itself pretty much acknowledges the subject fails the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I created the article, my vote is obviously keep.

I created it because having watched the video and noting that millions of others had too, I wanted to know who it was that we were all seeing and figured there are people who have probably wanted to know as well. Accurate information about her was initially difficult to find because the name by which she is frequently referred to in relation to the video is incorrect. The incorrect name alone returns thousands of pages at google, and all in relation to the video.

Of course "model trips on runway, gets Wiki article" sounds completely trivial. I would modify that statement thusly: Model falls down, gets covered by international media, years later the incident is still being watched over and over by millions of people and continues to be the subject of numerous YouTube parodies.

YouTube statistics show that the footage of Wawrzyniak is one of the most favorited, rated, viewed and discussed videos of all time in the UK.

There are articles here for videos that have been around longer and yet haven't been seen as much as the footage that Wawrzyniak is in.

Apart from the fact that millions of people are aware of her existence simply due to "the incident", the next best argument that I suppose can be made for her notability is that she has appeared in and on internationally-known publications, and in countries other than just her own, apart from the rest of her resume, and the fact that googling her correct name returns tens of thousands of pages. Either of those two points alone might not be enough but together I'd argue they make a stronger case for keeping the article.Adrigon (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You make a lot of arguments, Adrigon, but many of them further demonstrate the subject's lack of notability. For example, you state the video has been watched millions of times as a key to her notability, but establishing the number required your own research, as demonstrated on the talk page. If Wawrzyniak or the incident was indeed notable via Youtube viewcounts, a proper source with proper coverage would record this fact, while at the same time report facts about the subject that you, within the article, admit have not been reported. Google search results alone do not establish notability; it's the quality/reliability/coverage of those results that establish notability, and the blogs and forums I see in such a search don't cut it; and if what's out there is all in reference to her falling on the runway (which is by no means uncommon), then that only supports that the article fails the WP:BLP1E policy. Furthermore, sources either not stating her name or misspelling it demonstrates that little to no fact-checking has been done in relaying the incident, which is a big no-no in WP:RS policies. Lastly, her career credits are very minor as models go; if this was not the case, popular modeling resources like NYMag.com and Model.com would return results on her, but they don't by either spelling.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply:

Her page at one of the agencies which represents her, with the cover she appeared on for Elle in Belgium: http://www.trafficmodels.com/site/main.php?g2_itemId=91196

The agency which represents her in Germany, with the cover for Elle that she did in that country: http://www.modelwerk.de/home/ (Her name has to be looked up there because the site is in Flash and can't be linked to directly.)

Her page at IMG's agency: http://imgmodels.com/details.aspx?navbtn=1&cityID=2&modelid=190682&pic=031.jpg&subid=2605&mainsubid=2605&catID=1&indx=5

Her card at models.com: http://models.com/oftheminute/?p=4627&page=41

Her style.com profile, with pictures of her from some of the shows mentioned in her article: http://www.style.com/peopleparties/modelsearch/person1940

An editorial she appeared in, solo, for Cosmopolitan in Italy: http://modelwerkblog.blogspot.com/2009/07/sparkling-kamila-w.html

A perfume commercial she appeared in, solo: http://blog.model.plus.pleyar.com/?p=729# (She is also in print ads for this product.)

As the face of the Dr. Irena Eris "Skin Mood" line of products ad campaign: http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/2459/beztytuu8nw.png http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/4877/beztytuu29zo.png

As the opening model in a fashion show for designer Maciej Zień: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=PL&hl=pl&v=UC1aHA8jZa8

As the opening model in a show for designer Gori de Palma at Barcelona fashion week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XMqPbbmG6w http://forums.thefashionspot.com/showpost.php?p=2995966&postcount=153

