Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 4

< 3 September	5 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jericho and The Big Show[edit]

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

Completely non notable team. Jordan Payne ^T /_C 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why start an AFD? There is already a PROD on the article that has only 2 days left, the article will be deleted on Sunday if no one removes the PROD. I obviously support the deletion since I was the one that PRODded it. TJ Spyke 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Close for the moment as this has been started incorrectly. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am now officially saying Delete. A damn IP removed the PROD (with no edit summary), a mere 30 minutes before the 7 day deadline for it to be deleted. TJ Spyke 14:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per precedent for similar articles (two people who happen to be teaming rather than a notable tag team). Nikki♥311 19:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I say Nikki deletes it now, but that is just me. Not notable at the moment.--WillC 19:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to add references so I couldn't add a lot of them. I say delete now but if they stay a team into the new year then start thinking about making a new page.Y2J The Evil Twin (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now the PROD has gone. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Θaks ter 11:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a team, definitely not notable. Mentions in the individual articles will more than suffice at this point. Get Dumb 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.Singingdaisies (talk) 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Matrioshka brain. while no consensus for deletion/there is a consensus to have both Jupiter brain and Matrioshka brain. I will merge jupiter brain into the other - if the other way then you can do the changes JForget 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jupiter brain[edit]

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

A nonnotable neologism and article full of original reasearch (collection of examples), Wikipedia is not a vehicle of promotion of new ideas. - Altenmann >t 14:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Related to Matrioshka brain. Suggest merging both terms into one page. (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrioshka brain) Viriditas (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As above. It also often used by science fiction authors. --Soyweiser (talk) 15:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The term is used with moderate frequency by futurists, in the cited essay and elsewhere. Whether this meets WP:N in general depends on what one assumes the scope of the audience is. This is an important and nontrivial choice, for this article and others, as choice of scope and guidelines for scope in notability decisions affect large numbers of articles. That said, I'm abstaining from voting, despite being the author of the original stub. Keep, merge, or delete as you see fit (I have my nostalgia-copy on disk). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The AFD on Matrioshka brain has been closed "keep". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 00:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Matrioshka brain, as it has little sources and content to credit its own article. This term seems only notable from within the field of the Matrioshka brain article. Inclusion in the article and its notability in the field can be discussed in the talk page. If the section in the Matrioshka brain article expands and more sources are found, the article can be recreated.– sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 09:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Matrioshka brain - not enough sources to stand on its own, but appears to be notable enough to be included in a related article.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. same as above 98.212.163.76 (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC) (Moved below relisting banner; originally a response to User:Viriditas.)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:CSD#G10. A regular delete would have sufficed per WP:BLP1E after 7 das, but this article does little beyond disparage the unfortunate victim of a wholly non-notable embarrassing accident. There is, therefore, no need to let this person suffer for 6 more days. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poo Girl[edit]

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

Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't a news site. Whilst this girl did obtain some coverage in 'oddly enough'-type sections, simply being stuck in faeces, and have a few news sources report this, in my opinion, fails WP:BIO. Computerjoe 's talk 23:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but the coverage has only just started, there are various songs appearing on youtube documenting the issue. 70,000 people visit Leeds Festival and future festival go-ers will here about the story and want to find out what happend. 20,000 people have joined the appreication group this incident is a notable event and should be documented. I didn't make the article for the good of my health or a for laugh, it is a notable issue that people will wish to be informed about in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.34.12 (talk) 03:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube? Funny. Joe Chill (talk) 04:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is exactly the kind of situation that WP:BLP1E is talking about when it says, "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:BLP1E. Lugnuts (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:BLP1E. And.......... . Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 08:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all news articles shouldn't be given encyclopedia entrys, but I maintain that this incident will be famous for several years with each new generation of festival goers hearing the rumour and wishing to know the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.34.12 (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been to the Leeds festival several times and trust me, this is the least interesting thing I've ever heard of happening to anyone. Nobody will care by this time next week. Lugnuts (talk)

This was my 5th Leeds festival and I agree I find the whole incident uniteresting but its all my fellow festival go-ers are discusing. I remain convinced that she will be discused in many years to come by 1000's of people and thus deserves an entry in an encylopedia./ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.202.34.12 (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete probably speedy delete, at that, if any other admin wants to confirm. This is what BLP1E was written for. I sometimes don't like what I think to be its overextensive use here, but this article is proof that the rule does have a real purpose. If the meme is actually very highly notable, the article could be written without the personal name at all DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Myah Marie[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. No references to independent reliable sources; a Google search produces plenty of hits, but they're all just trivial listings or probable self-promotion. I am unable to find any actual evidence of notability. Robofish (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all attempts at finding a source only found various profile pages and other non-reliable-sources.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 18:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom. No independent reliable sources to confirm notability. Singularity42 (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably the most ghits I've seen on an article that should be deleted. Gobs of them, but nothing substantial, nothing showing actual notability. Per nom. Jujutacular^talk_contribs 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolic analysis[edit]

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

Despite the use of "symbolic analysis" in their name, which may suggest a generic or well-known notion, these two articles are entirely based one man's relatively obscure and fairly recent line of research, who in all likelihood also wrote the wiki articles. While he did publish a few conference papers about these topics, none are published in significant venues. A red flag is that while the main application of this line of research is to programming languages, none of these papers were published in a programming language conference or even workshop.

I think I have a graduate-level understanding of programming language topics (please check my contributions on this wiki). Despite this, I fail to understand what these two wiki articles, or one of the conference papers given as reference which I've read, are actually proposing as an analysis framework or as a theory for understanding programs. Idiosyncratic jargon is presented instead of technical details, which are a simply missing not only in the wiki article, but also in the paper I've read.

It might be possible that once some third party publications appear about this topic, someone other than this research's author may be able to write an informative wiki article about it. Until then, I don't see how this stuff can be salvaged as an encyclopedia article.

(Please be advised that I won't be able to reply to questions for 12 hours or so, but I will be happy to clarify any issue that may arise in this discussion thereafter.) Pcap ping 22:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - At first glance, this looked like a real topic, but it's more like one person's thesis. Need reliable sources to show its importance. Also 'symbolic analysis' sounds like using it is using neologism to attach a made-up meaning to a familiar-sounding phrase. No evidence that other writers use 'symbolic analysis' in this sense. EdJohnston (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - All the literature on this concept seems to be written by the same person, including this Wikipedia article. No evidence of notability. The fact that there's a website (again created by the same person) about this concept makes it even more suspicious. --Robin (talk) 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What about Symbolic_generalization, Symbolic evaluation and Symbolic information. They're all created by the same person and seem to be describing the same concept. --Robin (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment More of the same. Delete them, they are a disservice to information. As with this article, no wp:rs--Work permit (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Symbolic analysis is notable as a circuit engineering term, and has extensions to other fields. But this article has nothing to do with that. This article has no citations, and for good reason. It seems like something the author has made up. For a sense of "real" symbolic analysis, a Google scholar search is a good place to start. There is also a textbook that uses the term, Symbolic analysis and reduction of VLSI circuits. The first line in the first chapter is a good way to define the term: symbolic analysis is to characterize the behavior or characteristics of a circuit in terms of symbolic parameters. In this context, you can think of it as the antonym of numerical analysis. This article is worse then useless, it is grossly misleading for people looking to understand what the term really means. --Work permit (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that out. I would add that even if we restrict our attention to compiler theory, where this terminology is not that often encountered, symbolic analysis can have a more generic and fairly similar meaning with the one you found for circuit analysis. This thesis (at a major research university in CS) defines symbolic analysis as "compile time methods for reasoning about program values that may not be constant."—the techniques used in this work are similar to those used in programs like Mathematica, e.g. rewriting. So, the wiki article is misleading even in the narrower context of programming languages, appropriating a generic term for a narrow line of research. Pcap ping 08:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Usman Rana[edit]

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

The article fails to meet the relevant notability guideline. Mr Rana, a student, is virtually unknown outside of Norway, where he is active as a columnist for a local newspaper. Note that all the references given in the article are in Norwegian. Nidrosia (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, easily meets the general notability guideline. Why? Because numerous reliable sources cover him. All the nominator's deletion reasons are invalid: 1) students can be notable 2) being known in only one country is enough, as long as there are reliable sources 3) the language of the references is irrelevant. Geschichte (talk) 07:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A student may be just as notable as a University Professor. But if so, she/he is notable for some reason. The merits listed in this article include: (1) good grades at school; (2) leading a Norwegian group of Pakistani students; (3) meeting the Justice Minister of Norway; (4) writing for public debate. Note that the candidate has never published a peer-reviewed paper, and he has never published a book. There are thousands of Norwegian students whose achievements are no less significant. They do not have individual entries in the Wikipedia. Nidrosia (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't see the relevance of the "no english sources"-argument. There is plenty of reliable sources. That is what counts per WP:N. Rettetast (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability," see notability. Nidrosia (talk) 12:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, but the coverage of this person is not trivial. Rettetast (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work, and how far removed that content is from a simple directory entry or a mention in passing that does not discuss the subject in detail. A credible 200-page independent biography of a person that covers that person's life in detail is non-trivial, whereas a birth certificate or a 1-line listing on an election ballot form is not," see notability. None of the eighteen references given in the article amount to more than one or two pages. Most of the references deal with trivial matters (good grades at school, receiving a job offer, etc.). The three search functions at the top of the page ("news, books, scholar") affirm that Mr Usman Rana is mentioned in one book only, namely, Bruce Bawer, Surrender: Appeasing Islam, Sacrificing Freedom (2009). In this book there is a brief reference to the political ideas held by Mr Usman Rana (p. 209). However, this reference, which should have been listed in the Wikipedia entry on Mr Usman Rana, is very far from being a "credible 200-page independent biography." Nidrosia (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being notable in one country is sufficient, and the nom admits as much--and the sources appear to confirm it. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is well known in Norway and the article is well supplied with references to that, so he is obviously a person that should have an article in Wikipedia. And remember that this is the English language version of Wikipedia, that the person in question is not living in the US or the UK is thus not relevant. Ulflarsen (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is obviously a person who is reasonably active in the Norwegian public sphere. There are many reliable sources that cover his views. Meets Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria. --Kjetil_r 23:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encrypt-Stick[edit]

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

Declined speedy. No indication as to why this particular piece of software is notable. ~Excesses~ (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – As SPAM. No hits on Google News. The only hits on Google are the parent company’s, ENC, web-site and a press release. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Livehuddle[edit]

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

PROD contested by article creator, who has a COI issue. Article does not substantiate notability of software product. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 20:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What would substantiate notability of the software product? It has been reviewed by 3rd party companies and has been in existence since 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakehilton (talk • contribs) 20:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see the notability guideline for a company's products as well as the overall notability guideline. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable software. Haakon (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Helicopter Sightseeing Tours[edit]

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

Contested prod, non-notable helicopter tour operator one of many even in the New Yorka area. Added due to a news event but it still remains a self-referenced non-notable company MilborneOne (talk) 19:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Redirect– As one event. There is no coverage of the company other than that tragic event. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to 2009 Hudson River mid-air collision. This is a clear case of a non-notable organisation involved in a notable event, so in many cases a redirect from the name of the organisation to the event is appropriate if the former is or is likely to become a useful search term. In this case I can't decide whether the redirect would be valuable or not. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I could see a Redirect, in that the company is named in the main article. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, One event applies only to people, according to the link given by Shoessss. Second, there are many prior entries for this in Google news archive: phttp://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Liberty+Helicopter%22+Sightseeing+Tours+&scoring=a&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=2004&as_hdate=2005&lnav=hist7] They seem to have been a long established major company in the business. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being an established business doesn't confer notability, as many AfD debates have shown. If a company is known only for one news event, the usual practice is to have an entry for the event, not the company. Hairhorn (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khatri Surnames[edit]

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

List has no point in existing... Category:Khatri clans is enough. Also, it seems to be the same as List of Khatri Gotras and clans, which also is going thru an AfD right now. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mixture of surnames of different tribes and confusing. Similar article like [List of Khatri Gotras and clans]] also contain confusing information. -- Comment by Cv6000 (talk · contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AfD wasn't listed on the AfD log. See here for more information. Cunard (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and at I haven't been able to verify it either, also, a random sample of blue links shows that belonging to the list is unsourced there too. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename. There is indeed significant coverage in multiple reliable sources here, and consensus to keep the article. However, the sources do not focus on the life and times of Bobby Joe Blythe, and neither does our article – after the first line, "Bobby Joe Blythe (c.1946) is a former marine, karate instructor and currently resides in Hanford, California.", it is entirely about the incident captured on video. Following WP:ONEEVENT, if a person is notable for only one event, then the encyclopaedia is best served by covering the event, not the person. Skomorokh 17:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Joe Blythe[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people) criteria and is most likely a minor temporary web celebrity. Entire article is based around once incident, with trivial news coverage at this point (biggest item is one article in the Washington Post). Highly speculative as the article is mostly based on YouTube videos, creating a BLP issue. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update Another news item has appeared on Inside Nova on 8th Sept adding further credibility to and interest in the incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.68.172 (talk) 01:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - This is bio is related to a significant event both in the martial arts community and as an internet phenomenon. --Mista-X (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per WP:ONEEVENT. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - This is an event probably never seen before on the internet. a beating 26 years ago put up on the internet and it galvanized hundreds of thousands of people calling for justice for this event. Bobby Joe Blythe is the main person in the video and the person who set up the beating, it also happened in his dojo in dumfries va. many news articles have been written and news stories have been done on tv also this isnt just some flash in the pan event that people will forget about in a short time, this is something that the martial arts community will remember for a long time. As for notability this is directly from your own rules page "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."this covers Mr. Blythe definately as far as a notability in the martial arts community."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanty22 (talk • contribs) 11:31, September 4, 2009

