Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 November 20 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 delete. Only a SPA argued for keep. No good evidence for passing WP:BIO. Fences&Windows 17:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Allen (actor/comedian)[edit]

David Allen (actor/comedian) (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, the article is full of unreliable sources such as youtube and photo site links. could not find any in depth coverage of him [1]. there is a "Actor-comedian David Allen Grier " which I'm not sure is the same person in any case this David also gets very limited coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - David Allen Grier is definitely a different person. I couldn't find anything to establish the subject's notability. The name is fairly common and generated a lot of false positives. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Most of this information is sited on his IMDB page. In addition, performer pages from 3rd party websites confirms much of this information. Youtube and Photo links should be changed. However, this is not relevant for deletion as most of this information is backed by MAJOR reputable sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.195.169 (talk) — 75.84.195.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
the 3rd party sources do not fall under reliable sources, we need major newspapers and news sites. LibStar (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then your mission should be to have the HUNDREDS of other comedians sourced here deleted, as well, and not be focusing on just one. IMDB falls under a reliable source because it is privately maintained. At the very least, this article would remain and be reduced to the information from them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.195.169 (talk)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for keeping this article. LibStar (talk) 03:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never noted that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was a reason for keeping this article. Our opinions have been stated. There are reliable sources here and their are unreliable sources here. Some source links need to be changed but the article, in whole, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.195.169 (talk)
The IMDb is a good place to start when looking for content, but the consensus is that it isn't a reliable source because just about anybody can add content to it without oversight. This issue has been brought up at the reliable sources noticeboard here, here, and most recently here. The best way to save the article would be to find third party reliable sources that cover the subject with some depth, like perhaps a newspaper interview. Implying that the article shouldn't be picked on because there are hundreds of other comedians with similar notability issues is why LibStar pointed out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm sure there are many comedians that need to be brought up for deletion because they don't pass notability, but they'll be taken care of eventually. Narthring (talk • contribs) 15:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The key here is reliable third party sources, of which there are none. I personally question possible WP:COI of protester 75.84.195.169. Logical Fuzz (talk) 13:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Narthring. GlassCobra 02:27, 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. Brandon (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture Shock Festival[edit]

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

Although obvious advertising can be seen, I am unsure of the catagory most suitable for this article. MajorMinorMark (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete I found some sources (added a couple), but everything appears to be local. I do not believe there is enough coverage to say that the festival is notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry. J.delanoygabsadds 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two (badly written) lines about a local festival isn't enough. Fails notability standards. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - All local festivals don't warrant keeping. CynofGavuf 11:59, 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. Nominator blocked for sockpuppetry J.delanoygabsadds 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Complete Count Committee[edit]

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

Obvious advertising is obvious. MajorMinorMark (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This committee was created by California's governor. It is not something made up in school one day. Text of executive order establishing the committee. There are many other Complete Count Committees in other states. See this search. Lots of money is at stake since many grants from the U.S. federal government to states depend on census counts. The page from the U.S. Census Bureau identifies the Complete Count Committees as "partners" of the Census Bureau. Style issues can be fixed. Eastmain (talk) 23:41, 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 merge to Atlassian. SoWhy 10:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crucible (software)[edit]

Crucible (software) (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 software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:BURDEN. I'm willing to revisit this opinion if sources are shown. Miami33139 (talk) 01:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unususal and rosy mention here [2] in a 2008 book that is specifically not about commercially available software, but anyway mentions Crucible in the preface as something "so good, it would be a shame not to mention it". It makes it quite likely that sources could be found in specialist RS, blogs with editorial oversight, blogs that may be accepted as RS, or whatever. I'm not going to sift through all 274k Ghits [3] for "Crucible Atlassian, Inc" Power.corrupts (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: re GHits - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:23, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Above "keep" !votes aren't really holding water here. There don't seem to be any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The broader look concerns me here, that alternatives to deletion per WP:PRESERVE (a policy) have not been attempted or even considered. Even if consensus were that the subject does not warrant its own article per WP:N (a guideline) the information could merged somewhere else - for instance under Atlassian, with a redirect - and according to policy this should be considered. The nom. regularly puts up software articles for deletion and the coming months we may or may not see similar nominations of: JIRA Studio, Clover (software), FishEye (software), Crowd (software), Bamboo (software), Confluence (software), JIRA (software), which all have largely the same sourcing problems as this one, and for which a nomination will send other editors scrambling for finding sources. So I suggest that somebody concerned with the quality of Wikipedia's coverage of software, the nom. perhaps, merges all these articles into a parent Atlassian article. Power.corrupts (talk) 10:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I found two more articles talking about the tool, but the coverage isn't substantial.[4][5] Fences&Windows 22:31, 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, NW (Talk) 20:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of free and open source software packages. Reasoning: Per the above searches, the software verifiably exists, so information about it belongs on Wikipedia; but it is not notable, so it does not merit a standalone article. As Power.corrupt says, there is a tension between WP:N and WP:PRESERVE here, in that WP:PRESERVE enjoins us not to remove sourced and verifiable information from the encyclopaedia but WP:N enjoins us not to permit articles about non-notable things. Thus, the only outcome consistent with our editing policies and guidelines is a merge, and List of free and open source software packages seems to be the most logical merge target.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 00:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The merge target should be an article for the info to be retained, not a list, which is only a list of links. Merging all articles (with redirects) to the company Atlassian would be the best course action. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Atlassian. We've got enough sources to verify this software exists and what it does, but not enough to establish independent notability. Merging to the parent company seems like this best course of action, and to be preferable to the list of free and open source software packages. Fences&Windows 17:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Atlassian. WP:N not established, minimal information in the article that won't really be missed, possible WP:ADVERT. Sanguis Sanies (talk) 07:49, 27 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! 02:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laicology[edit]

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

Two problems: it's a dictionary definition, and it also appears to offer the wrong meaning. The root laic means secular (see Laïcité). As far as I can tell "laicology" is only used in theological circles to refer to secular issues, absolutely nothing about "adaptability" or "work environments." Entry has been tagged for export to Wiktionary, but there's no point preserving an incorrect definition. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unsourced, dic-def and, as nom. says, just plain wrong. The few hits in Google and Scholar show the word used in the ecclesiological sense. I think this is just something made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) see below.[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nice catch Hairhorn, I fixed the article. Ready for transwiki Power.corrupts (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stroke transwiki, it could probably be expanded beyond mere dic-def Power.corrupts (talk) 21:46, 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, NW (Talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that we have the correct meaning thanks to Power.corrupts; but keep the {{dicdef}} tag to encourage either expansion or transwiki to Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and don't transwiki The definition seems to make little sense (in what way does laicology deal with the things it claims?) and google has just 6 hits. The term does not seem to be notable, and that includes the Wikipedia, and most of the hits are in quotes, which seems to indicate it's not a real term. It's a dictionary definition as well. Even though it has been rewritten it clearly refers to the meaning of the term, rather covering the underlying concept that the term refers to.- Wolfkeeper 21:11, 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 keep. Kevin (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeny Morozov[edit]

Evgeny Morozov (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 assertion of notability. References include one primary source and a source, which is connected to the subject. Searching for anything more substantial was unsuccessful. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 17:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep published in New York Times [6] identified as " a fellow at The Open Society Institute in New York and a member of its Information Program's board." Referred to in Lede [7] "Meanwhile, on Foreign Policy’s “net.effect” blog, Evgeny Morozov unloads on Twitter in a post headlined “Swine flu: Twitter’s power to misinform.” " (This is RS as start of blog thread, not a response). And more cites on the NYT ad nauseam [8] [9] [10] [11] How much more substantial do we need? internet&st=cse&scp=15 " Evgeny Morozov, a specialist in technology and politics at the Open Society Institute in New York, a group that works with democratic movements worldwide and has been active in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, said Facebook and Twitter had apparently played a major role in the protests. " Leaving us with a person quoted multiple times in the NYT, opinion columnist multiple times in the NYT, and cited as an expert by the NYT. Sufficient notability, to be sure. Collect (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your "ad nauseam" cites are all primary sources and as such are unacceptable to establish notability. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Primary sources" are things like court documents and the like. The New York Times is considered a "reliable source" and when articles it publishes refer to a person as well-known in a field, it is presumed to be proper use of a "secondary source" (a newspaper). WP:RS "In articles about living persons, only material from high-quality news organizations may be used. " The NYT is considered such a source. WP:OR "Primary sources are sources very close to an event. For example, an account of a traffic accident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the accident. Other examples include archeological artifacts; photographs; historical documents such as diaries, census results, video or transcripts of surveillance, public hearings, trials, or interviews; tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires; original philosophical works; religious scripture; published notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations written by the person(s) who conducted or observed the experiments; and artistic and fictional works such as poems, scripts, screenplays, novels, motion pictures, videos, and television programs. The key point about a primary source is that it offers an insider's view to an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on." The New York Times does not fit in that category as used on WP. Collect (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:BIO. Being published in the New York Times is not notable by itself. If the New York Times had a few articles about Morozov, that's another story. At best, there is a passing and trivial mentioning of him. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 23:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of policy. One -- the NYT is not a "primary source" as one claimed above. Second, they specifically cite him as an expert in his field, and not just a "trivial mention." Third, they have him write opinion columns (not blog entries) which make him published by the NYT. This, in fact, is considered sufficient notability for several NYT columnists. I happen to disagree with his backers and positions - but he sure meets notability criteria for WP. [12], that being a NYT columnist is "notable" per se. Collect (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Specialist" is not a synonym of "expert". There are a couple of sentences about him published by the NYT, but this meets none of the WP:CREATIVE. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 00:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parsing "specialist" "fellow" and "expert" is not within reasonable purview. To most people, a "specialist" in a technical topic, writing on that topic for the New York Times, is expert as far as the NYT is concerned. All "specialist" implies is that his expertise is in a specialty of some sort. Collect (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought a specialist is someone who specializes in something. As opposed to a generalist and regardless of his expertise. A dictionary agreed. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 00:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I found one which defined "expert" as "specialist." [13] "a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert." Collect (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that there is little biographical info out there on him - a widely-published author, as we have determined, was my impetus to start this article, in the hope that information could be collected about him here. But since this deletion nomination has come up, I've dug around and found at least one "about" link that may be instructive: [14]. Ironically he just published a study on "what makes Wikipedia work," in Boston Review. Cjs2111 (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Boston Review article is definitely not a study, more like a well-informed rant. :) prashanthns (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of these is about Morozov. Nor is he referred to as an expert by any organization to which he is not connected. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


So the NYT calling him an expert is not valid then? Collect (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He works for them, so this assessment is not exactly neutral. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thus no employee of the NYT can be notable? Interesting. Especially since he is not an employee of the NYT. Collect (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They publish his articles for free? Note how all the other publications refer to him simply as a "Fellow at Georgetown University's E.A. Walsh School of Foreign Service", "blogger at Foreign Policy", etc. You'd think that if he were an expert indeed, that would be recognized more universally. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 21:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you usually refer to yourself in the third person? :-) Óðinn ☭☆ talk 21:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being paid for a column does not make one an employee of a publication. Honest! Collect (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the TED Talks page: "Evgeny Morozov is a journalist, author and an expert on political and social aspects of the Internet." [15] This is not an organization he is "affiliated" with, they only feature him. As an expert. From OpenDemocracy.net: "Evgeny Morozov is a technology and new-media expert" [16]. From WMD Insights: "Belarusian digital activism expert" [17]. ON THE BBC: "International cyberspace expert from Belorussia" [18]. How many more instances of "he's an expert" do we need? Cjs2111 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • 'Keep I do not understand Odinn's reasoning. He is widely quoted on notable subjects, writes for notable publications and is employed at a notable institution. What more do you want? Also, it will look vindictive if his entry is deleted as soon as he criticises Wikipedia in public. I should declare an interest here: he writes for The Economist, as do I. Edwardlucas (talk) 18:00, 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, NW (Talk) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Clearly regarded by major reliable news media as subject matter expert, with opinions/quotations often appearing in them. The work that makes him notable is well-documented and sufficient to write a decent article from (not that there's anything wrong with the existing one other than perhaps its brevity); not every bio needs discussion of childhood pets, romantic connections, and embarassing public displays. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Notable - I found a few third party sources just looking though google. — Oli OR Pyfan! 10:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a major public intellectual, passes WP:PROF criterion 7. RayTalk 16:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep. I think after 9 days, the discussion is ripe to be closed a keep.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I have been following the state of the article during the AFD in hope of seeing extra sourcing from which we could assert notability, I noticed this slight expansion since the nomination: [19]. While some above have claimed to find additional sources (which above they have not identified), a close look at what has been changed reveals that none of the sources presented as references in the article to date are independent of Evgeny Morozov (as sources that feature a certain writer are not considered independent third parties for notability purposes). Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:15, 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 no consensus. no obvious merge target has emerged so no-consensus but I would say that amerge appears to be a significant stand of opinion here Spartaz Humbug! 03:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification. I closed this as no-consensus because it would have been stupid to close it as merge somewhere but not sure where. Since a merge is an editorial decision, it does not require a consensus in a deletion decision before it happens. Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones[edit]

20th Century Masters-The Millennium Collection: The Best of Grace Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mid-price compilation. Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. I've also listed those related articles for the same reason:

Kekkomereq4 (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: These really must be split up. They refer to different artists, some of Russo's are singles, not "mid price comps," etc. Russo's singles, for example, may have hit it big at some point. I'm finishing up so I haven't the energy at the moment to look into them all in detail, but the least you should do is split the Russo from the Jones. - BalthCat (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Today I am commenting on the PROD's for the various Grace Jones compilations. I can see the inspiration for proposing the deletion of some or all of these nearly-identical compilations, but I'm not convinced of non-notability for all of those proposed for deletion by Kekkomereq4. Despite the ridiculous record company duplication, this one is a possibly notable standalone release. It's just distinct enough to merit its own mention. Notable artist, major label release, though the article certainly needs sources. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All of the "related" articles each had their own AfD opened when I believe it was the nominator's intent to bundle them into one. I have closed all of them and copied any delete !votes below: KuyaBriBriTalk 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Island Life 2:
    • Delete/Merge: The information in this PROD page should be made into a special section of the article for the original Island Life. In fact, a listing of the four bonus tracks is already there. Doomsdayer520 (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colour Collection:

MERGE into the Grace jones article or into the 20th century masters article.--99.182.21.35 (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MuZemike 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge multiple reissues of one album into one article, Keep the rest. Major-label releases by a notable artist tend to be notable in almost all cases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the headline article, as there is no article on the compilation series to merge to. It has insufficient notability, even though a major artiste and major label, as it is yet another compilation collection, with little impact likely due to the large number of previous times the same material has been released in previous collections. I hope the other articles mentioned are being considered on their own merits. It's disheartening to think that WKP editors have to go through this process for every repackaging of a compilation CD. Centrepull (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy, and allow Merge DO NOT KEEP By saying "merge" I mean it is acceptable for the content to exist somewhere else, not as an excuse for the content to sit around on Wikipedia for all time while nobody actually performs the merge. Miami33139 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the nom - some of these might be notable, some are not. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 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. Brandon (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ennui (Film)[edit]

Ennui (Film) (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 about a "feature film" made on a budget of £200 and with its first screening not due till 23 Nov. The article offers no evidence, and I can find none, that this film is notable to the standard of Notability (films). Searches are complicated, because Michael Henry is a common name and Ennui is a common word and the name of several films, but putting them together finds only Facebook, Youtube and the like. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Per nom, no demonstration of notability. Having a very low budget is not notable - other than this article, the works listed under list of least expensive films are notable for other reasons. Ivanvector (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteStudent film with no press and no coverage. Yes, it is supposed to screen November 23rd at the Co-Op Lecture Theater... but we can wait until it hits some festivals or get theatrical release and for it to receive some coverage in reliable sources. This optimistic article is simply too premature. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, not even close to meeting notability requirements for films. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The page has been copied to User:Ennui-film. That page should also be speedily deleted when this one goes, per CSD G4. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Ivanvector's note above. Often it is reasonable for a userfied copy of an article to remain to be worked on in an attempt to answer the reasons for deletion, but not when the issue is total lack of notability: no amount of editing the article will make this film notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one's a lost cause. Spend some money, hire a publicist, and make your project notable. Don't put the cart before the horse. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 04:51, 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. Brandon (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance Stringer[edit]

Terrance Stringer (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:GNG and WP:ATH as he's never played professionally. Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment While I don't understand American Football, which appears to me to be more about statistics than playing a game, I can understand that the subject of this article does not seem to have made it into the world of professional play. As I understand the rules of notability here, this would seem to preclude him being suitable for having an article. Just out of curiosity, how do they know he made a 121 yard whatever it was? In the javelin and discus, they have people with tape measures. Surely not on a football field... Peridon (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's common for people to record over a 100 yards so it obviously doesn't make you notable, but to answer you're question the field has yard lines which allows the person who compiles the stats to determine the yardage.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ta. Peridon (talk) 21:09, 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 redirect to Tear of meniscus. Brandon (talk) 08:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meniscus Tears[edit]

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

Much better article already exists, Tear of meniscus. Article creator continues to revert to this version and has ignored my attempts to communicate. Beach drifter (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt; the preferable solution would be to redirect to Tear of meniscus however Beach drifters good faith attempts at communication have been repeatedly ignored. J04n(talk page) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and if the editor continues to revert after reaching consensus it can be dealt with appropriately. I don't think deleting and salting would be the best option. Narthring (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tear of meniscus. Edward321 (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect Article creator is ignoring Beach drifter... so what? No offense, but one user not communicating with another user isn't an argument in an AfD. Keep the good article, lose this one, and if Meniscus Tears comes back, speedy it. If acj44 starts downgrading Tear of meniscus to match the nominated article, deal with him through other means. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and full protect. Needs a sysop to do the close. Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Sévigny[edit]

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

Mayors, per se, are not notable. Nothing here indicates otherwise. Student7 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator should read point #2 of WP:POLITICIAN. Sherbrooke is a significant city in eastern Quebec. That having been said, the article should have more material about him. PKT(alk) 20:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sherbrooke is a major centre in Quebec, and the mayor of such a major centre is therefore notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity's sake, while mayors in general aren't considered automatically notable just for being mayors, the precedent set in past AFDs has been that mayors of cities above 100K in population are considered notable enough. While I acknowledge, as this article's creator, that I didn't actually put very much work into this beyond the minimum necessary to establish that basic notability, he's only been in office for a week now — by virtue of his position, he will be getting considerable press coverage in the future, so there will be plenty of opportunity to expand the article. He certainly wouldn't have been notable enough during the election campaign, but now that he has been elected there's no reason not to keep, in my view. Bearcat (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. Mkdwtalk 08:13, 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. arguments that play the nominator and not the article have been discarded. Arguments that assert notability through generalities and assertions have been given much less weight the those providing analysis of the available sourcing. There maybe a case for notability per Шизомби but there was no indication of the depth of coverage and this remains a BLP with inadequate sourcing at the time of closing. Spartaz Humbug! 03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Lang[edit]

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

Notability Dust diamond (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • FYI. Previous comment is from a known, and now-indefinitely-blocked sock puppet. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the article simply recounts his conversion and devotion to Islam, with no claim of notability there. He is an academic mathematician, but investigation indicates he's had little impact. Specifically, WoS shows 10 papers with an h-index of only 3 using "Author=(lang j*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV KANSAS) AND Subject Areas=(MATHEMATICS OR MATHEMATICS, APPLIED) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" (note the potential for false-positives because of the commonality of the name). MGP indicates he's never graduated any PhD students. These are not impressive stats for someone who's apparently been in academia for almost 3 decades. He is co-author of a book on Ziriski surfaces (with his advisor), which WorldCat shows about 200 libraries holding – not too bad for a monograph, but far from outstanding. (His books on Islam are all less widely held.) FYI: The link that sells his CDs on Islam seems to work, but many others are broke, as Dust diamond notes. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I tried looking for a sign that he might pass WP:PROF #1 when this article was prodded but I was unsuccessful at finding one — I came to basically the same conclusions as Agricola44. So he appears not to pass WP:PROF and I don't see any convincing evidence that his religious work passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another BLP without an RS in sight! --Paularblaster (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to what Agricola and David Eppstein wrote, I did a MathSciNet search. Lang has 25 publication listed there, with a grand total of 9 citations. That is rather thin for a research mathematician. Does not pass WP:PROF. There is some info in the article about his activism on religious matters, but no evidence of significant coverage to pass WP:BIO on those grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to Keep. GoogleNews does show that there is a fairly significant newscoverage of Lang's religious activism[21]. I think there is enough there to pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Established above that he does not pass WP:Prof but he appears to have some sort of (controversial) presence in the U.S. Islamic community. Can others say if that is notable? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Lang's notability doesn't lie in the fact that he's a Muslim convert or an academic; it lies in his body of work, both as an author and as a public speaker on Islam. 218.186.12.231 (talk) 12:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which works? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Septentrionalis's point. His books on Islam are certainly not widely held by libraries and they are clearly not best-sellers, i.e. they cannot claim to have had any real impact. An assertion of notability on the basis of public-speaking and commentating is more nebulous, but I should think that to qualify one would need to be regularly speaking in high-profile venues or lecture circuits, garnering coverage in national media (e.g. being quoted in major outlets), appear on syndicated talk shows, give University commencement addresses, or any other such activities that would differentiate oneself from the herd of other hopefuls that simply "preach to their own choirs". I concede there are a lot of GN hits, but many of these don't appear to qualify at anything close to the level I've just described. For example, the top hit is yet another recount of his conversion to Islam appearing in Reading Islam, which seems to be nothing more than an agenda-based website, i.e. not a WP:RS mainstream news outlet. In short, the public-speaking angle doesn't work either. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep on basis of unusual life path and Islamic activism, some of which appears to have generated opposition from conservative circles of the U.S. Islamic community. I note that the nominator of this AfD started editing on 19 November and has never edited outside this topic. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • Can you find some examples of conservative opposition to Mr. Lang? As far as I can tell, nobody cares. Also, the fact that I am new to Wikipedia does not mean Mr. Lang is a notable figure. Dust Diamond —Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
A search for "Jeffrey Lang Islam" gives 74,000 Ghits. I have not read them all, of course, but [one] says "We stand by our opinion that the book by Jeffrey Lang is misleading and dangerous". In view of the unusual edit record of the nominator (he developed enough skill to create an AfD on his first day of editing) would he care to say if he has any WP:COI due to association with conservative Islamic interests that might be happy to muzzle this critic who writes "misleading and dangerous" books about Islam? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The linked comment appears to be a followup to a review[22]. I'm not sure how notable albalagh.net is; it's apparent it's a pretty conservative site and its URL and editor's name show up in a number of books. Incidentally, since it was mentioned in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mecca_Centric. Шизомби (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article cites two examples of Mr. Langs religious activism: his work for Mecca Centric and co-founding of Generation Islam. According to Alexa, Mecca Centric is not one of the top 100,000 websites. Generation Islam is no longer active, and there's no evidence that it was ever a significant movement. (Note that only information Google has only Generation Islam is the Wikipedia article. Perhaps that article should be deleted as well.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dust diamond (talk • contribs) 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-known and well-respected in the Muslim community for this writings and lectures.--LatinoMuslim 22:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you have any evidence that he is "well-known and well-respected"?--Dust diamond (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
74,000 Ghits for starters. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Most probably he would fail the academic notability, however I suspect he is as notable within the American Muslim community, and perhaps worldwide Muslim community as is claimed. That might be hard to establish for those of us outside of Islam, without access to American Muslim and foreign publications; it would be advisable to worry about Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Does it make sense to ignore American muslims and who they're listening to, considering? That said, there is a profile of him in The Columbia Sourcebook of Muslims in the United States (Columbia University Press, 2009) and an excerpt from one of his books (139-148), is quoted a few times in Daniel Pipes' Militant Islam Reaches America (as someone opposed to militant Islam) showing some degree of notability outside of the Muslim community. I saw the entry for one of his books on Amazon said his books had been translated into other languages. Not sure how to find out which books and which languages, though abebooks turned up a Turkish translation of one, Melekler de sorar Islam'i Amerika'da secmek. A book review "Conversion to Islam: A Study of Native British Converts" by Ali Köse in Journal of the American Academy of Religion (Vol. 67, No. 1, Mar., 1999, 221) notes "there is a small but growing body of work on the Islamic communities of North America and Europe" and mentions one of Lang's books as an example of a more substantive examination of the role of converts in Islam. Шизомби (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Worldcat indicates Struggling to Surrender was translated into Arabic as al-Sira` min ajl al-iman : intiba`at Amriki i`tanaqa al-Islam and into Indonesian as Berjuang untuk berserah : menyegarkan pemahaman Islam and his Even Angels Ask into Arabic as Hatta al-malaikah tasal : rihlah ila al-islam fi Amrika. Perhaps a little "more notable than an average college professor"? I'm curious as to how Dust Diamond found this article and managed to do an AfD on his first day at WP? I found AfD to be a pain, myself, even after having edited here for a while. Anyway, there's a book review of Struggling by Noakes, Greg. Middle East Journal, Spring95, Vol. 49 Issue 2, p354, 2p. I'd have to ILL to get it. Hartford Seminary's journal Muslim World (est. 1911, not on WP - more Systemic bias?) has "Conversion Out of Islam: A Study of Conversion Narratives of Former Muslims" By: Khalil, Mohammad Hassan, Bilici, Mucahit, Jan2007, Vol. 97, Issue 1 which includes Lang's Losing My Religion as one of the "best-publicized -- and presumably most influential" print sources on the subject of conversion out of Islam, a book the authors say "documents some of the letters and email messages that he received from American Muslims and former Muslims." Both journals are Peer-reviewed. In light of these things and Nsk92's Google findings above, I would tend to support a keep here, although I'd support a delete for Generation Islam. Шизомби (talk) 02:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found this article while looking at the converts from atheism page. Of course, this is not the first time I've been on Wikipedia, but after seeing this page I decided to make an account and NFD. At any rate, I'm impressed with your research. Good stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.110.111 (talk) 04:55, 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. Brandon (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Lipari[edit]

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

Does not meet notability or wp:athlete. Google does not show significant coverage in reliable sources. Seems to be a local high school star, and coverage is limited to that. Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:38, 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. Brandon (talk) 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miles For Cystic Fibrosis[edit]

Miles For Cystic Fibrosis (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 fundraising activity, one of many to help finance medical research. Google searches do not bring up anything that helps the article achieve WP:GNG. Warrah (talk) 17:57, 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. A decision to merge should be discussed and finalized on the article talk page. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truro bus station[edit]