Hopefully at least some of these should satisfy Wikipedia's requirement that as a model she has had significant roles in multiple notable "stage performances, or other productions." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrigon (talk • contribs) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To keep this short: as with the Youtube videos and Google search listings, linking to agency cards, more Youtube videos, forums, and uploading photos to Imageshack only demonstrates that she's a professional model through primary sources. The same can be found for thousands and thousands of models, and while demonstrating that she has been in a couple ads is a step towards being more notable, being forced to use such primary sources in the article as references only shows that significant coverage is not available after your thorough searching.  Mbinebri  talk ← 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 04:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fadi Kiblawi[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fadi Kiblawi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am the subject of this article, and nominate it for deletion primarily because I am not sufficiently public for a Wikipedia entry. Furthermore, many assertions of the article are not attributed to reliable sources. Nominated by FKFK19. Steps two and three fixed by A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The subject of the article has requested deletion; dubious notability anyway (last AfD was closed as "no consensus"). Per WP:BLPDEL, "if...the subject has requested deletion...this is addressed at xFD rather than by summary deletion." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Previous AFD, barely 60 days ago, could have been closed as "keep", and little has changed. Note that the nominator/subject at the time he made the nomination, also deleted content sourced to an appearance he made on CNN, which conflicts with the rationale about being "sufficiently public." Claims about "reliable sources" are not detailed, and could be addressed within the normal editing process; as noted in the original AFD, coverage exists in multiple major news publications. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is not a single third party source discussing the subject of the article. The CNN source contains one line related to coverage of the subject (Fadi Kiblawi is co-founder of the pro-Palestinian student group called SAFE. That's short for Students Allied for Freedom and Equality.) The NYTimes source contains one line related to the subject (Kuwaiti-born Palestinian who went to high school in St. Louis and is among the peace group leaders.) The CSMonitor source contains two bits of information about the subject (was raised in the United States by Palestinian parents and , Fadi Kiblawi, a senior at the University of Michigan, spends his free time researching US companies that do business in Israel and whose stock is owned by his university.) The Baltimore Sun source is dead so I have no idea what that source did have if it did exist, There is simply not sufficient sourcing to continue to include this article. All of the sources that do could be used are focused on the organization and its efforts with barely a mention of Kiblawi. nableezy - 18:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete highly significant and long-standing organisations/major web-sites like "Jews Against Zionism" aren't deemed worthy of an article - but Wikipedia sets out to finger and embarrass and blight the career of a student? Do editors have no shame? 86.159.247.180 (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 You Got the Love. Some "votes" have been discounted per WP:DUCK. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've Got The Love[edit]

You've Got The Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's the same song as You Got the Love and WP:NSONGS says we can't have extra articles for cover versions Bravedog (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I have no idea who HC 5555 is and only know of Jonny via editing the Mika pages. Thanks, Freshpop (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Reply - It looks like part of the top drawer of my dresser. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was deleted. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Streaming off[edit]

Streaming off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This looks like a hoax. No google hit. Lines like "Sting, Jay Leno and Nicole Kidman are actively involved in promoting the act of streaming off" are obvious lies.-- Coasttocoast (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I removed the naming of celebrities for BLP concerns even though this is not any of their bios. It is funny but has no sources. delirious & lost ☯ TALK 05:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sing Like Me[edit]

Sing Like Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - fails WP:NSONGS. No confirmed release date, no music video... Dale 02:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Kyoku Ryu[edit]

Bu Kyoku Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable martial art, with no reliable sources provided and none found. TNXMan 13:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Unreferenced article with no assertion or indication of notablity. A Google search turns up just 12 hits excluding this article. --DAJF (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Techno bass[edit]

Techno bass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research article, created by the creator of the term himself. The only source for the article is the link to this article's creator site. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No independent coverage. Duffbeerforme (talk) 02:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable secondary sources mention this subgenre, and WP doesn't need any more random genres or subgenres of music people come up with at will. Angryapathy (talk) 19:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading week[edit]

Reading week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JBsupreme (talk) 19:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is a degenerate disambiguation page; it once looked like this. A redirect, possibly with a hatnote if there are really two senses, would probably make sense. --Chris Johnson (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article to redirect to. The link currently is to a section heading which contains the same one-sentence definition of Reading week. There are no substantive inward links to the phrase. Either delete or leave alone. Sussexonian (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, spring break does list "reading week" as an alternate name. Could be a redirect there, though the UK sense seems to be primary. I have no strong feelings on the matter. --Chris Johnson (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leader Attribute Patterns[edit]