Sorry, but this comment is more hyperbole than argument. The video seems big on a some MMA-related boards, but that hardly makes up the "martial arts community," much less establishes that he's made any kind of lasting contribution or will be historically significant. It sure looks exactly like other flash-in-the-pan internet memes to me. If it continues to gain press, it might belong in Internet vigilantism, but not yet. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A shown here, [1], no hits on Google News. Regarding hits on Google, all are either Blogs – YouTube and MySpace type of accounts. None of which are verifiable – creditable – reputable – 3rd party sources. If and when a verifiable – creditable – reputable – 3rd party sources chose to report, will reconsider at that time. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No google news hits? You must be joking. How about you try a real google news search instead of searching just the archives. Second, the hits you see on google news are: The Washington Post (national paper), Inside NOVA (local virginia paper), France24 (looks like an international news website), KMPH (local TV news station), and VK Magazine (looks like a Dutch paper). -- noosph e re 22:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. There's also the Examiner. Missed that one. -- noosph e re 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - And I am to take 8 hits on Google News, under your search criteria as listed above, meets NOTABILITY guidelines? I'm sorry, I set my standards slightly higher than that. If I did not, I would start an article about myself and would ask you to reference. :-). Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 00:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're talking about Reliable Source criteria, not notability guidelines when you're making a comment about the sources? In that case, I'd say the Washington Post certainly meets them, as WP:RS explicitly says, "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market, for example the Washington Post." As for the rest, they are clearly not of the same caliber, but I see nothing about them that indicates they are not reliable. They are not blogs, but legitimate news organizations, as far as I can tell (particularly KMPH and Inside NOVA). If you know of something that indicates otherwise, please share it with us. -- noosph e re 01:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First, we all should be talking about Reliable Source. They are what the foundation notability is built on. Regarding the rest, I think you missed my point. Having one article in the Washington Post does not delineate Notability. Having 10 write-ups in the Washington Post, on the other hand does. A quick mention here and a quick mention there does not establish notability. It may establish that the item was news worthy for that day. But it does not establish that the event is nothing more than news for that day. That is short lived and is mundane and common place the next day. Hope this explains my rational a little better. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, noosphere, didn't you already vote? THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does what I just said above look like a vote? Is what you just said a vote? No. They're clearly comments. I voted only once, as should be obvious to anyone who counts the votes here. -- noosph e re 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops; I meant to write this below. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 19:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy that says all of the sources used in an article have to be The Washington Post (or even that they all have to be from sources as highly regarded as The Washington Post). I've counted 5 sources apart from The Washington Post that have reported on this event. If you have some evidence that they are not reliable, let's hear it. As for whether the event is "mundane and commonplace", again that's purely a matter of opinion. Personally, I have never heard of any other occasion where a martial arts teacher filmed his student beating someone past unconsciousness (a pretty clear case of attempted murder) and posted the video online to brag about it (not to mention the 25 years that passed between when the video was made and when it was released to the public). If you think this is so "mundane and commonplace" (or, as you claimed later, "happens 3 times a day in every major city/metropolitan area in the world") , please show us some evidence. -- noosph e re 02:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just found yet another news article on this incident on NBC Washington. That makes 7 news articles total. -- noosph e re 05:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new InsideNOVA article just came out. This one mentions another victim of a similar beating at Blythe's dojo. This makes for 8 articles now and shows that there is ongoing interest from the media. -- noosph e re 04:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now there's a new WUSA-9 article about the incident. That makes for 9 articles now, that's 3 more than when the AFD started. Clearly the incident is drawing more and more media attention. Even if there wasn't enough cause to keep the article then, there is now. -- noosph e re 22:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A clearly reliable source [2] concludes that this is an overblown incident. There's a lot of other info in the article sourced to items that don't seem to meet the RS threshold, making this a BLP problem. It's possible that the incident alone (without the other BLP info) has some limited notability, but i'm unconvinced it meets notability requirements for a full article.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's an important incident as can be seen by the coverage, which already includes six (6) news outlets reporting on the story. The Washington Post's writer's opinion should have no bearing on this AFD. It was a shoddily researched article (the writer only spoke to a couple of local cops, who may well be involved in a coverup, and took their word as gospel), so no wonder the writer doesn't think much of the incident. But the fact is that the incident is generating media attention in published, reputable sources, which is enough for there to be an article about the incident, regardless of what the writers of the Washington Post may think. -- noosph e re 22:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you read the articles linked on the article, they focus on the reaction to the video on the web, and peripherally on Blythe and the incident. As a result, it might eventually belong in Internet vigilantism, but not in its own article The KMPH news segment in particular counts for very little, as it's a local station and the spot is entirely speculative, offering no actual facts. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they do offer facts. The main facts are: the video was posted on the internet, the names of the two of the main perpetrators are known, and it is known what they did then and do now, it also gets the reaction to the video from the police. These are all facts above and beyond a mere "reaction to the video on the web". The Washington Post article is even more substantive, citing the recollections of and reactions from local police. As questionable as the contents of those recollections and reactions are, it's still a fact that those were their stated reactions and recollections. And, again, these facts are above and beyond mere "reactions to the video on the web". -- noosph e re 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another major important fact that these news reports talk about is the content of the video itself. Again, this is not mere speculation about reactions on the web, but a fact that has now been reported in 6 news outlets. -- noosph e re 22:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry to say no. If we used your criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, every news event, that gained its 15 minutes of fame, - in every country - in every town, every village, every hamlet, every cottage and so on and so on, would have an article here on Wikipedia. What we have to ask, is Bobby notable - is the event notable or is it just a news item that captured the publics attention for 24-48 hours, has no impact on events, other than filling space on a television news show or 500 words in a paper, Sorry to say, and I do mean sorry, events like this happen 3 times a day in every major city/metropolitan area in the world. For Wikipedia to have articles on everyone of these instances changes Wikipedia the encylodia into Wikipedia the New York Times. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 01:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article mentions on various news sites including Washington Post, and the Local Fox affiliate in Fresno, France 24 among others. Multiple websites created to this particular subject, and numerous hits on youtube, accounts to its viral status. RiseRobotRise (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This is a legal matter which is quickly developing and gaining increased attention weekly. I've uncovered a few legal documents on it already, in addition to the numerous media reports (especially by the Washington Post and Fox). This is a noteworthy matter due to the identities of those involved (persons with ties to law enforcement and the state apparatus). Highly questionable responses from authorities on the status of the investigation make the issue one deserving of heightened analysis. Frank Pais (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would have thought that the number of searches for 'Bobby Joe Blythe' that are directed here from the search engines would be proof enough that there is sufficient notability and interest. I think the credibility of the sources is unimportant as you're largely dealing with an incident that has not received mainstream media attention but this is likely to change in the future. Therefore, is Wikipedia only interested in notable people that have been reported in the mainstream press or notable people in general. I also believe the precedent of posting self-incriminating evidence on YouTube will become a meme in the future and this will be Blythe's lasting legacy on the Internet. 96.48.68.172 (talk) 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The idea that something may happen in the future is a good reason it doesn't deserve an article (see WP:CRYSTAL). And is Wikipedia interested in notable people in the mainstream press? Well, yes. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this barely escapes the realms of WP:BIO let alone being obvious news.--Otterathome (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has now gotten significant regular news coverage, not just youtubem and not just Fox. If the Washington Post writes an article on the political aspects of it, it's notable. DGG ( talk ) 22:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still think the notability of the incident is debatable, but, putting that aside, I don't think that Bobby Joe Blythe would be the appropriate place for an article. It's the incident which might become notable, but not man himself. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Sχeptomaniac here. Even if I were to concede that the incident deserved coverage I'd still strongly disagree that it should be covered as a psuedo-biography.--Cube lurker (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep minor notability between the Washington Post, Today Show, and meme-ishness. JJL (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename From the title I would expect an article about Bobby Joe Blythe. This article is about a viral video. If the video is notable enough for an article, rename the article. Otherwise, delete. --TreyGeek (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google lists around 200,000 hits for "Bobby Joe Blythe", a further 86,200 for "Bobby J Blythe" and 232,000 for "Willie J Dennis". However, only 16,400 can be found for "Jesus Taught Me", the original title of the video. Most people are unaware of the title of the video and adding an article for the video alone would diminish the value of Wikipedia in reference to this incident and the two people primarily involved. I would support the creation of an additional article though and moving the majority of the Bobby Joe Blythe content to it as it seems more logical. 96.48.68.172 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears there has been some offsite canvassing for this discussion. While the forum post says not to encourage voting in any particular way, it's clearly posted in a context where the implied reaction of any readers would be to keep it. People posting in that thread have been obsessing about this video, making over 1700 posts on the subject so far. One poster says it's "important to keep this incident as high profile as possible" [3]. This is just another case of internet vigilantism with little press so far, and not a unique incident. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "it's clearly posted in a context where the implied reaction of any readers would be to keep it" that's your POV, not a fact. The poster clearly states that people should not be directed to vote in any manner, but to make their own choice. The poster does not even state which way they voted. Further, the second post the poster implies that the incident needs to be kept in the public eye, but doesn't say that it needs to be done via wikipedia, just in general. Please refrain from making speculations in order to try to make the people voting for a keep look bad. --Mista-X (talk) 12:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's post 1622, on a thread that was already investigating the subject, so the tone was well set before that post. I notice that the poster also posted asking for sources, so sounds like a good faith attempt to improve the article to a quality where it should be kept.--Nate ^t/_c 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep If you've seen the video I don't think any reasonable person would not want to help seek justice for the victim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazbotter (talk • contribs) 05:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP Possibly retitle but this is a significant event and must be kept in. adouglasmhor (talk) 10:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rename Seems more to fall under WP:ONEEVENT --Nate ^t/_c 09:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Due to the despicable, callous, and cruel actions depicted in the video, Wikipedia has a moral obligation to help keep this individual front and center in the public's mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg Solomon (talk • contribs) 12:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW JForget 22:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mesh Flinders[edit]

If you came here because http://lg15today.blogspot.com/2009/09/jackson-davis-lives.html, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

Only notable for co-creating the internet web series lonelygirl15. Appears to fail Wikipedia:Notability, likely fails WP:AUTHOR. Also WP:1E/WP:NOTNEWS. Otterathome (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Now let's see, the editor who just lost a one-man army battle to delete Jackson Davis, with a warning not to engage in further AfDs like this, suddenly nominates another article related to Lonelygirl15 for deletion a few hours after that AfD ends with a keep. Before we even start this, Otter, I request that you take a break from this behavior and withdraw the nomination. I don't say this lightly, but I believe you are harming the project with your behavior. To other editors reading this comment, I ask that you read the debate at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jackson_Davis_(3rd_nomination) and the wikiquette alert for the nominator before weighing in. I am sure this article can be demonstrated to be notable as well. --Milowent (talk) 17:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is yet another example of confirmation bias on the part of the individual suggesting deletion. --Modelmotion (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Complaining that I nominated it isn't helping the notability of this biography.--Otterathome (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Oh please. I guess I'll formally weigh in now, though surely this talk page will be a huge scroll within the week. --Milowent (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: This nomination fails Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which states "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Milowent has clearly been showing that the page can be improved through his recent edits to the page. The nomination does NOT fail the policies listed above due to the following reasons. Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Flinders has received such coverage as evidenced by the sourced and externally linked publications linked from his article. WP:AUTHOR states "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." Flinders played a major role in co-creating Lonelygirl15, which has been the subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. WP:1E -- Flinders is also notable for his short films which were submitted and placed in various film festivals (see the article itself). However, even if you only count him as notable for lonelygirl15 (which he is not, but that's beside the point), 1E states "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered." Since Flinders had a hugely significant role (co-Creator) in the creation of Lonelygirl15 (a hugely significant event - see my argument here), he merits his own article. Finally, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply because Flinders' article is not here because he was in the news once or twice, he co-Created Lonelygirl15, which is not a fleeting news story, but a groundbreaking and historical event (by this I mean, it started the genre and was the subject of multiple major press coverages when the story about its fictionality broke). ADDITIONALLY, the motives of the individual nominating this page are relevant here. This AfD, about a lonelygirl15-related subject was made mere hours after the closing of the Jackson Davis AfD (another Lonelygirl15 related subject), which was closed as keep. This, along with his behavior in the LG15: The Last AfD and following merge discussion show that the editor appears to engage in tendentious editing and does not have a neutral point of view when it comes to nominating LG15-related articles for deletion. A full description of his behavior can be seen here, and I would appreciate if any third-party editor or admin reviewing this page would please keep that in mind when determining the outcome of this AfD. --Zoeydahling (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The local paper is the only significant coverage via the dead link (this sounds familiar), yes it seems to pass #4 of WP:AUTHOR. Short films/awards don't seem to be notable. So still a WP:1E connection with lonelygirl15. So a merge isn't out of the question.--Otterathome (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis do you consider the films/awards non-notable? The festivals they were entered in were notable, therefore any awards stemming from those entries, not to mention their placement in the festivals themselves are notable. And once again, even if he was only notable for Lonelygirl15 (which again, he is not), the policy states "In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. which I have addressed above. Additionally, the only notable coverage is NOT his hometown paper. His college paper and the Wired article additionally provide significant coverage of the individual as well. --Zoeydahling (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of the current 21 sources:

link to lg wiki, not independant as associated with it
link to college website article, not independant as already associated with it
wired article more about his part in lonelygirl15
hometown newspaper article relating to his part in lonelygirl15
subjects website, not independant, if this is the only reference for the 'student award' then it is definately not notable
link to a video on what appears to be a youtube-like site. not notable
this seems to be an advert for him speaking at a college or something
just a long list of names with his next to pond
same as above
almost the same as the above two but in a schedule
2 sentences about the group behind lonelygirl15 in latimes is not significant coverage
sfgata.com - more about his part and other peoples part in the making of lonelygirl15
copy of 11
1 word mention about his household being used as a set in lonelygirl series
interview with the creators of series, not just him
this source seems fishy, 1 word mention anyway
just a note saying he is speaking at an event
subjects blog
company info
subjects website
his film website mentioning he is filming it, not independant