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

Bus terminal with no claim of notability Delete Secret account 17:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Secret's right about that, but some of that content belongs in List of bus routes in Cornwall, so I'll go with trim and merge.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Bus stations are often notable, both as transportation hubs and (sometimes) as crime locations. Google News archive provides this cheerful item about an arrest at the Truro bus station: Penryn man used knife to catch and eat rats As well, the site of a former Truro bus station was acquired by a developer who plans to build housing there. And there is likely to be continued coverage of renovations and repairs to the bus station and the consequent disruptions to traffic and inconvenience to the public. – Eastmain (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The latter matters would fail WP:NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not delete. At the very most, redirect to either Truro or an article about the local bus services. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Unlike railway stations, bus stations are not inherently notable on their own but usually they do merit a section in an appropriate wider article. As it stands I wouldn't describe the "Stands and services (with destinations)" section as fully encyclopaedic, but the rest of the article is. This encyclopaedic section were about 2/3rds it's current size I would definitely say to merge it with Truro#Transport, while if it were half as expansive again then I'd probably be of the opinion that a merge would not be the best option. As it stands though either would be appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Truro#Transport, deleting all detail on the stands and routes. These are ephemeral and liable to change periodically without notice. In railway stations, we do not specify which platform to use; so we should not for bus stnads. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While stands are ephemeral and liable to change at a moments notice, routes generally are not. While routes can and do change, they very rarely do so without notice and can last decades with only minor changes to the routing. That said, the list of routes definitely doesn't belong on the article about Truro if this is merged there, but at List of bus routes in Cornwall/Cornwall bus routes (the two are marked for merging but a direction is not immediately clear). Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Eastmain - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:39, 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. Brandon (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of shibboleths[edit]

List of shibboleths (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. This is a trivial and 99% unsourced directory of shibboleths with little to no encyclopedic value. JBsupreme (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. We have the article shibboleth, which explains the concept and allows for a few notable examples. If, in the future, enough sourced examples are included, this article can be recreated as an extension of shibboleth. It is a concern that this article is not only unsourced, but is a bit of a magnet for original research. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but reference. I can see this list as having considerable use - to writers, for example (I have used the list for just such a purpose myself). It also handily links a large number of articles which individually refer to the shibboleths involved in their subjects (e.g., the various pronunciations of place names). Trimming out some items, especially those which cannot be referenced, would be worthwhile, however. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference. There's already a decent start on the referencing, and it's likely sources could e found for the others without too much trouble. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentThis is why WP gets a bad rap. this is barely sourced, and sounds so authoritative. an encyclopedia needs sources. i would support stripping every example without a source, and rebuild with strict guidelines. by the way, the list will be profoundly long if it nears completion. of course a list of shibboleths is encyclopedic, but right now this isnt. is there an editor or editors of this list that would accept removal of most of the examples?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response. The thought crossed my mind, but my problem is that this list is just too indiscriminate and trivial. Even with a source, why would we want to list every damn shibboleth under the sun? That just seems silly. If the consensus is to keep this though, then yes, of course, I would agree that the non-verified material must be stripped in accordance with WP:V policy. JBsupreme (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second response. Whoever said that the aim of all lists on Wikipedia was for them to be complete? There are many lists here where it is impossible for them to ever be complete - this is one of those articles. That's why we have templates like {{Dynamic list}}. It's far more important to list the main items/examples on such lists, and if other examples can be found, referenced, annotated and added, all well and good. I doubt that anyone would expect this to ever approach completion, any more than, say, we could expect a complete List of Canadians or List of galaxies. As Mercurywoodrose says, a list of shibboleths would be encyclopedic if done properly. There's enough info here to build such an encyclopedic list - it needs fixing, not deleting. Put the unreferenced ones on the talkpage for now and let's start hunting for references for them. Grutness...wha? 07:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we strip it down to just what's referenced, it would be small enough to merge with shibboleth, wouldn't it? That might be what we should do and we would split it when the sourced examples get too unwieldy in that article. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 05:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we strip it down to just what's referenced but put the rest on the talk page, and then hunt for references for them, it would be too long for merging - and that is what would normally be done in such circumstances. I'd definitely be strongly against merging. Grutness...wha? 06:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a feeble drive-by nomination contrary to our deletion policy. The article has been neglected, having had an unreferenced tag for some time, even though it did actually have numerous references. I have added another reference and this was quite easy. The article is just imperfect like 99% of our articles and the remedy for this is editing work and talk page discussion, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. This is useful for college and high school students, as well as other users. Bearian (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup/source. Notable topic, but needs references for any entry on the list. The unsourced entries should be moved to the talk page to be researched, and moved back when appropriately sourced. (Will change to Super Speedy Über Keep if a source can be found proving that the people of Delaware are completely ignorant in the way the pronounce Newark.) Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of notable examples, is perfectly fine for a Wikipedia list article. Dream Focus 02:15, 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW.  GARDEN  21:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yichud[edit]

Yichud (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 appears to consist of a single sentence's worth of content - most succinctly written as traditionally, seclusion of a man and woman together in the same room on their own (Hebrew:Yichud), was forbidden, in Judaism, unless they were married to each other. Everything else is either repetition or a general point not specific to Yichud. Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, attitudes to Yichud are the same as their respective general attitudes to halacha - their conclusion about Yichud is self-evident, and doesn't need stating in its own article. There isn't enough here to merit more than a single sentence in Tzeniut (modesty), and/or other related topics.

This article has been around for over a year, and that's still all of the content, so I'd have to conclude that there's nothing more to say about it - that there isn't anything that makes Yichud worth writing a whole article about.

  • Therefore delete. I can be (fairly easily) persuaded to change my view if someone is able to add notable content to the article - and does so - that is about things distinct to Yichud. However, at the present time, I'm of the opinion that such things do not exist. Newman Luke (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —Newman Luke (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Newman Luke (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Newman Luke (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant concept in Jewish law. There is no such thing as being too detailed. there are hundreds of historical commentaries on the concept. the discussion of it in the Talmud can be found in several tractates: Yeb. San., Kid. and very extensively in Soteh. It would be easier for those more expert than I to do the expansion, . The article needs great expansion, but the nomination ignores rather remarkably the extent of Jewish legal discussions on minute issues, even among the Orthodox, More generally, we do not remove articles because nobody has recently added to them. The applicable policy is NO DEADLINE. DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is basic Judaism. The article needs expanding. I've restored important material to the article. It may have the very serious flaw of being unsourced. But tentatively it should be left up. More knowledgeable editors than myself can probably cite some sources for assertions found there. Please see my comments just added to the article's Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yichud is a fundamental principle in Judaism, consisting of more than just a sentence's worth of information. The argument that this article is not up to par content-wise is no basis to delete -- merely to stubbify it and tag it for expansion. It may be that the initial and subsequent editors are unaware of places from which to derive information. Let's wrap this up with a speedy keep DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are entire books on the subject. Jon513 (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable beyond any reasonable doubt for reasons explained by DGG. Article does need to be cleaned up, however. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:52, 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. Brandon (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ivy League[edit]

Black Ivy 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)

This is a neologism sourced to one 1984 book. Similar AfDs for New Ivy League and Midwestern Ivy League resulted in deletion. (Also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Ivy League (2nd nomination).) Since the article was first created in May 2009, the schools it lists as the Black Ivy league changed. A google search on "black ivy league" turns up media discussions of Ivy League faculty who happen to be African American, including the President of one Ivy League school who is African-American, and an organization called the Black Ivy Alumni League which is for Ivy League alumni who are African-American. I could not locate substantial secondary sources to support the wide-spread acceptance of this neologism. The content should be included in the articles for the individual schools. The content of the article does not identify any unique characteristics that could be used to identify a Black Ivy League school compared with other HBCUs. Also, a search of the US Patent and Trademark Office data base shows that both "Ivy League" and "The Ivy League" are registered trademarks. Racepacket (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Delete - ego-stroking article about some fine schools; no substantiation that this is a widely-used term. (Full disclosure: I went to Tennessee State University, an HBCU not on this list, and am proud of it.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to historically black colleges and universities, and even then, it should be emphasized that it's a reference used in some sources. Although I have heard this term before, and expected that it would turn up in a Google news search, it hasn't caught on. One can find plenty of news articles about African-American students, graduates and professors of Harvard, Yale, and other Ivy League schools. On the other hand, try to do a search of the terms "black Ivy League" and any of the schools on the list-- Howard, Morehouse, Fisk, etc. -- and it doesn't show up very often. Mandsford (talk) 18:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I can find a large number of press and book references, which makes me think the concept of a "Black Ivy League" is easily notable enough for a Wikipedia article, even if there is not a strictly defined membership of schools, and even if the article needs some improvement. The concept clearly predates the 1984 book currently cited as the source of the term.
--Milowent (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All those cites will improve the article and likely change people's minds toward a keep. No offense, but I think that putting all of this in the discussion detracts from the good work that you've done. Mandsford (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you do that collapse thing for it? I don't know how to do that yet.--Milowent (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Racepacket (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One question is the currency of the term. In the 1950's these school attracted the very best African-American faculty and students, who were unjustly discriminated against by many schools. However, by the 1960's the Ivy League actively recruited both African-American faculty and students, and today, the Ivy League offers such extensive financial aid packages that students from low income families can graduate debt-free. So, today, faculty and students go to HBCU schools by choice, and the most prestigious colleges for people of color are also the most prestigious colleges for whites. As a result, the term, and the concept behind it, may have grown obsolete. Eight of the 26 above references are from this century, but I have not checked to see if they all refer to prior times. The most recent references paint a bleak future for the fate of these colleges, and note the competition from historically white schools. If the article survives, we need to address the time period in which the term was used and the group of schools to which it was applied.Racepacket (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The currency of the term is subject to debate (though a number of the references i found are from the past few years), but it still seems notable whether the term is used in a historical sense or a contemporary sense.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, one of the sources, "Equal Justice Under Law: An Autobiography" By Constance Baker Motley, refers to Lincoln University in Pennsylvania as a part of the Black Ivy League. We have no way to define this group. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the term may not always be used to apply to the same colleges doesn't mean the term isn't notable, in my view. Most sources seem to cite the same seven colleges. A few others are mentioned here and there.--Milowent (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)][reply]
Do you agree that the concept is no longer current? If in the 21st century, the United States is a country where all Americans can share the same President, haven't we come to the point where African-Americans and white Americans can share the same Ivy League? If an African-American student is accepted at both Howard and Harvard, where would s/he attend (particularly when Harvard has much larger financial aid resources)? Also, the articles cited by Milowent indicate that these schools cannot compete with large-endowment schools for the best African-American faculty. To Thurgood Marshall and the others being discussed in the cited articles, the "Black Ivy League" meant the "best schools available to me." By that definition, it now means Harvard, Yale, Princeton, etc. Also, how would we rewrite the article if we don't have any criteria for deciding which schools are in the "Black Ivy League?" I want very much to document higher education accurately, and have worked on some HBCU articles, but I don't know how we can approach this one without lapsing into boosterism, Separate but equal, or arbitrary definitions. The current article appears to argue that creating a separate Harvard for blacks is just as good as the other Harvard, and then discusses football and greek societies. Racepacket (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making a value judgment about the concept, I just see that it exists and has been referenced repeatedly in many sources. Many parts of the current article may not be verifiable and may have to go. As for which schools are included, we cite the sources' lists, and can say something like, "at times other schools such as XXX have also been claimed to be Black Ivies."(add cites). The concept of black ivies was indeed boosterism for schools that use(d) it for such purposes, just like people might refer to Duke or Vanderbilt as a Southern Ivy.--Milowent (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your position and the excellent scholarship that went into the list. My problem is 1) that we don't have criteria. There are schools just as good as the Ivy League (Stanford and MIT, for example) but the definitional criteria is whether they are in a particular athletic league. and 2) that the term may have been passed by time. I am still reading your sources, but the ones I have read speak in terms of the pre-1960's and admit that things are different today. Deleting the page on those two grounds would avoid two unresolvable "hot button" issues.

Ref #2 and #16 are the same article in two places. Ref #19 discusses an abandoned proposal to create an athletic conference called "Black Ivy League." Ref #14 is an essay arguing that the phrase "Black Ivy League" is inappropriate. Ref #5 is hedged as "equivalent of a Black Ivy League." etc. Racepacket (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milowent stated above that "Most sources seem to cite the same seven colleges"; however, of the 24 sources above, only 2 cite all of the seven colleges identified in this article as being the Black Ivy League. (I am disregarding the fact that one of the sources that does identify the seven is Bill Maxwell's article, which appears twice on the list.) There are 10 sources that identify one or more of the seven colleges as being Black Ivy League schools, which doesn't contradict the article but leaves open the question as to which other schools should be considered Black Ivies. The other sources aren't available in full online, or identify schools not classified by this article as Black Ivies as being in the Black Ivy League. So I would actually say that "few" sources can be found which cite the same seven colleges as being the Black Ivy League. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. While Wikipedia does have articles about other loosely defined groupings of colleges which are identified by an "ivy" name like Southern Ivies, they don't tend to go on in such detail because those groupings are loosely defined and there is no definitive statement as to which colleges are in or out. That is the case with the Black Ivy League; note that the sources quoted above identify Morgan State University (twice), Cheyney University of Pennsylvania, Clark College and Atlanta University (now Clark Atlanta University), Morris Brown College, "Gannon" (not sure what this refers to -- Gannon University doesn't seem to be a historically black college), and Lincoln University (Pennsylvania) as Black Ivy League colleges, although this Wikipedia article does not identify them as such. I would recommend that the article be edited down to discuss the concept of a Black Ivy League, rather than to describe these particular schools as being the Black Ivy League. Also, the article should be shortened in other ways. For example, the "Athletics" section prominently features a list of football "classic" rivalry games, only one of which features two of the designated "Black Ivy" schools competing against each other, which tends to weaken the idea that these schools see themselves as a group. Similarly, the "Campus life" section does not indicate whether activities such as homecoming, fraternities, and sororities differ significantly at the Black Ivies from other historically black colleges and universities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, don't merge. This is a rather hasty form of research, but a quick search of "black ivies" (in quotes) on Google Books gives 20 results while "hidden ivies" (in quotes) gives around the same; 18. Again, I know this is just a search, but it still shows that the term is being used. 174.18.1.200 (talk) 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article needs work, but it defines a topic, and if this is merged into the article, it might be re-created again someday when that section gets too large, should more information be founf. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:45, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ring Indicator[edit]

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

One pin of an interface standard - all the context is in RS 232 which this article must duplicate. Take out the duplication and what's left is trivial. Has been tagged for merge for years, but two merge attempts have been undone. Wtshymanski (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, not a noteworthy subject worth covering in an encyclopedia (even an electronic one). JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with RS-232. This content is not in the current version of that article, but would be helpful there. Particularly the part of how the Ring Indicator interrupt is handled on USB to RS-232 converters. Racepacket (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would also support a Merge myself, save only that the target article is already 33 KB in size; for this merge to really make sense, similar articles like Data Carrier Detect and Data Terminal Ready would need to be merged as well. See discussion. As the originator of these articles (I program serial stuff for a living), I don't mind a merge of them all if that's truly the consensus - particularly if in the interest of avoiding an enormous RS-232 article, it were into a new article such as "Signals in RS-232" that concentrated on elaborating the contemporary usage of the signals, as opposed to the electrical/physical characteristics defined in the spec. While RI is admittedly one of the least important pins in the RS-232 standard, I created an RI article intending it to be part of a series covering other signals in detail. And for the other pins, there's a lot of detail to cover. Reswobslc (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on this proposal. The whole serial interfacing area needs a good clean up in my view an isolated motions to delete useful (if possibly misplaced) content are not helpful. I would begin by looking at the relationship between serial port and RS-232, and clean up the overly peecee-centric stuff on the former so that it at least acknowledges the existence of other serial standards such as RS-422. Once that is done the treatment of individual signal lines can be considered. Right now I think it is premature - RS-232 tends to be slavishly devoted to the standard itself and so some details on the page under discussion are likely to be bounced out as irrelevant. The tight focus keeps it on topic but it would also exclude, for example, the fact that RI triggers an interrupt on some machines as a mere implementation detail.

    A Wikiproject Serial Comms, anyone, to clean up this whole area? CrispMuncher (talk) 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by original nominator. Perhaps some Wikiprojects do some good, but the articles I've been editing, that have been tagged by one project banner or another, don't seem to evolve any more rapidly toward GA or FA status because of the banner. Perhaps a redirect to the Wikibook would be a more encyclopediac approach than long essays on every pin in the RS 232 interface. I guess I'm clinging to the romantic notion of an encyclopedia as being a concise overview of knowledge in many fields, as opposed to an exhaustive listing of train-spotters' obsessive trivia in every single field. I can hardly wait for the articles on 1/4 inch by 20 TPI by 3/4 inch bolt, 1/2 inch by 20 TPI by 1 inch bolt, and so on - the hardware catalogs and parts lists of the world are ripe with opportunities to build articles on verifiable subjects.--Wtshymanski (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've already replied on the DTR AfD page, unaware that this was where the real discussion was happening. IMO...
    • I understand the concern about bloating the RS-232 article, but it already contains a lot of material that can be culled, e.g. RS232#Seldom used features (a seven-row table, plus 535 words in 12 paragraphs, entirely unreferenced) can be deleted or moved to a separate article, the second paragarph of RS232#Cables is mostly chat, some stuff about de facto behavior of modems belongs in the Modem article. I've re-built the RS-232#Pinouts table so it has a tiny summary of each signal, which means that the RS-232#Signals section can now be expanded without affecting the pinout table. I really think merge is the best option.
    • Surplus material can & should go into a Wikibook if possible.
    • 100% agree that other serial comms articles need a re-vamp, too. Flow control has only one reference, Software flow control likewise.
    • Re-writes should aim to go from the general to the particular. For example, "RI triggers an interrupt on some machines" is a mere implementation detail, but it's reasonable to mention that using CPU interrupts is a common design for more efficient serial communications. In the DTR article the "DTR configurability on modems" section (which should be in Modem IMO) doesn't explain why there are all these different ways a modem reacts to DTR. - Pointillist (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pointillist (talk) 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an Articles for Deletion page (WP:AFD). On-topic discussion should be limited to whether the article in question should or should not be deleted. Many editors view AFD's as a consolidated log as in this example. Discussion about what you think can be culled, revamped, and rewritten are rather offtopic, bloat the AfD logs with unnecessary content meaningless to those who review them, and belong on the article's talk page. Reswobslc (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if the main author doesn't want to collaborate on what can be rescued and how the RS-232 article can be cut down to make space for it. - Pointillist (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article about a sufficiently important and complex subject that meets both notability and verifiability criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 11:52, 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 delete. Brandon (talk) 07:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of U.S. towns with foreign country names[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of U.S. towns with foreign country names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fundamentally a trivia list. —SlamDiego←T 13:50, 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. There is substantial support for keeping or merging the content on this page; editors can discuss possible merge targets on the talk page. Despite arguments for violations of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RECENTISM, consensus doesn't side with these concerns, arguing that the coverage of the event goes beyond the routine. The article is very well sourced, and there is evidence that the events of the match are having an impact beyond the immediate aftermath. p.s. I'd like to plug the proposal WP:EVENT that addresses this kind of article. Fences&Windows 16:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)[edit]

Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-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)

Seriously, can people stop creating articles about this game? There's already precedent on not having articles the day after a controversial refereeing decision was made. (This could be considered a sister AfD with "Hand of Frog") chandler 13:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was on my way to do this myself. RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 13:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. chandler 13:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original PRODder. If a 'controversial' refereeing decision is enough for a game to be notable, we would have to write about half of the Premiership's games on a weekly basis! GiantSnowman 14:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I said on the Hand of Frog AfD, this game'll be gone and forgotten soon. This match was no more notable than any other game affected by a bad no-call. Bettia (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not think that this satisfies any football-related guidelines. Plus, per sister controversy above.----Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN 14:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yes, it was a bad decision (but that's me putting it lightly, seeing as I'm half-Irish), but there's absolutely no need to have an article for every game with a "controversial" refereeing decision. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Concur with reasons stated above. -- AyaK (talk) 15:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh the weather outside is frightfulWP:SNOW..." --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this match will deservedly get a brief mention in the Republic's article "failed to quality after falling to france in a match that controversially turned on a Thierry Henry handball." Otherwise, notnews.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One day, an academic somewhere will publish a paper on the evolution of impotent rage from letters to the editor of the local paper to creation of (sub-)encyclopaedic articles. Kevin McE (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. The snowball grows and grows... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Echoing previously stated sentiments. Warrah (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No !vote, just a note to any passing admins to say permission is granted to consider a snow delete here.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another pointless shotgun Afd which shows that Wikipedia is utterly clueless when it comes to properly documenting significant current events, which almost alwasy get an Afd tag slapped on them within minutes. Not a single person here is in any position to judge the historical notability of this game. However, anybody who knows football knows that this was no run of the mill bad decision, or routine news. Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final is certainly no precedent for such a World Cup controversy. It is only the second day and this is already a diplomatic incident between France and Ireland, so for people to suggest this is a SNOW delete is frankly astounding, and you have to wonder if anybody here really wants people to write articles at all. If this wrongly gets deleted with such innappropriate haste, please userfy it for me, I'll at least make sure that if it cannot be an article right now, and we have to wait while Wikipedia catches up with what is and isn't significant in the world of football, then at least the hard work of others is not wasted and can be merged elsewhere. MickMacNee (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Sorry, but characterizing it as a "diplomatic incident" is outrageous. If the Ireland would happen to recall their ambassador to France, you could label it as such, but let's not get carried away by personal feelings. Grsz11 18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very much agree with comments above by MickMacNee. BigDunc 19:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it as the match has transcended football onto the political stage. Not to mention the large amount of coverage in the media. --Bill (talk|contribs) 19:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand. Can any of the Delete !voters explain how this hasn't expanded beyond routine coverage of sporting events? There's a considerable difference here between typical coverage of a bad referee decision, and coverage of this match, which has invoked discussion by world leaders (which doesn't happen after every handball). That is far beyond routine and so invalidates the WP:NOTNEWS argument for deletion. --Bill (talk|contribs) 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS. One of those arguing to keep the article has given the key reason why the article cannot, yet at least, be retained: "Not a single person here is in any position to judge the historical notability of this game." To be included in an encyclopaedia, an article must have subject matter that can be demonstrated to be notable. If something substantial changes as a result of this, if the very unusual event of a re-match is mandated, then I would wholeheartedly support its re-instatement, but until then, it is a match with a controversial decision, that had more impact than most such matches, and proportionately more press coverage, but (as of now) no more than that. Kevin McE (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is, you earlier compared the notability to nothing but "letters to the editor of the local paper". I don't know about you, but I am quite sure the comparison to the Hand Of God is not thrown about lightly in football circles, and there seem to be plenty of external sources already elevating this incident to that level of noteriety, even if you don't. And I don't remember the Hand of God match ever being replayed, or it resulting in any substantial changes either, so I remain bemused as to what you would ever consider as a notable match. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misrepresent me. My (slightly tongue-in-cheek) comment was on the availability of Wikipedia as a vehicle for the indignant to voice their ire, a role previously mainly served by "letters to the editor". As to the suggestion that comparison to "Hand of God" is not widely chucked around, I would observe that it is mentioned in almost every handball-goal or goal-line block: it is a stock response of unimaginative, cliché-constipated journalists. This match will apparently not be replayed, and there is no clear reason to believe that it will result in any change (even when/if the change happens, I doubt FIFA will specifically attribute their leislation to this match), so the case that this match is notable, rather than simply topical, remains to be made. Kevin McE (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no idea what crappy papers you read (and you will note there are few if any tabloid sources in this article), but Hand of God is most certainly not chucked around willy nilly in every report I read of games with goal line incidents. And you seem to forget the fact that, this is not just a parroting of the term, people are actually giving in depth analysis - 'was this a worse example of cheating than the hand of God or not', 'will Henry's name be forever tarnished in the same way Maradonna's was?'. The use of the term here is not a tabloid throwaway comparison, and the article is in no way analagous to indignant letters to the editor, tongue in cheek or not. The match is already easily notable, suggesting that FIFA would actually have to order a replay to make it so pretty much ingores how infrequently that ever happens anyway, and the fact that the original Hand of God match wasn't even replayed, and didn't lead to any rule changes. MickMacNee (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try to personalise discussion by speculating about my choice of newspaper. I can assure you that it is by no means from the tabloid end of the market. Kevin McE (talk) 08:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You stated a personal opinion as if it were fact, somebody else stating that they have the exact opposite experience is not 'personalising' the debate. Once again, I am all ears for some evidence of these claims. Any evidence at all that the phrase Hand of God is thrown around for any old handball incident, by non-tabloid papers. MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting more and more out of line. "The match is already easily notable". You keep repeting that, but fail to provide any evidence. Anyone who has followed international football for a few decades have seen it all over and over again. "suggesting that FIFA would actually have to order a replay" There is no replay, nor has a replay been considered by FIFA. Disgruntled fans and players often shout for replays, that's not notable either. And any speculations about "Henry's name" is just a mild breeze in comparison to what was written about Ronaldo in the last World Cup or about Beckham in the World Cup 1998.Jeppiz (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In base my assertions of notability based on the relevant guideline, and the evidence is in the article!. Your continual comments are plain old personal opinions, and when asked to actually support them with some evidence, you go very quiet, or pretend you didn't hear the question. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course my comments are personal opinions, so are yours. You really seem to love to argue just for the sake of doing it. And no, I don't go quiet but you post so many utterly irrelevant comments here that it's hard to keep track of them all. Where was there any question I missed?Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but just no. Pointing to a relevant guideline and pointing to the evidence to show how the article should not be deleted, is frankly not in the same league of personal opinions when compared to your various pronouncements on what you know about football and the media etc etc and thus why your opinion of the article overrides policy. As for unanswered questions, they are everywhere. They usually follow one of your claims that 'X is the same as Y' or 'A so therefore B' which come with no supporting evidence whatsoever. MickMacNee (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're talking about my frequent comments about that there have been several other similar cases and thus this is not new nor notable. Of course I could go back and find articles in archives about all the controversy about Ronaldo and the referee when Portugal sent England home, or the controversy about when Barcelona beat Chelsea, or the controversy when Egypt forced a replay against Algeria, or the controversy when Beckham was sent off against Argentina. However, I think anyone with an interest in football will remember them, so I don't see the point of linking to them in a discussion. They are just a few of the many examples of the fact that results in sports are sometimes controversial, but not notable in the long run.Jeppiz (talk) 23:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's very handy for you then. Because I am sure everybody will just trust you, and will assume that in everyone of those cases, presidents and prime ministers discussed the matter, associations lobbied each other and FIFA for replays, that the result was as significant as losing a place at the world cup, that comments and analysis came from far and wide, from presidents to politicians to philosophers, and that the news covered the globe for days, with repeated updates, and that each of theses incidents was universally compared and contrasted to the most notorious example of football cheating in the history of football. As if. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A recent event that has caused a lot of emotions, but of very little importance. By definition, every game in a world cup is more important than a qualifier, and we don't have articles on every single match. The fact that it made headlines is, in this case, irrelevant. Major games in sports usually make headlines without being notable in the long term, and this is hardly the first game involving a controversial call. The only "argument" against deleting this article seems to be MickManNee's attack on Wikipedia editors not sharing his view. That is a non-factual argument.Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are totally ignoring the one thing that makes this game different to every other game, which is why it has made all the headlines. It is totally wrong to suggest that this game is being asserted as notable just because it was played. It is totally wrong to suggest that just because normal Finals games are not given articles, that this game is somehow procedurally not-notable. I have given a factual argument, have you? Your view seems entirely subjective, and doesn't reflect the content one bit. MickMacNee (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per MickMac. Massive amount of coverage. This controversy is only one day in and its a bit early to be pulling the trigger on it. GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as it has become political. It is clearly emotional but when you have Irish and French ministers exchanging comments on the incident that is more unusual. The LA Times also gives an idea of some of the coverage this incident has received. It is even being discussed in Australia. The player has also been compared to "the great Diego Maradona", although I am not sure of the importance of this. FIFA insider:

    There is no way the game can be replayed. "To do so would cause absolute chaos for football. If it was replayed, then every match in the future would also be subject to these calls for a replay any time a referee misses an incident.