Leader Attribute Patterns (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that there is a notable concept called Leader Attribute Pattern Approach" (the article's original title) or "Leader Attribute Patterns" (the title to which it was moved). I checked Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books and came up with one hit for the latter. Possibly an original research or synthesis piece. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While there may not be specific articles entitled "leader attribute patterns" on google scholar, there are a number of works that have included patterns of leader attributes. Please check more scholarly search engines like Ebscohost and Psycinfo. There are numerous references in our reference section which are directly related to the Leader Attribute Approach (e.g., Foti & Hauenstein, 2007; Smith & Foti, 1998)—GeorgeMasonIO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.116.237.110 (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By writing under a title like "Leader Attribute Patterns", you give me the impression that there is a recognized, attributable discipline by that name, and I should be able to find resources that refer to it. If, instead, none of the writers of the sources you cite makes mention of a discipline by that name to which they consider their work to belong, and if such a name doesn't appear anywhere, then I wonder if the novel act of compiling all this information under a single heading is a form of synthesis. In other words, is this overarching field to which you have attached the title "Leader Attribute Patterns", and to which, in your view, these works pertain, your own original concept? In that case an article by you on the subject might be a piece of original research. I'd be interested to know what others feel about my interpretation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a tricky one...the article seems very well-written and well-sourced, but like the nominator has pointed out, there is no mainstream recognization of the specific topic of the article, and is instead more of an essay about something that is created by synthesis of sources using original research. I'd lean towards delete since the article seems like synthesis. Angryapathy (talk) 14:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Delete per DGG's great research. After taking some more looks at the article and other people's comments, this is definately SYN and OR, and should be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Were this a notable, recognized social science theory, I'd expect Google Scholar and Google Books not to draw a blank on it. I suspect instead that this is somebody shilling for a non-notable management theory or consultancy. It is only superficially well written; in fact it tends to go on and on while elaborately restating the obvious in a way typical of the genre: ... a perspective of understanding leader individual differences. It is different from traditional trait perspectives. Specifically, it is based on theorists' arguments that leaders are best studied as entire patterns of traits rather than examining individual traits. This allows for an understanding of leader traits that better reflects the reality of individuals as whole entities. A better understanding of leader traits has implications for leader development, selection, and training. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' per Smerdis, who has a cool last name and impeccable reading skills. Original research, or synthesis at best. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SYN. Most article like this turn out to be one person's own non-notable but published slight variation of standard theory under a self-developed name that nobody else uses; this one hasn't even been published anywhere yet. The most the author claims is there are published articles "relevant to our approach." -- the approach seems to rely somewhat on the work of Stephen Zaccaro of George Mason University [46]. Even were he to publish it under this title, it would be necessary for notability that other people cite it as significant. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy McGuire[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jimmy McGuire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find any reliable sources besides this. The only other sources are primary, and mostly do not back up the information in the article. Either delete outright or merge to Jeopardy! Clue Crew. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, BLP of figure not especially notable beyond a single continuing TV credit. Robert K S (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pocketkaos[edit]

Pocketkaos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Happiness[edit]

Open Happiness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An advertisement for the Coke company. Not a notable encyclopedia article. Alatari (talk) 22:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the notability, but may I ask how this is an advertisement? The article seems to present the subject in a neutral, encyclopedic manner. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are self published from Coke. The reading of the first paragraph is not neutral; Joe Tripodi's comments are pure advertising. Then we get externally linked right to an advertisement site. Are the other two sources reliable and legitimate? Alatari (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have serious doubts about the independent quality of the media.asia website and, as noted, the rest is Coke-submitted. The article, without having an overtly promotional tone, qualifies as spam--at least in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 01:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have spent the last few minutes reading and re-reading the opening paragraph of the article and can't work out how it can possibly be characterised as "not neutral". It is a factual statement of what the campaign is, and the same goes for most of the rest of the article. Notability is pretty obvious from this search with this article from The New York Times and this one from Rolling Stone amongst the first three hits. Some people seem to be confusing writing about an advertising campaign, which is perfectly acceptable, with assisting the campaign, which is not. This article does the former. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Phil Bridger. Edward321 (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GOOM[edit]

GOOM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

could only find 1 source [47]. would reconsider if there is significant coverage in Finnish...but would that mean this topic is of little or no interest to English speakers? LibStar (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Aside from the nomination, no arguments for deletion have been presented in three weeks of this discussion being open. No prejudice towards a speedy renomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Radevski[edit]

Tony Radevski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CREATIVE. yes he co-created 1 award winning film but that in itself isn't enough to pass WP:CREATIVE, he does not appear to have any other peer or industry recognition for his notability as director and very limited media coverage. [48]. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, described in national press as having won multiple awards in field [49]. If winning one significant award is enough to demonstrate notability for a porn performer with only industry press coverage, it should be enough to demonstrate notability for a documentary filmmaker with mainstream national press coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Garcia (producer)[edit]