As I said before, the only two significant coverage article (local newspaper/wired) coverage is in relation to his part in lonelygirl15, which most of it appears to also be mentioned with other creators of the show. The other creators of the show have already been afd and redirected to main lonelygirl15 Greg+Miles. Everything else is mentions/non-notable/not independant.--Otterathome (talk) 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall saying that every source I added was going to add to the subjects' notability. I was just adding source material to prove that there was no original research, as per your request. I have to run right now, so I don't have to go through every source you listed above, along with your comments (I will try to come back and do that later), but I would like to point out that even if the two sources are the only ones that are significant, you yourself have stated "[a]ny notable biography is expected to have at least two" so according to your own definition this article meets Wikipedia:Notability. Additionally, Miles Beckett and Greg Goodfried will be going through a deletion review as soon as I have the time to put it together, so I would implore you not to judge based on that, at least until the DrV goes through with a verdict. Thanks. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This nomination can be improved through editing, rather than deletion." - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Based on the following references from creditable – independent – verifiable – 3rd party sources [4]. Meets our current guidelines under notability for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 20:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you haven't read WP:LOTSOFSOURCES. Thanks.--Otterathome (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure have and the point :-). ShoesssS ^Talk 21:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Created a notable work of fiction, and has plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 14:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe article is about a screenwriter who created an iconic character and was part of a very successful series. He has won several awards, and continues to create material. Also, I noticed the 'not a vote' box has once again been put up by the nominator and single person advocating for deletion. Seems to me that several good arguments have been made for keeping the article. Mathieas (talk) 18:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable enough to meet WP:AUTHOR. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Agree with at least the last three posters. - Shiori (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- sufficient evidence of notability given, including lonelygirl authorship and Pond's selection in multiple film festivals. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no consensus for deletion, but if there is any need for merging you can discuss probably at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. Since no consensus for deletion and consensus for keeping, I close the discussion JForget 00:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

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

I came across this series of articles as a result of a featured article candidate for one of these. The articles in question are all personnel associated with the 1948 Australian cricket team in England, with an additional two articles in later tours. They are:

This list comprises the entire cast of players on the team (see Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948#Touring_party), with the exception of the manager.

I'm very surprised these articles exist. They are semi-biographical in nature. All start off with an infobox that starts as a clone to their biographical articles. I can't help but think of the precedent being set here. Are we to have articles articles for every season of major NFL players like Tom Brady such as Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in 2005? How about Mike Lowell with the Boston Red Sox in 2007? Or if you want higher qualifications Mike Lowell in the 2007 World Series (he was MVP that year)?

I can understand how one player's acquirement by a team might play a very significant role in that team's immediate future, and that might be the subject of extensive secondary source media. But including articles on every single player that were on the team? This is excessive. WP:NOTDIR notes that Wikipedia is not "a complete exposition of all possible details" The level of detail here is excruciating and absolutely astonishing.

I fully recognize that an intense amount of work went into the creation of these articles. Several of them have attained featured article status. However, I feel the articles are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The work done here for each player's role in the team for that year is in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and each and every single player's role on the 1948 team is certainly not notable enough to warrant a separate article on their performance, thus violating Wikipedia:Notability concerns as well.

There's two other articles in this general group as well, though they apply to teams other than the 1948 team:

I have tagged these articles in this AfD as well.