    Chaos sounds important. Also from the previous source: "The French president speaks to me after the game and says it was a handball. He says to me 'it was handball, I'm sorry'". Therefore the French President himself has apologised. The leaders Cowen and Sarkozy are to discuss the matter. Sweden is blaming its own referee, according to the same source, so perhaps that is relevant. It is far too early to decide that something like this ought to be deleted in my opinion and it seems to have already gathered enough momentum to become important for some time. --candle•wicke 21:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may well become a point that persuades FIFA to introduce video referees. Conning the referee in soccer will have to stop soon. At least see what happens in the coming days and weeks.

Jbmurphy (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with the lads above. Long term notability has not yet been asserted but it may be gained in which case it should be given the chance to achieve that. On the other hand this may not happen and it may all blow over in which case an AfD could be run then GainLine ♠ ♥ 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The two comments here, like others above, are making an argument directly contrary to the principles of WP:Crystal. To say that "it may well" do something does not assert notability. Articles are here on the basis of having established notability, not until that notability is deemed to have never occured. Kevin McE (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair shout, all im advocating is that a stay of execution is granted and the trigger isn't pulled too soon GainLine ♠ ♥ 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. IMO this story goes beyond what is covered by WP:NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS covers 'routine' news coverage; having politicians from two countries making comments certainly does not occur routinely. This is getting significant coverage in the US, where football (without a helmet and facemask) is never covered. J04n(talk page) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolute Keep Topic could not be more relevant Djln--90.208.89.159 (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with the disclaimer that I am a clueless American who knows nothing about socc...er, football. Sorry. At this point it's gone political, which as far as I can tell is rather unusual. So it's no longer just a run-of-the-mill controversial scoring error. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep News coverage on this event has gone far beyond the typical coverage given to other World Cup qualifying matches. This match will be referenced in footballing history for a long time to come. YeOldeSacke (talk) 23:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break - Day 2[edit]

  • Keep, what started as a refereeing discrepancy has become an international debate on how games are adjudicated, involving many former players and now National governments. Fribbler (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After reading through the arguments, it sounds rather noteworthy to me. Massive worldwide media coverage, and government officials getting involved in different nations. Dream Focus 01:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait? Seriously guys, there is no rush. There's no way to judge the significance of this match until all the events surrounding it play out over the next week or so. In the mean time, there's no harm in having the article as long as it's sourced. And then once things have cooled-off a bit we can have a real debate over notability. Trying to work out whether it's notable or not while the events are still going on is a pretty huge waste of time... Trebor (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly, this is a common sense approach to this article. GainLine ♠ ♥ 09:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way this is going, it'll be an excellent test of whether the closing admin is a head-counter or capable of judging the conclusion by weight of argument. The qualifier is non-notable other than the conclusion. This isn't hand of God goal material at this stage. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, I do hope he does give proper weight to simple just not notable arguments, made inspite of the evidence in the actual article otherwise. I find it odd that you personally think it isn't Hand of God material, yet give no reason at all why. I repeat something I said above, the original Hand of God goal didn't produce any rule changes, and the result wasn't over-turned, so, in your opinion, what makes a match Hand of God material, if it isn't universal controversy and comment all the way up to presidents and prime ministers, and multiple comparisons in external sources of it to the actual original Hand of God. MickMacNee (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many controversial qualifying matches have turned on poor refereeing decisions - they don't deserve articles and neither does this despite all the huffing and puffing. Australian Matt (talk) 01:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got any examples? Something we can actually compare to the reactions to this game? MickMacNee (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    An example would be the Italy vs Australia WC 2006 match, a player dived, a penalty was given, a game was lost, and the country went bananas. But no wiki article because time heals the wound, and it will here. 58.175.243.203 (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This reminds me of the article about the New Mexico college soccer player that was deleted. Surely there is plenty of coverage of this incident in reliable sources, but isn't it too early to know that it will be notable beyond the current furor? I know this isn't a biography so WP:BLP1E shouldn't apply, but isn't it fairly similar due to the negative focus on Thierry Henry? Jogurney (talk) 01:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Anything with this much coverage (it is front page news here in Australia, and we don't even care about soccer) is notable. It has been commented on by the French President and the Irish PM - that is a big deal. 124.184.96.26 (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Those who argue keep because it's in the news, where have you lived untill yesterday? Big sport events are regularly on the news. So yes, they are notable when they happen, that is why we have a policy against recentism. Being covered on the news quite simply isn't enough to ensure notability. This is the 39474th time that a medium-big game in European soccer ends in a controversy involving a disputed call by the referee. We've had plenty of previous cases in the Champions League and in the World Cup. For some reason, it only seems to be notable when teams from the British Isles are dissatisfied with the referee. In a week, nobody outside Ireland will even remember this.Jeppiz (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's absolute nonsense to suggest that no-one outside Ireland will remember it in a week. As this article, for one, shows, it has already had a huge impact on Henry's public image. This is no run-of the mill controversy, it's a diplomatic incident that has even been given its own name ("La Main de Dieu") in homage to the Maradona goal. The notability comes not from the handball itself but the extraordinary reaction to it. It's not British Isles centric, as the above user seems to be suggesting; the reaction has been big in France and elsewhere too.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Mhm, and how is this different to the angry reactions to the referee in Chelsea-Barcelona in Champions League? Or to the referee in England-Portugal, the one who received death threats? Oh, and I've read the newspapers in four different languages today. All of them mention the incident, but it's not like it's big news, most papers doesn't even devote an article to the game, they mention it in a general article about the games or have a brief note about the incident. Jeppiz (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember world leaders being involved in the Chelsea aftermath. This is on a whole different level.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 04:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is interesting to see how certain users with a very long history of blocks for disruptive behaviour use this page to argue for why we have to keep the article, why using the article page itself to put forward only their own WP:POV, removing anything they don't like, including tags. It is a prime example of how nationalists can enforce a POV on Wikipedia.Jeppiz (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment all the keep votes here are trying to set a bad precedent... Every game in a big league or competition gains loads of media coverage, especially games where there are wrong decisions. For example recently, news of the beachball game (Sunderland - Liverpool) travelled far and wide, probably gaining just as much coverage. Keeping this article and every article about a controversial game will have this to point at... There really is no need for anything other than a note on the UEFA second round qualifying article that he Irish FA have appealed for a replay, and when (lets face it) FIFA deny that request, move on with it. It's not the first controversial incident on the pitch, and it wont be the last. And currently people have just pushed in every report they can find on the subject giving the article undue length chandler 05:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know Gordon Brown likes to take every opportunity to deliver a popular soundbite to the masses, but I simply have to ask, when the hell did he ever comment on the beachball incident? Did the Mayor of Liverpool get into a diplomatic row with the Mayor of Sunderland over it? Forgetting that, when did anybody take any official action over that incident? I don't recall anything of the sort even happening. The only thing you are right on possibly, is it got media attention. And even that was pretty much just the British papers. It might have been picked up as a funny news item on a few other wires, but I frankly don't recall seeing large comment and debate pieces in media around the world about that rather trivial incident by comparison. Seriously, if people are going to come out with these other crap doesn't exist arguments, then frankly, you need to pick examples that are even remotely comparable. Here's a handy link for confused readers who didn't hear about the world famous beach ball controversy that engulfed the world of football and sparked diplomatic rows and calls for the immediate adoption of goal-line anti-beachball laser technology. MickMacNee (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep I would normally advocate the deletion of this sort of article straight away, and I certainly don't want this to set a precident. But it is well sourced and makes a credible attempt to satisfy the GNG. How many non-notable decisions result in the Prime Minister of a country indicating that he is going to take this to diplomatic level with the president of a permanent member of the UN security council? The impact of this is also on a far greater scale than the Chelsea Barcelona game; that mistake did not add hundreds of millions of pounds to the Spanish economy. WFCforLife (talk) 06:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as the incident is getting a lot of media coverage, and that's putting it mildly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per Trebor, nudging towards keep. We have a precedent for controversial matches being given articles of their own, provided there is adequate coverage (e.g. Battle of Highbury, Battle of Berne) if FIFA do decide to replay this (IMO they should but they won't) then it is clearly notable as it sets a significant "legal" precedent within football. By then we should have a clearer idea of how significant this match is. If it isn't notable we can always Afd it later.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not sure whether a couple of government ministers commenting on the match counts as an international incident. If Ireland and France start recalling their ambassadors over this, like Egypt and Algeria are currently doing, or if these two countries take it a step further and go to war like Honduras and El Salvador did, then we can call this an international incident. Bettia (talk) 09:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What's with all this irrational fear and scaremongering over what might happen if this is deemed notable? We do not have a paper shortage here. If there was a guideline that actualy specified what an 'international incident' was with regards to a football match, which there isn't, and if said guideline defined an international incident as similar to what has happened here, exactly how many extra match articles do you really think that would lead to? I'm guessing maybe one a year averaged out, at worst. The suggestion there needs to be a war before creating an article is totally over the top, it's like saying Michael Jackson is the minimum standard of notability for singers. The Algeria game was played at the same time as this one, so we can hardly start drawing comparisons there at all. In the absence of a notable match guideline, unless or until comparable articles are stable for a long time, or go through a proper peer review process, then simple comparisons between articles are pointless exercises in futlity, and citing examples of similar matches like Algeria, that have never had an article, let alone be successfully deleted, is equally pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What happened to all the snow?. That said, I think Bettia makes an extremely valid point. WFCforLife (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FIFA have announced that there will be no replay chandler 10:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Story has been getting lots of media coverage, world leaders and politicians of various levels are getting involved. There has also been a request to FIFA/UEFA and the French FA to have the match re-played (while this request is not a precedent, i imagine that at this level - a world cup qualifying playoff match - it is certainly uncommon). Best, Darigan (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as I said, that's already been rejected. chandler 11:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per reasons given above MickMacNee, GainLine, and others. This story has gone beyond sporting news and has sparked an international incident, albeit very minor. In the USA, I've seen this reported and discussed in newspapers and television more than any non-American soccer match I've ever seen. It's getting massive coverage. and the post-match events aren't quite done playing themselves out yet. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said twice now that FIFA have rejected a replay, how have the post-match events not played themselves out?... And really, there's not international incident. chandler 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't played themselves out because it is still all over the radio and there may be protests outside the French embassy. There's no source for that but the issue is still being discussed in the media. The player has also admitted to using his hand and says it should be replayed. The French government are contradicting each other. His former manager says the match should be replayed. Former Irish players are attacking their own team. I really don't understand how this is over. --candle•wicke 15:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What of FIFA has said it's over isn't over? There is not even a SLIM chance, "The referees decision is final" chandler 17:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. historic and notable confusion--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: From several days, I always hear at the TV, at the radio, on the Internet, EVERYWHERE!,...talking about this match. I think it's quite relevant!--Andrea 93 (msg) 14:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: A very notable event. All over the news. --Footyfanatic3000 (talk  · contribs) 15:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: It must be a very notorious event. It is not a club competition, but an international competition. A controversy in an international competition must lead some political disputes, which caused on this issue. I found nothing supporting that those disputes are parts of the match. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 16:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete typical example of WP:RECENTISM - it is too soon to say the fact will be "historic", or even that the subject might be notable. Right now it is no different than several other football games in the recent past (starting from Chelsea vs Barcelona). --Angelo (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain how it is the same as Chelsea v Barcelona, or give some examples of these other games so comparisons can be made. It's a waste of time just asserting that 'it is' the same, or 'they do exist', because the closing admin will likely just ignore it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's nothing more but wrong refereeing decisions. Similar games include: Argentina - Soviet (World Cup 1990), when Maradona saves the ball on the goal line with his hands. More recent, Sunderland - Liverpool (Premier League 2009-10), the beach ball. Watford - Reading (Championship 2009-10), "the goal that never was". There are multiple wrong decisions that lead to goals EVERY YEAR. chandler 18:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still waiting for an answer from a comment you made above where you similarly claimed the reaction to the beachball game was just the same as this one. I'm personaly fine with allowing a match article for any match which gets this level of reaction for a simple bad refereeing decision. Your argument here is like saying that the assassination of Kennedy was just a shooting, and plenty of other shootings don't have an article, so we shouldn't have John F. Kennedy assassination. It's a bogus argument, the issue is the level of interest and reaction, not what caused it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep - a story that is making headlines all over the world with heads of state getting involved? How could people even suggest this story isn't at all notable? Give me a break. --TorsodogTalk 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, I live in Canada and the replay between Algeria and Egypt made much bigger headlines in most papers I've seen, so it appears to be at least as notable or not notable.Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That match also only just happened. If I go and create that article, what does that show in terms of whether this article should exist or not? Absolutely nothing. Other crap doesn't exist is not a valid argument. MickMacNee (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely, "That match also only just happened" just as you say. So big games may make headlines the day(s) afterwards but that in itself is not new and not notable. There was nothing special with this game as opposed to many other qualification games that also featured some bad refereeing. Wasn't Ireland awarded a penalty against Georgia they shouldn't have had?Jeppiz (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And was the reaction the same as this? Characterising this as just a game which got headlines, which is the only reason it now has an article, is utterly wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the reactions were much stronger in case of Algeria-Egypt. Supporters attacking the players, angry statements by the governments of Algeria and Egypt, controversial goal, extensive press coverage for days, you name it. Makes this one seems like nothing. Then again, that's sports. All major games provoke emotions, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable in a longer perspective.Jeppiz (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go and create the article then, because as I've already said, you claiming an article on that match doesn't exist means absolutely nothing at all for this Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 19:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that these kind of events are so common that they are not notable. If you're not Irish, there was nothing noteworthy about this match as compared to any other game. Mistakes by the referees are far too common.Jeppiz (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I refer you to the hundreds of replies that have already disputed this view time and again. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are few replies trying to dispute the point, none of them convincing. There's the claim that the game received much more media coverage than other games, which isn't correct. There's the claim that is sparked a diplomatic row, which is just as incorrect, there's the claim that it might influence future rules by FIFA, which is crystal balling.Jeppiz (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even here in America were association football is not very popular, a lot of people know about the "handball incident". Ummonk (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per candlewicke above. Liransh Talk 17:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as it has got into a diplomatic row, and there is a high possibly of reforming by FIFA as a direct result of this match. We can revisit this in 3 months. - Mailer Diablo 18:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is this "international incident" or "diplomatic row" everyone talks about? I've seen Irish elected officials call for a replay... But has anyone answered? Have French officials answered with "Fuck off"? Have Ireland kicked out French diplomats? I've only heard agreement from all over (including a French union of sport teachers), both Henry and R. Keane have said "replay", but FIFAs rules don't allow this, it's "the referee's decision is final". And what you say is "highly possible" I say is "highly unlikely" as long as Blatter and the current gang controls FIFA chandler 18:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is no "diplomatic row". A journalist asked and of course the politicians answered, it's normal procedure. The Russian president also commented on the game between Slovenia-Russia.Jeppiz (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mick. Stu ’Bout ye! 18:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - 'recentism' based article. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to explain further? MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Care to stop biting everybody who disagrees, as you have done here, at that talk page, and at ITN? Grsz11 19:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A request to explain a rationale is biting? Rubbish. Do you think the closer will give any weight to someone who simply says 'recentism', when Wikipedia:Recentism is an essay which actually states: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". ? MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Grsz, MickMacNee is taking this whole incident far too personal and drags everybody who disagrees into arguments.Jeppiz (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the closing administrator chooses to 'ignore' my 'opinon'; so be it. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are better than that GoodDay. Contrary to popular opinion, and as I have explained throughout this Afd, I would be fine if this got deleted by weight of properly articulated arguments. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If France ends up winning the 2010 FIFA World Cup? then I'll change my opinon. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's easy to promise, because we all know that they won't ;) (I hope I won't be eating these words on July 11...) 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's my condition. France wins, then it's keep. GoodDay (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this match is notable yet despite the apparent satisfication of WP:GNG. The event is too recent and the arguments that it might lead to changes in refereeing systems or might lead to a signficant political incident violate WP:CRYSTAL. Jogurney (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying that it DOES meet notability guidelines, but you don't support keeping it because it is "too recent"? What does that have to do with anything? --TorsodogTalk 19:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that not every topic that meets WP:GNG belongs in Wikipedia. This article has no claim of notability other than a slew of media coverage for a moment in time. It's fairly common to see controversial endings to football matches (I remember most clearly the US-Canada semi-final in the 2007 Gold Cup), but each one doesn't warrant an article. Are you arguing that every single topic that would pass WP:GNG warrants an article? Jogurney (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm saying that an article about an event that seems to meet notability requirements should at least get more than 2 whole days before being completely deleted. Two days certainly isn't enough time to evaluate the lasting effects of this incident. --TorsodogTalk 20:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I believe AfD is a week-long process. Jogurney (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing additional comments below, I believe a merge into the main UEFA qualification article is more appropriate than outright deletion. Let's not give this WP:UNDUE weight in the qualification article, but it is notable enough to be mentioned there (as has been done with other matches with controversial endings). Jogurney (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a certainly a notable event and therefore should be kept. Ummonk (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noteworthy event which will be likely remembered for a long time. Just my two cents though, because obviously every above stated viewpoint and its opposite can be reasoned citing various WP::BULLSHIT guidelines Gruen (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is notable. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:ITSNOTABLE. A whole bunch of these keep and delete opinions are just going to get ignored without proper explanations. MickMacNee (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It notable on the basis of such media coverage and on the basis that it has almost become an international incident with the government of both Ireland and France getting involved. The whole incident seems to have gone further than just sport and was even discussed at an official EU meeting between Irish and French delegates. From my point of view, its far more notable than Germany 1–5 England (2001) for instance. ManfromDelmonte (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a fair point, the secong half. As for the "international incident", I wonder if people are aware that a meeting of EU officials had been scheduled for a long time and it just so happened that this game was played just before it. It's not as if the Irish and French officials met to discuss this game. I'll agree with this game being more notable than the Germany-England game, I have no idea how that article came about. I would definitely be in favour of deleting that article, it's not notable in any way.Jeppiz (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I completely agree with you that the EU meeting had nothing to do with the match, I'm merely pointing out that both governments found it necessary to discuss the match from the night before and what stance each government should take. The Wall Street Journal for instance are calling it a "Diplomatic Incident" [1]
  • Anybody reading the article will be under no illusion about the status of the meeting. It states: Irish Prime Minister Brian Cowen...stated he would raise the issue with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the European Union summit taking place in Brussels on 19 November 2009. And Irish and French officials did meet, in the sense that they got together while both at the summit, to specifically discuss the incident, precisely because it was happenning the day after the game. MickMacNee (talk) 00:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have a source to verify that they met with that agenda in any formal manner, rather than simply chatting during a tea break? Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do know how summits work don't you? 80% of the issues, including some pretty important stuff, is discussed through informal side chats. Besides, I am confident nobody but you even cares if there was no formal agenda, it won't sway their opinion of its significance either way. Put it to the test if you want, hold a straw poll. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then: verify that they got together, formally or informally, with the specific purpose of discussing this. You have published that as it if were an indisputable fact: justify it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? It is already referenced in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article only says that Cowen "stated he would raise the issue with French President Nicolas Sarkozy at the European Union summit ..." and that Sarkozy "told Brian Cowen how sorry I was for them...". They got together and talked about it, but it doesn't say anywhere that they got together with the specific purpose of discussing this. Their chitchat is what probably took place in a lot of offices the day after the match, it doesn't make the match notable. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. The Hand of God is notable because it has become an expression, because it has stood the test of time, because it has received countless coverage throughout the decades. If this handball turns out to have the same impact, we can always write an article about it, but only then. Right now, it's just recentism. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not a notability issue! But I believe an entire article is WP:UNDUE weight to the incident. With respect to long-term encyclopedic value, a paragraph in the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round article is appropriate, as is a paragraph in the Republic of Ireland national football team article as long as the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification section is present. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Will people stop voting DELETE just because it violates some stupid Wikipedia policy or guideline. Use YOUR brains and not policies when you consider AFDs. Policies are created by administrators and excessively-active editors and not by normal Wikipedia users or editors and therefore they don't represent the majority of Wikipedia users. They're also undemocratic and encourage less thinking and less discussion. Is the article about a notable or important topic? Yes. So keep it. If it somehow becomes less important in the future then vote again. Are we running low on disk space or something? (Someone's bound to respond quoting some gormless policy about arguing that diskspace issues, etc. are irrelevent. When will someone return common sense and thinking to Wikipedia?--Xania talk 21:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No offense intended, but is Xania's "vote" his genuine opinion or just trolling? It looks very much like the latter.Jeppiz (talk) 22:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't look like trolling at all, it looks like a failrly ordinary common sense argument and an invokation of WP:IAR and WP:NOTPAPER without specific links, perhaps without the knowlegde of the existence of these particular policies. It is tinged with a failry politicised sentiment against the way "the rules" have become set in stone through ad hoc processes, but your question still seems like a pretty unfair way of devaluing another editor's contribution to the debate. King of the North East 01:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very well sourced article of great interest to our readers. Topic is very likely to remain noteable in the context of international soccer history. If this doesnt turn out to be the case, no objection to the article being deleted sometime after 2010. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC) Comment Seeing as Mick seems to have taken it upon himself to harangue everyone who proposes deletion, maybe I could ask whether any of these !voters for "Keep for now/wait" like to defend that position? It is a reasonable request where the article is in need of improvement, but in no way is it in keeping with any principle of Wikipedia to preserve an article while acknowledging that it might, at a later date, be declared notable. Kevin McE (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make slurs please. It is not haranguing people by asking for clarifications of short non-votes, or to ask for examples when vague assertions are made. This is all information that is requred in deletion debates if people don't want their opinions ignored by the closer. I would not expect you to put up with someone just saying 'keep, its just like xyz event' or 'keep, its just notable', so please do not expect the same of me just because their opinions suit your view that the article shouldn't be here. You will note that I do not pick and choose who I ask to clarify their vote with a proper rationale. As it is, I happen to think the article satisfies general notabity right now in the absence of any of these supposed guidelines defining what is a diplomatic incident or not with regard to football, and it is never in a million years a violation of NOT#NEWS. But if you aren't aware that 'keep for now' often comes up at Afd, then you haven't spent much time at Afd. It is not policy, because notability is not temporary, but it is a simple fact that plenty of current events articles are kept initially, only to be deleted months later. It shouldn't happen, but it does. Even if this is kept, I have no doubt somebody will ignore the fact notability is not temporary, and come along and try and delete it in 6 months because 'nobody cares anymore' or some other non-policy reason. I personally cannot get my head around anyone who claims to know football who doesn't already see that this event is now cemented into the collective consciousness of football. I can forgive people with clear bias, but from anyone with a neutral viewpoint, I just don't get it. Henry's image will never be the same, this will always be mentioned in reffing debates, it will definitely become a point of comparison in any future bad decisions in games of comparable significance, and it is certainly something that will always now be part of the French team's history. MickMacNee (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your defence on behalf of people who said this (I would have thought it appropriate to let them answer for themselves) is to say that they are trying to do something that shouldn't happen. Would you say that someone whose opinion is "Not a single person here is in any position to judge the historical notability of this game" is arguing for or against retention of the article? Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you already know what influence this will have, you should try a career as a fortune-teller. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a shame that prediction of the future is not actually part of my keep rationale isn't it? What you see above is a personal comment about my perception of other people's views, on the subject of Kevin's question to the people who he thinks are wrongly making predictions. I have already given my proper reasons for keeping it elsewhere, and not once have they violated WP:CRYSTAL. MickMacNee (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresented again. I did not say that they are making predictions. I am saying that they seem to be following a pattern of retain pending notability, rather than publish once notable. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep a cool head, please don't see an enemy lurking behind every tree. If this discussion gets your blood boiling, you should switch off your computer, do something else to relax, and return when you've calmed down. The last time I checked, "Henry's image will never be the same", "this will always be mentioned in reffing debates", "it will definitely become a point of comparison" and "it is certainly something that will always now be part of the French team's history" (italics added for emphasis) are predictions of the future, and predictions are by definition speculative. It's not just a keep rationale if you put keep in bold in front it. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I can forgive people with clear bias, but from anyone with a neutral viewpoint, I just don't get it." Well, you yourself sit rather firmly in the category "people with a clear bias", don't you? And no matter how much trouble you have "getting your head around it", this is just one of hundreds of games that involved a controversial (or obviously wrong) call by the referee. They have all made headlines, especially in British tabloids, for a few days. Anyone who has been around football long enough has seen this over and over again, often more extreme than in this case, as when English lost against Portugal. In short, for all your fine rhetorics, you haven't been able to demonstrate how this game is different from all the hundreds of similar sports controversies.Jeppiz (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I am biased how exactly? I caution you to not to claim anything you can't support with direct evidence in the form of a diff. I have countered your claims that this was just another controversial match that gained headlines time and again, your intentional deafness is frankly not my problem. I will ask you again though, even though by now I already know it is going to be an utter waste of breath, how is this game the same as the Portugal game, let alone as you claim, how has it had less impact than the Portugal game? I wan't a proper breakdown of the points, not more simple 'it just is' assertions. I want to know when the UK Prime Minister complained to the Portuguese President because of that result. I want to know when the FA lobbied FIFA for a replay. Etc etc. MickMacNee (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly indicated your bias on the related discussion on ITN/C, where you criticised other Irish contributors for not promoting items to increase the country's profile. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was me complaining about the way ITN measures international importance. If you think I have a pro-Irish bias, then you are utterly misinformed, and you have obviously never contributed to any of the ongoing non-football Irish related discussions around the pedia. MickMacNee (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Prominent in the news now, perhaps. But lasting encyclopedic notability, unlikely. The issue of WP:UNDUE is relevant as well. It's important to a lot of pissed off Irishmen right now, sure, but lasting notability of this event (in a qualification round, as opposed to say, a final) is not likely and Wikipedia won't be lacking without this page. Grsz11 22:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Its important to the government of Ireland and the FAI too, or are they just part of your general 'pissed off Irishman' description? This one decision cost an estimated £26.7m to Irish football alone, never mind to the whole economy, and it's 'trivial'? We routinely have articles on a million and one things that have less lasting impact than this one decision. MickMacNee (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And games this week presumably had the same impact, proportionately at least, on the FAs and economies of Ukraine, Costa Rica and Egypt. Those games are not considered worthy of an article, so that last argument does not hold water. Besides, if the goal had not been allowed, it would not have meant that Ireland would have qualified, it would have meant that the scores were equal with 17 minutes, and the possibility of penalties, remaining. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are they just part of your general 'pissed off Irishman' description?" ... Pretty much. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; It happened a few days ago, are you saying that you know the lasting impact already? I thought above you claimed you weren't making a WP:CRYSTAL argument. Which is it? Grsz11 23:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh pleasse, if you are just going to play games, I'm not interested. If you don't know by now what my keep rationale is based on, or my views on CRYSTAL or OSE, then you never will. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Grsz. Whether or not it's "important to the government of Ireland" or not is pure speculation. The Irish minister got a question about it, of course he said he was disappointed. The Russian president got the same question about his team's exist and was equally disappointed. And the argument about the economy is utterly irrelevant, by using that "logic" we should have articles about every game that meant that a team lost its chance to qualify. It is getting more and more obvious how hollow the arguments for a 'keep" are.Jeppiz (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read the article, you are getting basic facts about it totally wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have read the article. Its lack of notability is why I voted "delete" here, and its low quality is why I placed the tags there.Jeppiz (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleary you haven't, because the Irish Prime Minister's role was not simply just answering a reporter's question. What else have you just assumed or otherwise got wrong about the content while you assessed it for notability? MickMacNee (talk) 23:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Surely this controvery can be placed in other articles, such as those of the teams or players concerned. If this were a World Cup championship came, then perhaps keep. But in the long run it's really trivial...Some day if books are written about this game, if it changes the course of world football, then we can reconsider. --Dpr 71.111.194.50 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Several users have said how it's "only" a qualification game and therefore not as important as the World Cup proper. But this match was the last chance for each team to make it to the most important football competition of them all and there were millions of euros riding on the outcome. I would argue that it's in fact more important than some of the first round group games at the tournament itself -at least then you have a chance to come back if you lose, but here it was winner takes all.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is true, but 172 countries tried to qualify but failed. Ireland was far from alone in seeing their chances go up in smoke due to a bad referee.Jeppiz (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break - Day 3[edit]

