Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 22 November 24 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 in accordance with consensus view. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Metcalfe[edit]

Warren Metcalfe (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. I just can't see why he needs a page, the links are pretty obscure and don't seem to be especially about him, and the first half seems unsourced. It would help if it had wikilinks, categories or was linked to. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. The subject's claim to notability appears to be as a professional surfer. I have only found two Google News Archive hits about him, but I can't rule out the possibility that he may be notable in the surfing community. The supporters of this article should revise it to focus on his surfing career to clarify his claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see him listed here [1], although one of the links in the article does show that he's competed in ASP events [2]. It don't know if he'd qualify as inherently notable under WP:ATHLETE; it would depend on whether he'd competed at the highest level of professional surfing competition, and I think its analogous to how we deal with articles about professional golfers. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to the ASP FAQ, there are thousands of surfers who are in the World Qualifying Series of ASP, the only requirement being the $200 fee. Since there's no mention of him currently or ever being one of the 46 who qualify each year for the higher ASP World Tour, I think he fails WP:ATHLETE. As a model, he doesn't seem to meet WP:ENTERTAINER either. No references indicating significant roles, no significant or cult following. I could be persuaded to change my mind if there can be found references showing him as a named spokes-model for one of the companies mentioned, but merely appearing in an add doesn't fit the criteria. – jaksmata 18:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - First source is a picture (doesn't help). 2nd is a press release (not neutral or really valid) The third says it is a "one-star event" (hardly a "highest level" as per WP:ATHLETE and a press release), the next reference has him coming in last in his heat, etc. I don't think he meets WP:ATHLETE, and he certainly doesn't meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The biggest achievement I can find is that he made the round of 64 (3rd round- there were at least 4) in a tournament called the "Association of Surfing Professionals (ASP) World Qualifying Series (WQS) 3-Star Quiksilver Pro Puerto Escondido". World Qualifying Series? It seems to me this is similr to a golfer whose biggest achievement was playing in and losing in Q-School. Delete in line with WP:ATHLETE. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:29, 30 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 wrong venue. Merging/redirecting should be discussed on the article's talk page; protection from vandalism should be requested at WP:RFPP. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Merrygold[edit]

Aston Merrygold (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 both WP:N and WP:Bio. Member of notable band JLS. Should be redirected to the band's article, not given an individual article as they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases RM-Taylor (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding, this page is a constant target for vandalism amongst minors who vandalise the page at least once a day. If deletion discussion if succesful, I suggest that the article is also locked so that it can not be re-established unless within time the article will pass WP:Bio or WP:N RM-Taylor (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely doesn't fail WP:N. Anyone who hasn't heard of Aston Merrygold has been living down a hole for a year. If it's a constant vandalism target, lock it, don't delete it.--ShedEnd1984 (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. I notice that the nominator doesn't even ask for deletion. You don't need to bring something up on AfD for that, just do it yourself. — Gwalla | Talk 19:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Subject passes WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO as he holds notability outside of JLS; he acted in the TV series Fun Song Factory and appears in a duet on Cheryl Cole's album 3 Words. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 12:02, 29 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. Despite some invalid and emotion-based arguments ("should be deleted just out of spite", "their disrespect for Wikipedia " etc.) in favor of deletion, there are also valid, policy-based arguments in favor of deletion and no such arguments in favor of keeping the article, since notability claims like "many google hits" and "getting popular" are only valid if they can be verified using reliable, third-party sources. Oren99 does provide some sources to that effect but they are all blog sources and as such cannot be used to establish notability. Regards SoWhy 10:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cincopa[edit]

Cincopa (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 per WP:COMPANY, unreferenced, borderline WP:SPAM, clear WP:Conflict of interest by creator, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GOOGLEHITS. MuffledThud (talk) 20:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Cincopa is a tool for site builders so searching the term "powered by cincopa" does give somekind of idea about the amount of users using it. Also here are some reviews talking about the importance of this product to the wordpress bloggers community 123456. comment added by Oren99 —Preceding undated comment added 23:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC). — Oren99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete It could be the best and the most downloaded on Wordpress, but that does not make it notable let alone warrant an entry in an encyclopedia. "A big player in the wordpress blog world" yet I fail to find significant, independant notable coverage. The discussions created by the WP:SPA accounts just shows their disrespect for Wikipedia as they blatantly try to use their fan/user base to justify keeping this article. I vote delete. LoudHowie (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Google hits as a reference is rather frightening. Additionally, all of these single purpose accounts make this rather curious. It was also clearly created in a conflict of interest, as the creator's edit summary is "new page for my company, cincopa". These concerns aside, the article is written from a rather non-neutral POV, and it doesn't seem to pass WP:ORG. I wouldn't totally be against doing something along the lines of information in related topics, but that would be likely prone to linkspam or other abuses. Popularity is not a substitute for notability, and I don't think significant, reliable, third-parties have made enough reference to it to confer notability. Lots of issues. Cocytus [»talk«] 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete and salt This article will likely be recreated via a paid editing job from elance dot com with the job entry consisting of I"ve submitted an article about my company to Wikipedia and got many rejects. I'm looking for someone with a track record in wiki (not SPA) to review and fix (non-neutral POV, WP:ORG) the issues and fight an "Articles for deletion" status. the article is not long and most writing is already done. If you understand what I'm asking and believe that you can write compelling cross arguments to the deletion status do reply and we can discuss the article/company name. Enough said. ThemFromSpace 20:39, 29 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 merge is an option as well. Deletion is not an issue so I am closing the debate. Tone 17:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario[edit]

Paper and pulp industry in Dryden, Ontario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

School paper on a non-notable topic; appears to have been graded at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, presumably by the teacher or prof who assigned it. Not encyclopedic content for anything but a Dryden wiki. Orange Mike | Talk 23:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-encyclopedic -Drdisque (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well-referenced and the topic has attracted national attention in Canada. This is not a purely local topic. – Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dryden, Ontario. The topic may not be notable enough for a stand alone article, but it is referenced. It is worthy of a section in the main article. Tavix |  Talk  00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Perhaps the name of the article is awkward and has an obscure sound to it, and perhaps this is covered in another article, but what I see is about a location that sustained significant industrial pollution damage from the source of its jobs. In the United States, this would probably be a Superfund site. The content is encyclopedic enough, and the article may seem bland because of efforts to avoid POV problems, but I think that a new title wouldn't hurt. Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dryden, Ontario, as indicated by Tavix. Pdcook (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - article could use some cleanup, but there is enough well-referenced material here for a standalone article. LadyofShalott 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, per Tavix, but I'd be ok with a keep, as well. The historical importance of the industry in Dryden and its environmental aftermath would greatly add to the main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Agreed with Merge reasons indicated above. LoudHowie (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Eastmain and Mandsford.This already has more than enough content for a standalone article, and it would be outsized for the Dryden Ontariio page if incorporated whole (I've copyedited and added a bit, and the articles are nearly the same size).--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dryden, Ontario. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 02:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dryden, Ontario. --Kevinharte (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While this might have started out as a school project, what we have now is a well-sourced article on a notable topic. The environmental damage caused by this industry is long-lasting, and significant enough to justify its own article. Dryden, Ontario should link here (which it does), not include this level of discussion. The name is unwieldy, but any problems here can be fixed by a much less severe remedy than deletion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable topic, and the article contains a sufficient amount of referenced content to stand as its own page. Would accept a merge as well. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:56, 30 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) 11:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite Image Comparison[edit]

Satellite Image Comparison (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-encyclopedic. Just a page with 2 images on it. Atmoz (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed. Didn't we have this debate somewhere before? William M. Connolley (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-encyclopedic. They took anything back in 2003. Mandsford (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sure what to make of this article - it doesn't seem to have a subject except "hey look at this, cool huh?" Maybe the author is trying to make some point, but it's probably some kind of original research. Nice references, though. – jaksmata 18:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the article does explain what the 2 images represent, I see no significance in this topic. LoudHowie (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unencyclopedic. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not significant and this obviously does not belong in an encyclopedia. ThaLux (talk) 07:44, 30 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 per G11 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 23:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Messina Hof[edit]

Messina Hof (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 just pure spam written by an agent of the vineyard - see Wikipedia:Help_desk#I_was_adding_changes_to_the_website_for_a_Client_and_now_my_page_has_been_deleted. It has been deleted twice before and yet again it has been recreated. It should be deleted and protected to stop its repeated spamming. Biker Biker (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete G11 spam, again, and salt. ukexpat (talk) 22:42, 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. Clear consensus below, no arguments for retention. Hiding T 16:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsonka ball[edit]

Tsonka ball (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. Unreferenced neologism with a sketchy and unhelpful definition. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific American Volunteer Association[edit]

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

Very little references listed on article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 22:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does seem to genuinely exist [3] and has even gotten a little press from other organizations [4] [5] [6]. I agree that this is not enough to hang an article on, but the fraud issue doesn't seem to apply here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a borderline case: It's a stub, and needs references, but the real question is whether the sources show significant coverage or trivial coverage (per WP:ORG). I'm inclined to keep it because of the numerous awards and the large number of people they have at their events. I also think it's possible that significant secondary sources exist, I just haven't found them (they might be in Korean). – jaksmata 20:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pacific American Volunteer Association produces one of the largest Kodak Theater Shows after the Academy Awards, certainly notable. PAVA regularly turns out 5,000 volunteers in a single day, such as at its Los Angeles River Clean Up and Restoration project, and its president is a Los Angeles River Commissioner. PAVA regularly receivs headline coverage in the Korean Press in Los Angeles, which has a polulation of 1 million Korean Americans. PAVA is the largest Korean Organization in Los Angeles, after Korean Veterans. HkFnsNGA (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HkFnsNGA. Crafty (talk) 09:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why was User:Pickbothmanlol indefinitely blocked? User:Pickbothmanlol is the one nominating this article for deletion. How can he change his vote if he is blocked, if his concerns have now been addressed?HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:37, 28 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, rename, and delete redirect.. NW (Talk) 21:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Television news of the civil rights era 1950-1660[edit]

Television news of the civil rights era 1950-1660 (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 history project appears to be quite unremarkable. Malleus Fatuorum 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and obvious rename to "1950 - 1970" in order to make sense. It ought to be expanded in line with other sources, but the topic itself is clearly notable on its face. Collect (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have not-very-boldly moved the page to the correct title. There appears to be enough coverage under GNews, GScholar and GBooks to support notability, although the coverage is fairly narrow. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:16, 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. As DGG points out (and consensus agrees with him), lists can, and most times will, duplicate information of prose-articles in order to allow easier overview and access to information. As such, the nominator has not made a policy-based argument in favor of deletion (problems with sources and references can and should be adressed through editing). Regards SoWhy 10:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hunnic rulers[edit]

List of Hunnic rulers (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 page consists mostly of highly contentious and inadequately-referenced comments; anything of value is already on related pages Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question Which related pages? Should this be redirected to one instead, or cleaned up and kept? It seems like an obvious search term. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and source properly from modern secondary sources. The related pages are the two overlapping articles: Huns and Hunnic Empire--but it is appropriate to provide a chronological listing in a clear format as well as the descriptions there. List articles for the sucessive rulers of a people or nation are always very valuable navigational devices. Incidentally, I see that the frWP and deWP articles on this subject area are probably a little better than the enWP, and might be used to improve them. They both have the advantage of being free from the pervasive influence of the old Brittanica. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that those are the articles Richard referred to then definitely keep per DGG's arguments. This list seems to easily fall under WP:LISTPURP which specifically mentions chronological lists among other things. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm stunned that this seems to be the only list that we have of rulers of the Huns, and that it is so poorly sourced. Sadly, anything of value is not already on related pages. For a people who, at their peak, controlled most of Eastern Europe, the topic hasn't gotten very scholarly coverage. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again suggest delete. I may have been a little too polite earlier, but the only undisputed ruler of all the Huns was Attila, and even he ruled with his brother for some years. I have removed the unsupportable comments that claim members of other later groups as Huns, and a couple of names whose attribution and even existence is dubious. That leaves very little, about tribal rulers of uncertain dates (so somewhat resistant to conventional list format) and, I repeat, the valuable stuff is already in the articles Huns and Hunnic Empire. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:28, 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.
  • Keep I strongly suggest to keep, because, there´s almost nothing about the line os successors. I had a great battle to buy a book about Arpad´s Dinasty and link something to hunnic rulers, here and in Mugel ruler. Tha battle itself, were to find a book from somebody from eastern Europe, who could be reliable. Before this Muageris were never mentioned before. So How the fragments can fit? What´s the criteria to keep or delete? Everybody knows, there´s lot of hidden history, specially in Russia. Strangely, nobody here, descends from people who were under rule of Attila. Guess what, Bulgarians, learn about Attila. Khazars, and hungarians learn about Attila. Different history. We can not use only greek and romanian historiers. I´d like to raise another discussion here. There´s a theory told about Bernard Cornwell, saying a a next generation born people, usually adopts the name of a earlier hero. This is a strong theory, and can be observed till these days. So, if it´s in this way, why there´s so many "Attilas" in Hungary, and an Arpad for example can´t be linked to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenereth (talk • contribs) 00:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Mix (Pink album)[edit]

In the Mix (Pink album) (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 started doing some maintenance to this article then realized it is a bootleg. Article states that the cover art is fan made and the the album "was not announced or released officially, so doesn't deserve to be mentioned amongst P!nk's official album lists". I don't even know what that is supposed to mean or how it makes this the slightest bit notable. The article's original location was Pink: In The Mix (I moved it before realizing what this is), so that would also need to be deleted. - eo (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We're at the point where anyone can take a collection of anything, throw it together and call it an "album". They don't deserve articles, though. DarkAudit (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per WP:NALBUMS, "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." I can not find such coverage, so this bootleg does not appear to warrant an article.  Gongshow Talk 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, for the WP:NALBUMS note above, and second, the note that, per the article, it doesn't deserve listing in P1nk's official album listing. By its own admission, it doesn't belong here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per WP:NALBUMS, this is not notable even as remixes and bootlegs go. Bearian (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the article itself: This is just a fan-created album consisting of previously released material. – jaksmata 22:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not because it is a bootleg, but because it is a bootleg with no coverage by and any WP:RS. J04n(talk page) 02:44, 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. Tone 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Complete Overview of the Slider[edit]

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

While this has references and is doubtless of interest, it is an essay and an opinion piece, and thus has no place here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Slider. The article seems adequately sourced (although in need of re-formatting), but the main article is the place for this information. Tevildo (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no reason to merge or redirect, as the slider article has enough information. This seems to be an essay that was posted on WP. Let's get rid of it. Angryapathy (talk) 21:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above reasons, although some of the information may be of some use in the slider article.Petepetepetepete (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have copied the text here to Talk:Slider/Overview for preservation's sake. There may be valid information here that would be useful in the main article. Feel free to delete that and move this there if history preservation is a concern. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 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 speedy keep. (non-admin closure) @Kate (talk) 06:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smosh[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Smosh (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 WP:WEB or WP:GNG Fbifriday (talk) 19:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, notability conclusively proven in the 2nd afd, see the links there for details. And as I pointed out in the last afd, that they haven't been added to the article is not cause for deletion. FYI- I removed the notaballot infobox for now. Given that nobody has commented in the afd before me, its probably best to assume the good faith of anybody who wishes to comment. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There are tons of references available for Smosh, they just don't appear in the article. Perhaps I'll add a few, though Smosh is not my cup of tea.--Milowent (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a number of references now, as it seems the repeated AfD nominations are simply a good-faith result of the article not having references in it.--Milowent (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This have a number of reliable secondary sources to prove notability. Angryapathy (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball keep. Many and sundry references, including one in Time Magazine, where the subject at hand is not only the primary focus, but the focus of the article. This article has no chance of being deleted given the sources. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per reliable 3rd party coverage for notability. CTJF83 chat 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the extra references that were added, it meets the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (web). --Mysdaao talk 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: I nominated this once before for having a lack of references but when I saw the amount that people had found i withdrew my nomination. Kyle1278 02:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snowball Keep and close - This is really not a WP:WEB violation. December21st2012Freak Happy Thanksgiving! 02:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep same boat as Kyle... I nominated this for deletion and withdrew the nom... after three AfD's one should really look at the AfD history before making a fourth nom. It might be one thing if the AFD's were close or questionable, but each were decisive. I considered closing this myself, but decided that even though there are a ton of keeps already, that my doing so might be perceived as a COI, so voting keep with recommendation for closure.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well hey now, the sources actually look good on this one, I don't see a need to keep nominating it any longer. JBsupreme (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armand Naris[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Prod expired, but article had previously been deleted via Prod. Jclemens (talk) 19:05, 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. Tone 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim D. Keanini[edit]

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


Articles were previously deleted via G11 but that deletion was overturned at DRV following discussion; see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 16. This is a procedural nomination and I am not making any statement as to the content of these articles but will reiterate concerns voiced previously that these articles are primarily promotional in nature and do not satisfy inclusion guidelines for biographies. Shereth 18:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, whoever wrote these appears to know nothing about WP:RS, and I think it's clear they both fail WP:BIO. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these pages as yet another bad-faith attempt by nCircle to abuse Wikipedia for their own promotional purposes. The user (RPelton) who created these has already been identified and banned from Wikipedia editing for being an nCircle shill. RPelton's previous article on nCircle itself has already been deleted for failing to achieve WP:N. These two new articles on Ncircle employees are even worse in that respect. Sfba (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of people who work in technology get quoted in trade rags. that doesn't mean they're notable; it means they have a PR firm or reporter friends. WP:N says the reliable sources in an article need to cover the person significantly and directly, and a magazine isn't covering a guy directly just because they quoted him and 4 other people. KateSelik (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as de-puffed. Collect (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note the new lack of nCircle material in them, removal of blogs as sources, etc. Collect (talk) 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per KateSelik. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as although the sources can be verified and the article content is no longer openly promotional, it still lacks of any signficant coverage or claim to notability for these individuals, just mentions in passing. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:08, 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. Tone 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sex n violence[edit]

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

Unreleased band, whose notability by merit of being composed of members of other notable bands is questionable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Good faith Google search yielded only the WP article, Myspace, Facebook, etc. Perhaps once they actually release an album that charts they will achieve notability. Pdcook (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can not find reliable sources that provide in-depth coverage for this band. As suggested above, the article can certainly be recreated if and when such coverage exists.  Gongshow Talk 21:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – The band does not appear to be independently notable, but it can be redirected to the article of lead vocalist Gene Louis. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:52, 30 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. Tone 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelist O. O. Anumati[edit]

Evangelist O. O. Anumati (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 appear to be notable...does not even have his own search term in google (when you type his name in, it suggests another name). All references are not really references. Also needs to be moved to O.O Anumati (Evangalist) if decision is keep. Tim1357 (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also Article is an autobiography, (creator's name is User:Odubenu and subjects name is O. O. Anumati (Odubenu Okeoghene) Its full of non-NPOV stuff like this Tim1357 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - BLP without any sources, and none can be found. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 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. The added sources have move this from non-notable territory. Kevin (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megarex[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:MUSIC Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megarex (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

...which also has no claim of notability (no charted hits; I am not finding any in-depth critical reviews, but I can't check native-language sources easily). DMacks (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Switch to keep for the band based on sources now listed. Thanks Power.corrupts! If the article is kept, merge and redirect album into it. Cited refs are only brief mention of the release or noting (according to google-translation) how the album is a good example of their style, no independent notability of the album itself. DMacks (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can not find reliable sources providing coverage for this band. Appears to fail WP:BAND.  Gongshow Talk 21:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the sources provided below by Power.corrupts, which WP:NONENG permits (though they're not preferable), I will stay Neutral, as I am not convinced that the band is non-notable.  Gongshow Talk 00:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the creator of this article, I'm against the deletion of this page and I'll try to justify its survival. I know a few people heard about the band outside Brazil. However, it's considered one of the best bands of São Paulo, Brazil, in the last years. I added to the article some references talking about the notability of the band, the most relevant texts I found in the web. So, I think these (the content of the texts) are suficient reasons to give this band articles in Wikipedia. It's important to note that this article contributes to expand knowledgement about Brazilian music and culture.Victor Silveira (talk) 07:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added another source I found. After this, I think the article meets many of the criteria for musicians and ensembles. It surely meets the 1st. According to Megacity sounds source (reference 6 of the article), it meets the 7th. At last, once it was the third place in a internacional festival, confirmed by the site of the festival (added as reference), I think it meets the 9th. Despite almost all of the references are in portuguese, I guarantee it confirms everything that is in the article.Victor Silveira (talk) 09:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps I can be of some assistance to those who cannot find sources. I use Google, in advanced search I mark only Portuguese language [7] - that returns 36,5k hits.
    • "Parque de SP prepara dois dias de atrações musicais". FolhaOnline. February 5, 2008. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- puts them in good company with other notable artists, and mentions their earlier participation in significant and notable events
    • "Comer de madrugada, por Marco Camarano, das bandas Megarex e Mother Funkers". FolhaOnline - Revista. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- additional mention, but article is not accessible without subscription, not an uncommon occurrence in non-English speaking countries
    • "Com o aval de O Teatro Mágico, MegaRex se apresenta no CCSP no sábado, 26.01, São Paulo, SP · 26/1". Overmundo. January 12, 2008. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- a presentation before their performance at Centro Cultural São Paulo, they seem to have won a competitions of sort, I dont understand it well, the source seems to be a blog with editorial oversight, i.e. [WP:RS]]
    • "Projeto Musical Villa-Lobos leva MegaRex e outros artistas para parque, São Paulo, SP · 09/2 a 10/2". Overmundo. February 9, 2008. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- quite obvious that Overmundo is a RS - independent coverage and editorial oversight
    • "Megarex mistura sons e disponibiliza MP3". Território da Música. December 2, 2003. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- they won a semifinals of sorts in 2003, the source seems to be a blog with editorial oversight, i.e. WP:RS
    • "iG Papo: Megarex - Melhores Momentos". TV IG. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- an interview in a TV show
    • "JustTV: Talk Show - Entrevista com a Banda MegaRex e com a Dançarina Nete Salmah - 15/09/09". JustTV (?). September 19, 2009. Retrieved 25 November 2009. -- and oh, another interview on TV
While I have only checked the first 50 Google hits, and followed a lead on one the the newpapers, it would sort of seem safe to assume that the band could reasonable satisfy WP:MUSIC #1, even taking WP:BIAS issues for foreign language sources into account Power.corrupts (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Glad someone who speaks the language of the nation they are in, and would thus get coverage in, took the time to search for news sources. Dream Focus 02:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Power.corrupt, thank you for helping me. I'll add these references you found to the article soon, maybe some hours later. Dream Focus, I'm a little busy at this week, but I'm always looking for any news. Surely, I'll add new sources soon. Thank you for helping me too.Victor Silveira (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article and added the sources Power.corrupt found. Soon, I'll search for some more news sources and I hope I (or someone else) can improve this article.Victor Silveira (talk) 04:58, 28 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. After the rewrite by HkFnsNGA (talk · contribs), consensus is clear that the subject satisfies both WP:N and WP:V. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Lesser[edit]