My personal opinion is notable material from these articles should be merged where appropriate into Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and the various test match pages (such as First Test, 1948 Ashes series), and these articles either deleted or turned into redirects to Australian cricket team in England in 1948. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to register an official vote yet, but I'd like to point out that while these may not be found in the traditional encyclopedia, they seem to fit the description of "general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (WP:5P). –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information itself, if notable, is certainly worthy (but very far from all of it). We don't have an article titled Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in 2005 for example. Instead, we have Tom_Brady#2005_season. We already have things like Ernie_Toshack#Invincibles_tour, which is appropriate. Breaking out every season/tour into individual articles? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. The Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is both famous and historically significant. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, and Super Bowl XXXVI isn't? 2004 World Series isn't? How about then Michael Jordan in the 1991 NBA Finals? Just because Cricket isn't NFL, NBA or MLB doesn't make these incomparable cases. How can we justify such incredible detailed articles on every single player on the 1948 team? Much less the apparent continuation of the pattern for 1953 and 1956? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of these articles are laden with excessive detail, but that's not by any means a reason to delete them. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well if your articles get overgrown go ahead and create subarticles instead of killing information YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not create similar articles for every player in the NBA, MLB, NFL, CFL, MLS, NHL, IHL (is this enough yet?) KHL, ALIH, ABA, and on and on and on and on...for every season of their career? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If high quality articles can be created, I don't see why not. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep in mind that we aren't creating an article for every season for every player in every sport. These are 15 articles on the most important season for the most important players for one sport. Entire books have been published on this one team. NW (Talk) 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the right comparison to Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in 2005 would be Ricky Ponting in the 2005 Sheffield Shield or Rahul Dravid in the 2002 Ranji Trophy and the like. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NW, please note that we already have two articles in the same style outside of the 1948 series. There's no reason to believe this will stop with the 1948 team only. There's no line in the sand here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those Keith Miller articles are there because otherwise Miller would be about 140kb of prose. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the content into greatly shortened sections of the articles on the players (e.g. Sam Loxton) and the matches played (e.g. First Test, 1948 Ashes series). I too was very surprised that these articles existed, but when I first saw them several were in the process of becoming featured, so I just assumed that most people disagreed with me. I personally feel that these articles are full of vastly excessive detail on the course of each match. I really think the overall impact of the each players performance is all that is important from these articles, and that it could be summed up in a couple paragraphs for each person. Calathan (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with your assessment. The first of these that I saw was Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, it being a featured article candidate. I assumed that Sam Loxton had to have been somebody critically important to that tour, and that the media at the time had some kind of feeding frenzy over his existence on the team, to justify the article. Then I found out that every single player on the team has a similar article. I then looked for any traces of prior AfDs and didn't find any. I also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket lists almost all of these as "low importance". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parent articles of the players are all already FA/GA except 2/15, and the info can't be re-added without violating undue weight, or killing all the information, or expanding every section by a factor of about four and getting 120+ kb prose articles. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as legitimate, well sourced spin out articles. This AfD is provocative, unnecessary and will serve only to further wikidramas. "I also note that Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket lists almost all of these as 'low importance'." Are you serious!! 90% of the project's articles are "low importance" as the default standard. The argument seems to be "I don't find it interesting, therefore it should be deleted". If the nominator wants to cite a policy reason for deletion I am all ears. This should be speedy closed and the nominator given a good slap with a trout. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep - Why delete the spin out articles and merge the info into the main article? As the information is notable and important in cricket circles along with many being FA's. In any case the main article already has brief info on the tour, which is expanded in the spin out articles.Aaroncrick (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - While I sympathise with the sentiment of this AfD, I personally think that this could be seen as a bit of a grey area. In many ways, these articles contain far more detail than is actually necessary for an encyclopaedia, but then there's the argument that if such high-quality articles can be created and well-sourced, then why shouldn't they be? Personally, I think these articles should be merged into the appropriate parent articles, but I won't be too disappointed if they remain. – Pee Jay 22:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - As Juliancolton said earlier, while these may not be found in a traditional encyclopedia, they most certainly have the potential to be in "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (WP:5P). WP:NOTPAPER most certainly applies here. These are wonderfully written articles. Why delete them? NW (Talk) 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep One of the most significant teams (and notable) in one of the most significant (and notable) series in cricketing history. Fits well within the five pillars of Wikipedia. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all WP:N is met and the fact that several of these articles are FAs and most of the others potential FAs shows that they're very suitable topics for Wikipedia articles (their creator, User:YellowMonkey is trying to develop a featured topic on the 1948 'Invincibles' cricket team). I think that this nomination should also be closed on procedural grounds; it's ridiculous to nominate multiple FAs for deletion as part of a group nomination. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a featured article doesn't necessarily mean that something is an appropriate article to keep in the encylopedia. Otherwise, Bulbasaur, Torchic, and Goomba would still have articles. Also, while this may not have been the most appropriate place for this discussion given that I think the nominator wanted the articles merged somewhere rather than outright deleted, now that the discussion has been started here I don't think there is any reason to close it and start it up again somewhere else. I also don't think having a group nomination for the articles is any worse than having them nominated separatly. I don't think anyone is going to argue that some of the articles should go and some should stay. Calathan (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While FAs don't get a free pass in AfDs, the fact that there are enough references to develop these articles to FA status counts for rather a lot in my view. While I'm not a cricket expert, the availability of coverage of members of this team does differ (eg, I suspect that as much has been written on Bradman's captaincy during this tour as on all the other members of the team's contributions put together), so its nonsensical to lump them all together like this. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note the Bulbasaur etc comparison but those articles were merged/moved because of the use of Primary Sources and still exist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur(quasy userspace) awaiting secondary sourcing. Gnan garra 05:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those Pokemon articles didn't have any textbook sources and hardly any indept ones (if any). YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nick-D put it well; I've nothing to add to his rationale. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Merge for all of them. Merge the biographical information into the corresponding biography, and the info about the matches into the article about the match (which by reading through some of them, it seems like that part is already done). Sure it's notable, but this can be (and is) presented in a way better way. This is a horrible predicent as this could turn into a "(person) in the (season)" with millions of articles possible. Tavix | Talk 23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To further clarify my opinion, I would liken these articles to having something like Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with a paragraph or two for each chapter in the book describing what Ron did in that chapter. Harry Potter is one of the most successful series of novels in history, and Ron is one of the main characters of the series. His actions in the book (along with those of several other major characters) are an essential aspect of the plot. Lots of people have written about Harry Potter books, and I am sure there would be plenty of reliable sources discussing Ron's actions in the book. However, the reasons why the book is important and how his actions were an essential part of the plot can easily be discussed within the articles Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Ron Weasley. Only someone who is already a huge fan of Harry Potter would care what Ron was doing in each and every chapter. To someone wanting to learn about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the significance of the book (that it sold at a record pace, etc.), and the significance of Ron Weasley to that book (that he destroyed a horcrux), are both evident without needing an article giving the details of everthing he did in the book. Similarly, the importance of the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is evident from that article, and the fact that Sam Loxton is an important cricketer, as well as his contributions to the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 are evident from the Sam Loxton article. No one who isn't a huge cricket fan would care about all the details like what the score was at various points in the matches and what exactly Sam Loxton did on this day or that day. Having that content does nothing to further someone's understanding of why the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 or Sam Loxton are important. The only real difference between this and something like Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is that people would delete the Harry Potter article based on guidlines like WP:NOT#PLOT, while the similar overly-detailed cricket article would be kept because it is not about fiction. Calathan (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible merge per User:Tavix. The majority of the content in these articles duplicates the standard biographical articles for the player concerned and the article about the team concerned. Regardless of how much paper the articles are or are not using, there is no reason for duplicating the information. Yes, the team is supremely notable, that's why we have an article about the team. Cricket however is a team game, and like all team games the performance of the team is the result of the combination of the performances of all the team members. I'm astounded that some of these reached featured article status without someone sitting up and asking what the point of duplicating the team and player articles was. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, As per User:Tavix, and also per Calathan's statement. No need of separate articles, either they should be added to their bios, or else to the tour itself. These seems to be more of what is know as "Teshrie" in Urdu, which usually done of Poems. Or else we will articles like Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20. We already have some info about in 2009 ICC World Twenty20 DO we need such an article ? --yousaf465 04:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some people are misunderstanding the circumstances. These are not random players in a random team in a random year; else I would agree. These are as I understand it the most notable players of the most notable team of the most notable year in cricket. And I say this as someone who doesn't know the first thing about cricket. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. This team has received a vast amount of coverage and there are easily enough references to support individual articles on the team members. Given Wikipedia's problems, deleting very high-quality articles on notable topics because they're too detailed seems rather perverse. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors become so preoccupied with rules and regulations they don't stop and use any commonsense what so ever. Yousuf, Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20 is a ridiculous comparison because Shahid Afridi probably only played 20 hours of cricket for the whole World Twenty20. On the Invincibles tour, there was over 30 first-class matches alone. Also this was a Test tour not some random bash and crash Twenty20 game. Hundreds of hours of cricket was played over a period of a few months. Also the article has 11,068 words. Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20 would be lucky to have 200 words. Come on people, use some common sense. It appears that the topic may not interest the particular article so they couldn't care less. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is my point, at least I don't want to write an article titled Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20, nor about Zaheer Abbas on XYZ tour see Zaheer Abbas. Firstly it will violate some wiki policies and second it will start a trend, which everyone would like to follow. Remember wikipedia is not a journal.--yousaf465 07:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask any historian and they will say Tests trumps any ODI/T20 World Cup any day, and this is the most celebrated in Australian history, even though some people think other teams were better. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't comparing T20 to Test, both have their own place. A good test is still as exciting as a nail bitting world cup final, recently concluded Ashes is a prime example. But my point is do we need to discuss that how Zaheer Abbas performed during a certain tour of England and write a a whole article on it. ?--yousaf465 06:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody thinks of doing tour articles unless the main one gets big already, or because of undue weight YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you admit you don't know cricket but your understanding that this is the "most notable players of the most notable team of the most notable year in cricket" is still inaccurate enough to be picked up on. There's been no selection of notable players (every squad member has an article), I don't see why Australia are more notable than any other Test team and 1948 is far from the most notable year in cricket. 'All members of the most notable touring cricket team' is an accurate description. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to User:Juliancolton comments.--yousaf465 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I would have thought the indenting and direct quoting would establish that but evidently not. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think those arguing for a merge have the cart before the horse. Information is what is important here; titles are window dressing. You don't decide on a title then figure out what information is worth including under it. You figure out what information is available on a topic, and then decide what title(s) it should be organised under. Given the sheer quantity of information that has been sourced and collated in this area, I can see no better way to organise it than under the present series of titles. Proponents of a merge like the idea of having all this under a single title, which is fine, except that they are willing to throw away most of the information in order to achieve that. That is not acceptable. Hesperian 05:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I was typing this up as a reply to Nick-D, but thought it fit better here.) The fact that there is a lot of information available is meaningless, as much of it is just the scores at various points and who was batting at what point. That kind of information can be found for almost any major sporting event. The sort of content in the sections labeled "First Test", "Second Test", would be available for any high-level game of any major sport. I don't think that sort of detailed summary of the progression of the games is in any way useful. None of it adds in any way to the understanding of why this team was great. Rather, it hinders that understanding by overwhelming the articles and distracting the reader from the real meat of the articles - the "role" sections at the bottom that summarizes how the player's contributions helped the team. Just because a lot of content can be added to an article doesn't mean that content makes the article better. A clear, concise article that addresses the important aspects of the subject is much more desireable than a long, overly detailed one. In my opinion, it is only because of excess, unhelpful content that these articles are long enough to be split from the main articles on the people in question, and that removing that excess material and merging the remainder back into the parent articles will improve Wikipedia's coverage of this subject, not worsen it. Calathan (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat sympathetic to this line of reasoning. As I said a gazillion years ago when a notability policy was first being discussed, it is possible to write a fully cited and entirely NPOV article on Stoddy, one of the nine camels that accompanied David Carnegie on his epic journey from Coolgardie to Halls Creek—where he went, what load he was carrying, how much water he drank, the time he ate poison and almost died—it's all there in Carnegie's published journal.... Nonetheless I think these cricket articles are all coherent and notable topics. Hesperian 06:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn't want to read the added detail of the tour, they should just read the appropriate section in the players main articles. It's really not rocket science. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you except that I feel this sets a double standard by allowing non-fiction articles to have spin-off articles that are only of interest to dedicated fans of the topic, while equivalent articles on fiction are prohibited by WP:NOT#PLOT. I really think there is no difference between the Harry Potter article I proposed above and these articles, other than that one is currently against policy and the other isn't. Calathan (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge per Tavix, Thryduulf, and Calathan. The existence of these articles sets a bad precedent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those worrying about precedent don't seem to fully recognise the important of 'The Invincible' in cricket history. (Which is understandable, considering there isn't a huge cricket fan base in the US. Cricket doesn't really lend itself to the 'Year Season' model, and to say that the precedent for creating articles on NFL and NBA players is severely misjudging the relative importance of each. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rational given is that they dont meet the policy of WP:NOTDIR #7 which says A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.. These article are a summary of the accepted knowledge regarding these player during the Australian cricket teams tour of England in 1948 season. There is much more information that could be included in the individual articles but isnt. In addition some of these have passed through the WP:FA process which WP:WIAFA defines as A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.[emphasis added].. Gnan garra 05:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good point Gnangarra. If we're to be honest, Wikipedia doesn't have the greatest reputation in the wide community. We want more FA's displaying 'our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing'. Yet we are proposing to deleted 'our very best work'. Seems very strange. Aaroncrick (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We should spend our energy developing articles to FA status that do not duplicate existing articles - are all the players biographies FA standard? Is the article about the tour FA standard? Just because an article is well written, doesn't mean it is appropriate to keep it. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response can you please address each article showing where the information is duplicated, I'm willing to discuss any particular individual concerns but this afd has grouped these articles therefore addressing as a group they meet policy requirements. Secondly I havent quoted any other article as a reason to keep(thats what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about). Gnan garra 11:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Thankfully, we don't have a panel of people telling other editors what they should be "spending their energy" on. If YM wants to spend his own time and effort developing fully referenced articles on topics interesting to him, and they meet WP:V and are valid spin off articles, I don't see why anyone should tell him he should "spend his energies" elsewhere. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, as once developed, all the parent articles'd be too big for the daughter articles to merge into. The '48 tour was highly notable and covered in great detail - hence the existence of daughter articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the '48 tour was highly notable and covered in great detail, that's why we have an article on it biographical articles on all the players in it. We don't need to duplicate these articles with one for every player's contributions to the team because it duplicates what we already have in the main articles (and thus there isn't actually much to merge). Wikipedia is not Wisdens, not is it Cricinfo. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Who is this "we" in "We don't need to duplicate these articles with one for every player's contributions to the team"? Firstly, they are more than mere duplicates, secondly I for one find the presentation useful as the main biographical articles would be outsized. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There should be a part of deletion policy that says that FA's are not deleted. In these cases the articles are big and significant enough to stand alone. Merging would just make the parent article too big, and it would be ripe for a fork off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They may be big, but most of the content is duplicated elsewhere so we are not loosing anything of encylopaedic value. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Wrong, much of the article is not duplicated elsewhere, at least not in the same form. We would be losing valid encyclopedic information. Other than "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", have you got a argument based in policy? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All, I'm going to guess that the nominator comes from an unfortunate country where cricket is not played, so I can excuse and forgive him for not knowing how incredibly important The Invincibles are. I'm not sure about the part of this that involves deleting FA and GA quality articles though, surely if these articles were excessive detail, they'd never have been promoted? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - while there's a degree of repetition, the repetition seems reasonable in order to provide context for the unique content. If the unique material from all of them was merged into the various match and player articles, my feeling is that they would become unwieldy and overly long, and would likely loose detail in the process. I can understand the point of the nom, but as I can't see a policy that directly applies (given Gnangarra's point regarding NOTDIR), I'm left asking whether or not I see that this level of detail damages or assists the project - and on that score I fall on the side of keep, because the worst I can say is that the articles suffer from too much material. I'd also add that not all of these articles are equal - Donald Bradman and Keith Miller, to name but two, are sufficiently significant in Australian sporting culture that this treatment seems easily warranted. - Bilby (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To paraphrase what someone said above, these articles represent the intersect of many of the most notable players of the game with one of the most notable cricket series ever played. All are fully referenced quality articles which a student of the topic would find as a useful resource. To merge back into the parent article will only see criticisms of too much detail there. A vague recollection is that some of the early player FACs were criticised for excessive detail and WP:SPLITing was suggested. Remember, m:Wiki is not paper. –Moondyne 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all BUT remember to maintain them so the parent articles remain the summary and these the detail, otherwise the arguements for their retention would become fewer. I can understand the concern, but too much detail is never too much, and Wikipedia has the space and these topics the notability. --SGGH ^ping! 13:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment to closing admin: Please note that if these articles are deleted or merged, they need to go through the GAR or FAR processes first~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this? If they are deleted, they would obviously automatically remove any status given to them. They should just be removed from the relevant list. Majorly talk 14:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There is no need for GAN or FAR. AfD is an entirelly separate process. 189.105.72.234 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely remember an FAC delegate saying something about this, but will strike until Sandy or Marskell can comment here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all as they are - I remember causing a fuss about articles like the above, and consensus kicked back that they would be appropriate, that they met all of our content requirements, and were completely appropriate. Since this probably wont get the attention from that same group, I will recognize their consensus view by taking their keep as my own. These pages, and pages like them, were vetted for the above before being created. I am surprised this AfD ever happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep all (Diclsoure: I am a member of WP:CRIC) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The articles in question are fully referenced so it should be an open and shut case.
That said, I have said before that I'm not comfortable with some of the articles as for someone like Ron Hamence, the main article can easily integrate Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. In fact, it already does. I don't like the sentiment that at least some of these articles have been created just to collect baubles. The statement that "you have to remember the purpose of these articles which is to achieve featured topic status for The Invincibles" strongly indicates to me that these articles are content forks, but as far as I know it is YellowMonkey not BlackJack who is the main author of these articles. That said, something like Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is quite clearly a spinouts from a well developed article. A closer examination of some of the smaller articles may warranted, but a bulk nomination is not. The bottom line is, the articles are well referenced, confirming their notability, and if someone chooses to write them then let them. Nev1 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nev1 to an extent. I think some of these articles definitely fail notability guidelines, but a bulk nomination is not the way to do it. Majorly talk 14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who definately fails notability, isnt the standard for notability significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, each of these have over 30 different references all independent of the subjects. Gnan garra 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do virtually every player in every season ending playoffs. So why not Luke Walton in the 2009 NBA playoffs? Pump in "Like Walton" and "2009 NBA playoffs" into Google and we get 581,000 hits. I'm sure we can generate an article on him. Luke Walton wasn't even a starter! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