Pedro Garcia (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems a promotional bio. I cannot find any meaningful source about this producer, reliable or unreliable. Cyclopiatalk 11:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg (talk) 04:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bejinxed[edit]

Bejinxed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have removed the {{db-a7}} tag from this article because A7 does not apply to films. Furthermore, notability is asserted by "the short film won the best short animated film award at 6th annual 24fps awards 2009." This is sourced to indiainfoline.com, which states: "Best Animated Short Film: Student Team (OPEN) – BeJinxed – Whistling Woods International". There is no indication that this is a notable award, so this does not establish notability. Furthermore, a Google News Archive search returns no relevant results, so this film appears to fail the notability guideline for films. Cunard (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Shepherd[edit]

Gwen Shepherd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is about an actress with no reliable sources to establish notability. Her body of work as shown in IMDB does not show any significant role. The bio as written focuses on a single role in a single episode of Seinfeld where she plays an unnamed cashier. A search for articles about her turn up no reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Apart from being unable to find any significant coverage, the subject also fails to meet WP:ANYBIO and the general notability guideline. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- There's no evidence that she meets the general notability guidelines at WP:N, and her roles are neither "significant" nor "prolific" so as to meet WP:ENT (the relevant specific standard for actors). - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Being a canny cashier in one episode of Seinfeld hardly cuts it, but I've added some sourced information on her theatrical work in the 1980s that I think gets her over the bar for WP:ENT (particularly her role in the original production of Blues in the Night). --Paularblaster (talk) 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Looking for guidance. The added roles don't make her notably prolific (compared to, say, Martin Sheen's literally hundreds of credited roles), but the Blues in the Night and Showboat roles are certainly notable from a theatre perspective. WP:ENT demands "significant roles in multiple [...] stage performances". Is two enough to satisfy "multiple"? On a literal reading it does but I'm not sure if it's been interpreted that way in the past. I also note that there's still no source attesting to her notability being independent from her roles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a requirement to be notably prolific, only to be notable. The quotation in what is currently footnote 4 also indicates that she was not inactive as an understudy in Legends, which means she performed in at least three notable stage productions. I'm not sure what you mean by her notability not being "independent from her roles". The requirement for performers is their roles, not a more generalized celebrity, although clearly if she was "a celebrity" we wouldn't be having an AfD. --Paularblaster (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ENT (the specific sub-policy for notability of actors) talks at criterion 3 about notability on the grounds of being prolific. She doesn't remotely meet that but that's fine because she's got a much stronger claim on WP:ENT criterion 1. When I'm talking about "independent notability", what I'm saying is that appearing in a notable production may merit inclusion in Wikipedia but it doesn't of itself merit a separate article in Wikipedia. (See WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED for more discussion.) Typically the level required for a stand-alone article will be that a reader can be familiar with some aspect of the individual without necessarily having a detailed knowledge of the works they have contributed to, usually demonstrated through an independent reliable source that focuses on the individual themselves in detail. (An article about "Gwen Shepherd, up and coming actress" or "Shepherd continues promising career" or some production being interesting on the grounds that Shepherd is attached would nail it handily, although certainly that's not the only means of satisfying it.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! The number of times I must have read right over "prolific" in WP:ENT 3. But as you say, it's no. 1 I'd consider her meeting. Would what is currently footnote 3 meet your other concern? --Paularblaster (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • She also appears to work under the names Gwendolyn J. Shepherd and Gwendolyn Shepherd, which adds a Chicago production of Porgy and Bess and a Broadway production of Midsummer Night's Dream (the more you look the more prolific she gets; these names also give bit parts in Murder She Wrote and a couple of other series). Not adding these to the article yet as I want to double-check it really is the same person. --Paularblaster (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 3 (NY Times on Showboat) doesn't meet my concerns in that it's discussing her as a highlight of the show, not independently. However other editors may (and frequently do) disagree with me! If the Porgy and Bess and Midsummer Night Dream roles are significant roles, that'd definitely take it past WP:ENT criterion 1 though, so if you find something that satisfactorily establishes they're her I'd definitely change to Keep. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:26, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete so far all I see are a couple trivial guest appearances, but nothing really notable. JBsupreme (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator is changing to WEAK KEEP - based on the items dug up by Paularblaster (thanks!), showing multiple reviewed stage roles, I think it just passes the notability bar. I would withdraw the nomination, but it appears that not all editors are convinced by the additional sourcing. -- Whpq (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. I've just done a near-total rewrite. The article should be judged as it now stands (particularly on the basis of her not stellar but certainly substantial theatrical roles, rather than TV walk-on parts). --Paularblaster (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still stand by my (altered) vote of Keep above on the basis of Paularblaster's improvements. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements and additions to sourcing demonstrating sufficient coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to have enough coverage in reliable sources.--Staberinde (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ly De Angeles[edit]