Louis Lesser (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 smell a hoax. Article makes some grandiose claims that this guy was, among other things, a "mentor to Warren Buffett and Kirk Kirkorian [sic]", and that he worked with U.S. President John F. Kennedy in developing "the largest HUD urban renewal project in the history of the western United States." As such, one would expect a simple Google search to yield all kinds of results, but it yields a bunch of hits to sources of questionable verifiability. KuyaBriBriTalk 17:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Redacted; see below. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I deleted the entire article and rewrote it. Sources for mid century news articles are difficult on the internet, since most newspapers are stored in library microfische, but I sourced all sentences in the new article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete, hoax. The casino stuff, in particular, is easy to disprove, and none of it has reliable sources, of which of course there would be plenty if any of this were true. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Las Vegas is very well documented, both online and off. You claim this person both owned and operated several major casinos during Las Vegas' golden era. Why, then does this person not appear in the indexes of either Las Vegas: A Centennial History or Las Vegas: An Unconventional History? Why is this person not even mentioned in the Las Vegas Online Encyclopedia? Why is this person neither among the Las Vegas Review Journal's First 100 nor even among the hundreds of others nominated for it? Why does the LVRJ's site search show no results for this person? Why does a Google News Archive search for this person's name and the word "Casino" produce nothing related at all? I don't doubt that a person named Louis Lesser exists or did exist, and that there is/was a Louis Lesser Enterprises at some point, but the grand claims stated in the article appear completely unsupported by any reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Starblind is correct that this stuff SHOULD show up, and does not. And Lesser's operations appear to have owned most of the Howard Hughes properties in general, not just those in Las Vegas, and there are unsavory elements of teamster funding in the news stories I have been reading. I will not add any Las Vegas stuff without citations from reliable news sources. I apologize for my initial sloppy article, and hope the newly written one is more according to Wikipdia standards. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Speedy delete G3 (hoax). Clearly the name exists per the secinfo website, but there is no evidence to the accomplishments. I'll tag it momentarily. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modifying !vote to delete and standing down on the speedy. With the facts backing this up, we now know he was a property builder/manager/owner/whatever, and that he is indeed alive. So any statements in the article where truthfulness is anywhere ranging from questionable to simply nonexistant is gone. However, I maintain the delete because the fact that he built some buildings, unto itself, does not make Mr. Lesser any more notable than the average realtor. If some sort of notability can be verifiably demonstrated, I will change my mind. My other commentary still stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are primary sources ergo unusable for the purpose - they're abstracts for company business, and that's not independent of the source. The two news articles - LA Times and NY Times - are a maybe, and might give us a winner for a stub. I'll see if I can research them. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note - I did not call Mr. Lesser a realtor. I used it as a comparative. If I should give advice, it's this: read carefully what people are saying. When you read too fast, you misread things, and it changes everything. Case in point: "ghit" is not a name, rather an abbrev for "Google hits". --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr andstuff) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - author had blanked the page, says he's a new guy in another AFD for Cal Trans Pet Cemetery. See history. -(Rawr and stuff) 17:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That PDF only seems to mention his name, from what I could see. So clearly, again, there is a Louis Lesser, but you still have not provided any concrete documentation per the claims made in the article. You need to find this - there is no argument contraindicating this imperative. -- (Rawr and stuff) 21:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Dennis The Tiger, I hope I have addressed your concerns in my rewrite, where I added LA Times and NY TImes sources, and removed material that I have not yet found proper sources for. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Modifying !vote to keep for the purpose. The article's author has exercised diligence in improving this article and has demonstrated to me that he is willing to improve his work. Also working off of WP:OUTCOMES - if I remember right, this notes that people of extraordinary wealth tend to survive AFD as notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • JFK was killed two years before HUD was established. And I doubt greatly that the largest urban renewal project in the history of west Los Angeles (to say nothing of the entire western USA) involved only 712 housing units, as the article claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a mistake, I said "HUD". I should have said "F.H.A." My apologies to User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for wasting editor time from my own error. But I did not intend any "hoax". Please check the rewritten article to see if I have addressed your concern. Thank You. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete (hoax). There is no evidence of these fantastic accomplishments. I concede that I have not examined the reference pdfs provided by the creator as I can not physically read them. Hazir (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hazir, I hope the New York Times and Los Angeles Times sources I added in my rewrite have addressed your concerns. 23:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


Addressing your concerns, User:Metropolitan90, I removed the SEC sources and only included information that is directly from newspaper articles, not SEC sources. 23:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay. That document plus this and this show that a company called "Louis Lesser Enterprises" existed circa the 1960s, and said company had to do with the development of Barrington Plaza. It's still a long shot to verify that Mr. Lesser was a mentor to Buffett or Kerkorian. If he was indeed a mentor to them, where is even the most trivial mention about him in books written by or about either of them, or in interviews, public speaking appearances, etc. I also highly dispute this claim that he gave the Granada Hills area of Los Angeles its name. That name had been ascribed to the area since at least 1927 [8], while the article claims Lesser has been active since 1935. I also echo Starblind's comment above that the history and development of Las Vegas casinos is well documented; where is even the most trivial mention of Lesser there? KuyaBriBriTalk 19:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another note on the claim that Mr. Lesser named/developed Granada Hills, California ([9]): I just noticed the article shows Mr. Lesser was born in 1916. As I mentioned before, the name "Granada" had been ascribed to the area since 1927, according to area historians [10]. So best case scenario is that Mr. Lesser named and developed the area at the age of 11, and drove a car up the Spanish coast at presumably an earlier age. KuyaBriBriTalk 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kuyabribri, you have convinced me that I got the Granada Hills story wrong. I removed all mention from the artilce. But the story I heard was very vivid in detail, and included photos. I will not put anything in the article without reliable sources again, even with a request for a citation needed. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny... ha ha ha. Now can someone please close this AfD and put an end to this nonsense. I can't believe I wasted 10 minutes on this. SIGH. Hazir (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not put the Trump stuff in the article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ::Even setting aside the obvious silliness of that story, you contradict yourself once again: if he was supposedly born in 1916 as the article claims, he would have been 83 around 1999, by which time the Trump Taj Mahal had been (rather famously) operating for nearly a decade. And Donald Trump's dad, Fred Trump never lived to age 94, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's father died at age 94 per the Wiki article. At that time Lesser was 83. Those are the exact ages in the story I heard. So if the verbal story I heard is true, there should be a sale of two properties from one or two of Lesser's operations to one or two of Trumps in about 1999-2000, but I dont know how to check.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • Be that as it may, then, you need to fix the article, and accordingly, we can deliberate over the facts found. This is where you need to fix the article. The object is to change our minds, and pointing out these details in here doesn't help as much as fixing it, especially when we have mentions of this that seem to be nothing more than random encounters on the surface. If you can find what we need, we'll change our minds. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dennis The Tiger wrote, "pointing out these details in here doesn't help as much as fixing it". I should have listened to User:Dennis The Tiger, but I did not know an AFD discussion lasted more than a few hours, and thought the article would be gone. I hope I have fixed the article enough now that it will not be deleted. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Update: The article creator is now claiming that Louis Lesser has been "erased from history" and that he just recently had "$15 BILLION stolen from him and is now penniless". If true that would have made him roughly the world's 18th richest person, prior to the theft of the $15 billion of course. Odd that the newspapers haven't cared to report any of this... oh, that's right, it's a conspiracy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starblind, if you read the SEC quote above, Lesser was richer than the 18th richest person. Just his holdings in Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc., were $1.5 Billion in 1982, when he left. Read the SEC citations are provided above. Please assume goof faith, especially if you are not going to read the citations provided. 67.101.114.227 (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or stubify The article is a BLP that has some of the worst sources and information I have seen on WP. There are two "references" to authorsden.com, which links the reader to an about an author. The information needs to be sourced, as it looks now, most of the information looks made up with a couple blind refs attached to make it looked sourced. The article needs serious reworking, but deletion might be better. Angryapathy (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - retracting speedy to allow the creator to fix this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as blatant hoax. The fact that the article invokes the names of real people aggravates the problem, it doesn't prevent the article from being a hoax. The article subject couldn't have worked with JFK on a HUD project, for example, because JFK was killed before HUD was established. The inventions in this article are so flagrant and so obviously false that the creator can't be credited with any good faith. When you start googling the details, things fall apart completely; this article is the only Ghit for things like the "Redwood Gulch Redwood Reserve" and the "Thomas Henry Huxley Center." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo is correct', and I made a mistake, but so did the newspaper articles I got it from, because they said "Rattlesnake Creek", when it should be Rattlesnake Gulch, which is the name on the US Geological Survey Map for the "Loma Prieta Quadrangle". I removed the section, until I pull verifiable Santa Cruz County records. I did not cite sources correctly, and will not add the info back in until I do so. HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping on typos shows just how little good faith you have. Here's the search using the exact term used in the article, "Rattlesnake Gulch Redwood Reserve," with no results except the Wikiarticle. [11] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought you input the Google search incorrectly. The newspaper article also used the wrong name. USGS Loma Prieta Quadrangle map says "Rattlesnake Gulch". There is no "Rattlesnake Creek". I removed the information until I get better sources. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article you gave does not so much as mention Louis Lesser. In fact, the word Lesser does not even appear in the article. It mentions Mr. Diesel, and in fact points out a partnership between him and somebody that is not a Mr. Louis Lesser. This WP article, on the other hand, is not an article about Diesel or his ventures, it's about Louis Lesser - and accordingly, you need to turn up data about Louis Lesser. Not Mr. Diesel orh is partner in this affair, but Louis Lesser. I'm struggling to assume good faith here at this point in time because you've turned up nothing we can use and have given us resources that are entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. Now stop wasting time here and turn up something that foots the bill. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as BLP hoax. I don't know if the real Louis Lesser is still alive, but best to speedy delete this for the BLP issues all the same.--Atlan (talk) 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC) See below for my changed vote.--Atlan (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lesser just formed Lesser Diesel in Nevada, as cited in the article and above. He was also just honored at the Hollywood Woken's Club at the annual Rose Breast Cancer Society fundraiser, FOR EXACTLY WHAT IS IN THE ARTICLE, on record as a corporation in the State of Nevada, as cited. I supplied news sources above for every claim. Why are you saying "hoax"? That is not assuming good faith. That is not bothering to read the sources cited above. 67.101.114.227 (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep saying "assume good faith", which I count 7 times in this discussion alone, but you appear to be confused as to what that term means on wikipedia. Our assume good faith guideline does not force us to accept blatantly false or extremely unlikely information about living persons, nor does it prevent us from justly deleting untrue and potentially libellous content. You asked us to disprove the article, and numerous editors have pointed out exactly how this can't possibly be true as written. We asked you to provide reliable sources, and you link to thinks that don't actually support the article and claim that the real sources are unavailable because of some vast conspiracy to have Lesser "erased from history" as you put it. This would be unacceptable in any Wikipedia article, but it's worst of all in a biography of a living person, arguably the strongest policy we have here on Wikipedia. If you have sources that actually support the main points in the article (that Lesser supposedly owned a bunch of casinos and mentored famous people), let's see them. In the meantime, don't accuse other editors of not assuming good faith because they're not gullible enough to swallow this extremely improbable article hook, line and sinker. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as someone who, when you remove the hoax-y bits, itsn't notable. Bfigura (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that parts without reliable sources. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and LA Board of Supervisors all state that Lesser was VERY notable, and I put that info in, so I hope this addresses your concerns. HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm sticking with the WP:HOAX. HW noted the comment that Mr. Lesser buried Ferdinand Marcos in Hawaii - the problem is that he's in a mausoleum in the Phillipines, which completely discredits this. The author of the article is just dragging us along. I'm done feeding him and I exit here to no longer further the contributor's bad case of WP:BALLS. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Marcos was interred on the island of Oahu. Oahu is in Hawaii. But I do not have reliable sources yet to include this, so I took it out.HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I'm not saying anything one way or the other, but a Google News archives search on "louis lesser" returned interesting results. They're almost all PPV from the L.A. Times. DarkAudit (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not paying to investigate those archives further, but the City of Hope Man of the Year in 1961 is confirmed. Someone else will need to give the other articles a going over, but just the abstracts give more credence to the article than I had previously assumed. DarkAudit (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is clear that Mr. Lesser was a real estate developer of some note in Southern California. Not knowing anything about real estate development in Los Angeles during the 1960s, I don't have any frame of reference to determine how notable he was but there is a probably a reasonable debate to be had. That said, User:HkFnsNGA you are doing yourself no favors with the article and with your arguments here. If you will take my advice, the best chance of having this article saved is to disengage completely and let some of the more experienced editors here take a shot at fixing the article before the AFD expires.CosmicPenguin (talk• WP:WYOHelp!) 05:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The best way to fix this article is to delete it and start over, and build up a core of V material, rather than removing the 99% here that is not. DGG ( talk ) 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the article and started over, and tried to built up a core of V material. Have I met your concerns?HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, see below. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I came across this guy's name while researching the Barrington Plaza article. This guy seems largely forgotten but was at one point written about by some very widely read newspapers. It might take a lot of hours of research to untangle his confusing story, but he does seem notable, given the number of sources that exist. Note that the page creator requested I look at this article/AFD via my talk page... but as I'd already been working on the Barrington Plaza article, I was aware of this AFD anyway. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually on further reflection maybe I should say I just don't think the guy is a hoax. He might have been ah, how shall I say it, given to questionable business deals... but he did exist and develop real estate. I think the jury's still out on notability. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean Keep? You struck your "weak keep", but your comment seems to indicate "keep", but keep with the questionable deals, not keep with a whitewashed article.HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is probably not a good idea to mention things which are difficult to verify, like connections with Marcos or the Shah, irrespective of their truth. They obscure the fact that there are several major news source articles specifically on him, which would normally be more than enough to prove notability.John Z (talk) 07:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have found reliable sources on both of these, but I do not want to include them yet, because I think I have not yet read enough to write the full truth on the Shah and Marcos stuff, which may be much less flattering to Mr. Lesser than my original article. By the way, I was a student activist AGAINST both the Shah and Marcos. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has been rewritten with Los Angeles Times and New York Times sources for all claims, addressing concerns of other editors. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrite the article using a standard news source for each claim. I hope this convinces you that Louis Lesser is not a hoax, so you might change your vote. HkFnsNGA (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a hoax, and Notability - See here for much[12]
  • I'm sticking with my delete vote for now, as the article still reads like nothing more than a vanity page. Proving notability doesn't give one carte blanche for such hero worship. I appreciate the effort the article creator has put in to raise the standards of the artice to satisfactory levels, but it's not enough yet. I do think it's a good idea to userfy the article so HkFnsNGA can continue working on it.--Atlan (talk) 00:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Changed my vote once more down below.--Atlan (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atlan, this is not "hero worship", but mix and matches of almost verbatim quotes from the only available news sources. I had a bunch of VERY negative stuff relating to the Shah of Iran, questionable timber practices, and Ferdinand Marcos, but another editor told me to take it out, since my sources were not good. Also, I had stuff relating to the sales of the Casinos to Hughes and Kerkorian, which had Teamster funding stuff, but the same editor suggested I leave it out as too far fetched, and not properly sourced. I don't think that if only positive news sources exist, that is a reason not to have a Wikipedia article on a person who is clearly one of a handful of the biggest developers in US history. I am all for putting the Howard Hughes, Teamster, Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos stuff back in, but then the article will get deleted! HkFnsNGA (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Hero worship" was a figure a speech. In my opinion the article is still written too much in a style, that highlights Lesser's accomplishments to an unacceptable extent. Note that I now wish for the article article to be userfied, which means instead of deleting it, the article will be moved to your personal Wikipedia space so you can keep working on it, until such a time it is ready to be published as an article again. I feel this is fair, because of the time and effort you have put in so far.--Atlan (talk) 00:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sentences in the article were taken from reliable sources, and no negative information was omitted. Which sentences should I fix, and I will do so. Otherwise, what is the basis for calling to delete an article about a person who has had hundreds of national news stories about him? HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is true, then we have a WP:COPYVIO issue. This needs to be fixed. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 09:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No artiocle was copied, but the information came from articles, and was combined into the sentences I wrote. No negative information was excluded. In fact, I am now looking for negative information, since there is all this weird Shah of Iran-Ferdinand Marcos-Jimmy Hoffa-Howard Hughes-JFK-Ronald Reagan- Warren Buffet-Kirm Kerkorian stuff, but it never directly mentions Louis Lesser, and one can only infer things by combining stories into a big picure, which I did not do in the article, since I did not want to be accused of "original research. Another editor seems to have drawn a similar conclusion. It looks to me like many of these buildings were made to house rich people underground in case of a nuclear war, and leave everyone else above ground to die, but that is just my own opinion, now. If you read all of the things I read, you get the feeling that there is something else going on from 1958 to 1982 that is veryn different than just "making money", since one person could not possibly have this many connections to all the bad guys in the world on the American side, without help. But maybe I am wrong, and I did not put any of this in the article.
I should have listened to your suggestion above, to simply fix the article, and not waste my time on this page arguing and responding, but I did not know that an AFD nomination allowed me enough time to do so. Now I am asking you to follow your own suggestion to me, which was a good one, and help fix the article, instead of wasting time here, if there is still something wrong with the article. There is an entire "David Susskind Show", with a young Warren Buffet across from Louis Lesser, but it is not transcribed. I will try to get a copy of the photo of Lesser with young Buffet from the show, but I can't do it until I visit Los Angeles again in a few months.
Is the article now better than when you first criticised it? I can not really find more information in news sources that does not duplicate what is already in the article. HkFnsNGA (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, indeed, and I note that. I'll be posting more to your talk page when I get some time, but the short version is that it still needs a good amount of work - more details and tips will definitely come from others. =) Given this, I'd be inclined to go with a userfy !vote to allow you to work on it without the risk of deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article has been completely rewritten with all unsourced material removed, using only reliable sources. HkFnsNGA (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately that's just not so. I'd reaffirm my delete !vote; this article may concern a living person who's apparently notable, but its history is so riddled with misinformation, and every draft has been so badly sourced, that I doubt there's any version with significant content that doesn't involve BLP violations. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. I am still learning.HkFnsNGA (talk) 03:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'll be looking into more things, but according to http://www.secinfo.com/dv22g.4f8d4.htm , (I quote) "LOUIS LESSER. Mr. Lesser has been a consultant to the Company since 1991 on financing and real estate transactions. Mr. Lesser has successfully