  • Comment. I would suggest a rename and expansion. The article is clearly not about the match, nor will it ever be about the match. Its about the reaction to an incident in the match. The match itself is non-notable, the subsequent controversy probably is (though that will only be correctly ascertained with historical perspective). My suggestion is a move to 2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off controversies and expand it to include the Algerian/Egyptian brouhaha too. Rockpocket 00:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That is not a bad suggestion.Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In fact, now I think about it, I seem to remember there was some fuss about the decision to seed the teams too. That could also be included. Rockpocket 00:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXIST is not a valid reason for deletion. This match caused protests, a minor diplomatic affair, and it made international headlines so it's certainly notable enough to warrant an article on its own. --Tocino 00:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia by its nature unfortunately suffers from WP:RECENTISM which in the long-term places WP:UNDUE weight on specific events. Spellcast (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I like User:Rockpocket's idea of merging this into a new article about controversies for all of the playoffs, but I would go one step further. I would change it to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies to make it a more inclusive article. There were other controversies besides those in the playoffs, such as North Korea refusing to fly the flag of South Korea, Chad refusing to play in Sudan, and the stampede that killed 19 in Côte d'Ivoire for example. Thoughts? --Tocino 00:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I think this is a better proposal. Rockpocket 23:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will be remembered as an infamous game. As an article it is well sourced and some sections are comprehensive, but the match reports need to be improved. This is becoming the most comprehensive, well sourced and unbiased page on the whole internet about the subject, yet there is this clamour to delete it after only a few days. As other have already said Wikipedia is not made of paper, hosting an article of this standard should not be seen as a problem. I believe that the sheer amount of global coverage makes this game worthy of an article; I mean it's even got my wife talking about football! Perhaps a comparison with other matches in this category would be useful. There are much less significant matches (in my view) in this category of individual matches, and several of them are completely unsourced stubs. The category is heavily Anglo-centric and should be expanded with more well sourced and notable matches from around the globe and the existing contents should be referenced and improved, if some of this can be achieved because of this AfD it would have a positive outcome. King of the North East 01:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please cut the WP:RECENTISM. No one knows if this will really be remembered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs)
WP:CRYSTAL cut, although my football talking mates will certainly remember it for years to come. Other points stand. King of the North East 02:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete/Merge. Yet another WP:RECENTISM. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be trimmed to an appropriate length and merged into 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round. Reywas92Talk 02:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are people chucking around this rather partisan essay as if it were a policy, and can be merely be cited as indisputable lore? To quote from the actual essay: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion". MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed say that, but it also provides a salutary warning that we do not magnify the importance of events unduly simply because they have a temporary high profile. Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, based on other comments, what you are actually saying here is, it's ok to speak for other people in this debate, as long as you are doing it to support your view. That's good to know. MickMacNee (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about France, Ireland and their soccer teams? Who would have guessed that such a thing could ever be considered notable? I thought y'all played with crickets. Anyway, I don't see any need to rush for deletion on this kind of thing. Let's give it some time and let the dust settle. It's clearly not as notable as subjects dealing with the real kind of football, but we should try to be tolerant of even the fringier interests of our devoted readers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now; lots of content drawn from reliable sources and a coherent topic, which is likely to belong either in this form or merged into another page. Deletion would be killing the chicken before it lays the egg - good things are likely to come of this material. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Willing to compromise. I will happily change my keep if someone started 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies or some similarly named article. J04n(talk page) 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does that need an article, rather than a mention or section in the article on Qualification? Kevin McE (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the article as stands should be a keep, but am looking for a compromise. An aspect of WP:Consensus that is greatly overlooked on Wikipedia is Consensus-building which has the phrase "an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on". What consensus has come to mean is that "party A" makes an argument and stands firm, "party B" makes an argument and stands firm and then "party C" looks at the two arguments and decides which is more valid (or worse counts the number of parties in each camp). Wikipedia is a collaboration, give-and-take is necessary for this to work, and sometimes the solution is somewhere between the two arguments. I'll get off my soapbox now. J04n(talk page) 12:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more strongly with J04n's suggestion, but s/he is right about the importance of considering compromise. The problem with AfD is that it's too black and white. Once an AfD is closed as a no consensus, it's very unlikely that a logical compromise will ever be found. All debates have a natural death; there should never be an upper time limit for seeking consensus. Discussions should only ever be closed as no consensus if it is clear that reasonable but opposed editors are never likely to agree on a solution. WFCforLife (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, per WP:RECENTISM Crafty (talk) 03:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, consider move. Current title breaks MoS anyway. --John (talk) 04:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have previously voted weak keep. In honesty I'm still unsure. The question is, does this deserve more weight than the other three games? How much more? Can this reasonably be achieved in a balanced article at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round? I don't think so. I like the idea of merging this into something more useful, but a more useful place doesn't exist. I'm strongly against a controversies article, as that would be full of Western European systemic bias. I'm not claiming that the article is currently neutral in any way, shape or form, but at least that is obvious. In 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies it wouldn't be obvious; the content would be neutral, but the weigting or criteria for including something as a "controversy" would not. WFCforLife (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With no wish to disenfranchise others, I do think that it is notable that, of those contributors who I know to be regular/semi-regular posters at WP:FOOTY, there seem to be 9 in favour of deletion , one neutral, and 4 in favour of retention. Among the football community here (who might be expected to represent those most enthusiatic about the sport's appearance on Wikipedia, most aware of footballing importance, and most alert to football inclusion principles) it would seem that support for the article is very limited. Other contributors of course have the right to their say. How many have come in response to the appeal at WP:ARS (or how many retentionists saw that request, but did not want to defend the article) I cannot comment on. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's a fair comment, but many of the WP:FOOTY contributors on both sides have put forward very brief arguments with at least one giving nothing but an inaccurate weather report. WFCforLife (talk) 10:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a ridiculous comment tbh. The only thing you got right was the FOOTY peoople have no right to any extra weight of opinion, especially as they have written absolutely zero guidelines on the subject, and the only named Afd precedent is the totally incomparable Barcelona Chelsea game. And you seem to assume everybody on Wikipedia who knows about football is in the FOOTY project - utterly wrong. It is not inconceivable that, if they are concentrating too much on football articles, that these supposedly more knowledgable FOOTY people have simply lost sight of what constitutes general notability, which by your analysis more non-football editors here have determined it passes. I for one find it utterly bizarre that FOOTY can bestow automatic notability to the likes of the second tier third place play-off game, which is a total irrelevance of an event when compared to this game. MickMacNee (talk) 12:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that FOOTY is trying to ignore wikipedia policy, you're perfectly welcome to raise that at an RfC or similar. Although I find it somewhat strange that you're picking out the "most valuable game in club football" as an example of non-notability, when there are far more logical targets. WFCforLife (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it exists, it's more like a sub-conscious wrong doing than a willfull wrong doing, so I thinkit would be wrong to suggest that they are actively trying to 'ingore' policy. MickMacNee (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the totally incomparable Barcelona Chelsea game.", do you even know about this game? It had the same amount of press after the controversial decisions. The ONLY claim to any special notability this game has is a goal that should've been disallowed. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. For example, do we have an article on Lionel Messi's "Hand of God" goal against Espanyol I think it was, that almost won them the league 3 (2?) years ago. Do we have an article for the Ireland - Georgia game when Ireland got a wrongful penalty (and might I add the FAI didn't call for a replay then)? Do we have articles for games with a offside goal? Wrongfully given penalty? Or wrongfully disallowed goal? NO. There is nothing indicating that this game will be remembered in the long run, just like every other game with a bad refereeing decision. chandler 12:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are now deep into the realms of going over old ground here, but whatever. Yes I do know the Barcelona game, and I also know that the claim that this is all just about 'press coverage' has been rejected time and again. As has the claim that the only reason the article is notable is the causing incident, and not the reaction. I have repeatedly asked for evidence that the Barcelona game is in any way comparable, to no avail. You can see in various places above for all the very specific requests. I am utterly not interested in your pointles 'but it just is!' arguments, if you cannot be bothered with the seemingly trivial matter like actually providing some proof of equivalence using external sources rather than your own opinions. As for the other games, again, the invalidity of other crap doesn't exist arguments has also been raised time and again. However, for the purposes of debate, assuming any of those cited games were equivalent, then unless there was a discussion about their proposed creation, or better yet an Afd outcome of delete on one of those games, then what exactly is you point by mentioning them? Just because nobody thought to create an article, is absolute proof this one should not exsits? Total nonsense tbh, and not how Wikipedia works in the slightest. No guideline, no equivalent Afd outcomes, no prior discussion = no precedent. MickMacNee (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly notable event with major social and economic ramifications. Well balanced, sourced and referenced, certainly better than some of the more splenetic coverage over the past few days. This is the kind of article I love to read which wikipedia should be encouraging.yorkshiresky (talk) 12:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia should be more honest with itself, from what I have seen in the last year this is one of the things editors enjoy doing and the viewing figures are large for such articles, voting keep or delete in such situations is a waste of energy as there can be no consensus, there are a large group of editors that seem to think that we can and should write about anything we want to. The simple fact is some editors like to report and write news articles. Off2riorob (talk) 13:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Similar errors by a referee are common and happen at all levels. It does not justify an article for a single match. All the relevant content should be moved to 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification - UEFA Second Round. The initial storm is quickly fading away, and eventually this game won't be considered much more than any other world cup qualification match. Julius Sahara (talk) 13:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of this article doesn't stem from the simple action of a referee on its own, it is about the reactions, and suggestions that this same reaction happen every times a referee makes a mistake at this level, are simply innaccurate. And notability does not 'fade away', once established, it is permanent, see WP:NTEMP. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has huge coverage. Arriva436talk/contribs 16:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page has had almost 6800 views in its first 2 days in existence GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do you mean this deletion page we are on now? How do you get that information stats from? Bonesyardz (talk) 16:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And this AfD has been viewed almost a 1000 times. A big event of notability we can compare with perhaps is the Fort Hood shooting which had 180,000 views the two first days. chandler 16:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. They are like apples and oranges. Anyway where do you guys get these numbers from anyway? Bonesyardz (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • http://stats.grok.se/ The thing is, GainLine seems to say that the page is notable because many people have been to it. So I pointed towards a notable event to show the interest to it. chandler 17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability isn't 'big' or 'small'. It either exists or it doesn't. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And I don't think this match is notable enough for a separate article. I didn't say that because it was big it had anything to do with its notability, I just said it was a big event of notability. chandler 17:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is no such thing as a big event of notability. There a big events, and there are notable events. It is pointless saying this event was not big, to attempt to support your view that it isn't notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Oh my fucking... I have not "said this event is not big to support my view". I have not said something is notable because its big or small. I said the Fort Hood shooting WAS A BIG EVENT, that it WAS A NOTABLE EVENT. Therefore a big event of notability. And the difference in views are HUGE, especially when you take into account it seems half of the hits on this article is vandalism from angry Ireland fans. chandler 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I wasn't trying to say that just because it had a lot of hits that it was notable, all I was saying was there's a huge amount of interest in the article. Its also a bit unfair to say that it seems half of the hits on this article is vandalism from angry Ireland fans IMO this is a huge storm in a teacup but is still probably notable at least in the short term and if it survives may need to be revisited in the future when everything dies down. There are certain editors here who perhaps need to step back a little. GainLine ♠ ♥ 19:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete huge coverage over nothing. Merge back into the qualification round article. Big news articles (especially "controversies") are not always notable. Only history will show if it might become notable, but I seriously doubt this is the incident that will get us video refereeing. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What did the Maradonna goal change? Nothing. World Cup Quarter Final matches aren't automaticaly notable either, and looking at this Afd I am willing to bet had Wikipedia been around back then, I bet people would have said delete that page after two days also. Which begs the question, at what point did that game become historically notable? You could ask a hundred people and not get the same answer. Utter madness. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article is seriously spiralling out of control right now. Every newspaper article, every person who says something about the subject, EVERYTHING is added. Surely WP:UNDUE must play a role here. It's currently even much longer than the Hand of God article and that article isn't even only about the hand of goal, but goal of the century and everything. If this article should be kept it has to be seriously trimmed down. chandler 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure people can judge for themselves whether the latest additions are trivial, but they include such information as the ref's view, protests in Dublin, criticism of Heny's record of fair play, additional evidence of coverage outside the normal sources, the view of Henry's current manager, views of current and past French team players, and the view of the WC2010 organiser, and lastly, some more evidence that his got global coverage. If you hadn't started this shotgun Afd when the article was about two paragraphs long, then people would have had plenty of time to discuss what to specifically leave in and out of the article on the talk page as normal. MickMacNee (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep; there is obviously enough third-party coverage to justify notability. -M.Nelson (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...like there is for every top flight football match in the entire world. We don't have articles for football matches just because they're reported on. chandler 18:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is because "routine sports coverage" is specifically discounted in the GNG. Are you suggesting that the reaction to this match is "routine"? WFCforLife (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not talking for Chandler, but yes, this is pretty much routine. There have been several similar cases in the qualification to this World Cup, in the last World Cup, in the World Cup before that etc. If you think that there's something here that is unique, it would be interesting to know what that is.Jeppiz (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think that this is routine coverage? Routine, in this context, is a match report on a weekly premier league game. Routine is daily updates on transfers. The coverage that has followed this match is far from routine. --Bill (talk|contribs) 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There seriously haven't been any more coverage than there was after the Chelsea - Barcelona game. It kept up for a few days, but then there were league matches and the coverage slowed. Just like it's done now seeing as FIFA has said no, FAI have accepted the no... And the league matches will take up tonight headlines. chandler 19:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And you've been asked many times to prove it. People just need to search this Afd for the word 'Chelsea'. All you keep saying is 'it is!' 'it is!'. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it? You said yourself that you remember the game... Surely you remember the controversy and that the media was full of it days after. I won't take the time to search through tens of online newspapers to get all the articles out. Most people who aware of this controversy are also aware of the Chelsea-Barca controversy. chandler 20:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I said I remembered it, and I said I remembered the reactions were nothing like this game. And I also said your 'can't be bothered' reply isn't going to convince anybody you are right in your assertion that 'they are just the same'. Either provide the proof asked for in detail above, not only showing global headlines, but all the other aspects of the reaction too, or stop repeating your baseless opinions. The article is right here, and contains all the information you need, if you actually want to prove similarity. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If my presumption is correct, you're Irish right? That might be why the reactions are nothing like this game. You're on the inside. Ofc the reactions in Ireland will be huge, but that does not reflect the whole world. Here (Sweden) there's been no more coverage than the Chelsea-Barca game. Probably even more coverage than some other countries because the ref is Swedish. chandler 20:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your presumptions have been constantly wrong. You are utterly missing the point on the issue of comparison, despite being told countless times. Coverage is not the issue. Just please answer the very specifc questions I asked you above about how the Chelsea game is the same as this. I most certainly did not ask you if the level of newspaper coverage is the same. MickMacNee (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha... presumptions like what? chandler 20:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My nationality, who I support, my motives for being here, pretty much everything. MickMacNee (talk) 21:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (In response to Jeppiz who responded to my comment) I disagreee, there has been much more coverage of this match over other matches, and it is still coming, including publications getting remarks from even more politians. That doesn't happen routinely. Former players don't routinely come out of the woodwork to put forward their opinions. Broadcasters and news producers don't routinely publish stories on how people are feeling about football in another country. This is happening in countries where football isn't the national sport, or even a hugely mainstream sport. If you (or anyone) disagrees with this, please explain why instead of saying "this is normal". --Bill (talk|contribs) 23:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incline towards delete on grounds of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. There is an issue of WP:Systemic bias. On the same days as the Franco-Irish matches were two other qualifiers involving Egypt and Algeria involving diplomatic incidents, attacks on a team coach, attacks on property belonging to nationals of the rival countries. I'm inclined to think that the circumstances surrounding both ties constitute Nine Days Wonders. But certainly I see no grounds to include one and exclude the other.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm tempted to create an article for that match just to illustrate how pointless it is to say 'x doesn't exist so Y shouldn't either'. There is no point comparing an existing an article to one that doesn't exist to support the idea it should be deleted, particularly when nobody has ever debated whether that one should exist or not. Systemic bias is an issue, but it does not justify going around deleting what we do consider notable, just because there are certain topics for whatever reason, people don't feel like writing an article on yet. MickMacNee (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I'm tempted to create an article for that match just to illustrate how pointless it is to say 'x doesn't exist so Y shouldn't either'." Please don't. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOL. So now nobody is allowed to create an article on a notable match because of this Afd? Pull the other one. People in this debate have asserted it is even more notable than this match. It happened a coupled of days ago, it is fair game for creation. MickMacNee (talk) 20:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If your paranoid feelings lead to you throw civility and the assumption of good faith out of the window, if they lead you to chastise everyone who disagrees with you, if they lead you to consider disrupting Wikipedia to prove whatever point it is you're trying to make, then that still isn't allowed. Why are you throwing this little temper tantrum? Why would you get your knickers in a twist over this? If you lose all self control because of this, you should consider finding something else to do with your time. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That really isn't helping, please remove the comment as it has nothing to do with the discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, re. the Nine Days Wonder comment - "a sensational event that evokes widespread interest but is soon forgotten" - (Wikipedia), well, can you honestly say when you read the entire article, you come away with the impression that this will be an incident soon forgotten? It will come up again and again and again during debates on the rules of football and fair play, whenever Henry does anything in future, and definitely during the WC finals. MickMacNee (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I can honestly say that. Looking at the news pages of today's issue of The Times, I see that the riots in Egypt against the Algerian victory get a corner on page 57 while the repercussions of the Henry business get no news coverage at all. By the end of this coming week, the Irish Justice Minister will have stopped mouthing off about how Fifa should, in his view, replay the game, Alaa Mubarak will stop claiming that the Egyptian team "faced terrorism before during and after the match" (see bottom left corner of Today's Times), the populace there won't riot again until there is another bread shortage, the Egyptian ambassador will return to Algeria and Irish nationalists will return to contemplating the Famine (not a nine days wonder)and its long term consequences; everything will be back to normal.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Its not what most external sources seem to be saying. Per WP:NTEMP, this doesn't have to be kept as front page news forever for the game to be remembered or notable. The original Hand of God game is no longer headlines, but it is remembered. Your comment about Irish nationalists is totally out of order and unneccessary by the way, and possibly reveals some POV here. If it was targetted at me, it is also pretty innaccurate. MickMacNee (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Peter Cohen, the media interest in this little episode is already over. Perhaps the Irish media is still talking about it, but I haven't seen in for the last couple of days despite following the major papers in six countries on two continents. The Algeria-Egypt match played the same day is still the one getting more media coverage. Chelsea-Barcelona got much more widespread coverage, as did England-Portugal. And yes, Mick, it does matter. It shows that the reactions to this game were not particularly strong nor notable.Jeppiz (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting boring. It's up to you if you want to parrot everybody's delete opinion as if it makes you look like you know what you are on about, but it really doesn't. You have been given replies to what appear to be your only original thoughts on the matter time and again, all you say in response is you cannot be bothered to back up your opinions with some facts. You absolutely do not understand the difference between notability and media coverage, that's a fact I already know. You have ignored the replies so often pointing out the difference, I now think your deafness is indeed intentional. I really have got no more time for your unsupported personal opinions, and your obvious dislike of everything British Isles should now be obvious enough to anyone to be able to discredit your apparent wish to appear as a neutral observer. Infact, who knows, being from Sweden, maybe you are the refs brother. That is about as intelligent an approach to debating this article with you has become. MickMacNee (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mick, comment on content and not on other editors. Your rude behaviour and your personal vendettas against all those who dare to disagree with you is becoming a problem. You're not contributing in a constructive way.Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I get bored commenting on content in your case, because you are intentionally deaf, and I think you are now intentionally trying to provoke me into saying something rude, so that you don't have to answer any more awkward questions like 'where's the proof for that opinon?' MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have repeatedly pointed out why I think the subject is not notable and I have provided reasons for that view. The fact that you continue to demand "proof" of everybody voting contrary to you is your issue. The fact that you don't accept (I'm refraining from saying "don't understand") my reasons or the reasons of everybody else not agreeing with you is not my problem either. You're not the judge of which arguments to accept or not any more than I am.Jeppiz (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant. Now you are parrotting my criticism of you back at me, word for word. You are on a wind up, pure and simple. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There has been more media coverage internationally about this particular game, than any other game in the current WC cycle. Living on another continent, I'm amazed at how much coverage I've seen on the front page of newspapers, and on major newscasts for a sport that is normally relegated to an inch buried in the sports section. Nfitz (talk) 19:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This could do with a [citation needed] tag. Looking, for example, at [[49]] I notice that the Accra Mail has two articles related to the Egyptian-Algerian business rather than one to the Franco-Irish match. Looking at the current English front page at AL Jazeera [50] I see an analysis article linked about the Egypt-Algeria clash and no mention of Henry & co. The ENglish language press gives more coverage to a match involving an anglophone nation. Most of the big news agencies are anglophone or francophone and have more reporters in Paris than in Khartoum. WIkipedia doesn't have to be misled by artifices of this bias into thinking that the storm in a teacup over a routine piece of cheating such as happens in most matches is actually important.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This comment doesn't really make sense, or perhaps I'm missing the point of it. I'm not sure what the significance of what you're saying Peter. There has to be more coverage in a foreign language for it to be notable? Besides, the cheating was routine. It does happen very often, but that's not the reason that the event is notable. The fact that this match is notable is because of the non-routine significance, reaction and coverage. Can you or anyone say with a straight face that the coverage that this match in particular is routine for a World Cup qualifier? Our NOTNEWS policy is there to prevent articles on every professional sporting event which happens every week; routine coverage. In this instance, the coverage has gone beyond the football match itself, but on to the comments and actions of high-profile people who are not directly involved in the match. Surely, that is not routine coverage. --Bill (talk|contribs) 01:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Montreal screwjob in wrestling had alot less coverage than this,yet is allowed to be mentioned.It was the front page of Google news for 2 days.I agree it needs to be toned down because of the passion and anger coming from the person that wrote it,but not deleted.The World cup is the biggest tournament in football and shouldn't be compared to the Premiership.kevinharte (talk with me • my contributions) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's widely accepted that certain games, even they aren't championships, can be notable if they get an exceptional level of coverage. See Snow Bowl (1985) and many other examples of US sports articles that get this treatment. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break - Day 4[edit]