Ly De Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. simply writing a few books does not guarantee notability. claims of internationally renowned are not proven with limited third party coverage [50]. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article needs improvement and a broader range of references, but the subject seems notable enough to have a substantial entry in The Encyclopedia of Wicca and Witchcraft, be interviewed on ABC's Compass program, and be cited by well-known witches like Fiona Horne indicates that she is "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors". --Canley (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lewelyn publishing is a major astrology publisher, not a vanity press or otherwise nonnotable entity. thus she has solid notability within her field(s). Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, maybe, if you can find third-party sources - at present, this seems to have been written by somebody who mistook peacock words for assertions of notability. Could we get some third-party sources, please? --Orange Mike | Talk 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Canley. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SoCalEuro[edit]

SoCalEuro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable car web forum. No independent sources to assert notability of the site. Only mentions have been about car gatherings they've sponsored, and those have largely consisted of photos of the cars that were there. Optigan13 (talk) 04:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no reliable sources indicating notability per WP:WEB. There are a few links on the talk page for the article, but these are to blogs and event listings that are not articles about the topic. --Kinu t/c 04:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 03:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Marie Anne Wilson du Pont[edit]

Francis Marie Anne Wilson du Pont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested ProD. A review of the references does not turn up the subject of the article; good faith web search turned up no hits regarding the subject; fails Wikipedia:notability (people) Pdcook (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, sources do not mention the subject, unverifiable. Hairhorn (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creator of the article seems to be asserting some connection to the Du Pont family. As she lives in the UK, I doubt this. This looks to me like it would have met WP:CSD A7. Anyway, no sources, no assertion of significance, no notability. Dlohcierekim 04:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, depending on the admin, this could have been speedily deleted under A7, but I've been refused for even less "notable" articles. On an unrelated note, I should mention that an IP editor removed the AfD message from the article and I re-added it. Pdcook (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Know what you mean. Better extra eyes than a mistake. Dlohcierekim 22:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwai Nyu[edit]

Kwai Nyu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fiction about rugby.

Previously a re-creation of Kwai Nyu Rugby Club and deleted thanks to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kwai Nyu Rugby Club, this new article is independent (and thus should not be deleted as an improper re-creation of a deleted page). Shortly after its creation, it was "sourced" in part to www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Kwai-Nyu-Rugby-Club, which is merely a commercial scrape of WP's own, deleted "Kwai Nyu Rugby Club".

We're told that the game has spread throughout the Midwest and across North America. Amazingly for a game that has spread across North America, Google News has never heard of it.

I suggest that it's an invention and merely needs some salt. -- Hoary (talk) 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as something made up in school one day. Doesn't matter if that day was in 1956. There is no adequate evidence that it has progressed further than that since. DarkAudit (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interestingly, An article on this was deleted at Conservapedia. I did not see anything that meets non trivial coaverage, nothing that smacks of notability. I saw few references unconnected with the Priory School in Saint Louis, Missouri. The article says, "Officially, Kwai Nyu is not recognized by Rugby Union or Rugby League organizations at this time. However, there have been numerous efforts in recent years to procure its recognition by mainstream sporting establishments." This tells me the subject has no significance broad enough for an article, though those connected with it would like it to. I would suggest a mention at the article on the school if I could find an article on the school. Dlohcierekim 03:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The school? If I remember right, something looking like a domain name for the school has been listed as a spammer. (Ah, take a look at these.) A coincidence? -- Hoary (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources, no chance that any reliable sources are going to show up anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a variant of rugby that has not established notability with coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only references I can find for this are Wikipedia mirrors, and self-published facebook-type pages. No coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet notability guidelines. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of lists related to William Shakespeare[edit]