built, owned and operated numerous real estate companies, hotel properties and oil and gas companies since 1935, including Chairman and President of Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. of Beverly Hills, CA, which was listed on the American Stock Exchange." This is in relation to Tri National, which according to the article: "Louis Lesser was the founder and owner of Tri National Development Corporation." The section goes on to refer to 'this wife of 70 years' - should this be 'his (etc)'? As to Zenith Refinery, the only ghits for this connection are this article and http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/ReferencesView.aspx?PersonID=1249224814 . Peridon (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the original Zenith Refinery Public Offering brochure, with a picture of Louis Lesser at the controls (with 1970's sideburns!), but it was deleted by and editor, with no notice to me of doing so, and no warning, and no explanation. Can something be put in that at least says that Zenith Refinery's public brochire from 1975 claimed Lesser was the founder and president? Also, there is a lot of stuf on this in Chinese newspapers, but I don't know how to cite it in this English language Wikipedia.HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that profiles can apparently be added at zoominfo (probably on receipt of the appropriate fee - it is a commercial site). Peridon (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know Zoominfo was a pay to post. I worded it as being self published, but will delete the section if it is not reliable. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's self-published (or editable) it doesn't really matter whether it's pay or not. It's the self bit (or the editable) that counts against reliability. Peridon (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. OK, I did not know and I deleted the whole section.
2. Why was the Public records Special Commendation for Louis Lesser, from the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, and SIGNED by each of them, dleeted? And why is this not a reliable source, since it was signed by each and every Supervisor? It verifies much of the article's information. If it is, can you help me fix getting it undeleted, since it was deleted as a "copyright violation"
3. Also, why is the public record 1963 Annual Report of Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc., audited and signed by Arthur Anderson himslef, not a source, at least a source of what Arthur Anderson and Loiuis Lesser Enterprises claimed and put in the public record to get listed on the American Stock Exchange? If it is, can you help me fix getting it undeleted, since it was deleted as a "copyright violation".
4. Finally, what is the basis of your "delete" vote, and is there anything to change it?HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being acceptable as a source is different from being hosted by Wikimedia. They may be usable for sourcing, but not able to be uploaded in full. The Zoominfo stuff is coming from Creative Environments; if you can get sourcing direct from them, or earlier versions of their site from the wayback machine, that would be usable.John Z (talk) 21:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your time. Do you know how to get the Board of Supervisors Commendation onto Wikimedia Commons, and keep it there, so it can be cited?HkFnsNGA (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The basis of my !vote is that there appears to be little backing for the parts of the article I have investigated so far, and that others haven't found much either. If reliable references are produced - not for Lesser's existence, that appears to be established - for the notability of Lesser and the accuracy of the information in the article, I may well change my mind. Others may too. Sorry, uploading to the Commons isn't in my area of expertise. I must look into it, as I have a photo to upload. Peridon (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vandalized Someone went in and removed all of my uploads, including the upload from the Los Angeles Public County Records the Commendation by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, confirming much of the information in the article. Also, one of those pushing for deleting this article as a hoax was blocked. What is going on here? How can an image from public records be deleted without explanation, and why are all of the sources I put in disappearing? There does appear to be a a hoax, but it is not by me! I spent my own money for this stuff, from the government (and LA Times), to upload it (or cite from it), now it is all deleted without explanation or any notice that it was being deleted. I did not even get a single notice regarding the PUBLIC RECORD Commendation Image being deleted, and there is no discussion on the talk page of edits. Someone smelled a hoax at the top of this page, but the hoax seems to be coming from somewhere else. Why sneek around deleting public record information? Why have a talk page if you are not going to use it. When the New York Times and Los Angeles Times run articles about how notable Louis Lesser is, and he is STILL called a hoax, and I paid my own money to get the articles, and public record information is vandalized, and Wikipedia editors do not follow their own talk page guidelines, and all of this is done in secrecy, I give up. HkFnsNGA (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You uploaded a large set of document images to Commons claiming you held the copyright to them. Just scanning or photographing a document doesn't give you any copyright rights, and you can't give any permission to anyone else to use them. If you'd uploaded content from the LA Times that the paper was selling, that's also a clear copyright violation; buying a copy of a text doesn't give any right to republish it (just try doing that with your Kindle copy of Going Rogue). You really, very badly, should review WP:NFCC and related policy and guideline pages. It's also not generally appropriate to insert images of the (primary) sources you're referencing into the article itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you delete the image of the public record of the Special Commendation from the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors, which lists notable and historic achievements of Louis Lesser? And the references included a signature by Arthur Anderson himself, in a PUBLIC document prepared for listing on the American Stock Exchange. What is wrong with citing this document, and stating that it is the source? The fact that Louis Lesser Enterprises made the claims in its public document, is itself a fact. I changed the wording to state that the claims were made in the Annual REport, not by a newspaper. The Annual REport for the SEC is where the newspapers get their information, so is more primary, and I worded the article so that I said that the information is "according to the annual report signed by Arthur Anderson", or something like that. What Wikipedia guideline does this violate? It is standard in scholarly and academic research to cite a company's own words in public reports, not as facts, but as a claims to facts made by the company. Furthermore, there are historic photographs in the public annual report made for the SEC. It is NOT copyrighted, and you deleted it as a copyright violation, without bothering to notify me. HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did't delete anything. I raised the issues related to improper copyright tagging at Commons, and an administrator there deleted the images in question. You can't just create images of documents then upload them claiming to control the copyrights, because you don't control the copyrights. You need to show that the images meet Wikpedia's requirements for the use of non-free content. Public documents aren't necessarily public domain documents -- for example, when somebody sued JK Rowling over the Harry Potter books, the books went into court files as public documents -- but that didn't mean that Rowling lost the copyright to them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think many originally thought this was a hoax, but I do not believe that anyone NOW thinks Louis Lesser is a hoax. Instead, I think a small handfull of editors like giving others a hard time, instead of helping them just a little. It is not required, but the TINIEST bit of help, especially with uploading the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors Commendation, and its many findings, or uploading of the 1963 Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. Annual Report, with its Arthur Anderson Co. wealth of information (signed by Arthur Anderson himself, certainly a reliable source if there is one) would save everyone here much time, since most claims in the article, would then be well sourced, by Arthur Anderson, and the SEC, which listed Louis Lesser Enterprises, Inc. on the American Stock Exchange. The Tiniest bit of help... I am striking my accusations of vandalism, but it seems clear that some people on this page like fighting over nothing, when a TINY bit of help would end ANY controversy, and it is clear that some take pleasure in making others do meaningless work for no reason, and then fighting over a tehcnicality, when the content could easilty be indisputable, but for the tiniest help to someone who does not know technical details of Wikipedia.
  • As the nominator, I am changing my position to neutral as my original rationale for deletion as a hoax is no longer valid in light of changes made to the article since the nomination. However, I do believe there is still a lingering question over whether the subject qualifies under WP:N that needs to be addressed. I'm going to remain on the fence in that debate, as I believe this individual is borderline. KuyaBriBriTalk 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I think the article is now sufficiently documented. It still remains in a style that is usually considered promotional, and that continues to some extent to influence a reader's first impression of the reliability. The next step is to remove the adjectives and terms of praise, following the advice in WP:PEACOCK. We say something is important by saying what it is, not by using words like "pioneering. whatever, and "many historic figures". I think it's unfortunate that the attempt at showing the significance managed to be so over-extended as to give an opposite impression. the style for a Wikipedia article is what is expected of an encyclopedia: plain , dull, and descriptive. If I have time tomorrow morning, I'll indicate this more clearly, by reworking some of it. DGG ( talk ) 06:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will follow your lead if you make the first couple of changes. You can leave my boldface joke in the Phillips Ranch section after the opium den. The information is exactly accurate, but I am not sure jokes are appropriate, and a rewording may be appropriate. You might call the wording WP:ANTI-Peacock. I am not sure I am so impressed by some of the business dealings listed on the talk page, but they should stay there until reliably sourced. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • V Weak keep if trimmed considerably. There seem to be very few distinct references, almost all come down to 3 very old articles in the LA times that are repeated ad nauseam and that are locked so they are hard to check. Lesser may be worth 1/2 a page but not this much detail. (in short, we need lesser Lesser) NBeale (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Request of User:KuyaBriBri moved to this page for comments of others if I am still doing it wrong]

[editing Section moved here for comments from others if I am still doing it wrong]

  • Keep This is a real person, who got significant media coverage for his work. If there is anything in the article that someone doubts the accuracy of, tag it and discuss on the talk page. Dream Focus 17:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I deleted unsourced things as best as I could, and I added these reliabel sources instead -
  • 1. LA Times, December 17, 1950, “Active Week Puts Tract’s Sales Past $3,750,000”
  • 2. LA Times, October 9, 1954, “Subpoena in Quiz Faced by Builder”
  • 3. Los Angeles Times, Feb 10, 1957
  • 4. LA Times, August 3, 1958 “Overseas Unit of Constructino Company Set”
  • 5. LA Times, October 3, 1958
  • 6. Los Angeles Times, October 25, 1959
  • 7. LA Times, March 13, 1960,
  • 8. Los Angeles Times, January 16, 1961
  • 9. Los Angeles Times, March 26, 1961
  • 10. Los Angles County Board of Supervisors, Resolution, April 9, 1961
  • 11. Los Angeles Times, Oct 15, 1961
  • 12. Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1961 “Board Asks Full Study of Shelters”
  • 13. Los Angeles Times, December 3, 1961 “Businessman Appointed to CD Group”
  • 14. New York Times, September 23, 1962
  • 15. LA Times, March 3, 1963
  • 16. New York Times, March 16, 1963
  • 17. Arthur Anderson, Arthur Anderson Co., Audit of Louis Lesser Enterprises, September 13, 1963
  • 18. LA Times, September 22, 1963
  • 19. Los Angeles Times, November 15, 1964
  • 20. LA Times, September 18, 1966
  • 21. LA Times, February 27, 1970
  • 22. LA Times, Septemeber 20, 1970, Al Delugach, “Morris Shenker: The Money Mover”
  • Even new sources put in article
  • many major newspapers in 20 years added, all for different things. This shuold show Louis Lesser is not a "hoax" and is "notable" HkFnsNGA (talk) 20:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an awful article, but the sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 02:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Huge number of reliable sources indicate this is a notable subject. The aticle needs a lot of work but is interesting and rescuable. I can help improve it if it survives AFD. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 04:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My current position is Neutral following rewrite by creator and confusion on my part as to what the heck is going on here.... The article is looking more reasonable, but I'm still a bit worried about where all the junk came from. Why should there be so much stuff that smacks of Walter Mitty or blame shifting or whatever? Peridon (talk) 11:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Mitty has a Wikipedia article, and would be an amateur compared to Lesser if Lesser is a hoax! User:Peridon, more seriously, what have you found on the Tri National stuff, and could you add what you found to the Lesser article for others to expand on? I can not figure any of it out, except that something very fishy went on, possibly fishy enough to merit an enire Wiki article on Tri National Development alone. HkFnsNGA (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be at home tomorrow. Will look again if I am. (The office will ring me at 9.00 now to go to London...) Peridon (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The subject is clearly notable and very well documented, far more so than many who have survived AfD challenges and remain on Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
  • Alright, I don't think I've ever reconsidered my vote twice in one AFD before, but here you go: Keep this article. Again, I appreciate the work the creator has put into this article to address the concerns voiced here, but it definitely needs some clean-up by someone further removed from the subject. The creator is, at the very least, an admirer.--Atlan (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser/Testing, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louis Lesser/Strikethrough
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009-10 South Florida Bulls men's basketball team[edit]

2009-10 South Florida Bulls men's basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not clear that a team that does not have its own article should have its own season summary page. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following comment was added to the talk page by Smcollin33 (talk · contribs). It has been transcluded here to provide a unified discussion of the matter. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

  • I started the page today (Nov 23), using the format from the Louiville page. I am working on changing the content, as well as creating a team page. It's a work in progress and I ask for some patience. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcollin33 (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - that's not a valid reason for deletion. Pats1 T/C 21:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What is the notability standard for college teams and their season pages? Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not the issue the nominator brought up - it was that there is no South Florida Bulls article. Pats1 T/C 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent of other NCAA Division I teams. I don't think it matters that a team page has not yet been created. Location (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Exactly. Pats1 T/C 03:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with that. Someone is certainly welcome to create a page called South Florida Bulls men's basketball, but there's no rule that such a page has to be created before an article about the 2009-10 season is made. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No rule that says a program's article MUST come before an article on a specific season. Nominator has not provided a valid reason for deletion.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:33, 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 Speedy Delete G7 by User:Willking1979. Non admin closure. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Trans Pet Cemetery[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not news KuyaBriBriTalk 17:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not news.
  • It was the subject of the keynote address by the president of the Association for Engineering Geologists in 2003, which is six years ago.
  • It was a news story in 2007, 2 years ago.
  • The "Cal Trans Pet Cemetery" received international news coverage as such, and is cited by the Association of Engineering Geologists as the singel biggest example of "junk science" in the courts by its former presdident.
  • "Cal Trans Pet Cemetery" is the name given to any government pollution scandal, based on the severity of the pollution problem.
  • "Cal Trans Pet Cemetary" is cited at hearings before Boards of Supervisors around the country.
  • I am a new editor. Please give me guidance as to why this story is not significant enough.
  • Perhaps the entire article should be moved to the Cal Trans article, but compared to Cal Trans itself, it is small, but for major government pollution scandals, it is big. Please let me know what you think is best. I think it should be a small section in Cal Trans, and a big one in its own article.

Thank you . HkFnsNGA (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going with Delete here. To HkFnsGNA, there is a note on your talk page welcoming you to Wikipedia - you'll find some guidelines on how to create an article. In the meantime, I hate to say it (for fear of sounding like I'm coming off biting the newbie above), but the long and the short of it is that the article is best stricken and started over. Not the best form at all, and comes off initially sounding WP:COATRACKish. Furthermore, citations need to be better, and to be frank, the above statements need to be backed up with evidence. I hate to say it, but being a native Californian (and a road geek at that) and not hearing about this, it raises my eyebrows. If anything I'd be for userfying the article for the new guy so he can work on it in background and then later repost it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:51, 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. Tone 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budget Cuts in Goochland County, VA + Athletics[edit]

Budget Cuts in Goochland County, VA + Athletics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POV essay, WP:COAT, not an encyclopedic topic but apparently someone using Wikipedia to advance his/her point of view. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete reads like an excerpt from somebody's letter to the editor. Even if de-POV'd and wikified, this is still a minor budget matter of local interest that is best covered in the back pages of the local newspaper, not an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an OpEd, and I'm sorry that these budget cuts are happening - you have my sympathies - but this is neither a complaint board, your school board, or the Opinion-Editorial section of your local newspaper. This material is best left in those places. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, not an encyclopaedia entry. noq (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, clearly not encyclopedic. JBsupreme (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dennis Tim1357 (talk) 17:28, 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. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let Us Win This War[edit]

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

WP:N. Individual album articles for this band are not notable until someone creates a full article for the band itself, which would then establish some amount of notability. There is little or no notability now. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:39, 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 speedy delete per CSD A9 by User:JamieS93. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol of Triumph[edit]

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

WP:N. Individual album articles for this band are not notable until someone creates a full article for the band itself, which would then establish some amount of notability. There is little or no notability now. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 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. Tone 17:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WatchIndiaTV[edit]

WatchIndiaTV (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 fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM.

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; non-notable and sources given are insignificant. Haakon (talk) 16:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Spammy, only sources seem to be press releases. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keepWeak keep The sources are clearly not press releases, did you read them? The company is the first to broadcast Indian content via the web to reach elsewhere. It also is in multiple independant sources receiving substatial coverage. The advertising material has also been cleaned up. This is clearly a notable internet television station.--TParis00ap (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)Switching to neutral - If the company didn't pay for so much advertising, maybe it would be easier to find actual coverage. As it stands, the 1 ref that isnt a press release and the fact that the company is the first of it's type is my only reason for keeping.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two of the sources are clearly press releases: [13] and [14]. The third source, [15], is mainly a press release-like "In their own words" section -- not independent, and certainly not significant. That's all the sources accounted for. If you can list some of the multiple independent sources, it would be helpful. Haakon (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your right about the first two, that was my oversight. There were plenty of hits on google, I am sure I can find more references.--TParis00ap (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good deal. Keep us posted as to whether you find anything and change the article accordingly. I'll change my mind if it meets up. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've actually given up now. I spent a good half hour searching for sources and most of them are paid advertisements meant to read as reviews. I believe I've done as thorough a job as possible by anyone. I've appropriately changed my !vote to weak keep as noted above.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Feh, that's a shame. May very well be too new. Not an uncommon thing, it's not going to be notable overnight. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:ORG. Article is simply promotional with no useful content and not much likelihood of improvement. Johnuniq (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:SPAM. 2 press releases and a blog post != WP:N. Additionally, self-serving claims of "first!" contained in self-published sources fail WP:V. cab (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:22, 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 speedy delete per CSD A9 by User:JamieS93. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conquerors Divine[edit]

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

WP:N. Individual album articles for this band are not notable until someone creates a full article for the band itself, which would then establish some amount of notability. There is little or no notability now. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:32, 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 speedy delete per CSD A9 by User:JamieS93. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 23:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken Pagan Gods[edit]

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

WP:N. Individual album articles for this band are not notable until someone creates a full article for the band itself, which would then establish some amount of notability. There is little or no notability now. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:27, 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 all deleted under the speedy deletion criterion A9. JamieS93 22:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Power of Metal Compels You[edit]

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

WP: CRYSTAL and WP: N. Band does not have its own article and there is no information given on when this album will be released, or by what label. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. There is no consensus to delete this page but rather to keep the information, although there is no consensus whether to do so in a stand-alone article or by merging the content. This can be discussed on the relevant talk pages though and is not hindered by the outcome of this AFD as "keep". Regards SoWhy 10:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devonshire House Preparatory School[edit]

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

Possible non-notable independent preparatory school; references are mostly weak, consisting mainly of passing mentions in press-releases/newsletters that don't meet the "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources" required by WP:N. The inspection report is fine, but I'm not sure that by itself it's enough to meet the GNG (which specifies "sources" plural). EyeSerenetalk 15:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources are valid, I think. The charity work is notable and widespread. If you read the coverage several of these articles have long sections describing how the School has raised funds and how the School works with these charities - such as the hospital in India. I do not feel these are trivial, superficial references. There are many other references for the charity work that the school encourages that are not cited in the article to keep it short. Taken together I think this would constitute significant coverage alternative coverage to the ISI report. I hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.235.194 (talk) 16:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that primary schools are generally regarded as not notable because they don't usually receive the sort of widespread, in-depth coverage that establishes notability. Every school I'm aware of raises money for charity, so unless there is some unique distinction about your school, as opposed to other similar schools, then I don't believe it warrants a stand-alone article. DDG's suggestion below of a merge into our article about Hampstead might be the best solution. EyeSerenetalk 09:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As per 193.195.235.194... A reference is a reference. Smithers (Talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend towards delete. Schools raising money for charity? I'd say that would need a little more in the way of citation than self promotion and the websites of charities the money's being raised for. Otherwise I'd suggest this means just about any organisation which gives enough to charity to get a mention on a couple of websites or newsletters becomes notable. I might be more convinced if a case were made that it has secondary age pupils. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough notable Rirunmot 00:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
  • merge to the location as usual for primary schools. There is absolutely nothing notable shown. The charity gifts might be notable if covered by independent RSs. This is one place where the GNG makes some sense. DGG ( talk ) 06:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to List of schools in Hampstead per usual practice for primary schools without a clear claim to notability. Such core details as can be independently sourced should be merged. TerriersFan (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]




  • Article updated Up to this point I find myself actually agreeing more and more with a deletion or a merging of this article since I can now see that, so far, the references are not adequate. I agree - a charity publishing the receipt of funds is clearly not really independent. Of course a lot of schools do excellent charitable work, but I do think the scale and nature of the charity fund raising at this school is notable, although I agree the references so far aren’t adequate. I have therefore added three further references to the article. The first two concern funds raised for the victims of the Asian Tsunami. One of the pupils was involved in the Tsunami and survived. These are interesting but again the first reference may not really meet the criteria for a good reference since it is the Sri Lankan Government (who received the funds - same problem as above). The second is from the Sri Lanka Daily News which is apparently Sri Lanka's national daily newspaper - established in 1918. I have no way of being totally sure that this is reliable, but it could well be. However I think the third reference is definitely valid. This is a news story in the well-established Hampstead and Highgate Express regional newspaper (the Ham and High) which had a story about the pupils recording music with singer Beverley Craven for charity. Since the ISI inspection report reference appears to be accepted as valid then surely the decision hangs on whether Ham and High article is a valid second reference and Sri Lankan newspaper is a valid third reference. Maybe that's too simplistic an approach but I think the Ham and High news story clearly meets the standards of an independent, verifiable and reliable source and the Sri Lankan Daily News probably meets the criteria and shows that coverage isn't just local. The article should be kept.


Here are the first two articles on the Asian Tsunami

Government of Sri Lanka http://www.priu.gov.lk/news_update/Current_Affairs/ca200503/20050318kadirgamar_on_sri_lankas_foreign_and_security_policy.htm

Sri Lankan Daily News http://www.dailynews.lk/2005/03/19/news03.htm

Here is the Ham and High news story on the music recording (sorry it's upside down!) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Ham_%26_High_14_June_2002_Devonshire_House_Singing_With_Beverly_Craven.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.235.194 (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment There are more articles covering the school in both the Ham and High and the Camden New Journal which aren't picked up by the Google News system. I can dig them out if they would help? In any case if there is still doubt about the acceptability of this article, would it be possible for this discussion to be relisted so that the AfD editors can asses the quality of all the new evidence?86.151.0.44 (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Updated I have added coverage of school run congestion (in the Independent) and coverage of the response from the school (in the Camden New Journal).193.195.235.194 (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Updated I have added the Alumni section to show potentially notable academic success with senior schools which have competitive entry. Since the school's inspector (the ISI) doesn't give a grade 1 (like OFSTED) or Blue Ribbon award (for both primary and secondary schools in the US) there is no clear-cut sign as to notability. However the performance of the school's Alumni does suggest academic notability, perhaps?193.195.235.194 (talk) 15:56, 30 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. Tone 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect Call from Mars[edit]

Collect Call from Mars (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 per WP:MUS. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 14:39, 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. NW (Talk) 21:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RHUB[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable company; article written by single purpose account who is the CTO of the company. Unable to find any significant coverage of this company. Articles on RHUB have been repeatedly put into Wikipedia by other SPAs and then deleted; see logs [16], [17], [18], and [19]. Haakon (talk) 14:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep COI and neutrality issues aside, this company meets the notability requirements for WP, per Google News hits. Article needs work, but does not warrant deletion. Angryapathy (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change to delete I now see the conflict of interest, and agree that this article should be deleted. If RHUB is notable enough, someone without a COI will write the article. As it stands, the editor is not following WP policies with WP:VERIFY, even with the userspace revamp. This article is not being created for WP or for the public, but instead only for the CTO of the company. Ergo it doesn't belong on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 429 Google hits, mostly to self-published press-releases, makes the company notable? Haakon (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • [20], [21], [22] are a few articles that discuss RHUB. There are a ton of PR releases, but the company seems to be getting secondary press. It's not strong notability, marginal at best, but I believe it meets the threshhold. Angryapathy (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunatly those seem to be paid/press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. --Hu12 (talk) 06:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Conflict of interest is not a valid reason to delete an article. I had already declined speedy deletion as the article contained what is potentially encyclopedic information (assuming there is any indication that the company is notable; if it clearly wasn't then I would have just changed it to a {{db-corp}} template). snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete History of spamming WP by former org. members with article removed (twice) as spam. A new group of SPAs using similar names now appear re-adding this article and promoting it on other articles. Unless this article reflects neutrality (which it does not) and notability (which is marginal), recommend deletion. Calltech (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, yet another tech business, and unambiguous advertising: Soon the two founders found that the market needed an appliance solution for web conferencing to facilitate deployment, improve security and eliminate monthly subscription costs to end users. After several rounds of trials and errors, they settled down the hardware selection --- an embedded Linux-based communication device, which is not only reliable but also cost effective and consumes less than 4.5 watts power. In the same year when the product was shipped to the market, it was recognized as one of "2007 Tech Innovators Finalists". Let's put some teeth in it! - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete, it is clear I don't need to spend any time on this subject. Please remove my article.

  • Follow up I feel I am obligated to share some thoughts through this frustrating experience with Wikipedia from my first article. I do this not to beg you to restore my article. I am done with it and I had attached too much unnecessary emotion and time to it. I do it simply because I love this community. (I have been one of donors to appreciate the values to me as a reader.) I hate to see it heads to a wrong direction.

What is the real value of this community? It is the knowledge sharing! Yes, you do need to excise rules to ensure the quality and I fully respect it. However, the whole debates with you indicate the core value of this community is forgetting. I have asked repeatedly to help me on my article, the merit of my work to the readers. But I have not received a single word from any of you during the entire debate. So it appears to me that rules are in the first place and knowledge is secondary, in a distant secondary place.

Also, it is frustrating to see instead of honoring people’s honesty and dignity, the debate takes advantage of it. I tell the truth of my motivation and explain how the mistakes have been made. That has been taken into the debates everywhere loudly and I look like a stupid spammer. Note that each author has their own motivation, good or bad. Do you have to look into their motivation in order to validate the knowledge, the core value, to share? Why does motivation really matter after all?

Please stay with the core value of this community --- the knowledge sharing.

Best wishes to Wikipedia. Jmao1 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • FYI The following is part of an article by Daya Baran at November 23, 2009

"Volunteers have been departing Wikipedia “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” faster than new ones have been joining. In the first three months of 2009, the English-language Wikipedia suffered a net loss of more than 49,000 editors. One of the reasons is that Wikipedia contributors have been debating widely what is behind the declines in volunteers.

....

Many volunteers are leaving because they feel as Wikipedia ages many rules have sprung up and it is less freewheeling and collaborative and more like a traditional organization with hierarchy and rules."

RULES! RULES!! RULES!!! We are lost in those fuzzy and double standard rules.