  • Keep--sheer number of sources makes this obvious. There are tons of articles about individual sports games, and there should be, if merited by the sources. Hand of Frog should be redirected here. Savidan 01:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - At this point, stating any position would be quite futile for the purposes of this deletion discussion, since it is quite apparent this will end in a good old no consensus. With that being said, I would like to ask to those who voted to keep this article whether they believe this event will actually have any historical relevance years ahead from now. As of now, the article clearly suffers from recent-ism, as events like these have occurred plenty of times in the history of association football, yet we hardly have any articles on similar matches. Do we have anything on, for example, Australia-Italy from the 2006 World Cup, or Spain-South Korea and Italy-South Korea from 2002? Do U(knome)? yes...or no 01:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting question. I doubt it'll be as significant once a few World Cups have passed. Fortunately we don't document based on perceived historical significance as we wouldn't have a vast number of articles. otherstuffdoesn'texist isn't really a good argument and each topic should be judged based on their own merits. IIRC, those other matches didn't have the same unique reaction that this one did. But I haven't looked into those so I can't comment on whether they deserve articles. --Bill (talk|contribs) 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not making an otherstuffexists argument. All I was addressing was the lack of particularity of this event. By the way, historical significance definitely plays a key role in notability of articles on Wikipedia. If that wasn't the case, then we could make an article for almost any insignificant match played in the Eredivisie 1995–96 (with no offence to my Dutch friends!). Do U(knome)? yes...or no 02:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your last comment is misrepresenting my position, you could only make articles on the games which have had media coverage which goes beyond the routine coverage of a football match. The only way we judge "historical significance" on Wikipedia is by third party coverage. Non-routine coverage of sporting events is an indication of notability. --Bill (talk|contribs) 02:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You cannot create articles on any old match, because as Bill has repeatedly said, this is considered routine coverage, and would never pass the bar of general notability. This match does, because it does have plenty of peculiarity as you call it. As for historic notability, what is historic notability for a football match anyway? Nobody has actually tried to define it here. As I said above, given some of the opinions here, even the original Hand of God match would not have got an article had Wikipedia existed at the time. And unless people tried to create articles on those other matches and they were deleted, and their significance and impact on football was the same as this game, then sorry, but you really are making an other stuff argument, because their absence doesn't show anything. As it is, we have no proof they were the same, and we have no evidence anyone has ever tried to create them. What we do have plenty of evidence of, is the creation of plenty of match articles simply on the basis of general notability. MickMacNee (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "those other matches didn't have the same unique reaction that this one did.", Like the South Korean who scored against Italy getting fired from his Italian club? There was outrage in Italy... And it still exists today. One Gazzetta dello Sport called Hansson "a new Moreno" for example, showing that that game still lives on in Italy. chandler 08:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, so what? Did anyone ever try and create that match article? Did anybody even discuss the creation of that article? No? Then it's absence from the pedia is irrelevent, per other crap doesn't exist. And as always, were the reactions the same? It certainly doesn't sound like a case of official appeals and questions about fair play and refereeing. It isn't even cheating. Quite how national associations and governments would get involved in this case on an official basis isn't clear to me at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge This seems like a minor incident, I don't think we need articles about individual games. Chillum 02:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This game is a big story right now but I do not believe it will carry much, if any historical significance in the future. A refereeing error is not enough to give a game any inherent notability and as there are no similar articles (as far as I know) for the other World Cup qualifying play-off ties which have been recently played, I see no reason why this game should have an article either. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This article claims no inherent notability from a referee error, nor does it claim it from simply being a qualifying match, it derives its notability from the unique reactions to it which went beyond all normal and usual reactions to similar incidents. I use the word unique there deliberately, because no other match that I can remember has ever had this particular set of reactions. We have obviously more notable matches and they all have articles, but this is definitely a notable match too, and it will be referred to in future. It is already a meme right now pretty much. MickMacNee (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the primary issue is WP:RECENTISM. Lots of minor events get plenty of attention for a short while, it does not automatically convey notability and to assume it does without waiting for proper perspective seems to be a case of crystal balling. Chillum 03:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is, characterising this as 'minor' is not a viewpoint supported by any of the sources. I have avoided crystal balling throughout, but simply looking at the content of the sources right now, it is clear that they certainly think this game will be remembered. You need to actually look at the sources (and, annoyingly because of this RECENTISM concern, a lot of the necessary detail is already being trimmed down to one or two bland snippets, such as 'ministers expressed sympathy', when in actual fact their views are much stronger), it is not accurate to just characterise it all as just 'attention', there is real in-depth concern about long term things here. You don't get that for flash in the pan incidents. MickMacNee (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- this is inherently a subjective call, but we do have an article about the match which featured Maradona's Hand of God. This is similar enough that I think it's worthy of inclusion. The flip side of RECENTISM is that if this turns out to be completely forgotten (although what would the metric for that be? Is the Hand of God forgotten?), we can always act on this in the future. I would also add that I don't see a point in deleting this article; if we want to purge this content from the encyclopaedia a redirect to the UEFA qualifier article would make as much sense. Johnleemk | Talk 03:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar to the Hand of God? Henry, didn't score a goal, it was not deliberate on the same level, he's not denied it was scored with his hand. A goal more like the Hand of God was Lionel Messi's goal against Espanyol a few years back and could've won Barcelona the title... No article. chandler 08:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing events, suggesting that one is reminiscent of another, does not amount to elevating it to the same level. Kevin McE (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this is truly a notable event it'll be covered in a month. However, we're all aware it won't be covered in a month, so it's not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Define 'covered'. What actually has to happen on this month deadline? MickMacNee (talk) 04:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can't beleive I missed it, but the day after the game, TIME magazine named Henry number 1 in their Top 10 List of Sporting Cheats. [51] Now added to the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quote from that article: Not since Diego Maradona punched Argentina past England in a 1986 World Cup quarterfinal has a handball sparked such furor. Note that the Time website also published a report on the situation [52], something I'm quite sure it does not do for every soccer (football) controversy. Though I'm not familiar with the "comparable" (per some people above) Barcelona/Chelsea controversy, a search of time.com for Barcelona Chelsea does not appear to turn up anything relevant. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure it's ranked at all (because many other lists don't seem to go on any special ran) except some who add numbers (and then ofc go in reverse order because you want to read #10 first... so this might just mean Henry is #11)? Because no one believes that anyone would put Rivaldo's dive (or Henry's handball) ABOVE the Hand of God. chandler 08:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list does appear to be ranked (as of now), with this incident labelled as "1. No Luck for the Irish". -M.Nelson (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Utter waste of time of all involved to even have to discuss this -- the extensive coverage makes this clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Given that there is unlikely to be consensus, would it not make sense to close this, and perhaps nominate it in six weeks or so, when the historic significance or otherwise should be clearer? All this AfD is likely to achieve now is to polarise people's opinions, making consensus less likely in future. WFCforLife (talk) 09:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds resonable to me. This is pretty much coming down to a series of "Mick vs anyone who proposes deletion" deathmatches with no signs of possible consensus at all. Gruen (talk) 11:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that in addition to Mick, there is a majority of users who have !voted "Keep". -M.Nelson (talk) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think 'historic significance' is measured in years, not weeks. I'm unclear what has to be happening in six weeks time to make this more notable. In March 2010 for example, IFAB meet to discuss additional referees. I am certain this will be mentioned in the media then. And it will definitely come up in the media and commentary every time France play a game in the finals. MickMacNee (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This match may be the catalyst for the introduction of video evidence to major football games - which will make it very notable indeed. There has been extensive discussion of the implications of the event right across the European press, and beyond. I find this Afd somewhat bizarre when you consider that every episode of numerous American TV series have their own articles! Close and keep. Now please. Sarah777 (talk) 13:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What this match may or may not be the catalyst for is the epitome of crystal balling. If this match turns out to have a major impact, the article can always be undeleted. We're not in a hurry. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Just as well you ain't in a hurry 'cos this article ain't going nowhere! Maybe if it turns out not to have been a catalyst you can try (and fail) again? Sarah777 (talk) 13:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this still open? After starting with a 10 - 0 deletionist advantage the score is now 29 - 47 and the "keep" vote is piling up. I'll wind it up myself under WP:SNOW if someone else doesn't. There is manifestly no consensus to delete. Period. Sarah777 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check out The Corbomite Maneuver, a single episode of a single series of a US TV sci-fi programme. There are hundreds of other such series which get the same article-per-episode treatment. What is the basis for the notability of these thousands of articles; yet a key match in the most popular global sport ends up in an Afd? Sarah777 (talk) 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Pokémon test. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! WP:SNOW also advises that when a cause hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of gaining consensus you should stop pushing it. Maybe you'd close this failed Afd?? Sarah777 (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough. Not the most notable, but not not notable. • Anakin (talk) 13:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep massive media coverage and sources, is clearly a notable article and game. Eldumpo (talk) 14:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This match is notable. it's a historical match. just like 1998 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC-OFC play-off) & Agony of Doha. There's enought sources too. Amirreza talk 18:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.This subject is certainly notable, topical and meets all criteria for a Wikipedia page. It is also symbolic of a defining moment in football history. I belong to the greatest footballing nation on earth, so I know what I am talking about.  Giano  18:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And another notable match? France and Ireland won't go beyond some polite(ish) disputation but Egypt v Algeria seems to be brewing up a storm! Sarah777 (talk) 19:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced and, given that notability criteria for football matches is actually quite low (see Category:Football (soccer) matches), it just seems that the main reason for voting for deletion is article's alleged recentism. However, being recent is not equal to being non-notable. Given the coverage, politicians response etc it's obvious that this game isn't an ordinary one. By the way, the same is true for Algeria vs Egypt games.  Barocci  19:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This game will be remembered across the globe for decades to come, and may even be more significant if it leads to introduction of counter-cheat measures such as video ref or punitive retrospective player bans. Even if nothing else happens it will be remembered as the time the seemingly perfect Henry showed that he is human after all.Chrismccarthy (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: nonsense. Wiki reports current events all the time without being accused of "recentism". Common sense is not against Wiki rules surely? And (Chris) I don't hold with the demonisation of Henry - several Irish players have said they'd have done the same thing. The issue is how the linesmen missed four offences that led to the goal and why we don't use the dozens of cameras that cover these matches. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic comment: Mind you explain the four offenses? None of the players in offside were involved in the play... just saying... 198.53.106.84 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to check the video evidence and get back to you - at the time I screamed "OFFSIDE" at the telly, but they didn't hear me :) Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break - Day 5[edit]

  • Keep as I am persuaded by the overwhelming interest in this discussion alone that the subject is notable enough for our standards. Upon examining the article itself, it is fairly apparent that it is suitably referenced for our purposes as well. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has undue weight with 90%+ on the handball, but the topic is notable enough. I don't have a problem with lots of detail from good sources like BBC YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 04:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Despite undue weight, the main incident will be remembered for a long time to come. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and the previous precedent. "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events". If people are still referring back to this incident/match in a few years, like the hand of god game, then it can be recreated. At the moment it's not historically notable. --88.110.5.8 (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's absurd. We have objective guidelines and policies for a reason so we don't have to use terms like "historically notable". The guidelines say that coverage is how we determine notability. The criteria for sporting events is coverage from the media which is more than you would typically get. This is an objective, fair and time tested inclusion method for Wikipedia. 81.2.117.126 (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOTNEWS, which is a policy and not a guideline, uses the term "historical notability". --88.110.5.8 (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay... That was my point exactly considering you quoted NOTNEWS. We already have an objective definition for "historically notable". Your description of "people referring to this event in a few years" is not even close to what is described as "historically notable" in NOTNEWS. NOTNEWS only says that sporting events that receive routine coverage are probably not notable. This event has gone far beyond routine reporting has it not? You can't make up your own definition of "historically notable" like that. 81.2.117.126 (talk) 12:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see there is no specific defintion of what historically notable means. But based on WP:GNG (Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability) I interpret the phase to mean there needs to be coverage in the medium/long term. This match has received more than routine coverage but so did Chelsea-Barcelona. --88.110.5.8 (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Firstly, this article is well sourced. Secondly, the match's result has become an international controversial topic and, because of that, it will go down in the history of football as the most remarkable match of 2009.--AM (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. This far, this match has not been nearly as controversial and attracted as much coverage as the match between Algeria and Egypt played the same day. Unless something unforeseen happens, it is unlikely that it will be remembered as the most remarkable match even on that day. However, all such speculations are crystal-balling.Jeppiz (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No - in the case of Algeria v Egypt it was events surrounding the match that sparked the near crisis; in France v Ireland it was events in the match itself that sparked a controversy, albeit with no riots/violence. And certainly in Europe (perhaps unsurprisingly) the latter got, and continues to get, far more coverage. (I'm not disputing that the Egypt/Algeria was potentially much more serious outside the footballing arena. But 'notability' is the issue; not 'seriousness'). Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not crystal-balling. A lot of new paper use the word of "remarkable", "biggest" or some word like that to write about this match[53][54]. I'm sorry if my English was not clear enough for you to understand. Nevertheless, I would like to keep my point that this match is notable enough per WP:EVENT.--AM (talk) 04:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, match has drawn huge coverage from around the world, and I have every expectation that the match will be remembered in Irish sporting history even more than the 1-0 defeats of England (1988) and Italy (1994). Stifle (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:CRYSTAL. Speculations about how notable a match will become are just that, speculations.Jeppiz (talk) 16:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment Neitherof these more notable matches have a wiki page.Cathar11 (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article is OTT and as presently written breaches WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE> Instead of rationalising the article to give proportionality and balance editors are just piling in information.Cathar11 (talk) 14:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't really seem like an argument to delete the article entirely. These issues are fixable. --TorsodogTalk 15:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Cathar11: Please refer to WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:RUBBISH.--AM (talk) 15:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Torsedog, check the article history any time a user attempts to address the WP:NPOV/WP:UNDUE issues their edits are reverted by MickMacNee, therefore these issues are not fixable and are relevant to this debate. --88.110.11.192 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? Where have I done that exactly? MickMacNee (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to your repeated reverting of Kevinharte's edits when he attempted to neutralise the article. This AFD has been running four days and the article remains in horrible shape therefore Torsedog's argument that NPOV/UNDUE issues are fixable and not relevant to the AFD doesn't wash with me. --88.110.11.192 (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find no experienced editor will ever stand for summary deletion of entire referenced sections of an article when done by a single editor without consensus. This approach, when done repeatedly in the face of objections, is pretty much considered unnacceptable, and had he carried on doing it, he would have been blocked. He stopped, and as ever, I await anybody actually fleshing out these arguments that the article is not netural in the normal place, the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mick and I are not the best of friends (now there's an understatement) but in this case I must speak up for him. The sections Kevin removed may be unsuitable or they may not be, but that's a matter for discussion on the talk page. Removing long and sourced sections like that without a consensus is not how things are done, and Mick was quite right in restoring them.Jeppiz (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sections are sourced, but I don't understand the concept that sourced means undeletable. The reaction section is far too long, it contains soundbites from every Tom, Dick and Harry with most adding nothing new and some being completely irrelevant. To think that this article will be paraded on the front page within the next few days shows how sick this site has become. --88.110.59.80 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most important matches in RoI's football history, a definining moment in the career of one of the most well known C21st footbalers, global news coverage and context by several debates on the nature of footballing officialdom and possible FIFA bias. Petepetepetepete (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The continuing international coverage of this goes well beyond anything that WP:NOT#NEWS covers. This is not just a normal domestic match with a controversial decision. The article details how this match has had an effect in the nations involved, led to significant pressure for rule changes (extra ref, goal line technology) and is going to be discussed at an extraordinary general meeting of FIFA. Davewild (talk) 20:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if it was discussed in Parliament. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no problem with "keeping", but the article is on its way to becoming unduly long and politicised. Chensiyuan (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notably has been demonstrated by the wide coverage in secondary sources Spiderone 23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would mean we would have thousands of articles on different matches, at lot of games are covered in secondary sources every day.Jeppiz (talk) 01:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And your point is? We have thousands of articles on episodes of every TV series ever made. You are not addressing the notability issue. Wiki creates hundreds of articles every day from things that happen in the news. Do you have some number in mind as an upper limit? 100 new articles per day, perhaps? Sarah777 (talk) 02:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a quick calculation; in the past 4 years Wiki has added (net) about 1,400 articles per day. Is that too many you think maybe Jepp? Sarah777 (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break - Day 6[edit]

  • Delete - This is not a particularly notable match in the grand scheme of things. If it wasn't for the Henry hand-ball, we wouldn't even be talking about it now. Yes, the Irish were cheated out of a place at the World Cup, but the match as a whole should not be considered notable simply because of one incident. – PeeJay 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the match may indeed not have been notable without the controversial call, there is more than sufficient sourcing available to indicate this is more than a flash-in-the-pan news event and has established notability beyond that. This event apparently has gone so far as to attract the attention of national governments, and is being used as a fulcrum to try to establish major changes in the way soccer is played. I'm all for WP:NOTNEWS, probably more than most even, but this goes beyond a simple news event. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep, as the Thierry Henry handball controversy (or something of that ilk). That's the notable encyclopedic part. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep or Strong Merge The football world is still talking about this and FIFA dont even know how to handle the situation. I consider it a notable event. Portillo (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if Maradona's Hand Of God merits an article then so does this. Bazj (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would normally err on the side of delete for recent articles, but really, for something that has attracted massive worldwide coverage, I cannot see a reason to delete. The principal reason to delete being given is WP:NOTNEWS, however the emphasis on that is routine media coverage, or coverage of individuals. The amount of coverage this has garnered simply shows that it is not a routine event. Neither is it a 'fluff' bit of news that goes around the world quickly, but equally dies down as quickly. This match has received more coverage, and is likely to have more longer lasting consequences than champions league finals (some of which are featured), which have articles. I know that is a bit of an 'other stuff exists' argument, but it is an indication that individual football matches can certainly be notable. I do not see that there are BLP issues to deal with, which is a common issue with recent news events. Quantpole (talk) 13:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Event has not only made an impact it has been well documented in seemingly every aspect of the events, aftermath and impact. What remains is clean-up, watching out for recentism and allowing the sources to lead. Those are not deletion issues. -- Banjeboi 13:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. As mentioned before, the incident perfectly fits a new article 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification controversies, as well as mentioning in Henry's article, the Irish team article, etc. The arguments from the keep-voters have made clear that the game deserves more coverage than other games, which can be done in those articles. The arguments from the delete-voters have made clear that the game itself is not notable enough for an article.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot understand why this article would be deleted? It delivers the facts of what is a controverial issue in an unbiased, neutral and factual manner.The fact that it is a controversial issue however shouldnt be a basis for deletion. These are the truthful, actual facts of the incident described in concise and well cited language. Just because the subject matter is slightly shameful incident to some is irreleveant, it is an important event in sporting history that should be reported, as long as it is done so in a truthfull, factual and non-sensational manner. This article is excellent at delivering the events in an independent manner without offending anyone. If Wikipedia deleted this aricle it would compromise the integrity of the website and delete a pivotal moment in sporting history.(Stephen L, Edinburgh)
  • Comment This is a long AfD debate, and I would hate for this to simply end as "no consensus" without any action. I see strong consensus for this information to be included in this encyclopedia (obviously, the event is notable, so there is no need to !vote on that point), but I do not see any consensus as to how it should be included. It seems as though an article at Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) is not the best solution. The most thoughtful comments above are suggestions for merging or renaming into a broader article about all controversies for the 2010 WC. My suggestion for the closing admin (good luck!) is to try to distinguish between comments to keep/delete the content (should be an obvious keep) versus comments to keep/delete the article at that location (which requires more thought). — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (applies to all merge arguments, but might as well be here in reply to Andrwsc) The only issue with that is, there is no content yet on the other controversies, so if a merge were done straight away, that would just create even more UNDUE issues. The article isn't about a match to my mind, and it seems to me these concerns that somehow it is and this it needs to be merged somewhere, could just as easily be addressed by simply renaming this article to Thierry Henry handball controversy or variants. Despite the existence of the expand tags, I personally don't think the article needs any more information about the actual match, and the summary of goal scorers etc is just that, summary info (and that too is just replication, understanding of the article wouldn't unduly suffer if it weren't there imo). MickMacNee (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject matter is clearly notable, and not having an article about it now would simply make Wikipedia less timely. Nutiketaiel (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Apart from controversy, it's a major football stage featuring important teams, we are not paper. Also such issues caused FIFA's extraordinary session. Brand[t] 18:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section break - Day 7[edit]

  • Keep this is an important event that can and will change the face of the up coming world Cup. Until this World Cup is over then we must consider all parts that have lead up to its finale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.86.98 (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Not of encyclopedic importance (a refereeing error does not automatically imply notability). Aditya Ex Machina 03:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this a good article about a match which is already clearly having global repercussions and leading to debates about the responsibilities of international players to play fairly, and about the introduction of new technology and other measures. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This game has already resulted in an extraordinary General Meeting from FIFA and there are now rumors that FIFA will add additional referees assistants behind goalmouths, video replays or fair play enforcement systems. Clearly, this game will result in some rule changes, making it even more historically significant than Maradona's Hand of God goal Laurencedunne (talk) 11:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This really should have been deleted a long time ago. It does not belong in an encyclopedia. It is a ridiculous rant from start to finish and, while I aknowledge that the irish had the particularly bad luck of coming up against blatant cheating and a terrible error by the officials, it is unnessecarily drawn out and long. If people want to know about the incident they can search news results. It simply doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.78.95 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While the handball and its consequences may be notable, the match doesn't require an entire (very long) article. The resulting fallout from the event should be mentioned on the page for Thierry Henry and that for the qualifying tournament. This will suffice. Vid (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: User's fifth edit

Section break - Day 8[edit]

  • Delete - it's interesting, but it doesn't really need a separate article. Most of this article seems like filler material, added to disguise the fact that this is essentially an article about a single controversial refereeing decision - a very widely reported and highly controversial one, yes, but not necessarily an event with long-term notability. Ultimately, while this is a borderline case, I think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Robofish (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I will ignore the interminable, subjective, and insoluble quasi-theological 'angels dancing on a pin' arguments over whether this article does or does not conform to regulation x, y, or z. (Incidentally, Wikipedia says all these rules should be ignored where doing so improves Wikipedia - see WP:IAR and perhaps also parts of WP:NOTPAPER ). Instead, I would like to briefly make the following 3 points:

- 1) According to BBC Newsnight (25 November 2009), Wikipedia is currently suffering from a massive loss of digruntled amateur editors. It is quite obvious that this article has been produced through the research and efforts of many such dedicated editors. To delete all their work because of a few Wikicrats' autocratic and subjective interpretation of some rules will be, at least in my opinion, a dreadful example of what probably causes a lot of the above-mentioned disgruntlement. - 2) The article is clearly also of considerable interest to many readers. - 3) It has been said as grounds for deletion that the article is likely to be of little interest in the long run outside Ireland. That is probably true, but irrelevant - perhaps 99% of Wikipedia articles are mostly of interest only to some minority or other (such as devotees of Blues music, or fans of Paris Hilton, etc...), but that is not normally grounds for deleting them. So to delete the article simply because the interested minority is Irish would seem grossly discriminatory, and may well be a civil or criminal offence under various anti-discrimination laws. As with all the other minority-interest articles on Wikipedia, those who are not interested don't have to read it. Incidentally, the fact that the article is mainly of interest to Irish people is also a good reason for not merging it with the Thierry Henry article as some have suggested. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC newsnight, please try to understand, wikipedia is a competitor of the press in general, negative reposting from such sources is very opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC Newsnight program to which I referred had a lengthy discussion about this loss of editors. At no stage did the Wikipedia spokesman in the discussion dispute that such a loss had occurred, so there seems nothing particularly opinionated about the fact of such a loss. The causes of such a loss are necessarily a matter of opinion - and the opinions expressed by me as to some of the likely causes of the loss are mine, not the BBC's, and are based partly on my personal experiences as an amateur editor here, and partly on what seems to me to be plain common sense. You may say that's opinionated, but if so, so what? Almost everything here is necessarily somewhat opinionated (including your own comment), since the purpose of this discussion page is to allow us to express our opinions.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to WP:IAR, the article does not improve wikipedia so we can ignore your first suggestion. Furthermore, remember that WP:NOTPAPER states that the policy is not a free pass for inclusion and also notes that articles should be kept to a reasonable size. I am also sorry that those who contributed a lot of effort to the article should see it deleted but the fact of the matter is, this article should never have been allowed the time to grow in the first place. The coverage of the incident elsewhere in wikipedia (see my post above) is more than sufficient and we cant keep an article on the grounds that contributors to it would be disgruntled by its deletion. In my view, the lifetime of the article was prolonged by its creator tagging it for rescue which then gave it time to be fleshed out with large amounts of content and has wasted alot of peoples time. Thus, following rules such as WP:NOTNEWS prevents such a waste of time and upsetting contributors in the first place. Vid (talk) 13:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anybody listen to an obvious sock-puppet? Log in with your real account, and maybe we can discuss it properly, safe in the knowedge you haven't voted twice in this Afd in order to advance your position. WP:SOCK is certainly one policy that isn't open to interpretation. MickMacNee (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. I doubt the event will be historically significant. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emotionless[edit]

Emotionless (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 film per WP:NF, WP:Conflict of interest by creator (see http://www.myspace.com/lilkeefee), unreferenced, no trace of it can be found online, possible WP:HOAX. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete This can't be found by casual googling, and it has no source. WP:Advertising --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "there will be a homemade version within the next 2 years or so" - fails WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:NF and WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this hope for a future film until such time as the filming begins and it gets some press coverage. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of existence, let alone notability. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I dreamed last night of running for President someday, should I create an article about my 2028 Presidential Campaign? What? That would fail WP:CRYSTAL you say? You're right, it would. This does as well. Toss it. When something actually exists, this discussion can be re-opened. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:18, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software Development House[edit]

Software Development House (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 company per WP:COMPANY, no significant coverage online from reliable sources per WP:RS, conflict of interest per WP:COI (written by managing director of company). Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, previouos deletion was speedy. Speedy Delete G11 - appears to be nothing more than an advert
  • Speedy delete, author has serious conflict of interest issue and there are no indications of notability. Haakon (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete spam. Miami33139 (talk) 21:48, 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 redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). Brandon (talk) 07:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe McElderry[edit]

Joe McElderry (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. This article has been repeatedly switched to and from a redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6). That target contains bios of all the X Factor finalists and opinion is divided as to whether an independent article over and above that is justified for this act. There has been no AfD, just a simple redirect to List of The X Factor finalists (UK series 6), a discussion should be held and in my opinion, is one of the popular contestants on this series of The X Factor. Hassaan19 (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Hassaan19/82.36.17.10 is the article creator; (s)he has additionally !voted below. I42 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It subsequently transpired (s)he also !voted another time, claiming to be the uninvolved admin Woohookitty. This is was under discsussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:82.36.17.10 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive579#User:82.36.17.10.
  • Strong keep. One of the most notable contestants on The X Factor. Largely featured in the press, at one point was noted as "the best male vocalist in the competition" by Dannii Minogue. Seems popular within young audiences, in my opinion, needs an article to give independent notability, which Joe doesn't have at the moment. 82.36.17.10 (talk) 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: above comment was placed by 82.36.17.10 but the signature was amended to make it appear that it was placed by Woohookitty. I42 (talk) 06:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, redirect and protect. Absolutely no indepedent notability, per Woohookitty 82.36.17.10 above - WP:1E applies. I42 (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wasn't me though. :) It was 82.36.17.10 masquerading as me. I changed the signature to reflect who really said it. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 01:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: it is an established principle that the top 3 finalists in the X Factor are considered notable, because they have placed in a major music competition. If this act reaches the top 3 then I would have no objection to recreation of the article. I42 (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In what way is he independently notable? All coverage is entirely related to X Factor - indeed, every reference in the article has X Factor in its title. I42 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I42, you have a point mentioning he has no independent notability, but is popular on the show, and should be credited on the X Factor for the time being until he gets a record deal. Hassaan19 (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.17.10 (talk) [reply]
  • But when there is no independent notability, policy requires that we redirect to the parent article. In this case, that is the list of X Factor contestants where a bio already exists, which is what I propose. We don't speculate about what may happen in future; there is no certainty in that. I42 (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, no indication forindependent notability. WP:BLP1E may apply. If McElderry gets a record deal, the article may be recreated. Huon (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect the redirect. The author wants "an article to give independent notability, which Joe doesn't have at the moment", but that is not what Wikipedia is for. JohnCD (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and protect the redirect. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC and most X Factor contestants do not become independently notable. When/if he meets notability criteria, an article can then be created. Boleyn3 (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect for now - I'm not sure he has achieved notability independent of the show itself, as Jedward have. It's borderline in this case though, and he may become notable in future, which is why a redirect is best - the article can always be recreated if needed. Robofish (talk) 23:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the deletion, I think many people like to know more about Joe's background. For the moment, I see no reason to delete an article that has so many references and quite a good quality, despite no 'independent notability'. Hassaan19 (talk) 12:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.17.10 (talk) [reply]
Many references? There's only 18..Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Redirect: currently, all he is notable for is appearing in a talent show. Nothing else. Unless he wins, or comes in second, I think there is no need for an article. Pic Editor960 (talk) 21:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect until they release a single. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep for now He is notable in the pop music world as of right now, and the article is probably getting a fair number of hits. After the competition is over, a further course for the article will be more clear. PolarYukon (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and I guess redirect. Not notable, only going to become viable if he places in The X Factor. Sky83 (talk) 20:54, 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Man v. Food episodes[edit]

List of Man v. Food episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already included at Man_v._Food_(season_1) and Man_v._Food_(season_2), in more detail than is covered in this article. Ferrantino (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:13, 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. Brandon (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of article sections about future[edit]

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

Arbitrary list of generally unrelated articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There does not seem to be a guiding principle behind this list, which allows it to contain any article that even remotely deals with the wide subject matter of "the future" and contains no criteria for discerning what qualifies an article to be added to the list. Such arbitrary lists do not helpfully organize information in a way that assists editors or readers. Mrathel (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I get the concept-- click on a link, and it takes you not only to the article, but the section of the page that says "future" or "trends". But I don't get what use it would serve. Mandsford (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no problem with this--as other lists of articles are about whole articles, this is about relevant sections. A purely navigational device. It would serve the use of finding related material on a subject. DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with Mandsford in that I can see the concept for a navigational list here, but I don't understand its value. Unlike Mandsford, I'm reserving my opinion for the moment in case someone explains. (Not quite convinced by DGG's explanation; wouldn't a complete list of every article that has a "future" section be unmanageably huge?)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete dangerous precedent. first of all, its self referential, which wp should avoid. are there other navigational guides like this? ready for hundreds of thousands of articles like this? list of article sections about "history", "personal life", "background", "criticism" "popular culture", etc. and it will never be complete, as many articles will have mention of the subjects future without a section, but that could become a section. lists of articles makes sense, but lists of subjects brought up in articles is endless. any article could be included by simply breaking out a subsection called "Future". and of course, these articles have nothing in common except that they refer to subjects that exist in the time space continuum, which by my last count, included everything. Delete as having either unclear criteria for inclusion or exclusion, if you allow for all articles that actually do mention a subjects future, or delete as hopelessly self referential, if its strictly speaking only articles with the word Future in a section heading.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a search engine. A well constructed search will do in two seconds what this "list" does in hours of maintenance and upkeep. Hopelessly incomplete, and generally useless. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inclined to agree with Bradjamesbrown. GlassCobra 01:51, 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. Brandon (talk) 07:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prook[edit]