VERY IMPORTANT For all of you who are adamant about keeping these articles, ask yourself this question: Can you find any secondary sources that point to the significant notability of the role of each of these players in this tour? If you can't, these articles must go for failing notability concerns, just the same as any non-notable band, book, album, person or company. I don't doubt these people are notable. I don't doubt the tour is notable. Of course it is. These are not the issue. At what point do we draw the line? Boston Red Sox waterboys during the 2007 World Series? There is no possible way each one of these players had significant notability for their specific roles within the tour, other than as members of the team which of course had notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: Fingleton, Jack (1949). Brightly fades the Don. Collins. It's right there in the articles and seems to contain details of each of the players and their role in the tour, although YM would be better placed to comment having written most of the articles himself. Nev1 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of works about Bradman in which his role in this tour received detailed coverage. Several (all?) of the members of the team have also been the subject of detailed high-quality biographies which obviously include their role in this famous tour. As demonstrated by no less than four of these articles reaching FA status, the availability of reliable sources isn't a problem. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bradman wrote an appraisal of each of his players, as did Wisden, and Perry's rip-off of Fingleton has a summary of every player hashed together (two pages). There were also books completely on 1948 written by Bill O'Reilly, John Arlott, Andy Flanagan aside from the fact that many of the players have full biographies of them that have a chapter about 1948 devoted to them. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's absurd to compare the roles played by these cricketers in what is one of the most famous test series in cricketing history with the players in a "World" baseball series. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Saying it's absurd proves nothing. The 2004 World Series was very historic as being the series that broke the curse of the Bambino. Manny Ramirez was named the most valuable player in that series. So why not have Manny Ramires in the 2004 World Series? Make an argument against that, while still maintaining a rational argument that every single player in the 1948 test series is a candidate for individual performance articles. Plus, your point is invalid as well because we already have two articles for a player's performance outside of 1948. See the last two articles placed for AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's stopping you from creating more detailed daughter articles if the main is overgrown, to prevent loss of information YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why set a requirement of "the main is overgrown" when that wasn't the case here. The article size guideline suggests that articles greater than 60kb probably should be divided. However you created these sub-articles when only 4 of the 17 players had articles above that figure and 3 were, and still are, less than 30kb. Secondly, apart from Miller, I'm not aware you actually removed information from the player's main page. So if you are claiming these articles were overgrown to start with, they still are. To me, these articles (except Miller's) were not created because the main were overgrown/needed splitting but because you wanted them as part of the Invincibles Featured Topic and as Nev said on WT:CRIC that's a poor reason for an article to be created. --Jpeeling (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking them all in the main article would already violate undue weight, eg, Bradman, and as the section on 1948 in his article was already that size, it couldn't simply added in there, and a lot of the main articles as is have been expanded since then. Most of the others were already GA or above, so adding the other section would also have violated undue. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure undue is a big problem as you make out, it's not as if you're adding 50kb into the article, the information in the sub-articles contain a lot of extra details that a players article would never. After all if you can conclude Bradman's record breaking 1930 tour in five paragraphs why is it so problematic to do the same for 1948? To convince that there would be an undue problem perhaps you could give examples of important information missing from Sam Loxton's main article which is covered by Sam Loxton in 1948. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove (possibly by merging). Surely, the post we need is a bio of each player and an article on the Australian tour of 1948. We do not have Margaret Thatcher as Minister of Education and Margaret Thatcher, Leader of the Opposition or Margaret Thacter as Prime Minster]] as separate article, so that articles on the role of each particular sportsman in a sporting team's overseas visit 60 years ago is not an appropriate subject for a WP article. No doubt sources can be found in Wisden or in contemporary newspapers, but run of the mill news of 61 years ago is as much non-encyclopaedic as the like today see WP:NOT NEWS. If the author particualrly wnats to write about this he shoudl set up his own website to peddle his WP:NN material. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually see John McCain and all the bits and bobs about him. Any long serving minister or legislator (if they run for president or if the system is such that the leading senators can be very powerful, like the US) will have lots of info. And yes, any head of govt or executive head of state would have a lot of information even if they were only there for a month due to an unexpected coup, resignation or death. If someone has an interest in Thatcher or any other head of govt/state, forks will be needed quickly. All the US presidents have forks, are you saying we should delete all those GWB job and campaign articles?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wealth of sources in each article doesn't establish notability as far as you're concerned? I don't see what you mean by WP:NOTNEWS either: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article". The coverage of the 1948 and the members of the Invincibles is hardly routine; books such as Brightly fades the Don, which recounts the series, are not the standard of coverage for most cricket series. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That view is technically correct but probably only because the last 30 years have seen 70% of Test series. Most modern series don't have books (little market/context/content for two/three Test series) however a lot of post-WW1 and pre-Packer tours do and there are very few Ashes series that aren't covered by at least one book.[5], [6] --Jpeeling (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is something I hadn't considered. It's only natural that the older series would receive more coverage in books as they take time to write and it's difficult to put something like the recent Bangladesh vs West Indies series in context. But it may be that because of the surfeit of international cricket recently that the older matches will be better covered because they are viewed as more significant. Ask me in another 30 years and I may have an answer ;-) However, it's not the notability of the tour in question, it's the players who made up the Invincibles. You're much more familiar with cricketing literature than I am, is it unusual to have a book such as The Invincibles: The Legend of Bradman's 1948 Australians on the team? Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People are still rehashing the 1948 tour all the time, so people are interested in it, eg, Roland Perry paraphrasing Fingleton, including all his jokes and quips, to cash in on the 60th anniversary in 2008 YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may consider me more familiar with cricket literature but I'm unable to answer that question, I don't have enough knowledge of cricket literature and don't have any tour books (there are people in the cricket project who could answer your question better). Taking a look through the descriptions of the tour books I linked to, they appear to focus on the matches although there's a few that include pen portraits of squad members, I doubt they're particularly long and almost certainly they don't describe the performances on that particular tour. Are you aware that the book you mention focuses mainly on the players rather than the matches? --Jpeeling (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Hammersoft has link this at the Village Pump. Not implying wrongdoing on his part, just a heads-up. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why even mention it? This deletion debate was scattered across a number of related interest areas without anybody raising any eyebrow. I think it appropriate to bring the abstract concept to the attention of the community as a whole. Do we really want a class of articles of "<sportsperson> with <team> in <year>" type articles? That's what we're really debating here (the arguments that the 1948 team is notable not withstanding; we're already talking about 1953 and 1956 in this AfD). The notice I placed at Village Pump was deliberately neutral in tone. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why mention it? I would have thought it would be obvious that people here might be interested in having some input. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
VP is highly-trafficked and is likely to attract increased activity at this discussion, so I just wanted other editors to be aware of that. Again, I'm not accusing you of canvassing; it was a legitimate notice. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this goes too far, atomizing the events and massively duplicating information. This is a team sport. Abductive (reasoning) 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all - this type of debate is what causes bemusement at best, and amusement at worst, in the much larger and somewhat sceptical world outside the the much smaller and somewhat introspective world of Wikipedia. At the same time as one group of editors is effusing over these articles and awarding them coveted featured article status, another group of editors is 'policy wonking' i.e. trying to get the pages deleted on fine nuances of guidelines. Bizarre! What we have here is a unique set of pages; informative, accurate, well sourced, objective, and tolerably well written. If all the time spent on this discussion was spent on writing new material how much better would the project be? Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that there are few sources that are specifically about these individual players in the context of the 1948 Invincibles tour. Obviously Bradman has a couple, and I'm sure Keith Miller does too, but the bit-part players are almost certainly undeserving of any more than a passing mention, and so the coverage of those players should be limited to the articles about the tour and the players themselves. – Pee Jay 00:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, see above and below YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- PeeJay did a much better job than I did of noting one of the chief problems here. Yes, we know these players played in this series. Yes, we know there's tons of references that note they played. Yes, we know they had X number of runs, etc. from multiple sources. But do we have sources showing notability of their performance being extraordinary external to the overall performance of the team? I think not, at least not for almost all of these articles. --Head policy wonker (or was that wanker?) (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, see above and below. Also nothing in the article is claimed that is not in the source so "notability of their performance being extraordinary external to the overall performance of the team" is irrelevant. Articles on people aren't deleted because it wasn't full of descriptions of world-record breaking things YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any of the articles that exist per summary style, but if they're being made just to be made, we can examine them individually. This is not a blanket keep for all of these types of articles, but just stating that some can exist in theory. hmwith t 00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:5P,WP:WIAFA, and especially WP:NOTPAPER, which, combined together, is what makes Wikpedia a better resource than any convential encylopedia. To quote from Wikpeida's own article on Wikipedia Bruceanthro (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC):[reply]

Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge: all of topics covered by a conventional print encyclopedia plus any other "notable" (therefore verifiable by published sources) topics, which are permitted by unlimited disk space