Jmao1 (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is ranked 6th in the world (alexa rankings) and has 11,075,028 users (as of this post). Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site for their own profit or adjenda. This this is the case here. It is also true that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia, but are here for your own comercial and financial adjenda (ie RHUB). Perhaps you see your contributions as some sort of "volunteering", or helping wikipedia out in some way. I would hate to think that your adjenda and "Wikipedias rules" interfered somehow with your marketing attempts. --Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jmao1 (talk) 03:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Jmao1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I got the number from clicking Angryapathy's "Google News hits" link. I see that there are better search terms to use, but none of them yield the kind of significant third-party coverage needed to be cited by encyclopedia articles such as on Wikipedia. I also think your comment is a strong self-indictment and should be taken into consideration by the closing admin. You are specifically not the best person to write the article, since you have a fundamental conflict of interest. Moreover you indicate that your efforts are driven by analysis of the promotional effect of Wikipedia articles, and that driving traffic to your company's website is specifically your goal. Haakon (talk) 08:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote RHUB Communications, Inc. Accounts used for promotion are strongly discouraged, and as such have Unintended Consequences. Your contributions to wikipedia under Jmao1 and the multitude of meatpuppets you've admitedly paid to Seed wikipedia with RHUB related articles, is considered WP:Spam.
RHUB Communications, Inc article spam
Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote RHUB Communications, Inc.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete; non-notable Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Also this is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia--Hu12 (talk) 06:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review my response in the above for the spam accusation. Jmao1 (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would this have been mentioned without the previous deletions? snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Jmao1 removed the parts where he pointed out the desired promotional effect, so for prosperity, it can be read here. Haakon (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although there is a conflict of interest, this seems to be someone who understands that the previous versions were not suitable and has attempted to create something more appropriate. snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunatly seems to be less transparent than we were lead to believe. These two accounts are the same, Jmao1 (talk · contribs) = Jadore126 (talk · contribs) and is responsible for the bulk of re-creations. Its clear the Jmao1 account was created after multiple article deletions under the Jadore126 account. Here is log data;
(Modified/shortened for readability)
  • 06:02, 22 November 2009 N RHUB ‎ (←Created page with '{{Infobox_Company | | company_name = RHUB |
  • 23:59, 16 November 2009 N Web conferencing appliance ‎ (←Created page with 'Web Conferencing Appliance
  • 23:50, 12 November 2009 . . RHUB Communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
  • 00:06, 12 November 2009 . . Rhub communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
  • 21:22, 9 November 2009 . . Rhub communications (←Created page with 'RHUB Communications
  • 22:41, 6 November 2009 . . Web conferencing appliance (←Created page with 'A Web Conferencing Appliance
  • 20:17, 22 July 2009 . . RHUB Communications (←Created page with 'Rhub
None of the above re-creations were by a contract marketing firm as previously professed. Seems only this one version, potentialy might have been. While the user attempted to create something more appropriate, the omision of sock accounts and multiple recreations gives one pause.--Hu12 (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep there is some notability, although it is marginal. I think that the discussion about deletion should depend on the notability of the subject, and assuming it is notable, whether the content is appropriate (e.g. whether it is verifiable, and not defamatory or consisting of promotion without information), and should not depend on the motivation of the creator of the article. snigbrook (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. In due course the company may become notable and a new article can be created then, meanwhile Wikipedia should not be used for promotion. Johnuniq (talk) 08:41, 28 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CampusIT[edit]

CampusIT (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 company that does not meet WP:CORP guidelines for notability for companies. The article started as a copy of material from the company's web site. Almost all references in the article are primary sources from the company web site. The two exceptions (at time of nomination) are a listing in a business directory and a listing as an exhibitor at a trade show; neither of which establish notability. A search of Google News shows [23] that there area couple of articles behind pay walls that appear to be related to their implementation at the University of Glamorgan. But even if we assume that the coverage in these articles are not just mere mentions, this represents very sparse coverage for a company. Whpq (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another of the endless series of minor tech businesses: student management solutions to education institutions in the UK and Ireland. No inkling of technical or historic significance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only an advertisment User:Lucifero4
  • Delete only references are to its own website, or yellow-pages like mentiones. Nothing except for fleeting mentions of it in secondary sources, from what I've seen from a brief look on google. Tim1357 (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an ad, no credible coverage LoudHowie (talk) 22:09, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork (band)[edit]

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

I have declined an A7 speedy on this on the basis of another editor's plea on the talk page that "I feel that this article does, at least partially, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for one reason only: the band's music has been featured on the well-known show The Hills," so that it should go to AfD rather than be speedied. In fact the article only claims that a song written by two of them is "soon to be featured" on The Hills: it is not clear that this band will perform it and, with their debut album "TBA", I think they anyway fall well short of the standard required by WP:BAND. JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This band may be on it's way to notability, but at this time they have not achieved the threshold for inclusion on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources that demonstrate the band's notability. Maybe one day, but for now fails WP:MUSIC. sparkl!sm hey! 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find no coverage for this band. Article can certainly be recreated if and when the band becomes notable, but at this time they do not appear to meet WP:BAND.  Gongshow Talk 19:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incidentally, I was the editor who requested that the A7 speedy be declined and that the article should go to AfD, stating that "I feel that this article does, at least partially, meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for one reason only: the band's music has been featured on the well-known show The Hills...". However, as this is the band's only claim to fame, the band's article does not fully meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Therefore, it should be deleted. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The speedy is contested, fair enough, but this definitely does not have the coverage warranted to meet WP:BAND criteria. JBsupreme (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mandsford !vote needs consideration and probably some wider discussion should be started to determine whether such articles should exist in general or for only specific countries/days/subjects/etc. Unfortunately for him, the consensus in this AFD is pretty much unanimously in favor of deletion, so there was no way to close this any other way. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1975 Australian network television schedule (weekday)[edit]

1975 Australian network television schedule (weekday) (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:INDISCRIMINATE. We are not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. Ironholds (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Pretty colours, though. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 08:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason to treat Down Under differently than the U.S. of A. Since examples of previous consensus are being cited as setting some type of precedent, then see this and this and this. My recollection is that when American television schedules have been nominated, the consensus on that sort of thing is clear, only it's in the opposite direction. Mandsford (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per my previous comments - Australia did not have national TV networks in the 70s.The-Pope (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't there, but my understanding is that there were networks starting in the early 1960s, and that whatever was on Channel 9 in Melbourne would be on Channel 9 in Sydney, and that the same company would take Channel 9 when going into a new area. I don't know if the "Nine Network" and the "Seven Network" etc. owned stations around Australia, but assuming that they did, I would be surprised if they had left it up to each affiliate to make its own programming. In American television of that era and later, the general rule was that there is network programming in morning and afternoon blocks (news, game shows and soap operas), and local programming (syndicated shows and local news and kids' shows) during the noon hour and late afternoon. Mandsford (talk) 15:45, 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. The participants in this discussion cannot agree on whether the sources and archievements, that exist and are not doubted by anybody, make this subject notable or not. As such, there is no other viable option than to close this as "no consensus" but with a sentiment amongst the participants that further improvement is probably needed. Regards SoWhy 10:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K. K. Karanja[edit]

K. K. Karanja (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 is someone who was once a promising young chess player. He apparently abandoned the game shortly after obtaining the National Master title from the United States Chess Federation. The player's current rating (from January 1990) is 2193, just below National Master (2200) level. (Go here and type in Karanja.) There are probably over 100,000 players in the world stronger than that. According to this article, "[i]t is unknown whether he still plays". In addition, an examination of the sources cited in the article shows that many of the statements about Karanja's chess achievements are not supported (note the "citation needed" tags throughout the article).

Karanja's 2193 rating places him far below the Grandmaster level, which members of WikiProject Chess generally accept as notable; the International Master level, which may be notable, particularly if one has other achievements (for example, as a writer or chess coach), e.g. John L. Watson, Mark Dvoretsky); and even the FIDE Master level, which generally is not considered notable unless one has substantial other achievements (for example, as a writer, e.g. Graham Burgess, Eric Schiller). Karanja's rating is slightly below that of Pete Karagianis, who was recently deleted as non-notable after a unanimous vote. In addition, Karagianis had been Iowa State Champion twice, and had written about chess.

The article describes him as a "prodigy", but his achievement of attaining the National Master title before age 16 pales in comparison to players like Ray Robson and Fabiano Caruana, who qualified for the Grandmaster title before age 15, or even Kayden Troff, age 11 (possibly 10, depending on when his birthday is), who recently achieved a 2215 FIDE rating. I do not think that Karanja's achievements as a young player, in the absence of any career after age 16, are sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. Krakatoa (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are the following reasons this article should not be deleted:

1. He drew with the World Chess Champion (Garry Kasparov, arguably the greatest chessplayer of all-time) in a simul while only a teenager -- a feat accomplished by only one other person at the time (who has his own Wiki site).
2. As winner of the Laura Aspis Prize, he is automatically notable as being the top chessplayer under age 13 in the United States. That alone is notable; having been African-American and accomplishing the feat helped contribute to his pioneering status.
3. Winning the National Elementary Championship cemented his status as a prodigy; him being the first African-American to win the penultimate elementary championship in the United States, in combination with his other achievements makes the history of chess incomplete without his inclusion.

I agree that his current rating and status do not make him notable; however, neither does the status of Joshua Waitzkin, Vinay Bhat, Patrick Wolff, Stuart Rachels, Ilya Gurevich, Maurice Ashley, or Tal Shaked. What makes Karanja notable is the same thing that makes each of these people notable: their pioneering accomplishments during their peak playing days.

For these reasons, this article should not be deleted. I warmly welcome others to contribute to it in order to make it a better piece, hopefully with the same fervor and energy as those who desire to see it removed.

Please feel free to ask any further questions. Thank you. Shotcallerballerballer (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>the famous book and movie Searching for Bobby Fischer were written about him. </snip> ... you failed to mention that his (Josh's) father wrote the book. Gee, I could get my dad to write a book about me. I could bribe the newspapers to make articles about me. Would that make a notable or newsworthy person (No Josh Bashing intended)? - 75.159.103.161 (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - for the time being, based on coverage he received at the time. But there are many things that need to be referenced, some material seems to be opinion, and things such as him inspiring non-notable (i.e. no WP article) players needs to stay out. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 00:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum - I think more goes into notability of a chess player than just the height that they achieve. K.K. got a lot of coverage at the time. He was even a guest commentator in the TV coverage of a world championship match. Many people remember his name and may come to Wikipedia to look him up. On the other hand, there are probably over 1,000 grandmasters with articles that I've never heard of. For comparison, the chess project has about 3,250 articles. K.K.'s article is the #515 most frequently read, being read 22 times per day. In contrast, Artashes Minasian is a grandmaster but his article is #1500 on the list and is read about 5 times per day. Ernesto Inarkiev is #1498 - another grandmaster I've never heard of. And there are about 1,750 chess articles that are less-frequently read than that one - a large number of which are grandmasters who almost none has ever heard of.
    • I don't think drawing Kaspy in a simul or winning the Laura Aspis Prize makes him notable; and I don't think that winning the US Elementry school championship necessarily makes one a prodigy. If that was true, we would have some new prodigies each year like clockwork. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Krakatoa's analysis. Regarding the points made for inclusion: (1) Drawing against Kasparov in a simultaneous exhibition does not equate to notability. In fact, there are only a few cases where beating a champion at a simul gives a person a place in chess history (John Lindsay McCutcheon being one of them), so I cannot see that drawing a master can yield much notability either. While Karanja may have been the first person at the time to manage that feat, it is not unique. In fact there is one player in my hometown of Bergen who managed to draw Kasparov in 2000, and who doesn't have an article either. (2) While I feel that winning a national championship is enough for notability, I cannot hold the same true for the age-restricted Elementary School championships. Winning an international championship may be enough, but the National Elementary School Championships aren't really all that strong. (3) Pretty much ditto on the Laura Aspis prize, it is an age-restricted national achievement. While obviously a very strong player, Mr. Karanja has not attained the titles where his strength makes him notable, and the coverage is mostly incidental. The only one which goes into in-depth coverage on Mr. Karanja is The Chess Drum, and that one appears to be self-published. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I obviously agree with Sjakkalle. However, in fairness, I do not believe that the coverage of Karanja on The Chess Drum is self-published. That site focuses on African-American chessplayers. Its webmaster is Daaim Shabazz (whom I knew in our youth, and who is now a professor in Florida, and a Facebook friend of mine). The article about Karanja on that site indicates that he returned to Kenya and that it is unknown whether he plays chess anymore. As far as I know, Karanja has no connection to the site. Krakatoa (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the ChessDrum article said that it was written by a friend of K.K. Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A Friend Reflects on KK Karanja - I think the friend referred to is Geoff Gladstone, a college friend of Karanja's (in the early 1990s, I would guess), who is quoted at the end of the piece. Krakatoa (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am changing my position to weak keep based on the NYT source in Pawnkingthree's vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Should we delete the article on Martin Luther King because he has been surpassed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.159.103.161 (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes no sense. Martin Luther King's impact on the civil rights movement was about a million times as great as Karanja's impact on chess. Krakatoa (talk) 00:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opinion. Was Karanja a newsworthy person or not? If not, then is King a newsworthy person (in current events)?

Karanja inspired many players and was a pioneer in his field. Would we dare to delete the article on Cerf because the net has surpassed his own contributions? Certainly not. We can just rewrite the article, unless you feel like deleting Josh's article because he is no longer active (and has been surpassed). 75.159.103.161 (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The point, though, is that notability is not temporary. If there was enough coverage in reliable sources at the time when he was considered a prodigy, it should not matter that he did not subsequently develop into a GM or IM or whatever. I'll say Weak Keep based on the New York Times article covering the Kasparov simul and significant coverage in such magazines as Ebony as shown by the Google Books Search here.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Delete. It is true that Karanja won the Aspis award, but all other details point to him not being worthy of an article. True, he was once a prodigy, but he petered out and stopped playing. Also, the fact that he drew in a simul against Kasparov is not sufficiently notable in its self. Josh Waitzkin did more in his chess life than draw with Kasparov, whereas it is questionable whether Karanja did. Oh, and I can't find any indication that this chess book that he wrote is notable at all. Therefore, I say delete. GrandMattster 22:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:BARE. He was named in a 1988 Times article [24], and a quick search online [25] reveals many possible citations. Bearian (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't agree with WP:NTEMP as applied to this article. To me what was notable then isn't now, likewise most of what is in the papers today won't be notable in 50 years time. On the other hand, I don't see any sense in deleting what is now a pretty decent article. So overall I really don't care. SunCreator (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Solar System probes by country[edit]

List of Solar System probes by country (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 page -- a spinoff of List of Solar System probes -- seems to have been left in a part-completed state, but I'm not sure I agree with the need for it even if it were still being actively constructed. I think we already have enough maintenance problems trying to keep the existing "list of space missions" pages up to date and in sync (see {{Space exploration lists and timelines}}). I don't think we need yet another article presenting exactly the same data in a different way and requiring separate upkeep. I think List of Solar System probes suffices. 86.152.242.27 (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC). Nomination completed for IP editor. snigbrook (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the proposer, I would just like to emphasise a point that might not have been very clear in my original rationale. It might be assumed that the historical information about these missions is fairly static, but as one who has been active in the maintenance of List of Solar System probes over several years, I can confirm that this is not the case. There are still omissions, errors and inadequacies being sorted out. I can guarantee that edits made to List of Solar System probes will not be correctly propagated to List of Solar System probes by country, and vice versa. In an ideal world, the data would be stored in one place and would be sliceable and diceable to suit the user's requirements. That does not seem to be possible given the facilities available within Wikipedia. 86.136.194.122 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • keep yes, it's useless until expanded in some manner--but that seems to be the intention--to divide them up. It might not be necessary to do so if the main list were sortable, but the multiple sponsorship of many missions would seem to make this quite tricky. Given that it's only a month old, there is no deadline. DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the deadline expired when someone reconsidered whether it was necessary to divide up a perfectly good list by country. There's a difference between only a month old and work ceased a month ago. I can't remember the Latin phrase that inclusionists refer to, but it has something to do with not losing knowledge. Well, no knowledge will be lost when this xerox copy is erased. Mandsford (talk) 22:36, 15 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) 00:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what you have to say is that "it's useless" but that "there is no deadline?" I would understand if this was something original, but I can't figure out what this is adding to Wikipedia. I don't agree with deleting something for the sake of deletion, nor for keeping something for the sake of inclusion. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More to the point, Mandsford, is that it's useless until expanded in some manner - quoth DGG. I have to confess that I'm working partially off of WP:INTERESTING, but for this purpose I'm wanting to ignore the rules a little. Personally, I'd like to see it fleshed out a bit, and then revisit later. Granted, though, that based on the current concensus, this probably isn't going to happen.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing !vote to delete, as this is, indeed, a duplicate of a currently existing article. We need to format the current article correctly instead. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no information in this list that isn't already in List of Solar System probes. It is incomplete, and I see no reason to maintain the same data in two places. – jaksmata 22:20, 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. Merging can be discussed on the article's talk page, if necessary. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winston Churchill as historian[edit]

Winston Churchill as historian (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, no sources and completely POV. Pure opinion piece. Sourcing tags, added in 2007, not acknowledged or responded to. J M Rice (talk) 19:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Could use some improvement, but ample sources exist for the topic. Had been meaning to improve it whenever I got the time, based on John Lukacs (2002). Churchill: visionary, statesman, historian. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. pp. 101–129. ISBN 0-300-10302-6., which has a chapter on Churchill as a historian and reviews other writers' critique of Churchill as a historian.John Z (talk) 20:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article sucks, it is a viable topic and several books have been written on Churchill's historical writings (such as the award-winning In Command of History. Churchill Fighting and Writing the Second World War which covers his Second World War series). Nick-D (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OR, POV, etc., are not reasons for deletion. Churchill as a historian is a notable topic. The article does not suck, it merely reflects a style and tone from an earlier era of Wikipedia, when sourcing requirements and tone concerns were less stringent. RayTalk 23:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 23:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, OR and POV are reasons for deletion if that's all the article consists of. Of course the article sucks. It [was originated] by one person, who wanted to publish his views on the subect, as an essay, which in itself violates Wikipedia policy. "Personal essays: Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of such knowledge."
    For the record, the creator of this article, Adam Carr, was one of the most prolific editors in the early years of Wikipedia, and was widely respected for the quality of his article writing. He has earned a lot more AGF than what you have on offer here.

    (Note that I am not putting this forward as an argument for keeping the article, so let's get that straw man off the agenda. I am merely pointing out that this article was never "a vehicle to make personal opinions" known, and you have no right to characterise it as such.) Hesperian 02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Less stringent"??? Polemic has never been acceptable. There is NO sourcing here, and the "tone" is pure POV and filled with weasel words. In any case, a topic's worth as a Wikipedia article is irrelevant to whether the content of the article should be included. If all the content violates Wikipedia policy, then what other recourse than to delete the article? It is Wikipedia policy that candidates for deletion include "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including...original theories and conclusions...". It's not that it contains some OR or POV — the article is OR, POV and unsourced in its entirety. Deleting these from the article would leave no content.
If you insist on keeping the article because you like the subject, then perhaps a stub could be left as an anchor, which John Z and Nick could build on with their sources, as long as it doesn't result in an inane revert war waged by the originator's bruised ego. J M Rice (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: this writer of this comment is the nominator. RayTalk 08:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the guideline states, this is not a vote. It is a debate, and I, as nominator, am entitled to participate. Please stick to the merits. J M Rice (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if anyone here has actually read Churchill's histories. For someone who has read them (I have), someone else's questioning Churchill's credibility, as the article seeks to do, is controversial indeed, and as such demands proper citations, not just an opinion. To repeat, there has been a sourcing tag on the article since 2007, with no response from the originator of the article or anyone else. As Wikipedia policy states, unsourced material will be deleted. Again, the problem is that the article, from the beginning, has depended in its entirety on unsourced POV and/or OR which, if removed, would leave no content. (I should presume that an article containing little or no valid content is a candidate for deletion.) While the topic of "Winston Churchill as historian" is valid, it should not be used as a vehicle for someone's op-ed piece, which this article obviously is. J M Rice (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Entire books have been written which question the credibility of Churchill's histories, so it's hardly 'controversial'. Nick-D (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see next item-- Churchill was not an academic historian, but his position gave him unique access to records. He produced a number of substanial volumes, and this earned him the nobel prize for literature. Surely, that in itself is justification for keeping the article. There can hardly be space within the general bio-article to deal adequately with this subject, so that we need this one. Yes there are more recent historians, and access to further sources will have enabled them to provide new insights into subjects; Yes there may be POV issues. However none of these give occasion for deletion. I have read his Second World War (all of it) and more than once. I read an old biography of the Duke of Berwick recently, and that had frequent citations of his volumes of Marlborough. I do not regard the article as wholly unsourced, as it is clearly about his books, which are a source in themselves. However it does not contain adequate citations: still a very common problem in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note We also have Winston Churchill as a writer, which is an even less good article than this one. I would suggest Merging the two, but most of the content of the merged article will come from this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Lord Winston Churchill made history, this is undisputable. The prolific number of publications he penned have tremendous historical value as he was around the table when and where it was made. The mere fact that he wrote in agonizing detail about the stupendous events he was involved with makes him a historians' historian.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article as written may not 'Per Se' meet Wikipedia guidelines, that said, this article has its place and should be kept and edited to meet the a propos standards.Jemesouviens32 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has never been true that 'it's a bad article' is a reason for deletion. It's a reason for improving the article. The subject is undeniably notable and encyclopedic.
I don't see anyone arguing for delete except the nominator, so unless another opinion is expressed soon I would expect a "snowball keep". DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there really a question? Per first three keeps above.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morello (The Apprentice)[edit]

Morello (The Apprentice) (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 the inclusion criteria; a contestant in a recent television program who holds no other claim to notability. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - not just a contestant, he did win it. Lets give it more than a few hours to see how notable he becomes.The-Pope (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How notable he becomes? That makes no sense. If he's not notable now, he's not to be included. It's not like he's going to release a music album or something; he's now just a businessman. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.
      • So you don't think people can become notable? Winners of reality shows are generally notable... maybe he will become the next Trump or Bouris, maybe he will disappear into the non-notable business sphere, but given the type of people who enter these sort of competitions, I think he'll probably stay in the spotlight for a while. I've never watched the show, so I don't know how widely reported his win would be - if he disappears from public view in a few months, then renominate as BLP1E would apply, but for now, I think he's just notable.The-Pope (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are news publications about him and specifically him winning the place of The Apprentice: 123Interview456. Extremepro (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BIO1E. Coverage in The Apprentice Australia article would be more than sufficient. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Apprentice Australia. I watched the show, was thrilled that he won, but that doesn't make him notable. Simply winning a TV show doesn't make you notable. Some of the above have argued that he may become notable in future, but that's the same as someone writing an article about their garage band, saying that one day they may be famous. Notability isn't temporary, and while Morello might be vastly successful in future, at the present time, he is not, and does not qualify for a Wikipedia article at the present time. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 09:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable, extremely trivial, very insignificant article on a person that won another Channel 9 low rating tv show. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 03:42, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodwork for Joiners and Cabinetmakers for Beginners and Improvers[edit]