Prook (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 seems to be at best a dictionary definition and at worst a neologism. The first two "references" are examples of 'prooks' (as defined in the article) rather than sources about 'prooks'. The third is perhaps more promising, but I don't have a copy at hand. I doubt, however that Vita Sackville-West discusses the concept of a 'prook' therein; I think this "reference" was included just to help define the Bloomsbury circle. I also doubt that such a term would ever have been needed in polari.   pablohablo. 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. --   pablohablo. 14:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. --   pablohablo. 14:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is a dictionary definition, and Pablomismo accurately describes the references in their nomination statement. I am not recommending a transwiki because I have not been able to find any durably archived uses of the word (required by Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion) - the hits I do find that are not nonsense or wordlists appear to be either typos or scannos of the word "proof". Additionally I've not been able to verify (after an admittedly short search) the article's statements regarding Polari. Thryduulf (talk) 20:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dictdef. Insufficient referencing to support the potential for this to be expanded into an encyclopedic examination of the term. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources, and therefore lack of verifiability and unclear notability. Cnilep (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag it for a while? It has the ring of a Mitford word (Nancy in her Heywood Hill days?) but lack of verification is obviously a problem. I should have thought books and bookshops would have been ripe for Polari, but, again, is there a reference? LymeRegis (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Dictionary definition. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but open to WP:Heymann clean-up. A quick look at some of the source links atop this page yeilds ... not much. If this word is even somewhat well-known we should be able to find something substantial. For a word article you need to show it's use and we don't seem to have that. Also I dispute the polari content - it sounds like Ubbi Dubbi instead. -- Banjeboi 01:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - essentially a WP:DICDEF, with nothing to say about the subject other than a list of claimed examples. Robofish (talk) 22:32, 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. Brandon (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeri-Show[edit]

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

Team fails the tests for notability, as with previous examples of temporary teams. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Darrenhusted (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete This article (and various versions like Chris Jericho and The Big Show) have been deleted for not being notable and this article shows no indication of notability. Any new article on them has to show signs of notability the moment its created. TJ Spyke 21:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Qualifies for a speedy under G4 in my book. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 03:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Would it be correct to actually prod this as a speedy? I suspect not but it's definitely a G4 as Rick said. !! Justa Punk !! 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason why there can't be an article for Jeri-Show. There are a lot worse articles that need tending to. Mr. C.C. (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Mr. C.C. Freebird (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fishhead2100 said "I don't see any reason why there can't be an article", this lack of vision by Fishhead2100 and ignorance of the guidelines on notability is what you agree with? Darrenhusted (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per precedent with other temporary teams. Nikki♥311 21:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY DELETE G4 Why is this still here? It has been deleted under other names already as previously indicated, and that's a flagrant G4 situation. Admin attention to this AfD is needed. GetDumb 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can see why people would think they are notable. But most of their time together can be sumed up in the individual articles.--WillC 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are plenty of small threads like this that could be summed up, but were not different like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Col%C3%B3ns, which is another group of wrestlers like these two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.22.102 (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you should actually read that page and you will see the Colons are notable. Besides, this article has already been deleted multiple times and that alone is enough to delete it. TJ Spyke 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those asking why it wasn't speedied, the reason is simple, the merit of the team was being discussed at the time, and so I went for a PROD, when that was removed I brought it here. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked, and thanks. Suggest that when (or if I guess) this article is deleted, it should be noted that any future discussion of merit should be on the Wiki Project Wrestling Page. Perhaps that is where we can reach a consensus if future developments cause a change in notability (which shouldn't be discounted as maybe happening such is the world of pro wrestling). !! Justa Punk !! 08:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article was previously deleted two months ago for a lack of notability and two months later it still seems that way. --  Θakster   20:24, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (UK series)[edit]

Now That's What I Call Music! 74 (UK series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of the article doesn't meet WP:N and does not qualify for an article of its own. Whilst I would accept that the series itself is notable, it does not follow that each individual album in the series should have an entry - see also WP:DIRECTORY. (If this deletion passes, I propose that we review the other 73 albums in the series, all of which appear to have current pages) Guinness (talk) 11:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some of the albums in the Now That's What I Call Music series hit #1 on the UK album chart. It appears that the chart performance of the more recent UK albums has not been mentioned in those articles. However, it's my understanding that sales of this series have remained high enough to justify continued notability. For what it's worth, of the three Now That's What I Call Music albums released in the U.S. this year, two hit #1 on the Billboard 200 album chart. If the Now albums continue to maintain similar popularity in the UK, I would tend to consider the released albums (as well as the upcoming Now That's What I Call Music! 74, scheduled for UK release next week) notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I didn't realise chart performance and sales were criteria for notability. I thought it was "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" Guinness (talk) 13:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In support of this album's media coverage, I would note that this Glasgow Evening Times article published today mentions that Now That's What I Call Music! 74 is second in Amazon's pre-order chart this week. Since the album is only being released today in Ireland and on Monday in the UK, presumably there will be more evidence of media coverage of its sales soon. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I de-prodded this one yesterday. If you look at the template at the bottom of the article, you will see that every single CD released in this series in the US and UK (now up to 74) has been accorded its own article, so deleting this would upset what appears to be a settled precedent and reasonable scheme of organisation. In 2007, in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_albums, a deletion nomination that covered all existing album articles in the series resulted in a KEEP. The only rule that has consistently applied to these articles is that they shouldn't be created way in advance before track listings and release dates are known, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Now_That's_What_I_Call_Music!_70_(U.K._series), but those AfDs are all based on the pre-existing consensus that articles may be created once this information is known.--Milowent (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Having an article on the series is fine, I agree that as a whole, the series is notable, and is worthy of an article. Individually, most if not all of the separate albums are not, by wikipedia's definition, notable, and thus don't meet the criteria for inclusion. I've not looked at most of them, but certainly this particular one is little more than a track listing, and that's just not wikipedia is. Guinness (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Guinness, can you please stop being such a cunt and leave the page as it was - some people are interested in music you know! If you don't like it, please stick your oar in someone elses buisness and leave the rest of us to decide if we want to see this article!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.180.196 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Aside from the prod & Afd, I haven't touched the article. I'm well aware that people are interested in music, I'm one of them. And I am letting people decide....that's what Afd is for. PS: if you want to trade playground insults, please have the balls to use your real account, then we can do it on your talk page without polluting this discussion further than has already been done. Guinness (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the entries in this series should be merged together, they are nothing but compilations of recent singles and not that notable. Do something like Now That's What I Call Music! 1-10 (UK series), [[Now That's What I Call Music! 11-19 (UK series)\\, etc. TJ Spyke 22:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the nature of the series, the albums have proven to be notable enough for articles. Collapsing them into arbitrary groupings like 1–10 would be cumbersome. Easiest approach—from a maintenance standpoint and from the user's perspective—is separate articles. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Guinness, it sounds like you're experimenting with the idea of deleting every single album in every single country's series of this compilation. Many of these have hit #1 or at least charted in various countries. Even if one doesn't, it's still getting it's own article to keep the series complete. Can we just close this debate and remove the template already? (This goes to you in a ssnse too, TJ - the album hits #1, it deserves an article. No sense merging the rest.) CycloneGU (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an entirely unremarkable compilation album, any way you look at it. It's on the verge of obsecene just how much this article breaches notablility and 'not a directory' guidelines). And yes, the same almost certainly applies to the other 73 in the series (Okay, I've not read them all, but I seriously doubt any of them are worthy of inclusion). Delete the lot I say. An album does not become notable just because it reaches #1...this applies especially to compilation albums. Guinness (talk) 14:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very little that happens on wikipedia is obscene, you just seem to be at odds with the consensus on this one.--Milowent (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but the consensus has yet to provide a persuasive argument that this album is notable. I think it highly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to do so, and inspite of this, they insist that the article should stay. Guinness (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Silly nomination. Himalayan 13:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I may be overextending the definition of WP:NALBUMS, since one cannot doubt the notability of the series as a whole, then the individual albums probably have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. That being said, any Now! album with an article that says nothing more than "this is the nth album in the Fooian series of Now! albums" with a track list, should be redirected to the main page or discography page. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:47, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainable food systems on college campuses[edit]

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

Student essay rather than encyclopedia article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Per nom. The article as referenced is a synthesis of unrelated (albeit similar) college student group websites, and the subject doesn't appear to have any independent coverage. The material could be added to the articles for the colleges, perhaps. Definitely a well-written essay, but not suitable for the encyclopedia in this format. Ivanvector (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am inclined to believe that an article on "Sustainable Food Systems", currently a redirect to Sustainability merits an article with a subsection containing the general idea of this article, but what I fail to see here is encyclopedic content. As is often the case with articles containing prepositional phrases in the title, this article is not entirely about the subject it proposes to describe; there is no direct discussion of what makes "sustainable food system on college campuses" a finite subject matter, different entirely from a possible article on "sustainable food systems". Putting aside the argumentative structure of the content, the article must assert that "sustainable foods systems on college campuses" is a distinct phenomenon that has been covered by outside sources. Merely picking sources for each individual system at a university or picking sources on sustainable food systems in general does not keep this article from being Original Research. Mrathel (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an essay: problems with original research and synthesis. Apparently an assignment from a class requiring students create sustainability-related articles (see others here). -- Bfigura (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sustainable Food is a topic for an article. This level fo specificity, however, is not. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essay, unsuited for an encyclopedia. GlassCobra 01:42, 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 Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off). Brandon (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hand of Frog[edit]

Hand of Frog (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 event does not merit a article. The name is nothing but WP:NEO. Refereeing mistakes happen. We can't create a article for every one of them. chandler 09:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, event was on Nov 18. Possible speediable under {{db-attack}}. Abductive (reasoning) 09:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, the term "Hand of Frog" only seems to be used by one single newspaper - "Hend of God" and L'Hand of God" are other such imaginative titles being used here in Britain - so "Hand of Frog" is an inappropriate title at best. Secondly, the nominator has it spot on - refereeing mistakes happen all the time, and not all of them warrant an article (in fact, very few of them do). This incident isn't really isn't as high profile as the 1986 Hand of God goal and it's obvious to me this will all die down in a couple of days. Bettia (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Bettia. -Reconsider the static (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (talk) 09:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Could be considered a sister Afd of "Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off)") chandler 13:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We've got a pretty good precedent with Hand of God goal. Nfitz (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one of a multitude of refereeing blunders that plagues modern football on a weekly basis, no reason why this is notable. GiantSnowman 14:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Bettia. (Notice how we don't have a separate article for the Australia-Croatia game in the 2006 World Cup, where the referee booked one Croatian player three times before getting sent off.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One day, an academic somewhere will publish a paper on the evolution of impotent rage from letters to the editor of the local paper to creation of (sub-)encyclopaedic articles. Kevin McE (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Ive merged it to Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off), there is no point having an article on just the phrase. The redirect can go to Rfd if necessary, but it seems a valid search term currently. MickMacNee (talk) 19:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    124.184.96.26 has undone this, I think he hasn't noticed the other article, but I'm not going to start edit warring over it. Whatever. Everyone please note that everything in this article is in the other one, if anybody notices people adding stuff here and not there, please add it there also. MickMacNee (talk) 00:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very notable event which gained worldwide media attention, ministerial level response in both Ireland and France and is the subject on ongoing controversy. 124.184.96.26 (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) and keep this one. Barraki (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Funny, and potentially iconic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.8.104.80 (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This incident will be remembered for decades to come and will be one of the main things to define Henry's career. Chrismccarthy (talk) 12:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - It is already mentioned in other articles, and I don't see the advantage in starting to use racist abuse as titles of Wikipedia articles.Jeppiz (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per Betttia, DitzyNizzy and Joe Chill. Snappy (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not even worth redirecting. - Mailer Diablo 18:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this article is kept (but I see no reason for that), it should absolutely be renamed or redirected to the appropriately titled article with the same content per MickMacNee. Jogurney (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. It can be mentioned in other articles. --Dpr 71.111.194.50 (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NEO that can be covered substantially (and with better quality) in another article. Grsz11 23:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off), which should be kept based on the sources that have accumulated. Not much to merge, given the already extensive coverage there. Savidan 01:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable
  • Delete While this incident is currently enjoying much publicity, it will be a footnote in footballing history at best. It's not as if Henry even handled the ball into the back of the net as Maradona did in the incident this has been frequently compared to. The xenophobic epithet in the title does nothing to help this article's standing. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 02:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not independently notable of the game in which it occurred, also falls seriosuly foul of NPOV and is not a widely used term.--Jackyd101 (talk) 03:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off). If that is eventually deleted, this would be a speedy delete anyway. WFCforLife (talk) 13:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it seems from above that article content is elsewhere, and also the title of the article is inappropriate/can't be said to be universally used. Eldumpo (talk) 14:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn. This is heaps less notable than tons of flagrant dives (by C Ronaldo everyweek) and the rugby tackles that happen in the odd match and go unspotted, like Aus v Croatia in 2006 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 04:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off) GainLine ♠ ♥ 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While this incident has received a significant amount of media coverage in the last few days, it remains to be seen whether such coverage will continue to such an extent that the subject is deemed "notable". – PeeJay 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into the AfD purposing Republic of Ireland vs France (2010 FIFA World Cup Play-Off). Well, Hand of God merged, why this one have to be created? Nonsense. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The fact that the Hand of God goal doesnt have its own article means its pretty hard to give this one an article. Although its a definate notable event and should be merged. Portillo (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article. Deletion is not needed here. -- Banjeboi 13:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Has some decent sources, and could be used to expand/cite the other article. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are already too many articles on this topic. Disagree with those who cry about this article because you can't have an article on every bad refereeing decision. This one ignited a global controversy like none since Maradonas hand of god goal in 1986, and this one led to a FIFA emergency meeting which will in turn likely lead to some rule changes, so this one has significance and deserves it's own article. Unfortunately, it has 50 already and this is among the least useful.. --Laurencedunne - 12:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable event. GlassCobra 01:39, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vulnerability equilibrium[edit]

Vulnerability equilibrium (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 neologism coined yesterday, possibly by the author or a close relative. Also, to quote the article itself, "Many people who know better consider this an idea so obvious as to be not worth naming." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per nomination. WP:NEO. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 09:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a trace of it can be found online, WP:NEO. MuffledThud (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ditto and etcetera. The coinage of a new word for an old and obvious idea does not create a new idea. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete When you write an article, and admit in the article it's a useless term... save everyone some time and forgo creating said article. Delete per WP:NEO. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:36, 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 Speedy delete under criterion G4. — Gwalla | Talk 19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endless Sporadic, An[edit]

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

essay-like review of a band. Not an encylopedia article. WuhWuzDat 08:39, 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. Brandon (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recycled Building Materials[edit]

Recycled Building Materials (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. Essay. Not an encyclopedia article. WuhWuzDat 07:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Not an encyclopedia article in the least. JakeZ (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article needs to be cleaned up, but this Google News archive search turns up many references in reliable sources for "reuse of building materials". -- Eastmain (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Resue of building materials" might belong in the Recycling article, or the like, but the article in question is just an essay (notice the section "Conclusion?"). Angryapathy (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I removed the conclusion, It's less of an essay now. – Eastmain (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Essay. GlassCobra 01:32, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of US Government @ Twitter[edit]

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

Quoting WP:NOTDIR: "Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." Twitter addresses aren't that far removed from email addresses. No sources are provided to show that the addresses are verified (other than checking each address in turn); building the list is just shy of original research. Also, the list is incomplete, and I don't see it being completed in the foreseeable future, as governments continue to add Twitter feeds. While the criteria are well-defined, the list is so wide in scope that it will quickly explode beyond the 50–100 entries the creator expects. While I can accept that a Twitter feed might be an acceptable external link for the city's, county's, or state's article, there's no need to run a laundry list of them like this. —C.Fred (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't that many resources about the use of Twitter for Local Government. This list is going to be build and maintained by the webmasters of cities and counties.

Just as Wikipedia, it is not the goal to create a complete list, but a list of good references/best practices. A central (neutral and reliable) resource on the web about Twitter & local government is highly needed and will improve the use of Twitter (and social media) for local government and thus will result in better service for citizens.

Besides, this article is not in any way in conflict with the "Reasons for deletion" section in the "Wikipedia deletion policy", so please let us continue building an important reference for thousands of public servants through the country working in the internet industry. Or have a Wikipedia Deletion Patrol person that works in this specific field judge the importance of this resource. Dotgovcom (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article contains existing links to governmental websites and twitter pages. It contain no original research and therefor complies with Wikipedia:NOR
  • All references and links in this article are reliable sources (i.e. websites from governmental organizations) and can be easily verified by clicking on the link, thus complies with Wikipedia:V
  • This article does not contain phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses. Twitter pages are not mentioned in Wikipedia:NOTDIR as a reason for deletion.

Dotgovcom (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If the Twitter page of a local government agency is considered useful information, it should be identified in the particular article about the respective locality or agency, not in an overall article about all Twitter pages that can be found for any government in the U.S. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the WP:NOTDIR assertions above. JakeZ (talk) 08:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty basic directory... an alphabetical list with nothing but contact information. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a directory list through and through. JBsupreme (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A directory. Joe Chill (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR.--Staberinde (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This looks like a textbook directory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a textbook example of why we ahve WP:NOTDIRBradjamesbrown (talk) 05:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Also, we could go by the definition that a page full of links to twitter pages is essentially a page just full of external links to other websites, and thus qualifies to be speedy deleted under WP:CSD#A3. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:54, 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 delete. Brandon (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice LLP[edit]

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

Family law firm (3 attorneys) in Cardiff, Wales. Has received a couple of the kind of professional recognitions that many, many firms receive as a matter of course. That doesn't seem like it's enough to meet WP:CORP. Further, the article reads like an advertisement. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI declaration - I work for the firm in question, though I didn't write the article. With regard to the above comments; firstly, 30, not 3 - I assume that was a typo. The firm's notability comes from it being (a) the first and (b) the largest specialist firm in its field in Wales. This article had the {advert} template attached to it almost straight away (which I agree with), given that it needs rewriting to sound less like an advertisement. However, it's a well known firm in South Wales, has received a lot of regional media coverage (as your Google link above shows - or try searching without the "LLP" on the end, which the media almost never use - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&num=50&q=%22Wendy+Hopkins+Family+Law+Practice%22+-wikipedia&aq=f&oq=&aqi= ), the partners are frequently invited to comment in the Welsh press, on BBC Radio Wales etc on topical family law issues, which seems to me to satisfy WP:N if only the article were better written; your note about the Legal 500 and Chambers & Partners top rankings being "the kind of professional recognitions that many, many firms receive as a matter of course" is fair enough, if you mean "many" in the sense of "two others in Wales, and the other two aren't specialist firms". I don't know why you list the location as part of the AfD nomination unless you're arguing the firm can't be notable because it's in Wales? I'd argue that it's notable because it's the first and biggest of its kind in Wales. Anyway, I think there's enough merit in the subject that this article should be kept, if gutted to a stub and rewritten. 84.92.8.221 (talk) 16:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The remarks by the IP address above seem, in part, to check out. In independent sources, the firm is called "Wales's largest firm of family lawyers" (source) and described as "one of the first in the UK to provide a law service for same sex marriage partners" (source). As far as the sources indicate, there are just under thirty staff, about half of whom are "lawyers" (which could mean anything from a senior solicitor to a licenced conveyancer). That's not exactly huge (my own employer has more retained lawyers than that in a single building and we aren't a legal practice), but it's not to be sneezed at either.

    Certain other arguments are, admittedly, red herrings. Partners being invited to comment on BBC Wales may indicate that the partner is notable, but that possible notability does not pass down to the practice. Nevertheless, there is a real case for notability here and I am confident that it would be possible to write a sourced, encyclopaedic stub about this practice.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the sources given do not show notability. Unless I am mistaken, family law is not one of the areas where Wales has law-making authority, at least according to Contemporary Welsh Law, so they are not practicing Welsh family law, in which case they might conceivably be notable as the largest firm, but are practicing family law in Wales, which is less significant. The article in my my opinion almost a G11 speedy delete as entirely promotional: my test is the list of areas of practice, which includes everything possibly within scope--which is typical public relations writing for an advertisement or a website. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, DGG, are you sure? The largest family law practice in the whole country? I mean, the largest family law practice in the US or Canada or Portugal would be a rather credible claim, wouldn't it? What's the matter with Wales?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 01:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The included source says it is one of the biggest. That does not in and of itself make the company notable. Fails WP:N, WP:CORP. Probably should have been nominated as a speedy delete for spam. Then we have the WP:COI issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N isn't for companies, is it? That's what WP:CORP is for. Anyway, from what I can see the company satisfies both of those anyway - both seem to be based on coverage in secondary sources, WP:N says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article" while WP:CORP says "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Regardless of your own thoughts on what the importance/notability of the first and largest company of its kind based in Wales might be - I note all those calling for deletion are from the US, so perhaps this is a localisation issue or something? - I'd again argue from the various Google hits, above, from reputable third-party sources that it DOES meet the criteria for either of the notability guidelines. I do agree the article doesn't do a good job of emphasising why it's a notable company or citing these sources, but I think it could be effectively rewritten as per WP:FAILN - I'd happily rewrite this article myself to play up the notability and play down the advertising, but as stated above, I have a clear COI and don't want to fall foul of that rule. 84.92.8.221 (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I note Vegaswikian's approach to notability here does not seem to tally with their approach to notability in almost exactly the same situation at Talk:Golden_Gaming. 84.92.8.221 (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- OK, I've taken the liberty of rewriting the article in light of the above discussion. Once again, I have a freely-admitted COI here, and so it may need further editing or work to bring it up to the required standard, but I believe there are now enough sourced statements to satisfy the notability criteria. 84.92.8.221 (talk) 14:40, 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, Mackensen (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP Racepacket (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, no it doesn't. WP:CORP states in its very first line "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources", which is satisfied here, and later "Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance"... Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." It does seem from this discussion that many editors - many American editors, at least, as has been pointed out - just don't think the firm is big or important enough to warrant an article, despite it satisfying the CORP guideline by having been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. I understand it's only a guideline and not the be all and end all, but in my view the rewritten article clearly doesn't fail any part of WP:CORP. Fosse8 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not know how to deal with law firm notability--as for accountants and similar professions,with the exception of a few who get involved in notable cases, it is extremely difficult to find sources that will demonstrate notability. I'd be very happy to find something to supplement the GNG, but what? Largest in an area is a tricky criterion--admittedly Wales is large enough for it to make some sense, but still, how far do we subdivide? The largest law firm in Wales I would accept. The largest family law firm--in an area where Welsh law is identical to English, not quite. And they don;t even claim that--just the largest firm doing that exclusively. First one with a service for same-sex partners (whatever that means--did other firms refuse to deal with them? Were they the first to have a dedicated specialist on their staff? Or just the first to advertise it specifically? ) possibly, just one of the first for this, that means much less. Top rank in a survey--by our usual analogous practices, it would have to be one of the top 3 nationally, and they do not claim that. DGG ( talk ) 06:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate it's tricky. I wrote the article (rather lazily) because I was surprised there wasn't one already, and I thought it might have conflict of interest and advertising issues which I hoped another editor would swiftly fix, but I have to say I was surprised to see this listed for deletion on notability grounds - actually, on further research, I'm surprised at how high the bar seems to be set for articles on UK law firms in general, but I thought that this firm's top ranking in Chambers & Partners and the Legal 500 (which are not "surveys", incidentally, and which don't rank a "top 3" on a UK-wide basis - the firm is ranked as high as it can possibly be in Wales, and has been referred to by a reliable third-party source as "one of the UK's leading family law firms", but there's not going to be anything better than that available to verify importance) and the firm's status in Wales would see it through easily. As my colleague pointed out, this might be a problem of localisation - I note that all delete votes came from editors in America, and all keep votes from editors in Britain. British editors may overstate the importance of being the largest something in Wales (although WP:CORP does specifically distinguish between notability and fame or importance), and American editors may underestimate the differences and significance of Wales within the United Kingdom (is it an "area", a country, a national subdivision tier?) It's hard to overstate the level of national feeling in Wales; furthermore, practising family law in Wales is not in fact identical to practising law in England, because you sometimes have to go to court and conduct proceedings through the medium of Welsh. I understand it's a borderline case, and perhaps difficult to make a good call either way, so I'd ask this (and I genuinely don't know the answer): If it was the first and largest specialist family law firm in, say, Arizona, would it qualify? Fosse8 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as for Arizona, no, not unless there were significant references for the GNG. Myself, I don't like to use the GNG when we have something more specifically applicable, though perhaps most people here do think it very generally applicable, but even I think it serves as an necessary back-up when we do not have anything more decisve, as here. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google News tells the story by telling no story: it only finds a credit agency's pay per view report, of a kind that can't confer notability. A typical pattern emerges in the article: it spends more space arguing "notability" through media appearances of company personnel or trade awards than it does telling of actual achievements that would confer real notability. There's a reason why the business notability guideline discounts those things specifically. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Searching without the "LLP" on the end, as suggested above, gives a more realistic picture. Fosse8 (talk) 15:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further investigation, it seems difficult for any specialist family law practice, of any size anywhere in the world, to generate Google News articles that are about "actual achievements" and not 'discounted' things; looking at some of the Top 100 UK law firms' GN hits, the only differences seem to be "Firm X has advised Y Corporation on their multi-million pound deal with Z Inc" stories, which a family law practice by definition can't have because of confidentiality issues. I know first-hand the firm has been involved in numerous multi-million pound cases and acted for several high-profile UK celebrities, but obviously that's original research and unverifiable - how could it be otherwise? That being the case, the notability comes from being the first and largest such specialist practice in Wales, and is only supported by the firm's achievements and its local and UK reputation, which - not generally being directly reportable - are only reflected in those articles and in its Chambers & Partners and Legal 500 rankings. Non-rhetorical question: what more can be provided? Fosse8 (talk) 15:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll admit that's a problem: law firms, especially those firms that deal with intensely private and personal matters, are going to be at a disadvantage where publicity is involved. Being located in the UK also weighs against them to some extent: solicitor firms are not really the high visibility sector of the legal business, and the courts have more options for keeping their proceedings secret in cases that would have a higher profile in some other countries. I still see mostly press releases and interviews on stories not really about the firm in your search, from what I can tell. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the above discussion a bit perplexing, to be completely honest. I hold both DGG and Smerdis/Ihcoyc in very high regard, as very experienced users who commonly display good sense and make logical arguments, and yet in this case, even though I've linked two independent sources that provide significant coverage, I'm still seeing "delete" opinions.

    Wales has the same law as England, but is that germane? They are separate countries, and it's not as if Wales was the third world.