Keep The articles on the roles of Bradman, Miller, Johnson, Hassett, Morris are definitely keepers and they fill all requirements of WP:V and WP:N. I would suggest re-listing a few of the articles seperately such as Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 for discussion. One states he only played in one test and the other that he "was not instrumental in the team's success". I consider it impossible to discuss these adequately as a group. florrie 02:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the articles on the peripheral players tsuch as those you mention may be worth examining. Nev1 (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IMO, we can never have too much information on a particular topic, as long as that information is verifiable and within good taste. I agree 100% with Hesperian. Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this isn't entirely true; see WP:IINFO. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I may be exaggerating a bit. But I don't think these articles run afoul of NOTINFO. The level of detail does not seem too excessive to me. I'm sure plenty of cricket fans would like to have it. Zagalejo^^^ 05:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that "I like it" is just as bad a reason to keep an article as "I don't like it" is to delete one. In many ways, this series of articles is the worst example of article cruft I've ever seen. Is this really that interesting to anyone outside the cricketing community? Surely the content would be better off summarised in the appropriate parent articles! – Pee Jay 08:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already summarised in the appropriate parent articles. Aaroncrick (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is this really that interesting to anyone outside the cricketing community? Possibly not, but if not what's your point? –Moondyne 09:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles don't have to be "interesting" to anyone—they just have to adhere to content policies and notability guidelines. In this case, yes, these articles are rather specialized, but as I pointed out specialized content is well within the scope of the encyclopedia. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 12:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may not have to be interesting to anyone, but it surely helps! Anyway, the very definition of cruft is if "a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question", and that certainly applies in this case! I should also ask, are these people actually notable for their involvement in the 1948 Ashes series or are they receiving articles simply because they were members of the team? I'm sure Bradman, Morris, Barnes and Miller may be very well remembered for this tour, but I strongly doubt that Saggers, Ring et al. are actually that prominent. – Pee Jay 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was all ready to recommend "Delete" on general principle, until I read one of the articles. After reading it, I am forced to admit that a good encyclopedia article can be written on an individual sportsperson's achievements in one particular competition or series. However, I would strongly caution that such information be kept in parent articles until the length of well-cited information becomes excessive for those parent articles. Powers ^T 13:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We should also look at WP:CFORK.--yousaf465 13:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said earlier, WP:CFORK doesn't apply to well developed spin-off articles. Do you disagree that these are well developed articles or do you think that they could be integrated into the main article without causing imbalance? Nev1 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could quote the comment below.Per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs--yousaf465 15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I was going to simply say keep, but looking at the articles they basically all use the exact same sources; Fingleton, Perry, Bradman, et al. There's no significant sources that I can see (based on my sampling) that suggests that any of these player's actions (during the team in a single year) as a single person is notable beyond the team and/or 1948. These seem like unnecessary content forks and excessive detail. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral On the one hand, this is a horrendous precedent, but on the other, enough sources exist that four of the articles are featured. Merge seems the best option, but that likely isn't going to happen, so meh. Reso lute 16:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - individual players' actions at a certain tournament is certainly not worthy of seperate articles on Wikipedia; merge any and all relevant info into both Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and the individual players' articles. Giant Snowman 18:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - this 'invincable' team is a complete one-off. I do not want to see this for anything other than the most exceptional of circumstances.--EchetusXe 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't quite understand that logic. It's been shown that few of the members of this team actually have any sources about their involvement in this tour, so why should each member of the team have an article? – Pee Jay 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect "It's been shown that few of the members of this team actually have any sources about their involvement in this tour" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All - The topics are sufficiently notable as shown by their documentation through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it has been shown above that not all of the topics are documented in reliable sources. The tour is, the players are and the team as a whole are, but (with a few exceptions) the individual role played by each member of the team on this tour (which is what these articles are ostensibly about) have not. Your statement is therefore incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they do. Bradman has his appraisal of each of his players in his Farewell to Cricket, Wisden does, and Perry's Bradman's Invincibles also has 1-2 pages summarising each guy at the end of his book, in addition to the chronological description of each of the matches (which was lifted straight out of Fingleton) but anyway, it shows that even in 2008, the 60th anniversary of the team and the 100th of Bradman's birth, people were doing rip-offs of Fingleton to cash in. There was a great flurry of books, whereas other series, there have been nothing written at all after the first few years YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep some - I've been watching this discussion and seem to be falling into line with PeeJay's point that while the articles about the main players (Bradman, Morris et al.) are probably valid enough, the remainder ("one Test only", "didn't make much of a contribution") could probably be up-merged into the team article or simply removed. While they are all extremely well-written/referenced/interesting to cricket fans (such as myself), I can see that such focus on what amounts to a minor role in an extremely notable series is a little bit unnecessary - and does suggest that they have only been written in order to "complete the set". Where the line is drawn (i.e. whether Barnes is notable and Loxton isn't) is somewhat arbitrary, and one that needs applying on a case by case basis, not in a mass deletion debate. In principle, some, if not all, can be kept (chiefly through WP:SUMMARY/splitting from the main article etc. The rest, for which maybe 70%estimated - I haven't read them all is either a) duplicated from the individual player bio or the tour article, or b) mainly background, and not actually focussed on the topic in question, should probably be merged back again.—MDCollins (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)*[reply]
Keep - good articles, some of them FAs or FA candidates Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per that certain Monkey, who is eminently making sense. -- Y not? 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this Afd is simply brainbendingly silly. All of the guidelines together boil down to - can we write a well sourced, neutral, encyclopedic article.....the answer is bloody obviously yes in this case (isn't that what the FA* on a few denotes ?) and the level of material appears too large for a single article - Peripitus (Talk) 03:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic, meaning that the content is not that which you would expect to see in an encyclopedia. That's before you get into the question of coverage of this specific topic in reliable sources; I'm sure there's coverage of each player and each tour, but we're violating WP:NOR by discussing the combination. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Why delete all these well sourced and encyclopaedic articles when there are many more questionable articles lying around? A waste of time unless these are exact duplicates of the player bios but in this case they aren't. Spiderone 08:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles are not exact duplicates of the player bios, but parts of them are duplicates of the player bios, other parts are duplicating the article about the team, other parts are duplicating the article about the series. And then you have some unencyclopaedic statistical detail about their performance in each individual match (possibly duplicating articles on the matches as well, although I haven't checked this), arguably violating the spirit of WP:SYNTH (although that would probably not be a mainstream interpretation). For the first part of your comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just hope common sense prevails here. The energy used to delete these articles would be better spent improving Wikipedia. Spiderone 14:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not really a very good argument. People can choose to spend their time on Wikipedia in any way they choose (within reason), and they are perfectly entitled to get these articles deleted. – PeeJay 14:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Off topic: Since these articles are controversial does this mean that they'll never be on the front page (assuming they stay)? Spiderone 15:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: The 1948 tour was a historically significant tour for the Australian cricket team (they are called the Invincibles and were arguably the best Australian team to tour England) and it seems to me that the contributions of the individual players to the tour would be a reasonable topic (and indeed one that is discussed in detail in a number of sources). The articles themselves are well-written and well sourced. Many are featured, or in the process of being featured and to delete would seriously impact upon the content of the encyclopedia. Also, a lot of editors have put a lot of hard work in to these articles. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of editors put a lot of hard work into the Gay Nigger Association of America article, but that still got deleted. Anyway the point isn't that the players or team are not notable, but that the details of the individual performances of all the team members are not suitable as articles on Wikipedia (which is neither a book nor a specialist cricket publication) as the parts that do not duplicate existing articles are not encyclopaedic excessive detail. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is what many a user are crying here, you have hit the nail on it's head.--yousaf465 11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that AustralianRupert's comment about how much work had been put into these articles was tagged onto the end of his post, looking for all the world like and after thought? It looks to me anyway like it's not his main point, or even what most of his post was about. Nev1 (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While that may or may not have been his main point, it is still a point that has been made (and I don't recall anyone else bringing it up previously in this discussion) and so I am perfectly at liberty to respond to it (in a civil manner of course) should I so choose. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't buy the slippery slope argument here, it is hyperbole in my view. It may be possible that for some of the less central figures a merge would be a better option. But for the most prominent (Bradman in particular, but by no means just him), there is more than enough information to stand in a separate article per Wikipedia:Summary style. I might support a merge on some of them, but the bundling of 20 articles in a single AfD makes doing that sort of thing rather unwieldy. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is nobody paying attention to the fact that we're also talking about a 1953 and a 1956 article and not just 1948? So many of these comments are based on the 1948 articles, while ignoring the 53 and 56. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe, just maybe, if you hadn't tried to ram all these through as a bulk discussion, the individual cases you seem the most concerned about would receive more attention. The bulk nom makes it difficult for editors who have concerns with say, Ron Hamence in 1948, but are quite comfortable with Keith Miller in 1953, to make their point clearly. That is one of the downsides of lazy mass nominations. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this assessment. It would have been advisable to nominate the worst of these first, then the middling ones. A few articles might survive, but those editors who think it is a good idea to create one of these for every single team member will have seen much of their "work" get redirected/deleted, and will find some other way to pay homage to sportsmen. Abductive (reasoning) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While personally I wouldn't have bundled the 1953 articles with the 1948 ones, I think that had the 1948 ones been treated indivdually then there would be howls of protest about WP:WAX and how the nominator was trying to get rid of them by stealth in nominating them all individually rather than considering them as a group with copy-and-paste !votes aplenty. Unfortunately I think this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to nominate some of the weakest of these someday. These set a horrendous precedent; there's no "I" in "team"... Abductive (reasoning) 00:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think if you look hard enough you will see a "me" in team, which is actually the same thing as "I". Hiding T 11:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator said "All start off with an infobox that starts as a clone to their biographical articles" -> Incorrect and "WP:SYNTHESIS" also false. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To me, this is a perfect example of splitting an article when the subject warrants more extensive coverage. I look at my work on Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which created the child article Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System because the sources warranted it and the parent article was becoming too long. The same principals apply here. I applaud the editors involved in creating these articles and hope they'll continue their work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep All Alas, I lack knowledge of cricket or even rudimentary enthusiasm for any sport. Despite my handicap, I found these to be engaging articles, well written and well sourced. Deleting them seems a tragic waste. These articles epitimize some of the best standards of the 'pedia. Really, I wish I could craft articles half as good as these. Pigman☿/talk 02:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per YellowMonkey. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. All of them. I don't care about sports, either. But these are excellent articles. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N, WP:RS and YellowMonkey. All of these players and their contributions during this tour are well documented, and hold a heavy weight of notability in the cricketing world. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Four articles nominated for deletion are featured articles. People who passed those four articles for featured status are not silly. Nominating multiple featured articles for deletion doesn't make any sense to me. All the articles nominated for deletion are well written, and they have reliable refs; BL Nguyen, Juliancolton, Nick-D, Gnangarra, and Aaroncrick have given solid reasons why all of these articles should stay on en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NW above catches my viewpoint excellently, where the coverage is sufficient to split into seperate article then we should do so and I wish many articles were as good as these. Davewild (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "let's delete a featured article" - maybe not. Rob (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that your sole rationale for keeping these articles? Have you actually thought about the precedent this may set? Or perhaps that the vast majority of the references in these articles are nothing more than stats sites? Seems fairly clear to me that you haven't. – Pee Jay 10:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rob just disagrees with you, he is allowed to do that. Don't assume people don't understand the arguement just because they don't agree. WP:AGF! --SGGH ^ping! 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But it's a non-reason to delete. We've deleted featured articles before. Just because something is featured doesn't make it immune from being deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without commenting on the specifics of this AFD featured articles should generally NOT be eligible for deletion until after they have been de-featured. Obviously, if the article blatantly no longer meets FA status the deletion discussion can be phrased as "this article clearly does not meet the FA criteria and it should be deleted for the following reasons..." As I see no claim that the FA articles above no longer meet FA status, they should not be deleted as part of this AFD. I feel the same way about any other featured content, good articles, and any other recognition that says "at one time this article was a quality article." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the lot and find another venue for this discussion If the 1948 Ashes is not *the* most significant cricket tour ever its only a hairs breath away and I saw several books about the tour last time I looked around Foyles in London. (Does anyone know what happened to sportspages by the way? It had gone when I looked). Maybe some of the content could be merged maybe the format of the articles doesn't justify separate standalone articles but there is no way we won't find a home for the content somewhere and its not going to be deleted for licensing reasons so this is all down to whether to merge or keep, neither of which need an admin to intervene so this should be taken away from AFD and discussed somewhere else. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but recommend, if the nominator or others feels it is needed, an Featured Article Review of the four FAs in the list. I will note all of them passed this year (so no glacial shifts in our policy or guidelines towards FA content) so the question is then did they receive appropriate thorough reviews at FA to consider if they are appropriate content. Some seem to, some don't. But if these are featured content, that fact needs to be re-established before proceeding with deletion. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Stuff like these articles bores me to tears, and I am astonished that apparently reasonable and intelligent people put so much time and effort into them. But I feel the same way about twelve-tone music, and that's not a good reason for purging Wikipedia of detailed articles regarding it. There are a lot of people out there who do not share my opinions, and who find articles like this valuable. And sports-related articles have the uncommon virtue of resting mostly on objective information (to a level of detail that disinterests most readers, of course). So long as the article content generally meets the requirements of BLP, RS, V, and NPOV, the articles should be kept. Some cleanup may be required. There are probably equally detailed accounts of battles and military engagements lurking around Wikipedia, and I don't see anybody proposing their deletion, even though one might make a decent case that the factual details aren't encyclopedically significant, only the outcome and the effects on the conflict involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The primary question is whether we have enough reliable sources to support these spin off articles. The answer to that is a clear yes. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete. There's clearly already a strong consensus to keep here, and this discussion will probably be WP:SNOW-closed pretty soon, but for the record: I don't think we should have articles like this. They seem to me to be striking a bad precedent: besides the fact that much of the information in them is duplicated in the players' articles and the main Australia cricket team in England in 1948 article, they simply go into too much detail to be encyclopaedic. Some people may not think there is such a problem, but I do, and this is a perfect example of it. No serious encyclopaedia would cover this cricket tour in this level of detail; Wikipedia is not supposed to be about collecting all the information in the world, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Robofish (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes there are many people who think, at lot a information will be lost, if we merged the articles. Well we can have separate wiki for this purpose and this information can be transferred there. For this software will be quite helpful MediaWiki. A list of sites can be found here Sites using MediaWiki. I will be willing to help.--yousaf465 03:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very strong keep to the bulk of these, solid keep to the weaker ones (e.g. Hamence and Saggers). Would a self-respecting encyclopedia contain these articles? Well yes, if it was the Enormous Encyclopedia of Cricket, it would be proud to. That in turn would certainly be part of the Enormous Encyclopedia of Everything. In particular, there's plenty of sources and commentary and it's not just a synthesis or compilation of news-clippings which is what wins it for me. If you did an article for most of the purported counter-examples, it isn't just the fact that they are usually inherently false comparisons structurally (the problems of comparisons to "Mike Lowell with the Boston Red Sox in 2007" and "Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20" have already been eloquently deconstructed above), but also if you were to try to create a sourced article on those topics, you could probably do so, but only by cobbling together dozens of news snippets and box scores etc. For me that's a pretty fundamental difference; there has been very extensive and holistic expert analysis of the roles these players had in the relevant series (including Miller's role in the later series). I am happyish about the "minor" players having spinoff articles too. Despite some claims to the contrary, it seems to me that all the subarticles include information that is not currently in their respective main articles. Their main articles would be grossly misbalanced were this (entirely appropriate) level of detail on a specific series merged back into them, even if technically the articles seem slightly too small at present to justify having a subarticle. This is really more an indication that their main articles need expansion, than that the subarticles are inappropriate. TheGrappler (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can understand the theoretical basis for arguing for deletion of a few of these articles, but candidly, sometimes I despair of this community's ability to prioritize its time. Of all the challenges and to-dos confronting Wikipedia today, IMHO pushing for the elimination of reliably sourced, well-written, non-BLP-implicating, and otherwise harmless content should be well down on the list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. I read the Don Bradman one a while ago and found it just brilliant - what a great way to slice up history, by following one player throughout their matches in their most famous season. I don't know if every article will be quite as great, but still - all these articles do is contribute to making Wikipedia the best encyclopaedia on cricket there is. Which is totally in keeping with Jimmy Wales original intentions - he made a very similar point regarding poker articles. There is potential for "fancruft" in these articles, but critically, these articles do not show that - it's just potential. So the argument for deleting them (particularly en masse!) is very weak. Keep, and let's bask in the joy that is Wikipedia. Stevage 01:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The articles are in compliance with Wikipedia policies such as notability, reliable sources, and NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge with articles about each person and the matches. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The arguments to delete or merge based on the notion of "precedent" are undermined by the fact that Wikipedia doesn't do precedent; it never has and likely never will. Wikipedia operates using a consensus model and it is a policy across Wikipedia that consensus can change. The first rule on Wikipedia is also that one can ignore all the rules if what you are doing is making the encyclopedia better. These articles make us better, therefore they should be retained. No-one has as yet detailed how they breach any policies. The idea that these articles consist of original research or synthesis material is unwarranted, since they are written in exactly the same way as other articles, by summarising secondary sources. There will be no precedent set here, because we don't do things because other stuff exists. I see the link bandied WP:OTHERSTUFF bandied about enough that I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before. Another portion of that essay that applies to the delete and merge arguments is WP:ALLORNOTHING. The points the essay Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions makes apply just as equally to delete arguments as to keep. There is no proven case here to delete, there is perhaps some small amount of doubt, granted, but where we are in doubt, per policy, we do not delete. Hiding T 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The articles do not breach policy and refer to notable players on a notable team in their most notable season. I really don't see the problem here. Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Incredibly detailed, incredibly well-written, incredibly well-referenced information about the world: that's what Wikipedia is all about. I hope these articles set a precedent. I cannot fathom how anyone might think that deleting these articles would help our readers in any way. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments/Questions. I keep seeing people saying these articles are well written, but I personally thought they were poorly written. To me it seems that the articles are overwhelmed with details about the course of each match, when instead they should be focusing on the significance of the player's actions. However, I don't know anything about cricket or cricket scoring. When I see that the score was #/###, and then it was #/###, and then someone said the conditions were poor, etc., that is utterly boring, and makes me want to stop reading the articles. I was wondering if perhaps all of those numbers are really impressive to someone who knows about cricket? If the articles are kept (and it is clear they will be at this point), could perhaps the content be rewritten to make it clear how each event is important throughout the article (i.e. if it took especially great play for the score to go from #/### to #/###, say so explicitly)? Also, is there anyone who really knows nothing about cricket who finds these articles well written, or anyone who knows a lot about cricket who finds tmem poorly written, or do people's opinions of the writing quality of the articles depend mainly on how much they like cricket? Calathan (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply. Undoubtedly the more that one knows about a subject the more that statistics are of interest. There is a minority sport called American football for which statistics are the lifeblood. Looking at 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game as a random example, it contains enthralling text such as "Millsaps widened their lead with a 9-play 44-yard touchdown scoring drive that used 3:03 of game time. That gave them a 21–13 lead. The Tigers trimmed the lead to 21–16 with a 22-yard field goal by Peter Licalzi." and phrases that are wholly opaque to the casual reader such as "Blake Barmore (#13) took the snap out of a 5-wide shotgun set at the Tigers' 40 yard line". BTW I am using this as a conversational aside and not to justify anything in the pages under discussion, I know OtherStuffExistst etc :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The level of detail is excessive but how else can you write a featured article about a cricketer's performances in just 15 matches. Every opposition total is mentioned, every 'none-for' is detailed, every single figure score is given, bowler victim's are described and the score at fall of wickets appear frequently. This kind of information would rarely be seen in a player's biography but because the scope of these articles is so tight every last drop of information has to be included. Personally I found the Ernie Toshack article unpalatable to read because there's so much of this peripheral and inconsequential detail, and I'm not at all surprised there are non-cricket fans who think likewise, only surprised there's not more of you. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I am a cricket fan, and I quite agree that the level of detail is excessive. I'm surpised that nobody has thrown WP:NOTSTATS into the mix of WP:ALPHABETSOUP yet. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - goodness, this is the most interesting AfD I've seen in a while. I can see the arguments that the keep people are saying, but I also find the situation absurd, to an extent. To break down a person's career into such detail is excessive for Wikipedia and might better be suited for other vehicles. Aside from that, I generally agree with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs in his assessment. matt91486 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong neutral: I love cricket and I like cricket articles. If I knew more about it I'd write cricket articles myself. I'm disappointed that with all their knowledge these guys have devoted so much time to this sequence of highly repetitive articles, thereby sucking nearly all the interest out of the 1948 tour. 721 runs in a day – who cares any more? 404 for three? – zzzzzzzz. I admire the industry but not the outcome; if common sense ruled in Wikipedia, these articles would have been merged long ago, but it doesn't. I have tried reasoning with the perpetrators, along the lines that low-key performers such as McCool and Saggers don't warrant articles recording their scant deeds on the tour, but to no avail. Meanwhile the articles are flooding the FAC process, and one by one are being hailed as examples of Wikipedia's best work. Wow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under the G3 crouton. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 03:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wander Donkey[edit]