Woodwork for Joiners and Cabinetmakers for Beginners and Improvers (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 Google Books, News or Scholar hits for this previously prodded non-notable book. In fact, it has only 30 Google hits period. Abductive (reasoning) 12:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 03:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence, awaiting more information. I have a feeling that notability may come down to #1 or #4 in books; "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience" or "The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country." There's one review in the article, so we'd still need one in a general audience publication. It's also in the collection of 4 colleges/universities in the US[26] (remember, the book was published in Wales, so this is more impressive than it sounds at first), but that doesn't get us to "the subject of instruction". --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't yet investigated the notability of this subject, but I would point out that there's a big difference between a book being held in a university library and it being a subject of instruction. For every book that is the subject of instruction at a university there will be thousands that are held by its library. For example Princeton University library holds Noddy goes to Toyland,[27] but I very much doubt that it's the subject of instruction at Princeton. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For now I can't find anything that says it is notable. The Institute of Carpenters does not endorse it in the source cited; it's a book review, taken mostly from the forward of the book. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:02, 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 incubation. It looks like there may be some sources out there but they haven't been demonstrated yet so by policy this would be a delete but I also agree with the keep arguments (esp Hiding) that we may find something offline and that this has some notability. Therefore I am moving this to the incubator as while it doesn't yet meet inclusionc riteri it may well only be a metter of time Spartaz Humbug! 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furrlough[edit]

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

Article is unsourced and doesn't give any indication of why this particular comic book is notable. Google test shows lots of places to buy issues, and blogs/forums, but nothing approaching an RS. The WordsmithCommunicate 05:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Delete Agreed, you probably could have speedied this. --Pstanton (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have, but A7 doesn't really apply to comic books. If it were a webcomic, sure, but not physical books. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep IIRC a reasonably well known comic. Needs sourcing of course. Artw (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's just the thing. I've looked for sources, and I can't find any viable ones. If sources don't exist, the article must be deleted. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can source this from Comics Journal issues. Hiding T 15:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you spare me some time? There's no deadline, and if you take the trouble to check my contributions and edit history you'll see I'm the sort of editor you can assume good faith in. If you want to have a stab, feel free, but there's no need to project negativity. Hiding T 18:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 17:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I can find are collectors price guides and similar primary sources, and this mention of the author making some costumes for a dance production. I cannot find any independent sources that analyze this comic. Abductive (reasoning) 06:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep (for now), problems should have been addressed before nominating and if Hiding thinks he can find some sources in a reliable source then I'm happy to give him the time to dig them out. However, if nothing has improved in a few months then I'd suggest we look at it again. (Emperor (talk) 20:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I did attempt to fix it. I combed Google for sources. They don't exist. Therefore, AFD was the next option. The WordsmithCommunicate 21:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, flagging these problems on the article is the next option. (Emperor (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
There is no reason that I'm not allowed to send something to AFD before flagging it. If I believe something to be plainly nonnotable, and have made a good faith effort to look for sources, then a keep on procedural grounds is irrelevant. Your !vote has yet to make a statement about the notability of verifiability of the article's topic. The WordsmithCommunicate 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with the nom on this one. No sources means we should delete; no notability proven. Killiondude (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, for lack of sources. It's pretty well known in the furry fandom, but that does not connote WP:N; I'd say let it be over on Wikifur, and we can recreate if something else turns up. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very notable comic book. Even people *not* in the furry fandom have heard of this. why not nominate Batman or Sonic the Comic next? If your rationale is that it's a crappy article or a stub... why not give us some time to actually IMPROVE the article? that or move it to Wikia if the deletionists refuse to comprimise. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 06:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Batman and Sonic both have sources that establish their notability. This one does not. Just because you've heard of it doesn't mean its notable enough for an article. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ringtailed Fox has given an argument for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already on Wikifur, which forked from Wikia some time ago. (GreenReaper actually discussed it this year at Rainfurrest.. If there's another spot on Wikia, I'd say put it there, as well. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 08:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can't be moved to Wikia because when Wikifur moved away from Wikia, Wikifur sites at Wikia were taken off-line. (Only furry wiki at wikia is Spanish wiki started in June and it has only 1 article.) --EarthFurst (talk) 05:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a single notable source has been provided during the last days. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added one, am trying to track down more but it's a question of leafing through journals which is time consuming. Hiding T 12:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, i'm arguing AGAINST deletion. Nice try at warping my words. RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not even sure what you're talking about so you can rest assured I had no intention of "warping your words." Sharksaredangerous (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: at 189 issues of the main series (not including Furrlough Color Special #1 and other spin-offs) it is the longest-running furry comic anthology. --EarthFurst (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the general notability guideline. Claims of "longest-running furry comic anthology" are incorrect, as for example Mickey Mouse and Friends (comic book) has been around since 1939 and has about 300 installments, Walt Disney's Comics and Stories has been around since 1940, and has about 700 installments. Starblueheather (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect neither Disney or WP:FURRY would classify those works as "furry", but as works involving funny animals or cartoon talking animals. That's why they're not in Template:Furry comics. It's a rather subjective definition, as both feature anthropomorphic animals, but Disney's works don't appear to be written to appeal to an adult (as in mature, not sexual) audience. Furry fandom is also hesitant to claim works created over 30 years before the term was invented. GreenReaper (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your highly subjective definition. Your suggestion that furry fandom does not include Mickey Mouse comics is contradicted by own experience as well as the writings of others. The Orange County Weekly says "Furry fetishists begin showing up at sci-fi conventions costumed as anthropomorphic cartoon animals, with Disney characters being a particular favorite ... couples dressed like Mickey and Minnie." Pittsburgh City Paper says "Furries ... appreciation runs the gamut from wearing Mickey Mouse T-shirts to donning full-body fursuits." Omaha World Herald says "They call themselves furries ... have a strong interest in anthropomorphic animals... for example, Mickey Mouse." Starblueheather (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be verifiable but that doesn't mean it's true. "Mickey Mouse" and "Donald Duck" are commonly given as five-second explanations to mundanes, including the media, who aren't expected to be able to handle the truth - that people are not just fans of children's works but actually identify with custom-designed anthropomorphic characters, or at least enjoy depictions of such characters. At Anthrocon you might see one or two of the 20% who actually wear costumes in storebought costumes that might be of Disney characters. More likely, the reporter either extrapolated from people trying to explain it, or saw a mouse and figured it must be Mickey. See here for an example of what fursuits really look like - personal characters, or at most characters such as Zig Zag from works intended for furry consumption.
    Besides, saying "some furries like it" misses the point. Whether or not a work is recognized as furry depends on whether its fans predominately like it because it has anthropomorphic animals in it (i.e. it has furries as fans), or for some other reason. Certainly, some furry fans enjoy Micky Mouse, or The Rats of NIMH, or Talespin - but they're not considered "part of the furry genre" because it is clear that Mickey Mouse is liked by a lot of other people. You can try to make it more objective - say, "meadia including anthropomorphic animals treated in a mature way, and intended for adults" - but you end up including things like Maus that a significant proportion of furries and/or non-furries are going to consider non-furry due to widespread popularity outside of the fandom.
    To take an example from a different field: Imagine ravers start wearing pacifiers. That does not make all pacifiers part of the raver subculture, because they are still used far more by babies; nor does it make all babies ravers. However, it does suggest that those adults who wear them are ravers, and pacifiers which come with sparkles on may be identified as "raverware" because they are predominately used by ravers. GreenReaper (talk) 06:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not interested in reading any more about how you judgmentally and disrespectfully believe that furry fans like myself who are huge into Disney are somehow not "true." It's the life we live, I've backed it up with three sources, so just get over yourself. Starblueheather (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update Can't find any sources as yet beyond what is in the article at the moment. This might be a good case for the incubator, until I can find the time to scour all my journal back issues for likely coverage. Hiding T 17:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I got in contact with the editor, Elin Winkler. This WikiFur article suggests the issue he mentioned is Comics Buyer's Guide #1260, 9 January 1998, particularly p10 and pp30-31. CBG #1379 (24 April 2000) may also be of interest, if not for this comic then for work by Fred Patten, Terrie Smith and Shanda Fantasy Arts/Shanda The Panda (which is under deletion discussion right now). Hopefully you can find something in there if you have them. I'm also asking User:EarthFurst who wrote that article and apparently has them to hand.
    Here's what he said:
The last time there was any coverage, it was in an issue of The Comic Buyer's Guide magazine/newspaper, and that was in I think 1997 or 1998.
Furrlough hasn't gotten much news coverage, mostly because it just chugs along quietly. ^_^;

Alas, I cannot remember the exact date or issue number of the CBG that we had the big Radio Comix/Furrlough article in;
I do have it clipped out, but it's buried in a box in the storage unit.
It was a multiple page article in their special "All Funny Animals" issue.

The Comic Buyer's Guide website does have the Diamond Top 300 Sales Charts for various years and Furrlough has placed on that;
it's not brilliant reporting, but it is statistical information. Don't know how much that would help,
but it is data collated by outside sources that proves Furrlough existed in those years.
Links to the relevant pages to follow:
There have also been mentions of Furrlough in the Diamond Dateline, a special trade publication for comic store retailers,
but again, I haven't got exact issue numbers or dates.
GreenReaper (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • CBG would be reliable, but I don't have copies. Diamond Dateline is not what I would consider reliable for what we are discussing here. Hiding T 09:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, I think given that the sources exist, that's a big step towards keeping, since notability is about the presumption. Hiding T 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Goren[edit]

Amos Goren (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 not established Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:46, 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. Kevin (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sujoy Das[edit]

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

Looks like someone's resume... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 10:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Author just removed resume-like part. Still no notability established. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Somehow it looks even worse. And still no notability. Angryapathy (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Multiple issues here: G11, as the nominator points out that it basically a resume, G12, as the opening paragraph is a copyvio violation from the topic's personal website, and A7, as there is no secondary sources that describe the person in question in any notable way. Angryapathy (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Basically a resume.Pectoretalk 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- though there are two articles by him in a WP:RS, there seems to be nothing about him.trakesht (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete - he's not a cartoon, doesn't belong. He's published and well-known for his photography of the Himalayas, something he has been doing for a long time. His images appear in many travels books on the area and in articles about Sikkim and the Nepalese Himalayas. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:48, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fridge Door Live Theatre Company[edit]

Fridge Door Live Theatre Company (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 does exist, but isn't notable as a business nor as a theatre group. PirateArgh!!1! 09:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There are hits for the topic, but none of them actually discussing the theatre group. And there is no mention of the group outside of the enclave of theatre groups. Most mentions are in passing, also. Angryapathy (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 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 Speedy Delete per G8 by JohnCD. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meen, a Lebanese Rock Band[edit]

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

Hoax article quote "Meen is the name of an ancient Lebanese goddess who was worshipped for having killer legs. Legend has it that she lived in Bqeseen, and died in mysterious circumstances. Folklore has it that she committed suicide by leaping off a ninth-floor balcony, but historians suggest she may have choked on her arguileh." Eli+ 09:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think this is an outright hoax, but rather a violation of WP:VANITY. There seem to be just enough Google hits to indicate that this band really exists, but not enough to indicate that it is notable outside the aspirations of its members (who seem probably to have been the creators of the article). LotLE×talk 09:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability ( bands own site does not count), moreover there is clear copy vio. quote Meen is a Lebanese rock band with a twist. The band was founded by Fouad and Toni Yammine, the warped minds behind the quirky lyrics and catchy melodies. They hold the noble mission of promoting Lebanese rock music as their main objective. is pasted from the band site Eli+ 09:33, 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. Kevin (talk) 05:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Punter[edit]

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

His only published work doesn't doesn't bring up anything, he is a "visiting lecturer" so this may be borderline. Main problem is so far everything is unverifiable, possible vanity article. PirateArgh!!1! 08:50, 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. JohnCD (talk) 11:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming Trend[edit]

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

Website fails notability. The last afd in 2006 ended in no consensus, but all the keep votes voted keep because the website appeared on Metacritic and Gamerankings. Being on aggregator websites does not establish notability since every and any site can get on there. This article was created over 3 years ago and still not a single reliable source.--Coasttocoast (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Website with no particular indicated notability. LotLE×talk 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. If no reliable sources have shown up in 3 years, they're unlikely to show up anytime soon. No particular notability claimed in article. Present Alexa rank a rather unimpressive 205,732. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's biggest claim of notability is that the site is listed on GameRankings and Metacritic, but that's not much of a claim at all. A Google search for the site name turns some of the site's pages, a ton of completely unrelated pages, and occasional repostings of their reviews on N4G. Nothing substantial Oh, and apparently they employ a reviewer who has no problem insulting other reviewers for having a different opinion on a game. If this site was actually notable, surely there would be some news and blog posts about that. But it appears that very few people noticed or cared. Reach Out to the Truth 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability in terms of media coverage, hits, etc. Aggregator websites get as many sites as they can in order to look bigger. And yeah, this guy insults other reviewers. Crazysunshine (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Still fails WP:WEB --Teancum (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Gaming Trend reviews are also reproduced on N4G.com. See: [28], [29]. SharkD  Talk  03:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that all that N4G *does* is reproduce other people's reviews... SharkD  Talk  05:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bah... the nominations to delete are from a bunch of butthurt Giant Bomb fanboys http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/gaming-trend-reviewer-calls-jeff-gerstmann-a-douche/272744/? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.142.166 (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC) — 76.16.142.166 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Please remain civil during these deletion discussions. MuZemike 00:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Placing a notability tag on Giant Bomb. That one is close to failing WP:WEB as well, most of their references come from themselves. Doc Quintana (talk) 07:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been fueled by some people who don't like their favorite person to be criticized. They are trying to get back at GamingTrend by having the page deleted. If they didn't feel like the site was a credible site, they wouldn't be going after it with such accusations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.232.163.215 (talk) 06:13, 30 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) 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baynote[edit]

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

According to this 2008 entrepreneur.com article, Mike Svatek, the marketing director of the software company Baynote, personally wrote the the article about his company under the name of User talk:Mjsvatek. Look at Talk:Baynote for a link to a Youtube video where Svatek speaks about the extreme efforts he took to get that article through a 2007 AFD.

I already removed a company press release that was cited in the lead. Several other articles, (ClickZ.com, ecommerce-guide.com) appear to be puff pieces from marketing websites and are hardly reliable sources.

In light of all this, I don't think that the remaining articles (businessweek, technologyreview.com) are sufficient to establish notability under WP:CORP or WP:GNG. A 2007 AFD was closed "no consensus." Blargh29 (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability is independent of problems with the article. If, for example, an article is a copyvio, it may be speedily deleted, but that does not prove that the subject is not notable. Bias in the article can be fixed, but notability is established by Business Week and Technology Review. And ECommerce-Guide is part of Internet.com, and appears to me to be a reliable source. Many articles in mainstream newspapers start with a reporter or editor reading a press release and deciding that it has some news value. -- Eastmain (talk) 08:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See also this reference from Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/29/urban-outfitters-software-intelligent-technology-baynote.html -- Eastmain (talk) 08:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Puff" is not, in itself, sufficient argument for deletion. The two cites which are mentioned above are above reproach moreover. [30] mentioned in New York Times. It is not as notable as Microsoft, but WP does not have a bar that high to be sure. Absent a reason to delete ("puff" is not a reason), default to Keep. Collect (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That isn't actually an article in the NY Times: it is a NY Times blog re-post of a CNet article.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cavil? The "blog" is under editorial control of the NYT, hence is RS for WP. That a newspaper reprints something does not mean the paper did not "publish" it. In fact, the NYT did choose to publish it on the web. Collect (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly is a difference (for WP:N purposes) between "article in the NY Times," as it was described and "a CNet article reposted in a NY Times blog," which it actually is. --Blargh29 (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Collect. I wrote a small blurb on the talk page about this company's potential COI. I was notified about this AFD, which is perfectly acceptable. Thank you for letting me know. I agree with Collect, puff, and even COI is not sufficent enough to warrant deletion by itseld. The NYT reference of Collect's is enough for me. Ikip (talk) 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep, after reviewing the references available for this company, most in which Baynote is the central subject. I don't approve of the way Baynote created this page about itself, nor how the company stupidly bragged about how they did it, but this malfease doesnt lessen the company's actual notability. Ikip (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unambiguous advertising:
    • Websites that utilize the Baynote technology often see a significant return on investment (ROI) in the form of increased online conversion, increased average order value for ecommerce websites, and greater user engagement and page views.
    • Based on an array of implicit behaviors, Baynote’s technology understands a user’s intent and dynamically connects them to the products and content based on the collective wisdom of previous visitors with similar interests or in similar contexts.
    • Implicit approaches, such as the one that Baynote implements, collects the community wisdom that emerges on the web by observing the full-spectrum of user behaviors.
  • When it's that blatant, notability is a sideshow we don't even have to look at; this should have been speedily deleted as blatant spam; that's what speedy deletion is for, and yes, advertising content ought to result in the deletion of articles about even notable businesses. Besides, this is another tech business, of the sort that tends to be over-represented in any case. A handful of puff pieces, even in widely circulated business magazines, don't really make much of a case that this business has achieved anything of lasting historical or technical significance. Unless that kind of case can be made, this should be deleted as blatant spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Blatant or not, if its correctable, it should be corrected. I will be working to do just that, and invite assistance. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - enough references to reliable sources seem to exist to demonstrate notability. However, a complete rewrite may be necessary to remove the promotional tone from this article and resolve the COI problems. Robofish (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability has been established through numerous reliable sources. Before coming here to offer comment, I began going through article to give it a rewrite so as to remove much of the puff, the sense of advert, and to make it more properly encyclopedic. And no... I am not finished, but it already has a better feel to it. With the many sources available and as provided, it should be an easy matter to create the required inline citations. No matter the author, the article now belongs to Wikipedia and with notability meeting WP:GNG, it should be corrected through regular editing... not deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as edited. The NYT reference is enough to establish notability. We do not delete, much less by speedy, for advertising content that could be removed. If anyone wishes us to do so, they should try to get it established as a policy. I agree such content is a threat, but that's what editors are for--editors who do things right, like MQS. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search at the top of the AFD, shows 162 news articles talking about this company. Reading through the summaries that appeared on the first page of the search, I'd say it counts as notable coverage. Dream Focus 02:10, 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) 00:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato Torrent[edit]

Tomato Torrent (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 software. PROD was removed by adding "sorces" with a link to the product home page. Searching for sources on books.google shows up a reference that says it exists, a copy of wikipedia, and a coupon for a free copy of the software for a subscription to some magazine. Scholar.google shows non-english sources that are not apparently about this software. Miami33139 (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are now multiple sources on the article, all of which are trivial.
      1. onsoftware.com, blog and questionable source, not obviously reliable, not obviously unreliable. No matter, because two paragraphs in a list of other products are a trivial mention.
      2. techmixer, blog. one paragraph trivial mention in a directory.
      3. torrentfreak, blog. one paragraph trivial mention in a directory with download link
      4. tuaw, reliable source when they do something significant, this is an entirely routine trivial mention consisting of a paragraph announcing a new version.
      5. pure-mac, unreliable source, this is just a download directory.
      6. macnews.de, routine product version update, one paragraph.
      7. macnn.com, download directory
      8. macapper.com, blog, one paragraph in a list of other products is a trivial mention.
  • Keep: Did a search and believe in the aggregate the references are not trivial. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news search shows it mentioned in 21 places which Google considers news. I don't consider any mention of software being used, to be trivial. There just isn't a lot you can say about this. It gets mentioned, because its notable. Dream Focus 02:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if my model of toaster gets mentioned in the news for being used, it becomes notable? Miami33139 (talk) 04:03, 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. SoWhy 09:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Looveer[edit]

Lia Looveer (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 is too little published information about this subject in order to advance the article beyond a stub. Although the article describes the subject as an "Estonian émigré politician in Australia", the book The Liberals: a history of the NSW division of the Liberal party of Australia[31] only mentions the subject in a picture and a footnote. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete' Keep her awards if true would make her notable but I can't find any sources verifying that. she also has no coverage in gnews [32] also for her maiden name [33]. LibStar (talk) 10:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually she has a British Empire medal. I change my vote. [34]. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (for now) Information is not always in the expected places. There was virtually NO coverage of Baltic activities during the half century of Soviet occupation. Google book and news searches are not going go yield anything of much use. On the other hand, one can find references such as this, with mention of Looveer's 50 years of service at the Parliament of New South Wales site. The article has been mired in speculation as to whether she was a Nazi collaborator, this has detracted from any useful work on the article for some time.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not enough morning coffee. Forgot about her being a recipient of the British Empire Medal. That award should make her notable enough and we should get back to positive activities on improving the article. I added the missing category to the article and a link to a page listing her as a recipient.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  15:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Vecrumba, the fact that a half a dozen of people from around the globe edit war about aspects of the the biography of a dead woman clerily indicate that she is notable and her biography is of public interest Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't tell if she would be notable enough for wikipedia purposes nor do I have an opinion about either the article should be deleted or not. But since I've been involved with the article somewhat, here is a citation so people who are better experts on WP:Notability issues could make up their mind easier, a citation from the State Library of New South Wales--Termer (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lia Looveer was Secretary General of the United Council of Migrants from Communist Dominated Europe in Australia and was Secretary of the Captive Nations Council of New South Wales from 1968. Born in Estonia in 1920, she came to Australia with her husband and daughter in 1949. She settled in Sydney in 1952 and became a member of the Joint Baltic Committee. She was a member of the Board of the Estonian Society of Sydney and office manager of the Estonian weekly Meie Rodo, 1956-1966. Looveer joined the Liberal Party of Australia, N.S.W. Division, in 1955, and was a member of its Migrant Advisory Committee and of the federal Party's Advisory Committee on Ethnic Affairs, 1976-1981, as well as a member of the State Council over the same period. She is a foundation member of the Ethnic Communities' Council of N.S.W. Looveer was awarded the British Empire Medal in 1978 and received a Heritage Award from the Liberal Party of Australia, N.S.W. Division, in 2002.