List of lists related to William Shakespeare (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:Listcruft. I do not see the point in having that list. Lists on WP are not a notable subject. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and rehash as a category. Lists are not unconscionable, but this would truly be better served by a category. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary list; a category would serve this purpose far better. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shakespeare is incredibly notable. However, a list of lists? I don't see any handle on which to hag a reason to include this. If anything, this would be better as a category. Dlohcierekim 03:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lists of lists do exist, usually as "lists of books" etc. but in this case, i agree, better as a category within shakespeare, "shakespeare lists" would be fine.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, better served by a category. JIP | Talk 07:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that "a category would serve this purpose far better" runs contrary to the relevant editing guideline. There are many possible reasons to have a list as well as a category. Unlike categories, lists can be sortable; unlike categories, lists can include references. Also, while Wikipedians can usually use categories proficiently, our end-users generally aren't even aware of categories, and a list serves their purposes much better.

    Contrary to the long list of !votes above, I'm going to go with keep as a list that serves a navigational function. This is perfectly encyclopaedic, because encyclopaedias benefit from contents pages.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The list doesn't meet any criteria for an article, and all of these lists are already in the navbox. The navbox is sufficient. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete--I am very sympathetic to S Marshall's argument, but in this case, the list of lists being so short, I don't see the advantages of this list, especially, as pointed out above, the navbox. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a navigational device, not an article. A navigational device is list format should in my opinion, not be judged on N, but on whether it's of use. we could and should make a category also, but it should not be deleted unless it i s in some way harmful or confusing or worthless. I don;t see that it is. Some people like looking at list instead of categories, and , not being PAPER, we can perfectly well do both all the time unless it for some reason would be actually wrong. No such reason is given here. S Marshall, maybe you & I need to propose a specific guideline that addresses this point. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Basichis[edit]

Gordon Basichis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Published author with a bestseller that ranks towards 300,000 on amazon, alother book around 330,000 and a recently publisged effort around 740,000. I couldn't find any reliable sources for them during a quick search. The news hit looks like a regurgitated press release and a basic google search reveals lots of social networking type site and non-notable websites almost like the subject has been raising their web profile and I see that the article appears self published [51]. Google books has only a very trivial mention. In summary, we have no verifiable independent sources that discuss the subject in sufficient detail to allow the creation of a credible BLP. Fails V, N RS & BIO. Spartaz Humbug! 00:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article almost feels like it could evolve into a resume. Almost. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notwithstanding that I restored the article. No mention of coverage in sources and very unlikely that there would be some. Protonk (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the links in the discussion. It saves a step or two. Having followed said links, I did not find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. Dlohcierekim 03:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails all our notability tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Midnight[edit]

Sean Midnight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is partially filled with nonsense, is a frequent vandalism target to the point that actual information is indiscernible from the garbage, and the original subject appears to fail WP:N and WP:V for having no reliable third-party references in the article. Ivanvector (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If you're going to claim someone has been featured in the Sun or on the BBC, you better be ready to prove it. It is not my responsibility to investigate your claim. DarkAudit (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some Google news hits. I have not read them to determine whether they suffice to establish notability. Nothing that I saw from the Sun or BBC. Dlohcierekim 03:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here is the BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/birmingham/content/articles/2009/07/10/deaf_wrestler_feature.shtml Note that you can restrict a search on Google to a specific domain through the "site:" operator, so I searched on Google for "Sean Midnight" site:bbc.co.uk and found this item. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The nonsense and vandalism are not relevant to the deletion discussion. Those are amenable to judicious editing and if need be page protection. However, I do not see that this subject, even with a the BBC article contents, meets notability guidelines. Deafness is not a criterion for notability, nor is professional wrestling. I do not see evidence in the article of sufficient achievement to meet notability requirements, nor did I find sufficient coverage by reliable, third party sources, in terms of breadth or depth. Dlohcierekim 20:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The BBC has regional divisions covering local news in the UK, the article is from BBC Birmingham not the national news site (news.bbc.co.uk). Cassandra 73 (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Noted comment per Cassandra. Claim to notability is even weaker than it was. Dlohcierekim 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 12:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not notable--WillC 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I smell WP:VAIN to be honest. In no way notable. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_November_17&oldid=1142643578"