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

In the 09/02/2009 IdleThumbs podcast (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/idle-thumbs/~5/fdEKG8ledcE/idlethumbs041.mp3, discussion starts at 40:20) a reader admitted to having created this page as a hoax. Apparently a typo made several gaming sites (such as IGN and Gamespy) index this as a real game, which then made several other gaming websites create stub pages for it -- the users then created this page and assigned TOSE as a developer as they thought it 'plausible'. Outside of several stub pages, there's no verifiable source for this game anywhere and all of the linked sources are nonsense. This game does not exist. At the IdleThumbs forum the following user admitted to having created the article: http://www.idlethumbs.net/forums/showpost.php?p=118549&postcount=46 Obonicus (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very likely a hoax. In the IdleThumbs podcast, the discussion of this article begins at 40:20 (so it doesn't take you as long to find it as it did me). Even if it were not a hoax, every reference listed is extremely trivial, no where near verification of this article. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, I forgot to mark where in the podcast the discussion starts.Obonicus (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per the podcast. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, possibly speedy as hoax, not to mention WP:CRYSTAL. Gosox5555 (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. So tagged. If they made it public that it's a hoax, then it qualifies. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note, I had to replace the AFD tag - vandals removed it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabrein[edit]

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

This is undoubtedly a word that people use sometimes, but it's unlikely that it's "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Prezbo (talk) 16:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: first 50 Google searches came up with no WP:RS. Note to Prezbo: the phrase "it's unlikely that it's..." makes one wonder if you followed WP:BEFORE -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Should be a Wictionary entry.--RDBury (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations Department for Safety and Security[edit]

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

This article was AFDed six months ago, and the result was "Keep"... however, in that time, the article hasn't changed at all; it's still a very short stub. The serious problem is that it still has no reliable, third-party sources. I feel that six months is long enough to give those who argued that the organisation was notable; they haven't managed to include any non-self-published references in that time, so I have to bring it back here. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a major UN department that undertakes a critical internayional role. It was notable six months ago, is notable today and will be notable in six months time. A couple of examples to show the significance of the role of this department: Here is the body advising in which areas of Somalia it was safe for humanitarian work and here the organisation advises on security in Gaza. Further sources are here. The nominator is rightly concerned that third-party sources are not in the article but the best way forward is to add them, not keep bringing the page back here. TerriersFan (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You were one of the most vocal proponents of keeping the article last time; why have you not improved it, rather than just objecting every time somebody points out that it's sub-standard? You say you have sources, please, go ahead and add them. It's not everybody else's job to better the articles you insist are kept. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't "insist are kept" since no editor can insist; I merely expressed my view. What we have here is a major and important international body that, in my view, is self-evidently notable. We don't delete on the lack of sources in a page but when they are not available. Also I didn't "just objecting every time somebody points out that it's sub-standard" since it is evidently sub-standard. What I am objecting to is this renomination, less than six months after a unanimous keep, on the grounds that the sources haven't been added within an arbitrary period. There is no timescale for adding sources. TerriersFan (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it was a unanimous keep; I was arguing for deletion, if I recall correctly.

And I asked a very specific question; if you have sources now, and you had them last time, why on Earth didn't you add them to the article? ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 17:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department for Safety and Security. TerriersFan (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked above :) ╟─Treasury Tag►voice vote─╢ 17:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a notable department of a very notable organization. It needs sources, yes. - Richard Cavell (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - third party sources are definitely within reach Shii (tock) 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This seems to play a much larger role than I would have guessed. The article could well be expanded DGG ( talk ) 06:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public swimming at the Beijing National Aquatics Center[edit]

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

This article is essentially a travel guide type of entry. The availability of public swimming is already in the Beijing National Aquatics Center article, and the remaining detail of admission fees and lacker facilities is not suitable for merging. Nor is the term something that is likely to be used as a search term so a redirect is not useful. Whpq (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge (Selectively merge) to Beijing National Aquatics Center. It is encyclopedic to note that the public can swim at the center. Their website should be the only source for hours and costs, which are subject to change. The general requirements (ID, proof of swim ability, etc could be mentioned, but it is inappropriate to list everything in detail. Edison (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everything encyclopaedic in this article is already in the main Beijing National Aquatics Center article so there is nothing to merge. I agree with the nominator's opinion that the title is an unlikely search term and so there is no benefit in a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything that could be mentioned about this very narrow topic is included in the main Beijing National Aquatics Center. Article reads like a travel guide. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vibe Squad[edit]

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

Not notable, as per WP:MUSIC. The references seem to be self-promotional blogs, not reliable secondary sources. Originally up for PROD, but author removed tag without giving any reasons. Singularity42 (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Aadagger (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find any sources outside of blogs and social networking sites. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, article badly outdated too JForget 22:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Step Up to the Plate (Disney film)[edit]

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

Article originally deleted in May 2008 via PROD process as a non-notable future film. The article was then revived this week via a PROD challenge, but then the requestor realized it was not the "Step Up to the Plate" that they thought it was (i.e. mistaken identity). A search of Google indicates no hits on the title in a Disney context, and so it apparently never entered production. Thus I contend this is probably still a non-notable concept that did not get very far, and ripe for deletion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Movie that apparently never happened. No sources for verification, no ghits under this context. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a film that never happened. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A film that never happened. Joe Chill (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unwins Seeds[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. Google pulls up nothing, google news pulls up nothing, google books pulls up teeny tiny mentions that fail the requirement of significant coverage. Ironholds (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There's certainly coverage on Google News and Unwins Seeds are pretty major in the UK - if you go into a garden centre, chances are it's their seeds on sale. (I'm in the UK but have no particular interest in Gardening, so I'd suggest they're close to being a "household name", for whatever that means) ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this pulls up nothing for me. How odd. Ironholds (talk) 15:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try "All dates". It's hardly front page news, but it's persistent. Personally, I'd venture to suggest persistent coverage is better than a 5 minute blaze of glory when it comes to notability, but I don't know what the consensus is on that one. ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the information in the article is true, and it seems to be, this company is certainly notable. The article needs better sources, true, but deletion would be a step backwards.Borock (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the article information make it notable? Ironholds (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A leading garden seed provider in a major nation should be notable, and have a better article. See Burpee Seeds. Borock (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Burpee needs a better article too. But still it is a major business, and cultural influence, in the USA. Unwins seems to be the same in the UK.Borock (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A leading garden seed provider should be able to pass WP:ORG. Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, if you're dealing with an article about a British organisation, you're best off looking at the BBC and the Times newspaper, since these are the most widely-accepted reliable sources in Britain. If you do this, you will find a reliable source about Unwins Seeds, another reliable source that mentions Unwins Seeds, and a reliable source about the nursery site itself.
The moral of the story is, don't rely on Google searches. My !vote is snow keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are other sources too. I think I'll do some article rescue.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A long established and nationally known company. Sources exist, even if Google doesn't immediately spit them out.--Michig (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk)
Keep A search of the NewsUK database returns 237 hits for "unwins seeds" from 1991 to date (174 in national newspapers) or 623 for unwins+seeds. The best refs I found were The Journal (Newcastle-upon-Tyne); Mar 15, 2003; p. 43 Family firm has been sowing the seeds of success for a century, or a shorter article The Times (London); Jan 6, 2003; Mark Griffiths; p. 10 The sweet success of 100 years. Clearly passes WP:ORG. Tassedethe (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Gear Solid: Acquiescence[edit]

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

The article is about a short film based on Metal Gear Solid. The film has received 10 votes at IMDb. The website indicates that there is no agreement for theatrical distribution, and there has been no critical response to the film that I can find in Google. There seems to be no way to conclude this is a notable film per WP:NOTFILM. Tim Pierce (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable film. "Independent" appears to mean "fanmade" in this case, as described on the film's home page. Doesn't seem any more noteworthy than a YouTube production. Subject is unlikely to be able to carry its own article, though perhaps a short mention could be made in one of the MGS articles. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - an independent film based on a major license is big red-flag. Whilst it played at DragonCon, it's not going to pass the notability guidelines unless the press have given it significant coverage. Marasmusine (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Jeremjay 24 21:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3dwm[edit]

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

Prodded, and some editors believe it should be speedied so I'm bring it here for a proper discussion. No claims to notability of the product, which doesn't appear to have gone anywhere. Only minor claim to notability in the article is pure conjecture. External link reference tells us nothing. Canterbury Tail talk 13:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agreed. Unreleased software project whose chief claim to notability is being mentioned by Microsoft on a page that isn't chiefly about it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Favonian (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Explorer Post 409[edit]

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

A single youth programme in a single small town. Sorry, but not notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some information from this article might be suitable for a Merge, but only a tiny fraction of it. ~Excesses~ (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with User:Excesses. Some mention should probably be put into Hernando County Sheriff's Office, but the lack of third-party sources severly limits this article. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – I would typically say merge to Learning for Life or Boy Scouts of America. However, the reason for the Keep opinion is based on two rationales. The first, I believe the organization, on its own merit, does qualify, if just barely, under current notability standards based on the references as shown here [7], to have its own article. Second, as I mentioned above, a merge/redirect would also be appropriate. On the other hand, this particular piece Explorer Post 409 gives more in-depth information than would normally be given as part of another article in a subheading section. In other words, the amount of information and detail given would be more appropriate as a standalone piece rather than just a short subheading in another article. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 19:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete. Per WP:CLUB, it is virtually impossible for an individual Explorer post to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. ("Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area.") The fact that the organization occasionally gets a couple of paragraphs in the "club and organization activities" column of the local newspaper does not make it notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Enterprise Architecture Tools[edit]

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

Subject NE, and an invitation to spam Wikipedia. Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another blast from the business management software spam engine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It gives nothing else information which is already available in Category:Enterprise architecture. Jack007 (talk) 11:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EVA Netmodeler[edit]

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

Spam. Subject seems NE and article reads like advert. Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising. ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, blatant advertising from yet another business software company: By combining proven EA methodologies, a collaborative enterprise modeling suite and expert consulting services, PROMIS Solutions has built a substantial worldwide installed base and market presence. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Virgin Islands records in athletics[edit]

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

I'm not clear that the British Virgin Islands, a territory with a population of 22,000, really warrants it's own article on records in athletics? ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would imagine that readers from the British Virgin Islands would disagree with you. The article is clearly very incomplete at present. If the British Virgin Islands competes at championships and records national records, I see no reason why these records shouldn't be available in an article here.--Michig (talk) 19:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but remove any events for which records are not kept/have not been set. I presume you think British records in athletics are notable, but where do you draw the line between notable and non-notable nations while avoiding NPOV and systematic bias issues? Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it doesn't seem that anyone is keeping track of the "records", thus, according to the principle of "remove any events for which records are not kept", it should be a blank article. My attention was drawn to it as it was originally misnamed "UK Virgin Islands" which is the incorrect name and rather suggests semi-random creation, rather than being created because there's a good source of records - British_records_in_athletics#What_Records_Are is a good indication of the problems in this area. The one record on there lists as it's source an IAAF results sheet with "NR" next to the result - is this a National Record for all events, just IAAF events or something else I haven't thought of? It strikes me that this sort of inclusion of an entry for a small territory which doesn't (Appear to) keep it's own records is either well into Original Research territory or a random collection of race results. Of course, if there is a body keeping track of records, then an entry is warranted, but I couldn't find any such body. ~Excesses~ (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Five minutes on google led to the website of the British Virgin Islands Olympic Committee - http://www.bviolympics.com which includes pages like [8] and [9] that suggest records are kept for at least some athletics events. The IAAF list the national body they work with as the British Virgin Islands Amateur Athletic Association, but they don't have a web presence that I've yet found. It isn't immediately clear who is keeping the records, or what the definition of them is, but they do seem to exist. Oh, and for further reference, I watchlist all deletion discussions in which I express an opinion so while the talkback was appreciated it isn't necessary :) Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not seeing any reason why British Virgin Islands shouldn't have its own article on athletics records. Rlendog (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. no consensus on notability JForget 22:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plotutils[edit]

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

I questioned the notability of this topic, to which I got a few "I think it's notable" type comments. A couple of people did some useful research and managed to find some sources mentioning the program which have now been added to the article as sources and external links. However, none of the sources provide significant coverage as required by Wikipedia:Notability. Rather, the sources show that some people have used the software in research, but so what: it would be more surprising if the software had NEVER been used and these mentions are clearly trivial. I also cannot see how inclusion of the software in some Linux distributions, along with the thousands of other standard routines and libraries, in any way establishes notability, nor has any evidence been given to show that it does beyond the aforesaid "I think it's notable" comments.