  • Comment While I agree that Looveer is notable because of her connection with Lyenko Urbanchich[35], David Clarke[36], and Douglas Darby and his son Michael, the problem is that there are no reliable sources that explain her relationship. Although ASIO investigated the group, I cannot find anything they wrote about Looveer. Also, the ADL, SPLC and Searchlight have no articles about her. The problem is that we do not have adequate sources at this time to establish notablity. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What was that all about? first you nominate the article for deletion by saying not notable and now you claim Looveer is notable because of "her connection with right-wing extremists" even though "there are no reliable sources that explain her relationship"? From where do you get this "connection with right-wing extremists" in the first place? as none of the sources you listed do not even mention Looveer. So what is this AfD all about again?--Termer (talk) 06:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I think Looveer is notable, there are insufficient sources to create an article. There are sources that connect her with all the men I mentioned. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is derived from sources, not what someone like you may think. If there are no sources that explain her relationship with these men, it is because this relationship is not considered notable if it even existed. That you think this relationship is notable is WP:OR. On the other hand Looveer is notable for receiving the BEM for services to ethnic communities, this is what the sources tell us. Note that the Liberal Party of Australia is considered centre-right and the right faction within the Liberal party isn't considered extreme by any stretch of the imagination. Also note that David Clarke (Australian politician), has successfully sued Melbourne University Press for defamation for imputations of political extremism, therefore I have removed a part of your statement for WP:BLP reasons. --Martin (talk) 10:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Clarke lawsuit has not been heard and it is primarily related to comments unrelated to his political position.[37][38] I am not relying on anything written in that book but on The Liberals: a history of the NSW division of the Liberal party of Australia,[39] which is a reliable source and has not been sued. While the LPNSW may be centre-right, it had a far right element as evidenced in the obituary of Lyenko Urbanchich in The Sydney Morning Herald: "Ardent Nazi took Liberal to extremes".[40] The fact that Looveer received a BEM on the recommendation of the government of NSW does not make her notable but is evidence of notability. There are no sources explaining what her service was other than positions held. If there are sources explaining her role then an article could be sustained. But at present it is just a stub with less detail than a CV. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never the less, Looveer is notable for her services to the ethnic communities, not for her alleged association with certain Liberal party figures as the lack of sources indicate. The only thing she had in common with Urbanchich is that they both were foreign born immigrants to Australia, to suggest otherwise is at best WP:SYNTH. --Martin (talk) 22:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't looked into wider notability yet, but I would like to say that a British Empire Medal by itself is not enough to confer notability. It is a lower honour than MBE, which itself is lower than OBE, and even that is an honour that is routinely given to mid-level civil servants for simply doing their job. We'd have to be looking at CBE or higher before getting into the realms of automatic notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is interesting - a big discussion about my mother and no-one has contacted her family to check anything.

If one looks at Lia's history, it is evident that Lia's life was about fighting against communism, as it had destroyed her family and home. Lia spoke many languages (?more than 10), and thus was used in Greta Camp (NSW, Australia) as an announcer and translator. Whilst escaping from Estonia, she had to help put food on the table and undertook similar work; no . If you want to call her a Nazi Collaborator, then you should think of every single person who sold food to Germans at any stage, who wrote to anyone in Germany, etc. This is absolutely ludicrous.

I note that someone also mentioned that her connection to supposed "Nazi collaborators" in Australia was misguided - she worked with many other opponents of communism and proponents of freedom, hence her association with the liberal Party and key "right-wingers" such as Eileen Furley, Phillip Ruddock, Douglas Darby and others. Indeed, one week after being elected Prime Minister of Australia, Gough Whitlam actually phoned our home and tried to explain why the Labour Party of Australia could not recognise the independence of Estonia and the other Baltic states; I wonder how the current Labour Party sees that policy? Bottom line - Lia spent her life opposing communism and slavery, and fighting for freedom, mainly of her homeland. Any activities were related to that.

As with many small groups, Minutes of the Baltic Committee, Captive Nations Council, etc, copies were kept by Committee members and related organisations, but following the collapse of the Russian Communist Regime in 1990, many became of little interest and have disappeared with the mists of time.

Pity no-one checked with me before I got rid of many files after she died. However, many documents were handed to the Mitchell Librtary in Sydney, or the Estonian Archives.

PS Lia also worked in the fund-raising section of the Royal Alexandria Hospital for Children for over 25 years. She was on the Executive of the YWCA for a while, and worked with the Spastic and Crippled Children’s Associations (as my sister had been born handicapped).

Please contact me for further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JLooveer (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Well, this is interesting - a big discussion about my mother and no-one has contacted her family to check anything.
Unfortunately this is a general problem with wikipedia biographies. Subjects of articles or their relatives are often completely unaware about biographies written here, which can often suffer from very poor sourcing, defamation, and general vandalism. Not to mention that those poor quality wikipedia articles usually show up at the top of google search results.--Staberinde (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am deeply embarrassed appalled at the behaviour of some of the editors here who have said some really awful things in relation to your mother, without any basis other than her ethnicity it seems. I offer you my sincere apology. --Martin (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would second previous statement, just that I'm not embarrassed about the editors who are obviously here to make a point by labeling someone a nazi collaborator but about the community and its administrators in general who tolerate such smearing after attention was brought to it several times here and here. From my behalf, in case such ignorance continues, I'm going to have no regrets quitting or getting kicked out from the project. I'm just not interested in keeping good faith in bad faith speculations and accusations that get tolerated on Wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, embarrassed is not the right word, I fixed my statement. --Martin (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources unlike academic studies and therefore cannot consider anything else. Martintg and Termer however chose to support the creation of this article. Unfortunately the sources provide very little information about Lia, except for information about her relationship with Lyenko Urbanchich, the Darbys and Clarke. If there are any academic studies that would improve the article then they should be provided. I think that insufficient sources exist for an article. Please look at Wikipedia policy and decide whether you want an article based on the minimal evidence available. Please read this section: [41]. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First you claim there are "no reliable sources that explain her relationship", now you claim there is. Please make up your mind. But I am glad you agree that Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, so please end your WP:SYNTHy speculations that there was some kind of relationship between her and Urbanchich beyond the fact that they both belonged to the Liberal party. She also associated with people like Phillip Ruddock. --Martin (talk) 08:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To explain means to give a sufficiently detailed report about the reason for something, about why something happened and about a causal chain of events. All we can do without reliable sources is mention the relationship without explaining it. Reliable sources show that the subject was a founding member of the LEC that chose Urbanchich as its president and supported him when the party tried to expel him. Michael Darby's website mentions that she organized an event with Urbanchich, and David Clarke mentioned her in the NSW legislature. I could find no sources about her alleged association with Phillip Ruddock. I have no idea why you want an article when adequate sources do not exist. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Deuces presented a reliable source on the talk page that shows that Looveer supported the war criminal and nazi collaborateur Urbanichich. As you replied it is clear that you are aware of the fact that there is a documented relationship between her and Urbanchich. But you seem to have forgotten that in your above attack post on Four Deuces.

There is also a reliable source for that she worked for a Nazi propaganda station. The attempts to whitewash these connection and to effectively censor the article are appalling. You are willing to introduce completely unsourced information in the article, and then complain when other editors introduce sourced information you simply do not like.

Anyway, Delete as there are indeed only miminal sources, and the only event this woman is notable for is her support of the war criminal and nazi collaborateur Urbanchich. Her fifteen minutes, but not enough for a Wikipedia article. This is evident from the fact that the academic study of the party she made her career in thinks that it is worth to mention her for only this connection. Pantherskin (talk) 15:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - after reconsidering that we have several sources that establish her notability. These include the dedicated entries at the "The Australian Women's Register" by the University of Melbourne, and her biographical entry at the University Library Tallinn. We also have sources that discuss some of her achievements (i.e. the support of the war criminal Urbanchich). So overall enough to keep the article, and hopefully more sources will be forthcoming in the future. It seems that some more information can be found at the National Archives and the University Library in Canberra. Pantherskin (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(od) To JLooveer's earlier, I did write to the Australian Estonian society asking if they had any materials they could share. I have not heard back yet.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  13:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard back and will follow up on making biographical and other archival materials available in a manner that can be appropriately cited for WP. It's fair to say there's more than enough available to make for a good article, although in its current state its use (that is, information in private possession) might well be construed as WP:OR. I'd suggest the AfD be closed. I'd also request that editors not engage in inflammatory comments such as "the only event this woman is notable for is her support of the war criminal and nazi collaborateur Urbanchich". She's been decorated by the Commonwealth and Estonia, so let's cut the crap.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is what the academic study of her party thinks she is notable for. Pantherskin (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot write an article based on papers in private hands - that is original research, and you should really consider whether it is fair to the subject to have an article when scant sources exist. It is actually not correct that she was decorated by the Commonwealth (either the Commonwealth of Nations or the Commonwealth of Australia), but was awarded a medal by the Queen on the advice of the premier of New South Wales. More than thirty other residents of NSW were awarded the medal in the same year (1978). The Four Deuces (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is point you are trying to make in regard to her decoration? Australia is a Constitutional monarchy, the Queen is the Australia's sovereign head of state. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point is fairly obvious. A claim was made above that the subject was decorated by the Commonwealth, but it fact she was decorated by the Queen on the advice of the premier of New South Wales, which doesn't involve either commonwealth. That may be a pedantic point, but it is accurate. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Australia is a federation where the states retain certain constitutional powers, such as policing, the judiciary and nominating people for awards. When the Queen of Australia bestows an award to a person nominated by one of the states, she does so as the sovereign head of the Commonwealth of Australia. --Martin (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually she does so in her role as head of state of New South Wales. Note that the sovereign bestowed honors on residents of NSW before Australia was formed. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject lacks sufficient notability for inclusion. I agree with Phil Bridger about British Empire Medal, and 5th class of the Order of the White Star doesn't seem sufficient either. Serious NPOV concerns in relation to this article (1/3 is about working in that radio station, not to mention claims made in talk page), and massive disputes it has created, only strengthen my view that it should be removed. Finally I would strongly suggest courtesy blanking this AfD after closing.--Staberinde (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. This discussion meets the level of consensus necessary for deletion. The main concern raised by the nominator and subsequent voters is that the article fails basic content policies such as WP:POV, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. Indeed, the title alone falls short of meeting neutrality requirements, as certain terms like "mainstream" are subjective and often rely on first-hand research to determine their meaning. The article itself is poorly sourced, and requires immediate cleanup. That said, reading through the AfD debate, I realized that although the keep "votes" far outnumber the deletes, many of them don't in any way address the main issue, but instead base their reasoning on the fact that they believe the topic to be notable. Notability was never questioned by the nominator, so it's hard to give these opinions much weight. Although it is a common focus of debate at deletion discussions, notability does not always dictate an article's fate, and there are sometimes articles addressing notable topics which are simply not suitable to be included within Wikipedia. In short, I believe the arguments for removing this article easily outweigh those in favor of retaining it, and so I conclude that consensus endorses deletion. I find it likely that this closure will be contested, so please consider initiating a discussion on my talk page before heading to DRV. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (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 list depends on a lot of conjecture and original research. However the larger problem is serious BLP problems, since it would be a crime to hire people to have sex[verification needed] (in most places) so the producers, directors, and others are being accused of that -- in most cases without good sources. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This article is original research. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lead could probably be improved, but the listed films all seem to have good 3rd party sources for the notable-seeming, and noted in sources, fact that they include non-simulated sex (which is unusual in non-porn films). The list may not be complete, but the inclusion criteria is clear enough and requires neutral and reliable sources. LotLE×talk 09:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, looking through the recent edit history of the article, the lead was specifically made worse by an editor intent here on deletion of the article. So even that stylistic flaw seems to be a slightly WP:POINTy way to urge deletion. LotLE×talk 18:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There shouldn't be any OR or BLP problems if the list is kept well-sourced. Epbr123 (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I suspect topic matter such as this has been treated in cinematic studies, especially concerning censorship, sexuality etc. As long as the article is policed to confirm sourced material, should be okay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly it has been treated in cinematic studies, and if true might suggest we could have an article on that (although that wouldn't answer why we need a list). However, your "I suspect" is problematic. If such studies exist, we should consider that - but until someone points us to them, then your assertion, however reasonable, does not overcome the original research objection. If studies are later found, then DRV may well overturn this on grounds of new evidence, until then, lets stick with what we know.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Scott, have you ever done any research at a postgrad level? Do you have any familiarity with film studies? Censorship and sex have been much discussed. If I were more interested I would have done some homework but I find the subject quite boring really, nevermind, if I get a chance I will...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • That sex an censorship have been the subject of research is obvious, and irrelevant. The question is, has "unsimulated sex and censorship", which is what you are asserting? "I know it is true" is never that strong an argument here. All I'm saying is that a source for that would be nice. (But, even if there was a source - would it justify a list as opposed to a general article on the subject.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not quite irrelevant. What I mean is that the topic is so voluminous, that even if the discussion of unsimulated sex in mainstream cinema makes up but a tiny fragment of it, it will be more than enough to satisfy notability. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is an embarrassment. Wikipedia is not a porn site. Is that a good enough reason? In WIkipedia, we have rules, like WP:BLP. It's just totally not a sensible place to be trying to maintain such a list. "I watched the film, and saw real sex" is NEVER going to be an admissable reason for including the film. And if the film really, obviously does include unsimulated sex, what does that mean? This list is doomed to be wrong, anyway! I have no qualms about porn as such; it's fine, this is the 21st century. It's just not encyclopaedia material. Please take this list elsewhere. Further, all the other "delete" reasons are very valid appeals to real Wikipedia policies (second Steve Dufour, The Four Deuces). Please respect the polices. Thanks. Alex Harvey (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a porn site? That is odd. The many sex articles always rate high in the list of the most viewed articles. No policy has been violated, no reason to delete. Dream Focus 10:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that Wikipedia does have a Pornography portal. Yet, this is still not a "porn" site as it does not distribute pornographic material. Marcus1979 (talk) 07:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no doubt BLP issues could be avoided by proper sourcing and maintenance, however they won't be. I've recently had to remove half the article because it was a clear violation, and that is despite the fact that the concerns were previously brought to the community's notice via the earlier nomination. This type of article simply invites original research and dubious sources and will always do so. Given the potential for libels, I'd say it is simply not a subject that can responsibly be handled in a wiki format. Now, someone is going to say that my argument means we'd have to delete the entire encyclopedia because everything is open to BLP violations. That reductio ad absurdum does not hold up, because due to their subject matter and low-interest/l;ow-watching certain articles are more prone to these problems than others, and the deletion of certain articles would be more damaging than others, besides which my objections here are not theoretical but established by the history of this particular article. A risk/benefit analysis here leads to a delete conclusion. We keep bad articles because they've got the potential to become good ones - but the nature and notability of this subject means it has only the potential to be a prolonged and libellous sore.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scott m'boy, there's a dandy little thing called semiprotection, which I think would be a pretty basic and highly prudent step in this case. And get off the fence and make a comment rather than obfuscate with !voting. nevermind, I see that you have at the (obscure) end of the post. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Longterm semi-protection of problematic low-interest subjects is not currently policy. But anyway, the crap that was in the article was put in by confirmed accounts, so semi-protection is irrelevant. --Scott Mac (Doc) 23:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • aaaa-and if it happens again, named accounts can be reasoned with (and if need be sanctioned) for problematic edits. You are perfectly free to raise discussion with those who added material before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR and sourcing issues. (I don't think BLP is a huge problem in this particular one, or should be if written correctly.) Orderinchaos 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am at a loss as to how this is original research if there are sources that confirm that the unsimulated sex happened. Nor do I agree that there are BLP concerns in the presence of sources, which includes the primary source of the film itself (and the hatchet that's been taken to this list recently by an overzealous editor is a tremendous error in judgment on his part, but that's an issue for the talk page). There is no support for the claim that inclusion on this list constitutes an accusation of illegal activity against these films' creative personnel. The inclusion of this list does not imply that Wikipedia is a "porn site" so no, that is far from a good enough reason unless the editor believes that all articles related to sexually explicit material, pornographic actors and sex workers should be deleted. Searching for sourcing is a little more diffiult with this subject matter but a simple search for "unsimulated sex mainstream films" turns up several dozen Google News results some Google Books results and some Google Scholar results. At least some of these speak to the phenomenon of including real sex in mainstream films (many to do with the film Shortbus it appears) and if there is a question regarding an individual film then independent sourcing for the specific film can be sought (or the film can, you know, be watched since primary sourcing is considered reliable for describing what it happening in a film). Wikipedia is not censored. Otto4711 (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no reason why a sourced list should not exist. I see a lot of WP:DONTLIKEIT and a vague deletion rationale "it would be a crime to hire people to have sex" completely unsourced, and with the weasel qualifier "(in most places)". Tell me, in which countries is it a crime to hire actors to have sex?, how can they ever make porn movies? Power.corrupts (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the difference between putting an ad on Craig's List saying "I will pay you to have sex with me." and going to a theatrical agent and saying "I would like to hire two actors to have sex with each other so I can film it." Besides even if it were legal there would be tremendous potential problems with civil liability, workers' rights, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, apparently legislators, lawyers and judges see a difference. You are aware that hardcore porn films actually do exist, in many cases made legally, aren't you?! I'm sure this is a fascinating insight into your psychology or ethical beliefs, Steve Dufour, but it seems to be unrelated to this AfD. LotLE×talk 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a lawyer, a legislator, or even a judge. I was only discussing this article, not any other issues. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments, whether it is legal or not is beside the point. The point is that if we were to get this wrong, and claim that film foo had a scene of unsimulated sex and we were to get that wrong, we could be libelling living people. The actors and directors in any film are readily identifiable (even if not named in the list), and a claim that they were involved in this, if in fact they were not, could clearly be damaging or distressing. That's the BLP issue. Of course, that can be addressed by insisting on concrete sourcing. However, we've already seen this article collect a whole heap of unsourced (hence BLP violating) entries. The question then becomes, whether the article is worth high risk of violations, and whether credible sources/research really exists.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you are arguing that we should not have biographies on Wikipedia, because... who knows, someone might put something libelous in one?! Obviously, WP:BLP applies to this article, just like it does to every other article on WP. LotLE×talk 20:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not. Please see my earlier comment above where I said that someone would argue just as you have, and I gave reason why deleting this did not mean deleting all BLPs. Please see above.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Scholars interested in erotica cinema and films portraying sexuality need access to a reliable, updated list of mainstream films with unsimulated sex, and what better place to have it than here at Wikipedia? I've lost count of the many times I've been asked about this topic and referred people to this list, but it's certainly very helpful, so it would be a crime to remove it. Instead, let's just keep making it better! --Minutae (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sex on film is not illegal as nom suggests - have you heard of pornography? It would be good to have more a neutral sourcing but that's mostly been done already. Also the deleted content should be moved to the talkpage until sourcing is presented. In many cases that is quite a BLP stretch but at least work with other editors who have done a tremendous job on the list. -- Banjeboi 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article has been a long-standing debacle; before Scott Mac removed half the article for lacking references, I removed a similar amount (perhaps more) as unreferenced claims concerning living persons (BLP violations). This article was misconceived from the beginning -- for most of its existence the inclusion criterion wasn't reliable sourcing, but original research by editors who (supposedly) watched the scenes in question and gave their own opinions about what was real and what wasn't. Better to scrap this misbegotten list entirely, create a category if appropriate, and start work on an actual article on the subject with historical perspective and context rather than a catch-as-catch-can list. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The recent massive deletion of valuable, carefully assembled content has not only been carried out in the most disrespectful manner, but frankly appears to be an act of vandalism. Proper editing and team-work is called for, not mindless, self-righteous butchery. --Minutae (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The "butchery" you speak of was a mine, and was a standard application of the WP:BLP policy. Unreferenced material which may adversely affect living people is removed immediately and can be replaced if sourced.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Proper editing", as defined by WP:BLP, calls for removing unsourced claims with the potential to harm the reputations of living persons "immediately and without waiting for discussion." The sourcing problems with this article were identified in the original AFD, and there was probably a consensus then, once one sorts through the comments, for summary removal of all the unsourced claims. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most if not all of the material that has been removed belonged on that list and most was not in violation of any rules or if so could easily have been fixed by a few minutes of intelligent editing rather than just self-righteously knocking stuff over. Especially laughable is the removal of the Danish films, considering that in most of these the sex acts are performed by professional, well-known porn models, unlikely to be "harmed" by the revelation that they also had sex in a mainstream film. It seems that the people who performed this editing hack job either haven't got any knowledge of the subject of the list or just don't give a damn. --Minutae (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable, and no reason such a list can't be sourced. Seems to be U.S.-centric at the moment, but no reason it can't be expanded, improved and reliably sourced if someone puts in the work. As a side-note, the "I saw it" school of sourcing which has been appropriately-- if painfully-- removed here, is still actively promoted at WP:FILMPLOT for film article synopses. I hope some Crusader puts an end to that anomaly some day... Dekkappai (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Hey... it dawns on me that I saw a book once long ago, "They Did It" or something like that, which dealt with the subject of this list. I'll post it to the article if I can blow the cobwebs off my memory and books and turn something up. Dekkappai (talk) 23:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This article, aside from the notability of the subject and its (the subject's) possible significance when viewed within the context of the history of cinema, is related to and may have a bearing on other Wikipedia articles, including but not limited to Nudity in film, Sex in film, and Porno Chic. While some elements of the article may be in need of better sourcing, and indeed of a good style guide, that is an argument for better and more consistent editing practices, not for deletion. A willingness on the part of the editors to collaborate and cooperate and a little bit of diligence and initiative are all that is really needed. Well, we also need to have an end to the sort of vandalism which the article has suffered from recently. While the removal of information which may be in violation of WP:BLP is understandable, the removal of material which an editor considers to be inadequately sourced, or even unsourced, is another thing. It has been standard practice on Wikipedia for articles (or information within an article) which require citations and references to be tagged accordingly, not simply deleted. --Lecher Lingam (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the subject is notable, though I am not the least satisfied with the quality of the sourcing, much of which is some variant of "alleged". The BLP policy would apply to all or almost all the individuals here. Butthat the article is difficult to do correctly is not a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 05:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought BLP always applied to all people. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not John Holmes, who was mentioned in an earlier version of the article. All DGG's saying in that regard, I think, is that some of the individuals involved are no longer living. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. It only applies to people who are still alive. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article as I see it now, is well sourced, and seems like a legitimate topic. Dream Focus 10:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments above. --Eightofnine (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the keep arguments above don't address the fundamental problem with this article: it lacks a clear, objective definition of 'mainstream'. It is unarguable that there have been many films containing unsimulated sex; the problem with this list is that it attempts to only include 'mainstream' films, which is inherently almost impossible to define. I understand that commercial pornographic films are meant to be excluded, but on what grounds are films included? What makes these films 'mainstream'? If a clear set of criteria cannot be given, then this list is ultimately WP:OR/WP:POV and should be deleted. Robofish (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's an issue of clean-up and focus. There's no doubt the subject is notable and has been researched and written about. What remains is fixing the overall list and if needed separating out what should be included or not. Ergo the list itself is not the issue, just the scope. -- Banjeboi 04:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You miss the point. "Mainstream" is a subjective and POV term. There is no way it can be otherwise. Sure, you can try to devise a set of criterion to define it, but all that would be is "what a bunch of wikipedians define as mainstream" that's still POV. If I put a film on it I think is mainstream, or remove one I don't, you won't have any reliable source by which to refute my assertion. This is problem with subjective lists.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I doubt it. All we need is a filmlore source which defines it (which I have just the tiniest sneaking hunch exist), we don't define it ourselves...that'd be OR. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hm, again your hunches as evidence? Problem is that would be "mainstream according to x". I have a "hunch" there might be other places with different definitions. "Mainstream" is inherently subjective.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That remains an editing issue not a deletion one. Can this list like so many others be improved to define the parameters of what's included similar to how every notability guideline has evolved? Yes. -- Banjeboi 00:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Wrong. "Inherently POV" means there is no way to agree content that isn't POV. We avoid POV by reliable sources which point to facts, but what is "mainstream" is an opinion not a fact. We cannot do this by notability guidelines because you do not make a subjective judgement into a fact by achieving a consensus of the unqualified. The opinions of wikipedians as to what constitutes mainstream are wholly irrelevant - wikipedians are not qualified to substitute their judgement for reliable sources.--Scott Mac (Doc) 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • We may have to agree to disagree here. If mainstream is a sticking point then try to work with the others to find a more NPOV title. We do this all the time to appease these exact issues. Again that is an editing issue, a regular common one we do all the time. A bad title is not a good deletion reason. -- Banjeboi 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "Mainstream" is not the reason I supported deletion (see my first post). It merely came up in discussion. But I do not believe an NPOV title could be found - that's a minor, although sufficient reason for deletion.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Note that "sex" if also undefined. According to President Clinton (attempted humor) many of the things mentioned in the article are not really sex. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename: If the meaning of "mainstream" is relative, why not change it to "non-porn films", i.e. Rated R and lower? Rating scales are official in most countries. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement. It still doesn't do anything for my reason for nominating, which was possible legal and other problems for the producers of the films. If poorly sourced this would be against WP:BLP, as I said. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors here (the nominator and the editor who WP:POINTily deleted most of the article content) continue to repeat the same WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument over and over. The BLP argument was silly, and the "must-delete-if-conceivable-ambiguity" argument is even sillier. By the argument of Steve Dufour just above, we must also delete, say Lady Gaga and Tony Blair on the grounds that "if poorly sourced they could violate WP:BLP". That is a silly and absurd idea, which applies no more to this topic than to biographies as such. The solution to poor sourcing is good sourcing not article deletion... which isn't to say this article actually is poorly sourced, to the contrary it is rather carefully cited. LotLE×talk 19:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never once expressed any view on whether I like this article or not, not do I base my call for deletion on the ambiguity. As for having to delete all BLPs if we deleted this, I refuted that type of predictable nonsense argument above. As for POINTy - how on earth is it disruptive to remove unreferenced material pertaining to living people? That's core policy, and just because you don't like it does not change that. I accept this article will probably end up staying, but really the rubbish being spouted in its defence, by people who are not even reading the responses, beggars belief.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable topic, covered in reliable sources. Meets WP:V and WP:A. It doesn't look like WP:BLP is an issue, given the sufficient sourcing. Note that WP:IDL is not a valid reason for deletion. Possibly rename, per above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said I didn't like the article. The person who removed material did so because of BLP policy, whose page has a whole section entitled: "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material." Steve Dufour (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you didn't, but others have above. And I agree that this article must be policed for BLP violations, but that's not a reason for deletion either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, one other did - and even he gave other reasons too. Yet the keepers have constantly used a spurious reference to "I don't like it" as a reason to keep it. It smacks of "keep, because I like porn".--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:05, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The normalisation or mainstream treatment of explicit sex is an important cultural barometer. The article is not salacious in any way. Some comment on cultural implications would deepen the article. As to what constitutes 'mainstream', the showing of Antichrist at Cannes is a good indicator (I don't know the festival treatment of other listed films). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidetal (talk • contribs) 21:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is hardly an unnotable one, as mainstream media such as the BBC[42] and Channel 4[43] discuss it. Finding the topic to be sordid is no reason for deletion, and neither is the need to source it properly. Fences&Windows 22:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To expand my argument, the suggestion that the article would place producers, directors or actors at risk since hiring people to have sex is illegal is just plain wrong. These are mainstream releases that have received mainstream press coverage; we're hardly lifting the lid on some underground movement here. That argument might apply to "List of snuff movies", but it doesn't apply here. It was quite correct that unsourced material that referred to living people needed to be removed, but now that is done and each entry is sourced that is no argument for deletion. The argument of original research doesn't hold as the entries are all sourced now. I agree that all the entries need sources, adding a movie because you noticed an erection on a screen the character was watching isn't OK. Fences&Windows 16:07, 29 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console[edit]