    In what way are the sources I have listed inadequate, please?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did go through the sources cited in the story. They seemed to be either announcements concerning the hiring of personnel or changes of office structure, all of which read as if they were based entirely on information provided by the firm itself; or they were stories on unrelated subjects where lawyers from the firm were quoted as authorities on British family law. In most other contexts, I wouldn't consider that kind of coverage as making the grade. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Was that also your opinion of the sources I gave in my remark of 11 November, above?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Later) Never mind, I see that it was; those sources are now included in the article. To me, at least, they seem to constitute non-trivial coverage in sources independent of the subject, and thereby demonstrate compliance with the general notability guideline.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. "WALES’ largest firm of family lawyers –Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice – has continued to expand with the appointment of Claire Cooper as a qualified solicitor and Sophie Jardine as a new trainee solicitor." "A specialist family law practice, now in its 10th successive year of growth, has announced a new partnership structure. Wendy Hopkins Family Law Practice, Cardiff, was founded with just three solicitors in 1996 as the first law firm in Wales devoted entirely to family law." I believe these were the sources cited in the text when I looked. They still read to me like lightly reworked press releases announcing routine changes in the firm's personnel and structure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Keep While I'm no expert on law firms, I've worked at two which are larger (60 attorneys, and 150 attorneys) and better known than this practice (currently I'm at the largest firm of our type in the threes states we serve) , and I've never thought that they were terribly notable. I think the issue is that unless the firm routinely works on high-profile cases which recieve significant media coverage, then they're not notable. More likely they're just famous for one event (Such and such law offices represented so and so in the landmark decision of "I Don't Know v. Who Cares") or their going to only have inherited notability (Blah blah blah and associates reresented Uselsess Celebrity in their recent divorce).Cathardic (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But as has already been pointed out, none of those stories is ever going to be possible with a UK family law firm. There are no reports of the firm's involvement in "high profile cases which receive significant media coverage" (which seems to conflict with your dismissal of 'inherited notability' in "useless celebrity's recent divorce" cases, but anyway) because the firm will never be mentioned in those stories due to client confidentiality and restrictive reporting. I've argued that the firm is notable based on the facts presented in the sources given; the regional media clearly knows about, reports upon, and regularly invites comment from the firm, ergo it is notable per both WP:N and WP:CORP (notable, not famous; your assertion that the firm you work for is "better known than this practice" is highly subjective and seems unlikely to be a worldwide perspective), even if there are no sources saying "This firm just won another case for Millionaire X!"; most UK law firms of any kind, even those in the Top 100 UK Law Firms list, don't have that kind of coverage, but for a family law firm it is exceedingly unlikely. What you're saying, in effect, is that it's actually impossible for a UK family law practice to be considered notable, am I right? Fosse8 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You definitely seem much more familiar with the notability standards for companies than I am. I was really basing my arguement off of the idea that if the firms I work for don't have wikipedia pages yet, then there's probably a pretty strict requirement for law firms on wikipedia. Then I checked around, and sure enough there are loads of firms with far less notability than this british one. For that reason, I'm going to change my vote to a weak-keep, and pending the results I'm going to create pages for a number of firms I've worked with. And to everyone, where's the wikilove? Sure we Americans are fat, lazy, stupid and have no fashion sense, but that doesn't mean we're just fundamentally opposed to anything from England.Cathardic (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Word to the wise... nothing in Wales is "from England"! It's from the UK. (Saying that a Welsh firm is "from England" is like saying a firm based in Florida is "from Texas".)—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:16, 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. unverifiable; blatant misinformation Tikiwont (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semosh[edit]

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

Little more than a WP:DICTDEF, and I can't find any evidence of it in google. Deprodded without supplying anything to help WP:V this thing. DMacks (talk) 02:39, 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.

Lisa Hensley[edit]

The result was Speedy Keep ; nomination withdrawn, article substantially improved. Horologium (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)}}[reply]

Lisa Hensley (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 know the page was just moved into the main space but I don't think it looks ready. MajorMinorMark (talk) 02:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You sure about that? DS (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Damn buddy, I just created the AfD seconds before you rehauled the article. MajorMinorMark (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. It's up to you - keep the AfD going, or close it now? DS (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Buckets of apparently significant coverage when you Google for "lisa hensley microbiologist", plus the article is very new with its creator actively working on it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the creator's not working on it. She hasn't touched it since June '09; I found it while doing a sweep for inappropriate uses of userspace (spam, etc), and decided it was just about ready for mainspace already. So I moved it out into mainspace, then set about trimming it... and got edit-conflicted by the AfD. As an admin, I'm definitely not used to having articles I work on being AfD'd! DS (talk) 12:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, h-index of about 23, smattering of News and Books hits, and this. Abductive (reasoning) 09:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, definitely notable. Kcordina Talk 09:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks OK to me, it's simple and NPOV and appears to be adequately sourced. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above, the nominator could just withdraw now to save face. JBsupreme (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked the nominator for precisely that. Nominating the article for deletion was Majorminormark's second edit ever, so I'm assuming that he is unfamiliar with the process. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:35, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GetFLV[edit]

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

Piece of software with no news or other coverage in reliable, independent sources. Previously deleted as a blatant advertisement, the page serves only to mention and promote the software. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this version is a lot better than the one I speedy deleted, which was just a copy of the advertising spiel from their website, but the software is non-notable. There are a lot of listings on many software review sites, but I think the source of these is the company itself which is heavily promoting its product (e.g. there is a listing with a brief summary on CNET[55], a RS, by the byline is actually the company). Icewedge (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software is not inherently notable, and product listings and capsule reviews don't count towards notability here any more than they do with self-published books and direct-to-DVD movies. Nothing here establishes this software as anything other than run of the mill or meets the notability guidelines at WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this would appear to be consumer software, there seems to be be next to no coverage in multiple reliable sources other than routine version announcements and blog reviews. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 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. Notability doesn't appear to be met, per WP:MUSIC here Tony Fox (arf!) 05:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Air Castles[edit]

Air Castles (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 band. None of the the criteria at WP:MUSIC are met: one EP release on a non-notable label. Their music was aparrently used in a skating video entered into a competition but that is still well short of criterion #10 at WP:MUSIC. I42 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the article about one of the band members for the same reasons:

Max Mansson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep. The band appears to pass the touring criterion of WP:MUSIC. Its website says: "The EP has received praise worldwide and has helped Air Castles to play in Spain, tour the UK, achieve a US licensing contract and get endorsements from Orange Amplifiers and Roland." A list of shows appears at http://aircastlesmusic.com/ -- Eastmain (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec with J04n below) I do not see that this has been met: the requirement is for "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country". I failed to find anything other than primary sources or event listings. I42 (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find enough to qualify for WP:BAND, the best WP:3PARTY I could find is this and multiple sources are needed. All allmusic has is a tracklist for their EP. Their tour doesn't qualify for criterion 4 unless it has "non-trivial coverage in a reliable source", a mention on their website just isn't enough. If someone can dig up anything else I would be happy to change my !vote. J04n(talk page) 18:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both for clearly failing WP:MUSIC. LibStar (talk) 22:49, 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 01:02, 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. The potential of expanding and renaming this article to be about Alder Biopharmaceuticals has support, this should be discussed on the article talk page. The notability of this individual therapeutic is debatable, but there's no consensus for deletion. Fences&Windows 16:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALD518[edit]

ALD518 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Some monoclonal antibody agent that is in its early stages of testing. May never become approved for any indication, unlikely to be informative. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a NN drug, but don't salt, as it may become notable after testing. Bearian (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete' Move & rewrite as suggested by WhatamIdoing, below no PubMed references as yet. I point out with the current regulations to register trials in advance (to prevent the biased non-reporting of those that do not give positive results) there will be the sort of references this article has for all of them, notable and not notable. Let the NIH run the directory. DGG ( talk ) 21:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since has been reported in UK National press and many RA suffers are likely to be looking for more info on this. (Is not any RA treatment with good Phase 2 clinical trial results worthy of mention in Wikipedia ?) Good phase II clinical results means it is well past early stages of testing. UK National press often report phase I results and the earlier animal studies and even in vitro studies. Rod57 (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
update: My POV was: Is WP more useful to RA patients with or without this stub? given that it is public knowledge that there are clinical trials that have started recruiting RA patients. I can't find a policy on when a new drug becomes notable but I'd suggest it is no later than the announcement of trials that will recruit patients. Rod57 (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Puzzled by the non-notable claim, since pubmed is a sufficient but not necessary condition for notability. The 4 refs given testify to its notability. A drug doesn't have to be approved to be notable. --Michael C. Price talk 01:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Having advanced into phase II of clinical study is sufficient evidence of notability, in my opinion. The advancement to phase II requires regulatory approval and thus the expectation of benefit to society by an independent authority. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not "expected" benefit, merely hoped for. How many trials get actually approved in the end? Less than 30 succeed, world wide What % is that? DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 19 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 00:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to reconsider on the basis of the references. I have examined them, and I am of the same view still. An experimental drug still in only the beginning half of stage II trials is not necessarily notable, unless the trial has been reported in non-indiscriminate RSs. Source 1 is a local business newspaper saying that it might be important if the trials are successful. Source 2 is an unrefereed meeting abstract of their phase 1 trial. 3 is a PR piece on an unedited web site. 4 is the routine regulatory registration of the trial. 5 is the best reference, an article from Business Wire, a site that has not always been considered here as reliable for showing notability, but it does give reliably the basic information that the drug has completed phase IIa of the trial, & they've signed a development agreement with Squibb. I think this is a classic case of not yet notable. Rod57s comment above is revealing: it's what people defending promotional articles often say--it's a good thing and people ought to be interested in it. Should we regard all phase three trials as notable? Perhaps, but this drug is not yet in phase III testing, or at least there is no reference to show it, despite the hints implying otherwise. Nor do I see any UK national newspaper coverage. There certainly is none in G News. If there were, it would change the result here, though it still would not justify as statement like "The relatively long half life of about 30 days should allow less frequent and subcutaneous injections." without a peer-reviewed reference. DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • this is the type of article that needs specialist attention, and not just from 1 editor. The WikiProject Medicine has not yet been notified, so I notified it in what I hope is neutral terms. Perhaps other projects should be notified also. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well: We were just debating about a compound that only have like 6 hits anywhere. In all likelihood, there is a lot of literature on the target and some shallow coverage from industry rags. Offhand, it is probably just another mab but is there anything it should prove or disprove? Was it designed in some unique way or produced in a controversial system? etc etc. Personally I'd like to have a standardized searchable DB for all drug trials with some results if good or bad but I'm not sure wikipedia can do that well. So, it is probably as notable as a lot of other things that make it just because they are scientific and, if you give inherent notability to licensed radio stations, maybe you could just accept it even with minimal "stock" coverage (" it is a long molecule made up of amino acids and sugars. It stick to target foo until the Fc side is recognized by phagocyte etc etc"). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reasonably well-written stub. Meets WP:V, and notability alone is a terrible reason to delete an otherwise decent article. - Draeco (talk) 02:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite as Alder Biopharmaceuticals. Wikipedia can present information on this subject without forcing the investigational therapeutic into its own article. The company is probably notable; their three individual products are probably not yet notable. The three products, however, would probably make a nice and very WP:DUE section in an article about the business. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea--I should have thought of that myself. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself makes no claim to notability, the citations are things like ads for clinical trials and one ASCO paper. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't regard phase II trials (or even phase III or IV trials) as evidence of notability. The references provided are not reliable medical sources. I couldn't find any reliable sources to add. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and merge into research activities of the company Alder Biopharmaceuticals, as WhatamIdoing suggests. Drugs in trials are not (yet) proven fully effective & safe, certainly are not in any meaningful way in widespread use, and definitely have yet to establish any real world notability in gaining even a significant minority usage against existing treatment approaches (as it were they are 'trivial minority view'). They may be notable in the current work of a company and show the research direction that is being undertaken, and so possibly/probably should be (briefly) mentioned in a pharmaceutical company article. As Nerdseeksblonde & Axl point out, fluffy peacocking links are not proof of notability and so this and most other drugs in trial-stages generally should not exist IMHO (obvious case-by-case consideration rather than absolute blanket ban). David Ruben Talk 05:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I will not comment on the merits of keeping the article as I have a strongly inclusionist viewpoint when it comes to the notability of drugs and chemical compounds, but I will offer some suggestions. Belinostat is a good example of WhatamIdoing's suggestion in practice: information is presented as a subsection in the article on the manufacturer. When I come across a drug that seems to have notability potential (in the real world, not in the WP sense) and meets WP:V, I keep an outline of the article in my personal sandbox, ready to be expanded as new information becomes available and moved to mainspace when it's ready. I've had tecovirimat and tonabersat on this sort of "backburner" for quite a while now, and it works for me. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds very sensible, but I wonder if might not be best in a WP:PHARM subsection, so that others might help with articles "in preparation" as it were (and also reduce chance more than one editor have the same drugs in preparation). It would also help allow a collective review of pre-articles and decisions made when in each case appropriate to move out into main article space? David Ruben Talk 18:48, 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 no consensus. Reading through the discussion, it seems obvious that there's no consensus as to whether or not the topic is sufficiently notable. Most participants agree that the article is in need of cleanup, including the addition of reliable sources, and despite a higher number of keep "votes" than deletes, no such references have been provided. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Siren Visual[edit]

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

The creator of the article has removed the PROD claiming that notability has been established with the current set of references. None of the references establish notability and only mention the company in passing. I have tried to search for evidence of notability in reliable sources, but only turn up social media sites mentioning the organization. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep - the current article sourcing is indeed rubbish, but the company is definitely notable, particularly within the Australian anime fan community. For example: [56] ("Siren Visual have certainly gone the hard yards with this release..."), [57] ("Siren Visual is set to explore the mainstream anime market..."), [58] ("Hey, you good people at Siren Visual? ..."), [59] ("Siren Visual Entertertainment is appealing the OFLC's decision..."). There's also a very high level of forum discussion across multiple communities which isn't sufficient to source facts but (a) itself testifies to notability and (b) creates the reasonable suspicion of significant coverage in reliable sources testifying to notability. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. No one independent has seen fit to give them any in-depth coverage in reliable sources, so fails GNG and WP:COMPANY. dramatic (talk) 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please read my sources above? They include Twitch Film, Ain't It Cool News, Anime News Netork and Filmlink, all indubitably independent and reliable. The standard for "significant" is NOT "in depth" but rather "non-trivial" and specifically notes that it need not be the main topic of the article. These guys are notable enough in media distribution in Australia that I'd heard of them without being an anime fan and prior to reading this article, which I realise isn't an argument for keep, but does go to show I'm not grasping at straws here. (Note also the speedy delete criteria is not for "blatant" advertising but "unambiguous" advertising, which is not appropriate as this is exactly the kind of article you'd expect of a notable media distributor.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
#1 and #3 are trivial coverage (a compliment on the packaging!), #2 is a regurgitated press release and #4 looks more like a blog than a reliable source to me. Again, it's trivial coverage, not telling us anything about the significance of the company. I would expect the article about a film distributor to have a neutral tone, not read like the PR dept pump-up that this is. dramatic (talk) 09:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was already declined for speedy, sorry. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is obviously in need of some major clean up, but AfD is not the place for that. They definitely sound like the Australian equivalent of a smaller distributor like Magnolia Pictures, and...honestly, WP:BIAS might be a factor here, given the US/Canada-centric focus of many of our editors and sources for this sort of thing. Give the Australian editors some time to source this properly, and chop the text down to what can be sourced now. Doceirias (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My biggest issue with this are references, if some can be found and placed into the article while it sits here in AfD it would help alot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Knowledgekid87. Before starting this AfD I attempted to find reliable sources to establish notability. I could only find social media mentions, or really passing references in traditional reliable sources - nothing that establishes notability. If such coverage can be found in legitimate reliable sources I'm fine with keeping the article. But as it stands right now it sounds as if this is a non-notable company that is associated with some potentially notable films that may be good subjects for articles on their own. But I just don't see anything currently to justify an article about the company itself. If someone thinks there are such sources, please go ahead and add them to the article. It will make things much clearer then. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Knowledgekid87 and ConcernedVancourverite - Sorry, I'm not clear on what the issue is with the sources I've provided above. How do you say they're not significant coverage in reliable independent sources? For your reference again: [60] ("Siren Visual have certainly gone the hard yards with this release..."), [61] ("Siren Visual is set to explore the mainstream anime market..."), [62] ("Hey, you good people at Siren Visual? ..."), [63] ("Siren Visual Entertertainment is appealing the OFLC's decision..."). - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I read through a few of the Google news search results, and found [64] mentions that Peter Jackson has one of his films released through Siren Visual. A company like this is judged by it works, this something by a notable director. Dream Focus 11:24, 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 keep. I'll start a move discussion on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seating[edit]

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

The article title "Seating" doesn't really describe this article, which is about seating at entertainment venues. It has one source that cites a ban in one city of one type of seating but no sources to actual define seating or any of these seating arrangements and absolutely nothing towards notability. It acts more like original research for the article creator's personal selection of what to include. Stadium seating has an article, perhaps reserved seating and/or general admission deserve articles too, but "seating" is a broad and unnotable topic and this article has little to it. I would like to also point out that of festival seating, general admission (which I personally see used to describe ANY situation of unassigned seating - including festival seating) and reserved seating are TICKETING arrangements or seating ASSIGNMENT types, and are not TYPES of seating (eg: stadium seating is a way seats can be arranged. General admission is a way seats are assigned). The one section on "chair arrangement" which is the only part that actually talks about seating is woahfully underinformative and treats the reader like a moron (seats usually face the thing people are there to see? shocking) This section is a two-sentence paragraph that says almost nothing about entertainment seating, and another one-sentence paragraph that talks about seating on a vehicle in which it says seats could be forward, backward, or facing the side.... why the article singles out only these two venues to discuss (without even discussing them at all), I don't knowTheHYPO (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 57 other articles link to it. I could see this article covering ergonomic issues and the distance between seats on airplanes, airplane boarding procedures, etc. The article needs a lot of work, but should not be deleted. Racepacket (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content should not be deleted, expansion is welcome. Patrick (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. A series of dicdefs, followed by trivia. Not much here to keep. Hairhorn (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What is this article about? Notability doesn't mean every noun in every language. At best this is a redirect to something pertinent. I don't see any compelling arguments about what that would be. Shadowjams (talk) 11:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . If it remains limited to this topic, adjust the title. There are sources available. DGG ( talk ) 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content is well deserving of an article. Naming is something that should be resolved. Perhaps the article can be changed into a disambiguation page with different articles for each type of seating. --PinkBull 19:12, 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, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading everything, I find no reason actually for deletion - hence default to Keep. Discussions about the article name belong on the article talk page, not AfD. Collect (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or failing that, Move to Festival seating. This isn't actually an article about seating as a concept. The original version describes a mode of seating called "Festival seating" which may or may not be a verifiable term of art with reliable sources. The basis for this is a single Cincinnati newspaper article describing a tragedy in at a 1979 concert and the city's reassessment in 2004. If "Festival seating" is an actual term then this article, pared down, is a good starting place. Note that most of the incoming links have nothing to do with the article; seating is a generic enough term to be caught up in random wiki-linking. Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further investigation, this article was at Festival seating, and concerned solely with that topic, until Patrick (talk · contribs) (who has commented in this debate further up) started generalizing the article in 2007. This strikes me as a step backwards; taking a reasonable if undersourced article on a discrete concept and using it as the basis for an unimaginably broad article. The content should move back to Festival seating and revert back to its original form. No opinion on the possibility of a generic "seating" article but there's a article to be written on the narrower subject. Mackensen (talk) 03:22, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bucktown, Davenport[edit]

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

The page has been unsourced for over 2 years. In all my very extensive work for Davenport, Iowa, History of Davenport, Iowa, and Neighborhoods of Davenport, Iowa, I never came across anything about Bucktown, therefore it isn't very notable. CTJF83 chat 00:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Merge - I have found evidence of this "Bucktown" in the following sources; [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72]. I believe this "Bucktown" does indeed exist but is it notable enough to stand as its own article, i'll let you decide since you are a Davenport expert. -Marcusmax(speak) 01:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links 7 and 8 are referring to the Bucktown Arts Center, which I think is just piggy-backing off the name of the old district. I'll have to look at the book results later, and respond to those. CTJF83 chat 01:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Links 1 and 2 are the same thing and appear to be some anecdote that mentions Bucktown trivially, wouldn't be very useful to an article. But source 3 appears to be an entire chapter, all about Bucktown, in an academic book (UNC Press)... really the best sort of source to look for in writing a WP article. 4 is the same source again, 5 is a beer that co-opts the name, 6 seems like a primary source with a casual mention. Link 3/4 is promising though. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Sancho for going through those. If it is decided that Bucktown is notable enough, but not for its own page, I'd add a section to probably the History of Davenport page mentioned in my opening. CTJF83 chat 07:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you both for looking through the sources and determining which were helpful or not. -Marcusmax(speak) 22:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the sources that have been found. DGG ( talk ) 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - the sourcing is weak, but appears to show that this neighbourhood did once exist. However, a merge into History of Davenport, Iowa might be preferable. Robofish (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Sources have been found and sources were the nom's stated reason for this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 04:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, one acceptable source has been found, that I have only skimmed. Someone (preferably with a grasp of Davenport history, unlike me) needs to actually read the source to see how much information it actually has about the history of Bucktown. I'd think a merge might be in order unless someone can do that. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • When I get some time I'll skim over the book and will most likely merge this to the history of Davenport page. CTJF83 chat 21:59, 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. Nobody but the nomination is convinced that this violates WP:SYNTH. Fences&Windows 16:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups[edit]

Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups (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 a somewhat unusual request for deletion for a number of reasons. The article is heavily referenced and there is a plenty of detail. In fact a lot of work has gone into this article. However there are numerous issues that make the existence of this article problematic. I think it is admirable that editors have tried to create a list of haplogroups by ethnic group, but unfortunately the effort has resulted in issues that could violate WP:NOR and in particular WP:SYNTH. It is practically impossible to have a single article that describes the haplogroup profile of every ethnic group in the world.

For those unfamiliar with haplogroups, this article List of R1a frequency by population lists the same information but for just one haplogroup, that is Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). The list is quite long, and the article is about 66kb which is relatively large. However this is just one haplogroup, there are in fact hundreds more just like haplogroup r1a. Therefore it is practically impossible to cram all such information into one article. Despite the fact that Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups is nowhere near being comprehensive, it is already illegible with one needing to scroll up and down to match a percentage with an ethnic group and a haplogroup. Not to mention that hundreds of haplogroups are missing and several ethnic groups are missing. In short this article is mission impossible. It was feasible in the early days of y-chromosome genotyping when there was very little information. But now there is wealth of data available. I suggest that this project be abandoned, and editors instead focus on particular haplogroups, in a manner similar to List of R1a frequency by population. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain you remarks about WP:SYNTH, which you made for example on the HGH page? Hopefully this is not referring to things like 10+2 is 12 or 10 out of 100 is 10%. Are there really cases which go beyond this? If not then I do not see the point of the deletion proposal really.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep- many editors have been adding to this, some may be using this as a resource for page improvements. I don't want to trip up other editors. It may not be possible to cram all into one article, but not all Y-DNA have their own list or are abundant enough to deserve their own separate list. Muntawanda, don't you have something more important to do, other than stirring sleeping dogs?PB666 yap 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think this is something important. The article lists just 10 haplogroups in no particular order. Typically most studies list them in phylogenetic order from haplogroup A, B, DE, CF, D, E etc. However, some of the basal haplogroups such as A, B, DE, D and E which are some of the most important haplogroups are not included. Furthermore, there are no East Asian, Southeast Asian, Australasian and Native American ethnic groups included. How exactly is an ethnic group defined for this article. There are something like 800 languages spoken in New Guinea. Furthermore, Pdeitiker, I think you are aware, since you have been creating maps, that some ethnic groups are sampled multiple times with resulting in different haplogroup frequencies. How would this be incorporated into an already illegible article. In short, in its current form the article isn't going anywhere. Better delete it, if any information is to be salvaged, editors can try to create more manageable articles, say at the haplogroup level rather than at the global population level. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make that decision. And I don't understand why you are trying to force that decision. There are things that are clearly less encyclopedic on Wikipedia, lists of smoking jackets worn by ex-famous singers, list of all kinds of what-nots. What you need to do is inform the people who have added to that list whether they think they might use that list at sometime, before questioning my decision, see how many wiki-folken who would be upset if it where trashed?PB666 yap 08:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very useful, encyclopedic and informative -- particularly the ability to click on each haplogroup, and see a ranked list of which population it is most strongly found in, with link-through citing to the original sources. This is a very valuable data appendix to our main article Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup and our increasingly detailed articles on individual haplogroups. Having a central data page is much better maintainable, much better verifiable; and much easier to standardise, police, and quality-control than scattering the information across the whole of Wikipedia; and allows us a comprehensiveness which is simply not appropriate for pages on individual haplogroups. It's also an enormous help for reader verifiability of what we're writing: when in general terms on a page we discuss where a haplogroup has been found, they can turn to this page and get the full detail of precisely where studies have been done, and what they have reported.
Turning to Wapondaponda's specific issues, as for WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH I just don't see it. This article is straightforwardly relaying the data that has been reported; it is not adding any layer of original interpretation, nor synthesising any inferences or conclusions. The other charge has more merit - that this is a Europe-centric listing, which focusses on the haplogroups most common in Europe (indeed the horizontal listing is broadly ordered by their prevalence in Europe), and ignores the most important haplogroups in Africa and Asia. This is a fair comment, and has been brought up on the talk page. The answer, I think, is to create further pages: Worldwide prevalence of the haplogroups most commonly found in Africa, and Worldwide prevalence of the haplogroups most commonly found in Asia; and to rename this one something like Worldwide prevalence of the haplogroups most commonly found in Europe. IMO I think that would be more reader-friendly than widening this page beyond what can reasonably fit in the width of one screen. But it doesn't affect that the outcome of this discussion should be keep. AfD is for articles that are irredeemably flawed, where there is no prospect of making them into anything that has a place on Wikipedia. This well-sourced presentation of data from the original sources does not fit into that class. Jheald (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think we should delete it until individual haplogroup lists, like the R1a one, are created. So, since the R1a stuff is safe and sound in its own article, i think it'd be ok to remove the duplicate info from this article. I don't think there is really any rush to delete this. I don't think 'incomplete' or 'disorganised' are reasons to delete outright - they are just reasons why we should try to improve it. So i guess, something like this article could be a hub for other lists like the R1a list we've already got and intend to create. I wonder how we go about updating lists like these, though? For example, the R1a list, has two "Caucasus - Armenia - Armenians" listed. Why are there two? What happens when more reliable data for "Caucasus - Armenia - Armenians" is found? Do we add it too? Shouldn't there be some kind of limit (would we really need to have a dozen entries for "Caucasus - Armenia - Armenians")? What kind of criteria do we use to limit what we add to such lists? Publication dates? The size of the samples taken? So i wonder what kind of rules we should use for inclusion of data.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's much more maintainable to keep the data in one place, not put it into the individual haplogroup articles. It also shows what other markers were tested, and what the results were. If a dozen studies have been done in the Caucasus, with different sampling locations and different results, it is useful for all of them to be accessible. This is easier when there is a single separate data page for the full detail (cf WP:SUMMARY), and it makes it easier to systematically add new studies. Jheald (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I support the concept of organizing haplogroup frequencies in a user-friendly manner, that can enable any user to quickly determine the haplogroup profile of an ethnic group, or ethnic groups that possess a haplogroup. However, this article, in its current form cannot achieve this. I think we can all agree that the amount of haplogroup data that is available cannot fit into a single article and be meaningful. I have recently been looking into just E1b1b lineages, the amount of data from this haplogroup is enough for one article alone. I would like to hear from those who support keeping this article, how best can this large amount of information be handled. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Brianann's points that there are a lot of issues to consider. For example sample size varies significantly, from as few as 28 to as many as 2000. Furthermore many ethnic groups are listed multiple times, eg northern egyptians vs southern egyptians, Albanians are listed six times. The result is an apples and oranges situation which risks becoming a WP:SYNTH. The R1a table does list sample sizes, which I believe is more accurate. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how multiple data sets for one population would be WP:SYNTH. I should mention that I have seen difficulties in some cases with overlapping data sets being presented as multiple data sets. (When a new article uses old data, but adds to it for example. In the past this was often not clearly mentioned by authors.) When detected I have always just deleted the older version. That seems good enough to me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. DNA studies (as far as I have come across them in linguistics) rarely cover the whole planet. I would say that proportionally there are probably dozens of studies into marginal groups like the Aynu, Burushaski and Khoisan in spite of their low population numbers because they're "interesting" groups on various levels. I doubt there is data for all. If we feel a particular group is under-represented, then we could add a request for more data or explain, if that's the case, that it doesn't exist. The thing that might want changing is a) alternating background colour for rows and b) listing the same ethnicity in the same cells but with a line break between (e.g. Greeks 1-4). Akerbeltz (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to disagree about the whole planet as all major population groups have been sampled. Part of formulating the Recent African origin of modern humans model involved sampling as many distinct populations as possible. If a single population didn't fit the RAO, then the theory would be disproved. So there is haplogroup information from South America, Polynesia, Australasia and of course China which is not currently in the article. I agree that having complete information is not a prerequisite for an article. However, it is also clear that the current article cannot accomodate more data if indeed it is to be representative of global haplogroup frequencies. The current article only deals with haplogroups that are found in Europe, even though there is a mention of some African and Middle Eastern populations. Currently several sub-haplogroups consititute E1b1b, but they are not listed in the article. Apart from E1b1a and E1b1b, all other subclades of haplogroup E are not mentioned. The issue of subclades applies to all the haplogroups mentioned. Also missing are macrohaplogroups A, B ,C D, O, H, F, and K each having several different subclades. Each haplogroup requires two columns, one for the frequency and the other for sample size. So while the current content is only barely manageable, any additional information is likely to cause significant usability issues.
In light of the missing information, what therefore should be the future of this article?. I agree in principle with Jheald's suggestion, that this articles should be broken down into smaller articles. The smaller articles can be linked to a main list page, or by a category. My preference would be a breakdown by haplogroup first because only then would it be viable to create a haplogroup profile by ethnic group. However, it might be easier to cut and paste information Africa and the middle east into new articles.Wapondaponda (talk) 14:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We keep general articles as well as specific ones. It's good to have this material together. But it's assumed that those who want more details will go to the detailed articles. There should thus be links to Wikipedia articles on the haplotypes for each group of people, as well as to the haplotypes themselves. For the most part, such articles--or even sections of articles) do not now exist. DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refocusing the discussion[edit]

I think there is a general consensus that the information contained in this article is useful and should be included in this encyclopedia. The debate is whether the information should be as it is currently or in some other forms. The issues that need to be addressed include:

  • Usability-Is it possible to have an article that includes all the major haplogroups and their frequencies in the various ethnic groups around the world, all tabulated in one article.
  • Scope-The current article is actually Y-DNA haplogroups by "European" ethnic groups. The haplogroups of much of India, East Asia, Southeast Asia, Australasia, the Americas and much of Africa are not included in this article. Should we therefore rename this article to reflect its content.
  • At what level in the phylogeny should haplogroups be tabulated. That is should macrohaplogroups or subclades be listed.