List of video games exclusive to a seventh generation console (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial listcruft which isn't suitable for this site. Also an improper page split. See this discussion: [[44]] for more information. To sum it up: the article creator (Xeno) decided to ignore consensus that the column wasn't notable in other lists. So he made this article as an incorrect page split. Also note: he refuses to accept anyone against the column in the first place, and acts like their opinions don't matter. Plus to top it off: he thinks the information "has" to be on Wikipedia no matter what, even though I pointed out the content is better suited for video game sites and/or wikis. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do remember to comment on content, not contributors. The bulk of your nomination statement seems to have little to do with the subject or deletion thereof. –xenotalk 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Since the above debate has been archived, here is a link to it within the archives. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per multiple WP:NOT items. It's a trivial collection of rather arbitrarily aggregated information. LotLE×talk 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain what the above is meant to say? It is neither trivial nor arbitrarily aggregated, it has a definite inclusion criteria and it is important information with respect to the Console wars which are very real, and ongoing. –xenotalk 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can't even begin to describe what this fails, but Wp:IINFO quickly sprang to mind. (Also, there are going to be a lot of games on this page if it stays.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't seem at all indiscriminate. The criteria for inclusion on this list are very clear. None of the examples provided of indiscriminate info seem at all relevant to the subject. –xenotalk 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT. Is there any other Wiki that would accept this? If so, it might be kind of us to do a transwiki. ThemFromSpace 20:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part of WP:NOT? –xenotalk 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly encyclopedic information useful for folks wanting to research the exclusivity aspect of the Console wars. –xenotalk 01:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The resulting list would be far too difficult to maintain; this sort of thing is precisely what categories are for. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC) I apologise for misinterpreting the debate, so please disregard my original argument. Now, I realise that AfD debates normally focus on content rather than circumstances, but in this particular case it is necessary to address the circumstances behind the current situation. Originally this began as a simple discussion to decide if a particular column on particular articles was necessary. As a consensus emerged to remove the category, Xeno, an admin, objected strongly to the movement, but failed to provide a substantial argument as to why the column should be kept. Eventually when it came to removing the content, he created a POV fork in order to ensure that the so-called "useful" information would not be lost, an action for which there was no consensus. Consequently, I am proposing that the article be deleted until the current dispute is resolved, as the entire wiki should not have to suffer because of one sysop's agenda. There was and is no consensus for Xeno's actions, and his POV pushing has set a poor example for other editors. It is not up to one person to decide what is "useful", nor is there any policy, guideline or precedent which states that such material should be included. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This list was already well-maintained as a column in the main list of games so your argument is unsound. –xenotalk 00:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Assume good faith please. Xeno was acting to maintain the Wiki. Also, what is AfD if not a discussion? You end up with a circular argument if you utilise "Delete until consensus is gained". AfD is here to gain consensus, it isn't just a vote after all. If anything, the content should be kept until consensus is gained, as it existed for some time prior to it being suggested for removal. --Taelus (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Granted, Xeno may have acted in good faith, but his edits still appear to constitute POV pushing. If there is a consensus against something, it is wiser to accept the fact than to repeatedly state your opinion without basing it on solid evidence, which is what he appears to have done. As for your point about AfD, I understand that. I suppose what I mean to say is that Xeno has not properly explained why the article should be kept, and has not used strong evidence to support his reasons for creating an article without consensus. The consensus was to remove that column; creating a content fork without discussion then appears to be an attempt to bypass that. That is why I believe the article should be deleted. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I did indeed explain why the article (and before, the column) should be kept: the information is desired by our readers; is verifiable, notable, and encyclopedic; and facilitates further research into the console wars subject. –xenotalk 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain how Wikipedia suffers by having this article? Remember: WP:NOTPAPER. In fact, contra your argument, I would say that Wikipedia (and its readership) suffers by deleting this article. Note that it is now the number 1 Google hit for "xbox 360 exclusives" - the remaining hits being poorly maintained, out-of-date, 404'd. It has been viewed over 3600 times since creation. –xenotalk 19:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You are assuming those people 1) care about the subject and article, and 2) actually found the article useful. For all we know, all of them clicked the link by mistake. Please do not base your arguments on such assumptions. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    These are reasonable assumptions, much more likely then the preposterous suggestion that they such an explicitly titled article by mistake. –xenotalk 22:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Firstly, it is not trivial information, console exclusivity is a big topic and has been covered by several reliable major news groups, both gaming such as Gamespot and real world such as the BBC. It is entirely plausible a Wikipedia user would want to research into the topic, and this list is a benefit. Second, we shouldn't just delete things because they are difficult to maintain. In the long-term, since the Wikipedia advertising campaign showed we have scope going forward generations, is any of our content easy to maintain? I suspect in the coming decades linkdeath will be everywhere. We shouldn't delete to make our lives easier at the expense of the long-term goals of the project. Finally, this is not an inappropriate page split. The concensus was to remove information from one list to declutter and aid readability, thus a page split is the best option without simply saying "Oh the list is full. No more knowledge allowed on Wikipedia for this topic." It is assuming bad faith to accuse the article creator of making a point, he has not "refused to acknowledge others" otherwise there would be an edit war on the original article. He considered everyones opinions and boldly took this solution, which I believe is the best for the project. --Taelus (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - It's an article that gaming Wikipedians would definitely be interested in, it's well sourced, and well laid out. I get this sort of question all of the time from friends and whether a game is available on their console. In addition, merely googling for lists of console exclusives yields plenty of hits to make this notable. If there's a dispute, take it to dispute resolution. This seems like an appropriate fork that provided a synergistic solution to everyone involved in the discussion. In response to failing WP:IINFO, how does this article fail it any more than its parent article? Additionally there's a hint of WP:IDONTLIKEIT lingering here based on the original discussion and the new article's history page. --Teancum (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as the nominator says, this was recently created by a user who was pretty much the only dissenting voice in a debate to remove exactly this information from the List of PlayStation 3 games and List of Xbox 360 games. I won't go through the whole argument again here (the nominator links to it), but the consensus was very much against exclusivity info being included in the lists. Really, if you can't get your own way with article content, just accept it, don't go creating whole new articles to dump it in... I would also point out that the list continues to make heavy use of the misleading term "console exclusive" where the fact that some of these titles are not actually exclusives is arbitrarily dismissed in order to include them on the list, which is akin, IMO, to making stuff up. All that aside, as a list it's pretty indiscriminate - all that the entries have in common is that (most of them) were released on only one platform, which is not an important or defining point to any of these games - in fact it's pretty much irrelevant to the games themselves. I still don't really have a problem with the exclusivity info being in the original lists, but basing a whole list on it is too much. Miremare 05:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst exclusivity is not a defining point for a game, it is actually quite a significant factor in marketing and hardware sales. It is generally agreed within the industry that exclusivity has a strong correlation to hardware sales, and Microsoft stated that their exclusive that Halo series was key to their success with the Xbox brand. (References can be found in the parent article). Perhaps then this article needs a re-write and possibly a rename to give it more context? I have suggested this to the original creator. --Taelus (talk) 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While a few massive franchises are significant in terms of hardware sales, such as the Halo and Gran Turismo series, that is a subject that should be covered in the articles on those consoles and games. Exclusivity has little to do with the fact that they sell - GTA4 and Modern Warfare 2 have sold a hell of a lot of consoles for both Sony and Microsoft while being exclusive to neither. Also being an exclusive, even a very good one, doesn't necessarily equal sales for either the console or the game - take for example the PS2's critically lauded Ico, which nobody bought. The vast majority of these games are not, and will not become, system sellers. Anyway, to sum up the objections to this from WP:VG again, the number of platforms a game is available on isn't really important to anyone apart from people trying to sell consoles, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. Miremare 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can find you several sources that indicate the exclusive expansions for GTA4 translated into system sales for the 360. –xenotalk 17:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to elaborate? You haven't explained why, and haven't pointed out what Wikipedia criteria this fails. --Teancum (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I would like to point out that we should discuss the merit of the article based on content, not the background of its creation or the contributor who created it. From a purely content point of view, why is this list not a suitable split from its parent article console exclusivity? It would detract from style to list such things on the parent article, yet it helps provide background, examples and additional information for users who would like to see such a list. --Taelus (talk) 15:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People have been, it just happens that the background of its creation is also relevant. It wasn't a split from console exclusivity but from List of Xbox 360 games and List of PlayStation 3 games, where each list has/had a column to indicate how "exclusive" a game is to that platform. I'm not sure what console exclusivity is about really... it seems to be saying that some games are exclusive to some consoles and that helps sell them, which would be more usefully covered in that console's article, IMO. At the very least a change of title to something like Exclusivity in video game marketing or somesuch, as the current title implies that it's the consoles themselves that are exclusive. Anyway, off topic... Miremare 17:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do feel free to perform a page move, and improve the article, as it is bound to suffer slightly from my "economist" style of talking and layout currently. However, I still believe the references establish the notability of this concept as it does have usage in mainstream media and the industry. Additionally, whilst it was a page split from those lists, why not call it a sub-topic of the article on console exclusivity if this helps its context and relevance? It shouldn't matter where the article came from from a technical point of view. Still, if concensus is to delete, would there be any objections to me userfying the list and attempting to develop it into some material regarding exclusivity from this generation of gaming? I understand the concerns raised by the opposition, but I still feel the information here has some use, even if it needs to be re-written and merged into another article. --Taelus (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - The information is a useful basis for further research. I suppose the information could be merged by adding additional columns to existing lists. SharkD  Talk  03:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know it's been addressed before, but there seems to be a lot of user dispute regarding the split, which can be handled over at WP:DISPUTE if any of us get out of control -- which thankfully hasn't happened yet. Just remember it comes down to whether Wikipedia benefits from the article and the criteria that defines that, and not the circumstances from which the article was born. --Teancum (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Teancum & Taelum & Xeno Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:44, 30 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 speedied A7. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Randall beck[edit]

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

Keyword notability. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete per A7. No credible assertion of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 04:00, 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 no consensus. It's important to note that the fact the website is now defunct is not in itself a valid reason for deletion. With that in mind, I can find no strong consensus either way as to whether or not the topic is sufficiently notable. Merging seems like a reasonable option, so I'd encourage editors to explore that option –Juliancolton | Talk 15:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veropedia[edit]

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

Most of the references are self-refs to a defunct website or to blogs/press releases; other references are in trivial mentions in conjunction with the general wiki forking movement or to OR-like statistical surveys. It appears to violate all three prongs of WP:WEB by having only trivial coverage in the pressing, having no awards, and having no independent content distribution method from its creators. MBisanz talk 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as now-defunct site. Fails WP:WEB. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no public interaction for nearly one year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.198 (talk) 23:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The website being inactive is not a reason to delete the article. We have many articles on defunct websites: see Category:Defunct websites. What matters is not whether a site is active, but whether it is notable. Robofish (talk) 23:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Are we looking at the same list of cites? First two I picked (the Toronto Star and the PC Pro refs) were in-depth articles specifically about this particular site that do not appear to be simple press releases, selfpub, or bloggish. There's WP:WEB Criterion 1 covered. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read both of those as falling the a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and Media re-prints of press releases exceptions given their timing and style. MBisanz talk 05:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any news articles later than a month or so after initial announcements. Mathieu O'Neil (2009). Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes. mentions it. Clearly had some lasting worth besides flash-in-the-pan startup-that-went-nowhere-after-opening. I can't tell from the google-books excerpt what the context of the mention is, so I'm not sure whether it's just a quick entry in a long list vs a discussion that highlights key examples. It will take my library a few days to get me a copy of the book... DMacks (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to potential closing admins: if you think depth of content in this ref could sway closure from delete to keep, please consider relisting instead of closing...interlibrary loan is still taking a few days:( DMacks (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I don't have access to this which seems to be a two page article specifically on Veropedia and Citezendium (according to this abstract) which could be significant coverage. The fact that the site is defunct means nothing according to policy. Deadlinks do not invalidate their original content, and a defunct website itself is no reason to delete per WP:NTEMP. I believe that the other sources clear the bar of notability. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 22:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That the site is defunct (and likely remains so in future) doesn't mean anything to the notability of the site. We have reliable sources, and that's good enough to establish notability. -- Taku (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I stated 2 years ago at the original AFD, Delete (without prejudice against recreation when WP:NOT#NEWS surpassed. The basis was that there really wasn't much evidence it was more than a few brief mentions in the news. The first time round it wasn't clear, and it was highly topical, so benefit of the doubt was then appropriate. But after a start with some press notice, it has now clearly not achieved long term historic note, nor does it really meet the criteria of notability. It is not a defunct once-notable site. It is now clearly a defunct once-potentially-notable site, where we can now see that potential was never realized. If that ever changes, recreation is easy. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Defunctness in no way is a reason to delete an article. There are multiple articles on the subject over 3 months so NOTNEWS claims are not valid. Meets primary notability criterion. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB, point 1, unfortunately. I voted 'weak keep' last time around but sadly, the site didn't keep up and has fallen into obscurity. Option to re-create if it comes back on-line and gains more media exposure - Allie ❤ 02:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has been the subject of significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. Or at least, it looks that way to me. Robofish (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (borderline): My first thought was keep, but if this fails Wikpiedia's own guidelines then I think it has to be delete (esp since it had ties with Wikipedia). It's borderline though. A lot of the notoriety of Veropedia came from within Wikipedia itself, but of course Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, hence the lack of a proper criticism section I feel. The 'Evaluation' section is very non-standard, and a poor 'cv' in effect. It goes to show that without reliable sources you can't do much on Wikipedia whatever the subject is. Maybe there is a branch of Wikimedia where it would meet policy. As Veropedia wasn't a success before it ran into troubles, Wikipedia shouldn't be waiting to see if it finds its feet. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to History of Wikipedia#Notable forks and derivatives after cutting out all the waffle. It's worth making some kind of record of this site, even if it isn't notable enough for its own article. It did get some dedicated coverage when it launched.[45][46][47] It was a bad idea, but we shouldn't sweep it under the carpet. Fences&Windows 21:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto Fences and windows that seems like a good idea for sourced information not worthy. Miami33139 (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the coverage in the sources is sufficient to establish notability and being defunct is not a reason for deletion. Davewild (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per Fences&Windows, otherwise Weak Delete. I've always been wary of the existance of this page since it's primarily struck me as a few editors pushing their project, the citations are heavily front-loaded, and it's certainly not going to get any more notable. I do think in the interests of transparency any editors who were involved in the site should make that clear with their votes. -Halo (talk) 14:14, 30 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) 17:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SpringPeople Technologies[edit]

SpringPeople Technologies (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. Borders on promotion. No independent references given. Google search turns up almost nothing other than the company's own sites, this article, and directory-style listings. (Contested speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, advertising laden with decorative upper-case: the master Certified Training Delivery Partner for SourceSource Inc., in India. As certified training delivery partner, SpringPeople Technologies runs public and onsite training courses for all the SpringSource courses - like Core Spring, Enterprise Integration with Spring etc. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Issues with both G7 & G11 - no independent, significant coverage. Skier Dude (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. Haakon (talk) 20:14, 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. Kevin (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northeast Airlines (charter)[edit]

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

Scam or hoax, see here and here Note aircraft mentioned in this article can be found registered to a Nevada company here Samuell Lift me up or put me down 03:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know some of the sources (but not all) are not reliable, but they provided the best information. Anyways, here's more: The FAA records show they only ever registered one aircraft in the US. As for the Lockheed, it appears here (though I can't tell for sure it the same one this source both supports and contradicts the image. But if you look up the Lockheed's serial, you will find it matches the number on the front wheel door of the wrecked aircraft. So this seems to confirm the forum postings. I'm still trying to track down the 727. Samuell Lift me up or put me down 04:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's supposedly on an EU blacklist that prevents it from flying to Europe per [48], but that's all I can find on it, likely a hoax. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a non notable airline company. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable. Racepacket (talk) 09:38, 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. The discussion was called short of seven days due to OTRS Ticket#: 2009112310016421 Someguy1221 (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Bjorn Erickson[edit]

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

Utterly non-notable writer. Has had about a half-dozen writings published in magazines of limited readership, and several letters to the editor, as well as two as-yet-unpublished books. Note also that the article is an autobiography. Katr67 (talk) 02:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment More info: Here is an interview with the author--in question 10 he explains how to get your biography published in Wikipedia. Strangely, this mea culpa used to be linked in the article. Katr67 (talk) 03:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - none of the sources provided give any sort of in-depth treatment to the subject, and most (possibly all as some are hard to find the actual source vs. the main URL) are written by the subject or say his wife, thus not independent. Letters to the editor confer as much notability as blog posts on my blog, which is none. Other searches come up with nothing of substance to support notability. Thus fails the main part of WP:BIO, and nothing of his work gets a free pass from WP:AUTHOR. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete one hit in gnews and nothing in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 11:29, 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 speedy delete. Tikiwont (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muhd Rasydan[edit]

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

Hoax article. snigbrook (talk) 02:02, 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. Kevin (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Smiley Kylie Medley[edit]

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

Microstub about a medley of songs performed by a singer: no references, no evidence of notability, and close to speedyable. PROD removed by creator. Nyttend (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this song, which is necessary in order to pass WP:NSONGS. An article that amounts to "'The Smiley Kylie Medley' is a medley by Kylie" is not going to cut it.  Gongshow Talk 21:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not an article and the subject does not deserve an article. The medley could be mentioned (very) briefly in the Kylie Minogue biography. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 08:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There's no criterion under which this could be speedied; the only criterion that really applies to songs is A9, and that's only for songs by nonnotable artists; I expect that a singer whose article is featured can be assumed to be notable :-) Believe me, I would have speedied this if I could have. Nyttend (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - oops, a procedural error on my part. My vote above was formerly "Speedy Delete" but I have changed it to plain "Delete" per Nyttend's statement. Either way, the arguments still stand. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in a speedy fashion the article doesn't even define what the medley consists of. Here is the google search; no WP:RS's. J04n(talk page) 02:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now that's a request with which I'll agree speedily :-) Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAUTION! Heartache Ahead[edit]

CAUTION! Heartache Ahead (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 film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I can't find such coverage either. IMDb does not indicate where, if anywhere, this film was released. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Article claims "will be released" in past, but I see no evidence on Google that it actually happened, or any 3rd party reviews of the film. Re-create when or if the film is actually released and has reactions in the press. 09:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete pn can't find significant coverage LoudHowie (talk) 22:22, 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 Invalid reason given, no sign it meets any other criteria Triplestop x3 04:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFL-CIO Employees Federal Credit Union[edit]

AFL-CIO Employees Federal Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Recreation of a speedy deleted article. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 01:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Pickbothmanlol, that is incorrect. The article was not speedily deleted at all; rather, it was tagged for proposed deletion. The PROD expired and the page was deleted by an admin, Julian Colton. The reason for the deletion was the lack of asserted notability. Now that this is at AfD, the question is not whether notability is asserted but whether it exists. Therefore, I advise you to add valid reasoning for deletion at AfD. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The AFL-CIO Employees FCU article is referenced and the credit union has a sizable membership. It seems this may have been mistaken for a recreation after a speedy deletion as well, which it was not. Gobonobo T C 01:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article that meets notability criteria. The nominator's reasons seemed to be in error. I'm sure it was unintentional and done in good faith, however, a close and keep seems to be in order. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:56, 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 speedy delete per discussion below and WP:SNOWBALL

64-iber Great Cannon[edit]

64-iber Great Cannon (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 title is idiosyncratic, and appears exactly once on the Internet; the article Dardanelles Gun already exists to deal with this topic; article created as first edit by user that then proceeded to vandalism The Anome (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the ' iber' should probably be ' lber' as in pounder (lb. weight) ie. 64 pounder cannon. Theres are more 'hits' on "64 lber Cannon" eg. [49] Mostly from the 'Total War' computer wargaming series. It's also being picked up by other websites that 'borrow' from Wikipedia ie.Warsearch , 'medbib' and 'tutorgig' if we don't stop it here it will only help spread dubious information. The Garrochista 'article' from the same 'editor' also needs looking at.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 07:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SideStep[edit]

SideStep (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 do not feel this article passes WP:ORG. The fact that it has zero references and pushes the promotional boundaries doesn't help. 132 05:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 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) 09:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysical fantasy[edit]

Metaphysical fantasy (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 genre is a new genre, but seems also to be a non-notable term. The article itself cites no sources for discussion about this genre. Though Amazon has a tag on this genre, it seems not recognised and discussed anywhere. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally (as the page's creator), I don't care either way. I just didn't think it belonged on the List of fantasy subgenres page. If you want an opinion from someone who cares, I recommend asking the person who created the material originally.
-- TimNelson (talk) 04:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this light, I left a note on Talk:List_of_literary_genres#AfD_notification Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:32, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 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 speedy deleted per CSD G4 by User:Skier Dude. Non-admin closure. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order Up (film)[edit]

Order Up (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)

Non-notable short film that has not won any major awards. Does not meet Wikipedia's film article standards. Warrah (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:56, 16 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) 00:33, 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 redirect to Conditions (album). Cirt (talk) 09:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science of Fear[edit]

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

not very notable, no context at all. Alankc (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:56, 16 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) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Security Alliance[edit]

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

Appears to be largely promotional but maybe not speedy. Very little news coverage. possibly fails notability criteria. Polargeo (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's Keep it, there are hundreds of Google News hits, 166 Google Books hits, and over 100 Google Scholar hits. Since we keep things that have 2 non-trivial sources, the nominator has not explained away these hits, and nobody else has commented, keeping seems the best choice. Abductive (reasoning) 21:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I've removed most of the promotional copy. Abductive's news hits are a bit misleading, some are to generic "internet security alliances", many are to press releases, most are passing mentions. But the president, Larry Clinton, has recently been giving evidence to a senate committee,[63] and they've got some other coverage in the tech press:[64][65]. Fences&Windows 20:41, 29 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. The clear argument here is that this sad occurence is unfortunately routine, and does not stand out from other similar crimes enough to warrant an article. Kevin (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Makhniashvili[edit]

Mariam Makhniashvili (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 (I was the PROD-er.) Article is about a missing high-school student not notable for anything other than disappearing. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(criminal_acts)#Victims, "A victim of a high-profile crime does not automatically qualify as being notable enough to have a stand-alone article solely based on his or her status as a victim...As such, a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission." Granted it is not yet known if there was a crime here, but WP:BLP1E still applies, and Makhniashvili simply isn't notable other than the fact that she is currently missing, even though her disappearance has generated a lot of local media coverage. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose
  • not notable for anything other than disappearing is simply not accurate: the case of the missing child, Mariam Makhniashvili, is notable because of the precedent setting and distinctive lengths the authorities have gone to find her Toronto Star, including, but not limited to, house to house searching of 6,000 residences (a recent precedent for Toronto), interviewing an entire high school population (an historical precedent), using specialized equipment such as IR equipped helicopters, and transferring her case to an international jurisdiction Interpol (a rare occurrence).
    • One newspaper has termed the child's disappearance as bizarre and referring to police procedures as thinking outside the box Toronto Sun. This is certainly notable and unique with respect to police investigation technique.
    • Canada's National Newspaper, The Toronto Star, noted on November 17, 2009 article that,
      • There has never been a Toronto police search like the one for Mariam Makhniashvili.
      • Police have taken extraordinary steps to find an extraordinary teenager, one with virtually no personal profile in the city ... and taken the unprecedented step of assigning 60 detectives to knock on 6,000 doors in her neighbourhood.
      • Mark Mendelson, a former Toronto police homicide investigator ... can't recall a case like Mariam's in his 28 years on the force.
      • It is the lack of evidence that sets this apart from other high-profile cases.5TT45 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • has generated a lot of local media coverage does not address the international media coverage given to this case Georgian Times.
  • Dawn Bard does not substantiate assertions with any sources
  • This article should be included in Wikipedia because it conforms to notability criteria, as is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above. at WP:PERPETRATOR 5TT45 18:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— User:5TT45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • The edit, regarding few or no other edits has no relevance to this discussion and borders on incivility, as defined by explain your edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5TT45 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Elizabeth Smart kidnapping for wiki precedent to the Makhniashvili case. Also note that Makhniashvili supersedes the notability of this case by its international scope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5TT45 (talk • contribs) 01:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unique to this case are overtones of foreign politics, that is, Georgian political issues: the missing child's mother was a Georgian journalist and father a prominent intellectual; they left Georgia the same year as The Rose RevolutionToronto Star 5TT45 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • noting that Mariam Makhniashvili was nominated for deletion at about the same time its linked scribd.com article, since re-published was anonymously deleted (with malicious intent), and noting that this case may involve serious legal and immigration issues which potentially challenge the business interests of certain international groups,
    • What is the actual intent of the nomination for deletion? Is it in good faith or in fact an attempt by these parties to stifle publication? 5TT45 (talk) 15:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't appreciate the implication that I am involved in any attempt to "stifle publication" to further "business interests of certain international groups" - they are completely untrue and completely unfounded. (Also, deleting a Wikipedia article doesn't "stifle publication" in any way.) To address a couple of other points:
  • Outside sources aren't required for an AFD - it's an internal Wikipedia process; I cited the relevant Wikipedia policy.
  • "Other stuff exists" is never the best argument in a deletion discussion, and the Elizabeth Smart case is different from this one, and therefore not relevant. Smart has had 3 books written about her and has more recently chosen to put herself in the public eye, and at any rate, there was no biography of her on Wikipedia while she was still missing.
  • WP:PERPETRATOR doesn't seem relevant, given that Makhniashvili isn't a perpetrator; if anything, she's a victim, and, per WP:VICTIM, "a victim of a crime should normally only be the subject of an article where an article that satisfied notability criteria existed, or could have properly been created prior to the crime's commission." I don't see how that burden has been met here.
Dawn Bard (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. No comments made in this discussion are personal, and we are sorry if any participants misinterpreted them as such: we merely asked a question relating the international scope of this case. We are surprised that Dawn Bard has associated themselves with the 'certain international groups', but that is not material to this discussion.
  • Reference to another Wikipedia article is not Other stuff exists but a citation of precedent, which is material to the argument. Further, Dawn Bard's personal opinion, 'is never the best argument in a deletion discussion' is not relevant to this discussion.
    • If we accept 'at any rate, there was no biography of her on Wikipedia while she was still missing' as true, then the entire argument to delete this article rests on the premise that somewhere out there is a sliding scale of notability based upon how many 'books' were written on a person. This is patently ridiculous.
    • This topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, and is therefore a notable topic
    • It conforms to Notability (criminal acts), which states that, 'A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope.' and 'While the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) of such a crime are often not notable on their own, this does not preclude the notability of the criminal act itself.'
    • Wiktionary defines notable as 'Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished.', and as shown above, this particular case is notable for several different reasons, including persistent and widespread media coverage, police technique and lack of evidence. While Wikitionary is not the basis of Wikipedia deletion policy, we believe that it is important to state the dictionary definition of notability for reference here.
  • Even if the subject of this article does not meet the individual requirements of notability, the crime itself is notable because of media coverage and the uniqueness of the effort to find the person.
  • Reference to WP:PERPETRATOR is in relation to 'assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage', and does not specifically relate to the title of the section.5TT45 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I didn't associate myself with any international groups, you did above by implication, and I still don't appreciate it. "Other stuff exists" is an argument to be avoided in deletion discussions based on Wikipedia guidelines, not on my personal opinion. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:00, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to coverage in WP:RS more than meeting WP:GNG, and, per the above discussion, the fact that this case has sufficient indicia of uniqueness as to sharply distinguish it from the "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" inconsistent with WP:NOTNEWS. Andrea105 (talk) 02:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I tend to be rather flexible about accepting articles like these--but at this point with no evidence that there was even a crime, it does not meet BLP policy. No matter how many papers cover a routine disappearance, it does not make the subject notable. If there is some other development later, then possibly there can be an article about her, any one eventually accused of anything, or --most likely--the event. This is the an exceptionally weak article of this sort in terms of intrinsic importance--at least for now. If this meets the GNG, we need to replace the GNG. That the police cannot solve a disappearance is not notable. That something is notable because nothing is known about it is a self-contradiction. FWIW, in the Smart case this is known to be a crime for which someone was convicted and, more important, a book has been written about it, which is evidence of long-term notability DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree with the claim that we "need to replace the GNG" :) The general notability guideline is an objective metric by which notability may be assessed, through reference to the quantity and substantiality of coverage in third-party reliable sources. Without the guideline, the outcomes of AFD discussions would be determined largely by editors' perceptions of importance. Therefore, it would be impossible to determine, prior to starting an article, whether it would be considered notable, or whether all of one's efforts would be destroyed. To minimize systemic bias, it is far better to focus on whether RS treat a subject as unique, significant, and worthy of attention, than whether an article's topic happens to strike the fancy of editors participating in AFD. Andrea105 (talk) 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no evidence given that this is anything more than a missing teenager. I do not believe that door-to-door canvasing is unique to this case (it's common in cases of missing children), nor do I believe that involvement of Interpol is unique or unusual. Having a large number of police and volunteers work on a missing child case for a short period of time is not unusual. This case, while unfortunate, does not pass WP:ONEEVENT. Mariam Makhniashvili may merit a Wikipedia article at some time in the future, but she doesn't now. – jaksmata 16:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What makes this case different from so many other missing child cases? Sure it has received a lot of media attention, but for the time being it's not much different from hundreds of other cases. The article seems to me like a Missing Child poster, it provides little factual information about the case. Gmantonz ( talk ) 14:27, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. Trying to sort out the above, some of which which don't make a lot of sense,
    • I tend to be rather flexible about accepting articles like these
      • This is not an argument but the user's own opinion about their character. It does not contribute to the discussion.
      • What are articles like these? Is there a separate wiki section under a heading articles like these?
    • No matter how many papers cover a routine disappearance
      • The user does not provide any evidence that this is a routine disappearance.
    • That something is notable because nothing is known about it is a self-contradiction
      • The article does not state that the case is notable because the Police don't have any evidence, but because this is an anomaly with respect to other missing persons cases. That is, this is a precedent because there is no evidence, and never before, according to Police, has this occurred.
    • I do not believe that door-to-door canvassing is unique to this case (it's common in cases of missing children)
      • But over and over, media and Police have stated, in writing, that these door to door searches (not just canvassing), have set a precedent. If this user thinks it isn't, then please give us some evidence of comparable searches, with respect to missing persons, in Toronto, or even in Canada.
    • seems to me like a Missing Child poster
      • This isn't an argument, but an unfounded opinion

5TT45 (talk) 15:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this aggressively argumentative tone constructive. People have a right to use phrases like "articles like these" as part of their arguments. It is easily understood as meaning "articles about victims of crimes who are not otherwise notable". --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Routine disappearance of a teenager, nothing remarkable or notable. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I feel bad about saying delete, just like I do when we have to delete heartfelt obituaries, but this is a news story and not an encyclopaedic subject. Articles like this have been deleted in the past. If we are going to write about this at all it should be an article on the criminal act, not the victim, but there does not seem to be enough information to write anything encyclopaedic when there is not even proof of a criminal act. That might change as the story develops. In the meantime, it is incredibly unlikely that having this article would do anything to help find her anyway. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. BLP1E would be easily side-stepped by calling this Disappearance of..., so we should focus on whether this event is notable. Applying the criteria in the proposal WP:EVENT, despite a large amount of local coverage it hasn't gained much attention outside Toronto, and isn't a unusual or unprecedented event, making the coverage largely routine. Further events and wider coverage might show notability at a later date, so no prejudice against recreating an article about this disappearance in that case. Fences&Windows 19:32, 29 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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Tiny RSS[edit]

Tiny Tiny RSS (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) 00:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I can't find sources, either. Haakon (talk) 18:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is one sentence we don't need. Miami33139 (talk) 05:34, 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 merge to List of Emmerdale characters. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Doland (Emmerdale)[edit]

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

article is orphaned, person of subject doesn't seem notable. Alan - talk 22:24, 16 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) 00:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to whichever is the most appropriate list of characters in the series. DGG ( talk ) 03:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is appropriate. Abductive (reasoning) 21:34, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thiaoouba Prophecy[edit]

Thiaoouba Prophecy (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 work by an unknown publishing company. I haven't been able to find any information on "Arafura Publishing" as an independent entity. The closest I can find is Arafura Indymedia, which is just an open "publishing" website. The article has no independent sources to show notability of the work. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non-notable, can't find any reasonable sources for it K602 (talk) 02:38, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 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. Kevin (talk) 05:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BuildFast[edit]

BuildFast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can only find a couple of mentions of the company outide press releases and newswires. Doesn't have the significant coverage needed to have an article. Fences&Windows 19:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep.Google News hits indicate some notability.--PinkBull 20:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to do better than just pointing at a Google News search. Which items of coverage give significant coverage, adequate to show notability? Fences&Windows 01:56, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Sampson[edit]

Cindy Sampson (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 actress, a quick look for reliable sources revealed nothing of note [66] and the first few pages of google are not showing any reliable sources. Absent reliable sourcing this fails V. RS, N & Bio Spartaz Humbug! 23:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - if even a few roles from IMdB can be verified by more reliable sources, then she is a notable actress, although I've never heard of her until now. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that's the point really, the lack of coverage of her roles means that she isn't notable and there are simply no reliable sources out there for her. Spartaz Humbug! 02:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and continue sourcing. Her multiple significant roles in multiple notable productions meets the presumption of WP:ENT. Its a matter of tagging the article for sources and moving on. Granted, she does seem to keep a low profile. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question how are we assessing that her roles are significant in notable productions. I know its a judgement thing but surely there should be reviews and bnewspaper articles if this were the case. Spartaz Humbug! 02:27, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 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. Kevin (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devia[edit]

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

Webcomic that gives no assertion of notability. Does not appear to meet any of the requirements of WP:WEB, as it has zero sources (and seems to be entirely OR). The WordsmithCommunicate 07:14, 16 November 2009 (

Delete It even states that all of its info came from original sources (a forum and the author). Looking around for a couple minutes wasn't able to find any RSs to add Jamesofur (talk) 23:54, 16 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) 00:11, 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. Kevin (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Crusade[edit]

White Crusade (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 author, non-notable publisher, no reviews, and nothing resembling an RS. Zero indication that this meets WP:GNG. The WordsmithCommunicate 06:22, 16 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) 00:09, 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Live Betas[edit]

Windows Live Betas (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 fails general notability guideline for web contents and provides no sources whatsoever. Note that although the subject of Windows Live itself is notable, the subject of The Web Page From Which You Used To Access Windows Live Beta Products is not notable. Due to absolute lack of source, the alternative of merging it into Windows Live Essentials article is ruled out. Fleet Command (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete I concur with the above for the given reasons. --Pstanton (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - We've been through this already, this is the second attempt the same author attempting to delete this article. As indicated on this edit, the Speedy deletion request for Windows Live Betas was declined by an administrator. The reason given was: Criterion A7 does not apply: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. The article was once Windows Live Ideas which played significant importance to Windows Live. Windows Live Ideas has since been discontinued, however as a historical product, its significance is still retained. It is important to note that wikipedia does not discriminate against historical or discontinued products that had a significance in its time. --Damaster98 (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition, the article now has sufficient references in place. Thus the author's claim that there are "no sources" is not valid anymore. --Damaster98 (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Thanks for the notice Damaster98. However, note that the article still fails general notability guideline as this article has only provided primary sources while notability requires coverage from independent sources. Besides, notability is not temporary. My concern however is that your sources are either primary or temporary.
      • However, now that your article is not entirely lacking sources, it can safely be merged into a broader topic which reinforces notability. Fleet Command (talk) 11:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification: The fact that I declined the speedy deletion only means that I considered the article to not meet any of the narrow criteria for speedy deletion, and should not be deleted without discussion. It may still be deemed non-notable after a discussion at AfD. In fact, if I remember correctly, I encouraged Fleet Command to nominate the article for AfD if they wished to pursue deletion further. auto / decltype (talk) 22:14, 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, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sufficient notability has been given for this webpage in the article or the sources. Cursory search did not give any indication that this is notable. feydey (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I would love to be able to keep under WP:NTEMP (which has been cited above in a manner completely inverse to it's meaning), I cannot justify it. I can find lots of references to the site, but they are all fleeting mentions. Hundreds of news articles that state something is available for download at the site, plus dozens of printed press releases, don't add up to notability due to the lack of depth. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 23:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Student Bodies[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Associated Student Bodies (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 comic has zero sources, and no indication that it meets WP:GNG. Google test doesn't come up with anything that could reasonably be used as a source, either. The WordsmithCommunicate 04:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Yes. I can't really see how it survived this long. Please do away with it, for the above reasons. --Pstanton (talk) 06:16, 16 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) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as already mentioned--Brunnian (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I actually voted to keep this back in 2006, but with WP's recent tightening standards and increased focus on reliable sourcing, I don't think it still makes the grade. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:RECREATE. Tim1357 (talk) 18:37, 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. Consensus is that he fails WP:CREATIVE due to a lack of significant coverage. Fences&Windows 18:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Borowsky[edit]

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

fails WP:CREATIVE, not sure about the awards he has won, has had very limited coverage in the press for someone that sounds much greater in his article. gnews. LibStar (talk) 04:41, 16 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) 00:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- substantial coverage in [67] and [68]. Those concerned about forgery of magazine articles :) should note that the scans contain sufficient information to verify the publications in print form; Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources does not require that complete verification be possible using only material freely available online. Andrea105 (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2 articles about the Borowsky family rather than Emmanuel specifically do not make for sufficient in depth coverage to satisfy WP:BIO. If this article was about Borowsky family then those sources are ok. Emmanuel is an active musician according to the article then there would be no problems finding coverage in the US press (which publishes most things online). LibStar (talk) 10:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to have an article on the Borowsky family, then this article should be merged and redirected there, not deleted. Andrea105 (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it can be redirected there if it exists. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will exist if the appropriate content from the relevant individual articles is merged. Closure as merge and redirect is not precluded by the present non-existence of the target -- indeed, there's every reason not to merge the content until the AFD discussion is completed. Andrea105 (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Frances Borowsky, Elizabeth Borowsky, and Cecylia Barczyk seem to present similar issues :) Andrea105 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now nominated Frances Borowsky, Elizabeth Borowsky. Cecylia Barczyk seems marginally notable having actually had an established musical career unlike her children. LibStar (talk) 05:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no major awards, no major recordings, and no performances with first-rate international orchestras. At least, not yet. DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 06:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudo[edit]

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

Unimportant subject matter, self-sourced. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What the hell is "self-sourced?" I checked the sources, and there are sources from TechCrunch and Reuters. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 01:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't seem notable at all. only one referance on page to an article. Alan - talk 22:44, 16 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) 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Since when is a company issued press release a notable coverage? Just because TechCrunch wrote about this software it does not make it notable, I fail to find any other significant coverage outside of TechCrunch. LoudHowie (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - References would definitely need to be improved and expanded. The press release is certainly not third party. 27,000 Google hits, including some reviews, such as this, this, this and this would seem to be third party, non-trivial coverage. Some of them appear to give both pros and cons, so it seems to be at least relatively neutral. While not perfect, the subject would seem to meet notability guidelines, and I feel it should be kept and expanded. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:00, 28 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) 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Credit Union System[edit]

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

not clear how this system of financial institutions is notable. No claim of notability in the article. RadioFan (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Ohio Credit Union System is notable in several ways. Founded in 1934, it represents over 400 credit unions with a membership of over 2.6 million people in Ohio. The System lobbies the government[69] and includes a non-profit charitable organization that awards grants and scholarships as well as providing disaster relief. This article needs to be improved, not deleted. Gobonobo T C 04:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the age or size of the institution does not establish notability--RadioFan (talk) 16:26, 16 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) 00:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Size is often a good proxy for notability. In this case, I consider that a state-wide organization is likely to be notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for heavens sake, this is a financial institution with unusual methods and a social outlook in a nation where socialism is an anathema. It performs to the public good within an industry notorious for doing the opposite. It is self-evidently more notable than some of the comic books, soap actors, and hole-in-a-corner musicians that litter wikipedia with impunity. The article could be more interesting, mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunnian (talk • contribs) 09:39, 23 November 2009
  • Keep - Meets notability requirements --Fbifriday (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My main concern here is that each of the third-party sources in the article do not talk about the Ohio Credit Union System, they refer to credit unions in Ohio in general without naming this specific association. I would like to see what each of the keep !voters above think about that. Jujutacular T · C 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular T · C 22:43, 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. Kevin (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public Relations (film)[edit]

Public Relations (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)

A user contested the prod because the film is completed, but that doesn't make the film pass WP:NF. I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:29, 16 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) 00:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I note that the "Jayson Blair" in this film is apparently not the writer Jayson Blair who already has a Wikipedia article, because the actor Jayson Blair appears to be of a different race from the writer Jayson Blair. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as per. We can't have an entry for every wannabe film. Perhaps there should be a page for 'un-notable films'?--Brunnian (talk) 09:41, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_November_23&oldid=1142643499"