Of course incomplete information is better than no information. But complete information is better than both incomplete information and no information. Currently this article is woefully incomplete. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) I have tried to add some information so as to get a feel of how including more of the global haplogroups would affect the article. this version, has many of the haplogroups found around the world. The cells aren't properly aligned, but that's because I tried to automate the process, and didn't work out that well. Trying to manually tinker with a wikitable that size involves a lot of repetitive edits and the opportunity for mistakes is high. With most of the global haplogroups, the article is about 200kb but I haven't added any data or ethnic groups, just haplogroups. Unfortunately, I only have access to a low bandwidth connection, so editing an article that size takes forever. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the answers are pretty self-evident: the usability and level question can be answered together by saying you divide into as many haplogroups as editors can agree works. The scope question is more one of "can this article be improved?" Or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:52, 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. @harej 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Showtime 2009 Istanbul[edit]

AfDs for this article:
It's Showtime 2009 Istanbul (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 is about a now indefinitely postponed martial arts event promoted by It's Showtime. Given the lack of a scheduled date, and the near conclusion of 2009, it seems to be a bit speculative to have an article on the subject. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 00:42, 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. Kevin (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teyba Naser[edit]

Teyba Naser (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 are lots of race results, but I don't see any articles that feature the athlete or mention anything other than their finishes. While running is a tricky sport to evaluate, it fails WP:ATHLETE. Shadowjams (talk) 05:56, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 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) 02:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Enough Rope with Andrew Denton guests in 2006[edit]

List of Enough Rope with Andrew Denton guests in 2006 (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 a list of guests who were on an Australian talk show, Enough Rope. This article, and the article on the other two years are unencyclopedic, specifically violating WP:NOT#DIR, electronic program guides. I am also nominating the following related articles:

List of Enough Rope with Andrew Denton guests in 2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Enough Rope with Andrew Denton guests in 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:36, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High shield[edit]

High shield (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 residence. I think that this is it [73]. Some sort of vacation cottage?? :) Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No assertion of why this holiday cottage is more notable than the hundreds of others in Northumberland alone. If the article had included either of the external links presented here then I'd have had no hesitation in calling it an advert. As it is I'm wondering if it's just a failed attempt at an advert? Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. May or may not be an attempt at an advert, but all that "evidence shows a dwelling has existed there since the late 1700's" tells us is that a different building might have existed on the site one. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Worse than I thought. The link by Thryduulf shows that this "is a spacious single storey building providing self-catering holiday accommodation for two people". Make your reservations now, mate. Mandsford (talk) 17:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think this was an attempt at an advert as I found this about the same page but with different caps: 15:54, 6 November 2009 CactusWriter (talk | contribs) deleted "High Shield" ‎ (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.highshield.co.uk/) Buddy23Lee (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:16, 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. Nothing to merge, book already mentioned in author's article JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China Attacks[edit]

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

Spamvertisement by a COI editor for his own self-published book; no assertion of notability, no sources, no evidence of notability - a blatant self-advertisement and failure to meet WP:BOOK Orange Mike | Talk 00:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No indication of “notability”. —SlamDiego←T 14:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chuck DeVore until further notability is established. Depending on how far Assemblyman DeVore gets in running for the chance to oppose Barbara Boxer as U.S. Senator from California, this might very easily become notable. I don't see any sign that this made much of an impact in China, Taiwan, or the United States even though it made some (some) news back in 2000 [74]. Mandsford (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already discussed in “Chuck DeVore#Book”. (Not sure that it merits much discussion there, but that's another matter.) —SlamDiego←T 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No standalone notability. The fact that DeVore published a book is all that's necessary to be mentioned, and that's already done. GlassCobra 23:24, 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. NW (Talk) 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DesktopTwo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
DesktopTwo (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. Flash in the pan. Average.

article has four references: two of which are significant from reliable sources. i'm sure that will attract the typical keep vote.

but - the product is now dead and was just one of several "WebOS" style offerings from the last several years. it was not unique in features, style, or business concept. deletion rationale here is a variant of fifteen minutes of fame and not news. If this should be kept, maybe a Dot-com graveyard article that these types of also-ran products can be dumped to? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is notable in my opinion and belongs in an encyclopædia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 19:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • how has this shown historical significance? when an individual product category gets a lot of press attention, so will individual products. this is a paraphrase of the WP:NOTNEWS concept applied to a product. what has this product done that gives it lasting significance outside that one year timespan when these referenes were made? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Weak Delete - not significant reliable sources. Not really notable. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:45, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - weak sources. Racepacket (talk) 05:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Articles have to be beyond repair to be deleted. If you want more sources, add more sources. Laziness is not a reason to delete and article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 08:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. I really would prefer that software is only notable when noticed in non-IT sources. But this has been reviewed by C-NET, NetworkWorld, TechRepublic[75] and that's probably good enough to pass current consensus. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient sources to satisfy notability. It's kinda sad that it does, but it does nonetheless; I blame the media. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:26, 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. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RenderX[edit]

RenderX (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 are questions regarding the notability of this product and organization. The article is based primarily on the work of a single editor, Siringa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), the majority of whose edits are related to adding this company's products. The article has been recreated three times following speedy deletion, each time by the same user. Ckatzchatspy 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article needs work, but it's not offensively addy. The company is quite well known and notable. Maybe the product articles can be merged into this article. --24dot (talk) 08:51, 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) 00:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I take issue with 24dot's characterization the article is not offensively addy. The article reads like a marketing brochure. The company doesn't meet the notability guidelines. JakeZ (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, not notable, and unambiguous advertising even if it were: . RenderX provides tools - from pre-built applications to integration kits - to solve various business needs of getting XML content into printable formats such as PDF, PostScript and AFP. RenderX has provided many valuable services to the XSL-FO community. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it needs revising, but it doesn't seem that offensive. I definitely think it's notable enough to keep around. Apple Inc. uses this software for at least one of their developer docs (the most important one, IMO); that was why I came here in the first place. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am assuming Smerdis looked through that mess of references and found them lacking. Miami33139 (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam/COI concerns, sources do not appear to be reliable; all are either press releases or blogs. GlassCobra 23:11, 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. Kevin (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maintain (Software)[edit]

Maintain (Software) (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 fo rthis software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • merge the small piece of info and redirect, keep redirect as useful search term Power.corrupts (talk) 16:41, 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) 00:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or merge if a suitable home can be found). Doesn't seem to be very notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetsmog (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, no merge target. A disambiguated title (software) is not a useful search term. Miami33139 (talk) 01:05, 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. Per the general consensus, the topic seems adequately notable. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Obkom[edit]

Washington Obkom (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 Russian pejorative neologism/internet meme. Colchicum (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. We have an article on Zionist Occupation Government and other perjorative political terms. [76] gives 80K+ ghits, the term is used in the mainstream Russian media, etc. I guess the article can be useful if expanded a little bit. So far it is a little bit over a dictionary definition but I think it can be developed further Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, this term is used, mostly between quotation marks or in blogs, but it is barely ever discussed, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. ZOG, on the other hand, is not merely a neologism, but a notable conspiracy theory in itself, fairly widely discussed: [77][78]. So it depends on whether WO is a notable conspiracy theory (Maslov is likely the only one who makes this claim, and frankly it doesn't make much sense, why obkom and not tseka? What is tseka then? ZOG?) or merely a pejorative for the American government. Ok, let's see if others think that it can be useful here. Colchicum (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, Maslov's article spends a good size of paragraph to discuss "why obkom". Basically, he thinks that the terms "tseka" and "politburo" are already too loaded with other associations. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to disagree with the nominator. The term is a rather notable neologism in Russian media and reasonably discussed in articles specifically devoted to this term, the wikipedia article cites three of them. The article is more than a mere dictionary definition and useful for people who want to understand modern Russia. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS. I would hate to start converting this article in a coatrack of citations, but there are some notable usages which show that contrary to Colchicum's opinion, it is way beyond "internet meme" (not to say the latter term is frequently misused), including slogans during rallies. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • PPS In fact, the "conspiracy theory" that Wahington is behind everything bad roots far into Soviet history, with expressions "рука Вашингтона" (wasnhington's hand), "вашингтонские заправилы" (washington ringleaders), "плясать под дудку Вашингтона" (to dance under washinton's fife), etc.. I guess, this would constitute a good article, which the current one would be reasonable to merge into, but I don't know where to start. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 16:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism from a foreign language. There are some political catch phrases that I'd include in Wikipedia: Lipstick on a pig comes to mind. But as I remember quite a few folks opposed this on reasonable grounds. Compared to LOAP this is almost unknown, has a shorter history, and likely won't be remembered in 2 years. Smallbones (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • this is almost unknown, has a shorter history, and likely won't be remembered in 2 years
In my opinion, your arguments are absolutely irrelevant and speculative. I believe there is no way for people to know how long a term is going to be used. Pure speculation. The reality is THIS TERM IS BEING USED on the Internet, so an article that deals with it might be helpful. Good encyclopaedias are there to inform and explain existing notions. Denghu (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTDICTIONARY Smallbones (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree with the nominator. The article deals with a term that can easily be found on the Internet (English-language pages). Thus, it is important that those who have no idea of what this term might refer to, have the opportunity to look up this term in Wikipedia and, which is important, have some in-depth information on this. Denghu (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the article has many references.Denghu (talk) 10:06, 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redoxon[edit]

Redoxon (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. No known citations that support the significance of the subject. causa sui× 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per this ref that states, "Redoxon is the brand name of the first artificially synthesized Vitamin c to be sold to the public." or this one that says, "Roche proudly unveiled Redoxen in 1934, the first mass-manufactured synthetic vitamin in history." -Marcusmax(speak) 00:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redoxon is a huge brand in Europe and Asia. -- Fuzheado | Talk 09:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article definitely needs rescuing, particularly since the text "Redoxon is the brand name of the first artificially synthesised Vitamin C to be sold to the public" makes it sound like this is a new product being promoted by Roche. As Marcus points out, it was introduced in 1934 [79]. The article doesn't do justice to the importance of synthesizing ascorbic acid Vitamin C in a form where 1000 mg could be put into one pill, but this was one of the original vitamin supplements. Mandsford (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article needs better sources in order to be kept / demonstrate notability of the subject. JBsupreme (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It clearly states its "the first artificially synthesised ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)". That makes it notable. Nothing else is needed. Dream Focus 00:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep per all the above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:30, 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 keep. There is sufficient consensus here that this a vaild article and not just a neologism. The rewrite since nomination is at least a good start in addressing concerns about how the article was written which is not generally a deletion issue anyway. Davewild (talk) 18:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Onboarding[edit]

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

Advertisement for as-yet non-notable neologism Orange Mike | Talk 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A neologism in over three hundred books, dating back to 2002, would appear to be in wide use in industry. Heck, it makes the New York Times at [80] [81] [82] and sixteen more in the NYT alone. @ megahits on Google. Hundreds of mentions in news releases and nespapers. So it is a paleo-neologism and not an ad. Default to Keep. Collect (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am probably the major contributor with the "conflict of interest" referred to in this deletion notice. I'm completely open about what I'm doing, working to contribute to individuals, groups and knowledge on the subject of Onboarding. Not sure where the conflict is since I've written three books on the subject published by Wiley, the world's largest business publisher and been quoted in most major media on the subject. Keeping this article fresh is one way for me to take the knowledge we've created and contribute it to the group of people that go to Wikipedia to learn. I hope others contribute to the article, adding different points of view, improving the tone or style or wikifiing it to meet quality standards. As you'll see, most of my edits have been in response to specific comments in those areas.Gbradt (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One way to prevent any COI per se claims is to post your suggestions on the Talk page, and (assuming anyone is watching) valid changes will likely get made. Wiley is not a "vanity press" to be sure! Collect (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:

    Align: Make sure your organization agrees on the need for a new team member and the delineation of the role you seek to fill.
    Acquire: Identify, recruit, select and get people to join the team.
    Accommodate: Give new team members the tools they need to do work.
    Assimilate: Help them join with others so they can do work together.
    Accelerate: Help them (and their team) deliver better results faster.

    Onboarding is certainly a core personal and management skill. Effective onboarding of new team members can be one of the most important contributions any hiring manager/direct supervisor or Human Resources professional can make to long-term organizational success, because onboarding done right can improve productivity, talent retention and build shared culture. Onboarding may be especially valuable for executives transitioning into complex roles because it may be difficult for individuals to uncover personal, organizational and role risks in complicated situations when they don't have formal onboarding assistance.

    For people who write that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing that they write. Seems to be typical of the genre: words chasing their tails, elaborately belaboring the obvious, meaningless lists of alliterative steps, studded with glittering generalities ("success" ... "improve productivity" ... "build shared culture"). I call this sort of thing patent nonsense - it's "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever". And obviously, it's also advertising for a management fad wannabe book. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • further on defending the English language - also characteristic of this kind of thing is the inappropriate capitalizing of the buzzword, as well as of other phrases such as "Human Resources". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepand de-jargonise. Notable and important concept in personnel management. Rhinoracer (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to recruiting#outboarding until an article can be written about the subject in an encyclopedic manner. As it is now, it would get citations from the Wikipedia traffic cops as a WP:HOWTO, WP:ESSAY, and several other things. Rewriting this motivational speech beyond recognition could be done, I suppose, but I'm not sure how long it would be until it goes beyond a neutral article and into an advertisement for Mr. Bradt's book, Onboarding: How To Get Your New Employees Up To Speed In Half The Time. Mandsford (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First dejargoning edit is done. With any luck, I have not muddied any meaning.Collect (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article still contains specific ideas from my books, can I convince you to give those books credit for those ideas and include them in the book list at the bottom of the article instead of referring to them as "One source"? I'm thrilled to be able to contribute knowledge I created. Neither I nor Wiley are excited about giving copyrighted material away without any credit. Gbradt (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is still too much stuff taken wholesale from Bradt's book, to an extent that could be argued to be a copyright violation. The solution is not, however to leave it in. Collect: you didn't de-jargonize a lot of the worst stuff: rah-rah corporate-speak euphemisms like "team members" does not belong anywhere, least of all in the first sentence of the lede. With all due respect to Bradt's peculiar sub-genre, encyclopedia articles should use plain English; and to the extent you use it, you will go further and further away from the way his books are written. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many businesses, perhaps most larger ones for sure, use the term "team" -- including Wal-Mart, Fed-Ex, UPS, Sears and many other companies. It is a term commonly referred to in major media as well. I remover what I felt was 90% of the problematic material. [83] etc. You may not like the term, but it is extremely widespread. [84], [85] etc. show how widespread it is in management books. I deleted anything which could have been construed as COI or "puff" but when a term is in common use, it is not reasonable to delete it. Collect (talk) 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC) Also note in the past 12 months, the New York Times finds over one thousand uses of "team member" with reference to employees in its pages. One newspaper. Seems the term must be quite common for such a large number of uses. Collect (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles here should avoid all jargon and weasel words of that sort. The phrase "team members" with regards to employees is a usage peculiar to corporate management and articles written by them or from their POV. We should use simple, neutral, non-euphemized terminology such as "employees" instead. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Jargon" which gets over a thousand uses in a major newspaper in a single year is no longer "jargon." And I daresay six million google hits for "team members" and :employees" suffices to show how common it is. The term is used by all the major employers I could find -- including McDonald's etc. as well. And the "neologism" issue seems now to be abandoned. leaving no actual reason for deletion (you might wish to edit the article to improve it, of course). Default still to Keep. Collect (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How many googlehits would you get for a euphemism such as "passed away"; but our style is to say, "died." --Orange Mike | Talk 22:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have over 36,000 places to edit in WP then. 'Passed away" is common in mainspace here. Might you try again? Collect (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC) ][reply]
Nope; that's a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. WP:EUPHEMISM explictly states, "Avoid clichés about death, such as "he died doing what he loved" or "his death was the end of an era", and euphemisms such as "gave his life", "passed away", "passed over", "left his body", or "returned to God". The word died is religiously neutral, and neither crude nor vulgar." Just because people ignore these instructions, doesn't make them less useful. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - with all due respect to your discussion, this section is a forum for whether or not the article should be deleted. We seem to have established the consensus that it should be kept and rewritten in encyclopedic style. Might we continue this discussion on style on the article's talk page? Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although a neologism at one time to be sure, the fact that there are multiple published uses demonstrates notability, and this once-neologism is here to stay. See WP:NTEMP. However, if I came across this article on RC patrol I would not have hesitated to slap a WP:CSD G11 or G12 on it, or at least a WP:HOWTO notice. Keep the article, throw out the promo-sounding bits, and make an encyclopedic article about the corporate management policy. There are plenty of good references. Ivanvector (talk) 23:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Solution. In keeping with Collect's suggestion to post my suggested changes on talk pages to let others neutralize my potential COI's, here is a possible way forward for the Onboarding article. I tried to de-jargonize and simplify to give us a core article for others to build on. I did put in references to the books I wrote that were published by Wiley, since a lot of the ideas in this article (and about the broad practice of onboarding) are drawn from them. Anyway, possible article below, formatted for anyone interested to cut and paste into the Onboarding page.Gbradt (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I've learned how to do a "collapse", I've collapsed this so that it's visible when clicked upon. I can see where some of this would need to be edited, and the narrative would need to be paraphrased. For better or for worse, encyclopedic style is intentionally bland, the opposite of the writing style that one must employ in order to attract a reader. Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 20 November 2009
    • Helpful Mandsford. Can I take that to mean you're OK with the direction this is going in making the article less jargonized, less of an advertisement and more neutral? If we've got the content vaguely right, I'm happy to take another try at driving the style to be even more encyclopedic unless someone else wants to take a crack at that. Gbradt (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yes, I'm definitely OK with the direction, and the subject is certainly notable for its own article. I'm only an amateur, whereas you're a professional writer of several books that have sold well or are even bestsellers in their genre; I'm glad that you've not taken offense. I note that the current version removed any references in the bibliography to the two books of which you are the primary author-- I'll put those back in myself if you're concerned that it gives the appearance of impropriety. The main thing is that the audience in Wikipedia is going to be more general, and most of the readers probably have no managerial background. Certain explanations, which might seem insulting to the intelligence of one of the readers of a book on management, would be primary information to the average reader. That being the case, many people can try to explain onboarding in simple terms; you're one of the few who would be able to explain it accurately. Mandsford (talk) 03:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I would appreciate it if you would put the book references back in the article. In line with your comments and Ivanvector and Collect's comments above, I am going to do a couple of things: 1) ask Orange Mike to close this deletion discussion, 2) switch the editing discussion over to the Onboarding article's talk page, 3) put another possible solution for the article up on the talk page so that someone else can cut, edit and paste it into the article itself. Gbradt (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not think that the claim that the term is a neologism is the only (or even the most important) reason this article should be a candidate for deletion. It is possible this article represents overcategorisation - it should be a section of recruitment, not an article in its own right. In its current form it might be a content fork - an article created to represent one particular approach or theory about recruitment (particularly executive recruitment). And of course copyright violation is itself a grounds for deletion, and this is a known issue, as reported by one of the articles editors, who has identified (IIRC) as an author of relevant material. It appears true that this article could be rescued. However this would involve deletion of almost the entire text. I can see very little that should remain, either in the lead or the body text. A suggested revised version on the talk page is an improvement, but still a long way from acceptable. This is further complicated by the claim made by GBradt that the current version violates copyrights. In my view, Gbradt - or another editor - should immediately delete all copyvio material regardless of the discussion here, as a minimum step. If the article is kept, I am happy to be a participant in revisions to eliminate problem text, but as I say, at the moment it wouldn't leave much :-) I am pleased that User:Gbradt looks like he is prepared to move to limiting his role to proposals on the talk page, addressing possible COI issues. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's the other way around. Since recruitment or talent acquisition is one of the first steps of onboarding, recruitment could be classified as a section of onboarding. Onboarding goes well beyond recruitment or acquisition to incorporate accommodation, assimilation and acceleration of talent as well. That broader perspective, well beyond just recruitment, is why the practice of onboarding had such a positive impact on organizations. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to have my ideas included in this article - with the appropriate references. Gbradt (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am I correct that the issue is simply one of assigning proper credit for quoted material rather than a claim of "copyright violation" in itself? I agree that "recruitment" is a subset of "onboarding" rather than the other way around. And since "onboarding" also includes internal shifts in roles, "tecruitment" would be a very tough fit! Collect (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. Well put. And, now that you've modified the article to assign proper credit, that issue is resolved. (Anyone looking for a glimpse at the original source material can download executive summaries of our books at PrimeGenesis.com Gbradt (talk) 14:29, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo–New Zealand relations[edit]

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

any relevant information should be in International recognition of Kosovo. this topic does not deserve its own standalone article. there is no other diplomatic relations except recognition, NZ has no peacekeepers in Kosovo? LibStar (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Should be under a single country name -- the combination and permutation usage is egregious. LibStar is correct. Collect (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if relevant information. Nothing to see here. Move along. JakeZ (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Merely recognising a country's independence (which is virtually all that there is here) doesn't make a relationship notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I think it's fair to say that the consensus earlier this year was that we no longer want stubs for "nation 1 and nation 2 relations", and that if the only thing to write about is embassies, visits and diplomatic recognition, that's information that goes in the "Foreign relations of..." articles. Although this is a new article from a long-established user, rather than part of a Groubani shipload of stubs of random pairings, there's nothing here that can't be kept in other articles. I don't see redirect or merge as a solution for this type of article, because there are several different pages and only one redirect target. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm the originator of this article. The rationale is that, given the formatting of International recognition of Kosovo, information that was listed regarding New Zealand when it hadn't recognized Kosovo wound up getting excised when it did. While it's a stub presently, I believed that the subject matter was notable because NZ was (a) largely out-of-step from other western countries in its response to the Kosovo situation, and (b) provides a potentially-unique example in international relations of state trying to articulate a fence-sitting response to an independence declaration. Admittedly, the article will require expansion to fully meet those goals. The Tom (talk) 02:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Mandsford. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is nothing particularly notable about these "relations" --Tocino 01:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mandsford. GlassCobra 22:53, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Bradt[edit]

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

Spamvert for obscure business writer; obvious COI problems, but those are not grounds for deletion Orange Mike | Talk 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Does not appear to be only edited by COI editor -- if so, it should be raised at the COI noticeboard. Made the New York Times [86] ""The means here did not justify the end," said George Bradt, chief executive of PrimeGenesis, which coaches chief executives on leadership topics. "They pulled out a Sherman tank to attack a mouse."" No reason for deletion. Default to Keep. Collect (talk) 02:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree 100% with Orangemike's statements about being a spamvert with COI problems, but I think it should be fixed, not deleted. I found a BusinessWeek article that gives him a decent amount of coverage, he's quoted in the New York Times (not really coverage but it helps a bit and that's only one of many mentions of him in reliable sources), one of his books is reviewed by the Washington Business Journal, he was also the subject of an article in the Fairfield County Business Journal. He was also a staff writer for The Harvard Crimson (which is pretty big as college newspapers go). -- Atama頭 04:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm trying to be transparent about this. I created PrimeGenesis and started working on Onboarding in 2002 in response to a major problem - 40% of new executives were failing in their first 18 months in new positions. When we started, "Onboarding" was most definitely a neologism. As others have mentioned, since then, the word and the practice has entered the common business vocabulary. My goal is to contribute to individuals (through our consulting work which has reduced that failure rate from 40% to 10%), to groups (through talks, workshops and articles like the ones on Wikipedia), and to knowledge (through the books I've written). Eager to have others contribute, disagree, debate, fix. Don't punish me for being a thought leader though.Gbradt (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and semi-protect the article until the pipe dream of flagged revisions becomes a reality. JBsupreme (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mr. Bradt meets our guidelines for notability, and the article has been rewritten to a more encyclopedic tone. I would expect that anybody who is mentioned on Wikipedia, whether as part of another page, or as the subject of an article about them, would have an interest in making sure that it stays accurate and neutral in tone. User:Gbradt could easily have gone under another screen name if he had wanted to edit covertly, but I agree that he has been forthcoming. Mandsford (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stub. Ivanvector (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:24, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_November_19&oldid=1142643557"