In summary, this software gets a lot of hits and is mentioned in presumably reliable sources, but such mentions all appear entirely trivial and insufficient to establity notability. GDallimore (Talk) 09:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "It's used in <some work>" requires editors to count and pass judgement...need someone else to say "this is used my many others in their work" to be a WP:RS of its importance unless we have it used as the cornerstone component of a monumental work (analogy: not every employee of a concert production is notable by virtue of working on that concert until recognized for that work by an entity not part of the tour). "It's included in <list of distros>" is definitely not a source of notability, since many distros allow anyone to submit any useless non-notable unused-by-anyone package and get it accepted: the criteria are solely technical packaging issues. DMacks (talk) 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I think you are allowed to count without doing OR but I guess you could argue about the extent of the contribution made by this piece of software to the works in which it is mentioned. If there is some feature of the software that made it a compelling choice for the larger work, even if only mentioned in passing, that would give you some independent coverage on which to base the article. I guess at worst you could put this into a list of related pieces of software but I'd have a hard time arguing for delete based on quick check of the citations. To the comment " it would be more surprising..." , notability doesn't have to be sensational or particularly impressive to each editor, and while indiscriminate collection of facts or trivia could be an issue, I think that "mundane but notable" is possible just as "obscure but notable" may mean that you have to dig or find dead-tree sources. I guess one thing to think about is the encyclopedic value of other mundane things that may be mentioned in "materials and methods" sections and consider criteria more generally. Naming a specific chemical vendor may not make that vendor notable based just on that coverage ( " company Z provided compound X to experiment Y" probably wouldn't be included in article on Z even if significant coverage existed elsewhere ) unless it has some specific attribute. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you're saying about considering whether the software was important to the project in question. Although I haven't looked through all the google scholar hits, none of the ones I did look at seemed to say more than "when generating these graphs we used Plotutils, which is a simple graphing utility". So, they aren't completely silent about why they chose this particular program, but I don't think saying something is simple is anything more than a trivial mention.

As for the "more surprising" comment, that was just intended to highlight that simply because several people have used a piece of software doesn't make it notable. I'm not saying it would automatically be notable if nobody had used it, but that would at least have been interesting! Basically, it was an attempt at light-hearted humour, something that never really works in typed text. The important bit was that the sources that do mention the software do not provide significant discussion on which a verifiable article could be based, and I'm sorry if my poor joke hid the important stuff. GDallimore (Talk) 14:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, I guess I'm just contrasting notable with "profound" or "disruptive" or etc etc. I guess my point is that had a few of the articles said, " and then we used plot mode X we discovered cold fusion" and plot mode X was only previously mentioned on the software author's website, that could argue for notability as then you could perhaps say " this software contains an implementation of mode X that has been used to discover fusion[], foo[], bar[]

" without needing CNN to do an article on the software. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 20:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I came here to close or relist the discussion, but it seems to me that sourcing may not be enough for WP:N. Protonk (talk) 03:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources such as this Google Books result indicate that this software is notable. The introduction of this software begins on page 316 and ends on page 320. I cannot see pages 317-319 because they are not part of the Google Books preview; however, they most likely cover this software, since page 320 discusses the software in-depth. I was also able to discover this page by Ph.D. student from the University of Osnabrück. These sources indicate that there are more off-line sources that could be used to source and expand the article. Cunard (talk) 05:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not see how these sources are discussing the software in detail. The first is just instructions for installing it so it can then be used to study GIFs and other image file formats - ie it is not about the software at all, but about image file formats. The second is a pie chart that has been created using the software and a mention that Plotutils was used to make it. How can that possibly be classed as a significant mention? GDallimore (Talk) 10:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humans in popular culture[edit]

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

While this article may seem appropriate as a valid entry in Category:animals in popular culture, and this animal is typically thought of as one of the most notable and thus has received a lot of significant coverage, I have not been able to find coverage in reliable sources that is independent of the subject (humans). Should significant reliable non-human coverage emerge, I will be happy to withdraw this nomination. Skomorokh 12:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. I must confuses to a conflict of interest here, because despite claims to the contrary I am actually a human. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed by your species' intensity of self-loathing. Why can't you be a team player? Skomorokh 12:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a misanthrope of course. It's a recognised philosophical viewpoint - obviously I can't find you any reliable sources for that; they were all created by those filthy little human things, and as such aren't to be trusted. Ironholds (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin; recommend the proceeding !vote be discounted for obvious reasons. Skomorokh 13:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For an article about humans, it contains an odd number of references to penguins. Suggests that the author may be pushing a pro-penguin pov (pppov?) in creating this article. If only WP:BJAODN still existed... --Pretty Green (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith on behalf of our penguin brethern, they have a hard enough time as it is – do you know how difficult it is to type with wings? Skomorokh 13:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Surely all humans are humans in popular culture? It's the human popular culture! Funny article, yes, but time for it to go....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Laugh and then delete Good joke, and good point. Many WPers seem more intorested in trivial pop culture references than in the subject of the article. Borock (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to me. That'll be useful come 1st April. Oh, and bring back BJAODN!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HERCULEAN KEEP Expand infinitely, rename article "Wikipedia" if necessary Vartanza (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for personal attacks. My walk is not humorous. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as joke article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/transwiki Not recoverable from penguin POV - needs to be transwikied to penguin.wikipedia.org,.. RayBarker (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying we should just offload this POV-laden article onto the Wikipedia most likely home to POV supporters? How irresponsible. Shii (tock) 18:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I laughed when I first saw it, but I can't believe this wasn't speedy deleted under G3. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
split into the various aspects. The penguins (about which we already have an article) detract from the possible seriousness, and show the article was intended as a joke, but it could also be repurposed seriously. But in practice it needs to be divided: Humans in relation to other beings, or in relation to the different humans in the far past or future, includes such a large part of sci-fi and fantasy that it is much better be handled in the appropriate articles dealing with them that already exist. Humans in relation to divine entities is also best done separately. Humans in relation to their moral and social natures includes such a large amount of ordinary fiction that they are also best separated. Even works where the intrinsic humanness was the issue, with regard to the defining qualities of humans as such, will better be handled as allegory or philosophical novels DGG ( talk ) 08:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Granted there could be a serious article along this theme, or perhaps even some of the sub-themes covered in this article, but the content from this article is not the basis for such articles. Any serious article could easily be restarted at this or, more likely, another title. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously a joke, but an awesome one. Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't good for an article, but it is perfect for a user subpage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is the most ridiculous article I've ever seen. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as pointy vandalism. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per precedent. Surely the sources here are better than that article because at least we have (penguin-ish) sources here that are somewhat more independent of the subject? Seriously, though, delete per all of the above. Snow, anyone? Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tolga Yarman[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Placer County Youth Orchestra[edit]

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

Non-notable local organization, possibly using this as a webhosting space or promotional site. Prod removed by creator. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As this stands, it just consists of information I'd expect to see on a promotional leaflet for the site - it's basically advertising. No evidence that even fundamentally rewritten, the group are notable enough to warrant including. Perhaps speedy delete under WP:CSD G11? ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. It is my opinion that any group, no matter how localized or notable, deserves to be included in Wikipedia, for every group, no matter how localized of notable, has some sort of following. The people that believe in the Placer County Youth Orchestra, the people who have spent their years building the organization from nothing, fighting for every dime, should not have to suffer the indignity of seeing their work rejected from Wikipedia, of all places- If there is an organization more devoted to the power of the individual and the cataloging of the mundane, I have yet to see it. How dare you insist on shutting down a perfectly good web page with information that people care about - do you think this systematic selection of what shall live and ehat shall die is so important? It seems to me that passengers were less grave in their decision of whom to let on the lifeboats of the Titanic! Will it really put the entire online community to shame if the PCYO page remains? I have made changes to the site, as you were correct in the first half of your criticism; it was overtly advertising in its nature, I cannot disagree with you there. But the fact that you, a Wikipedia administrator who feels that you are the supreme ruler who decides what information is important and what is irrelevant, will not deign to accept our lowly organization as relevant astounds me. Perhaps you should consider investing your doubtlessly invaluable time in something that can function outside the four pasty-white walls of your Mother's basement. Good Day. Waylando91 (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have a following too, but I'm not notable by Wikipedia standards, and it seems the same is true for this orchestra. Best of luck. ReverendWayne (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete. I don't mean to say that any person with a following is entitled to an entry in Encyclopedia Britannica, but the PCYO is a certified California non-profit corporation that conforms to the IRS code section 501(c)(3) and is thus tax exempt; we aren't some backwater clan of mouthbreathers taking a break from making passionate love to our farm animals in order to play around on the interweb using our neighbor's wireless connection. In the digital age, how can we hope to achieve greater notoriety if we cannot testify to our own existence? See this:[10]. Do you know there are 36 youth orchestras in California, nearly all with Wikipedia pages? I only ask that we be allowed the same rights as our peers.Waylando91 (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "has a small following" cannot be a criteria for notability. WP:CLUB has specific guidelines to help determine if a non-comercial organization is notable. This isn't. It's all well and good that the organization wants to promote themselves, but Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Really, this seems like a clear case of advertising. Singularity42 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melton thornaby[edit]

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

Article based on spoof biography in blog, all very dubious and nothing verifiable. Contributing reviews to online wine websites does not confer notability. Rcawsey (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Definitely an example here of self-aggrandizement. Tris2000 (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 34 Google hits total for the name, most of them to user-generated-content pages mysteriously created in the last 48 hours, is rather a shabby haul for a purported distinguished adventurer and journalist, what what. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PEOPLE at best. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperetes[edit]

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

This article duplicates wikt:Hyperetes and is a word definition rather than an encyclopaedic article. As a PROD was removed without discussion, this is an opportunity to discuss the appropriateness of deletion. Ash (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word is not in the en. wiktionary (maybe because it is not even an english one). It is a term title, belonging to ancient Greece,Hellenistic Judaism and New Testament.Catalographer (talk) 10:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary accepts short definitions for words. Otherwise the term belongs to wikipedia.Catalographer (talk) 10:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going by the transwiki move. At the time of AFD nomination I had not realized someone had deleted http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Hyperetes since then. I'm not actually that sure I understand the rationale for Wikt deletion (No usable content given) as the content looked pretty usable to me. The argument that en.wikt would not include such a word seems to contradict http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Index:Ancient_Greek .—Ash (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes υπηρέτης in Greek alphabet is acceptable there. Check a similiar term Doulos(slave)Catalographer (talk) 10:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a quite reasonable article about an ancient Greek title. Yes, it's "about a word", but then so are duke, sheriff, and for that matter cat. The fact that a subject is a social construction does not turn every such subject into an extended dictionary definition. If this text duplicates Wiktionary, that suggests that the Wiktionary entry wants editing, not that this should be deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this needs cleanup so that it reads less like a dictionary definition of the word and more about what the term has meant at various times and places (currently it is between the two), but this is not something that deleting it will help. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rewrite to deemphasize the "dictionary tone". It is the title that is encyclopedic, not the word that represents the title. And by the way, where did the absurd concept come from that "short definitions" are all Wiktionary accepts and that Wikipedia should accept everything else? Powers ^T 15:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Wikipedia does not accept anything else but wiktionary has normally very short definitions.Catalographer (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's because most words don't need long definitions. Where words do need longer definitions, they have them at Wiktionary. Do remember though that Wiktionary is even further from being finished than the English Wikipedia is. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, there seems to be a perception that Wiktionary entries are intended to be brief. It's not true, but even if it was, it's irrelevant to Wikipedia's operation. Powers ^T 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is actually an article about the meaning of a ancient Greek term. It is not (as far as I am aware), an English word. Smith's work which is incorporated in more in the nature of an encyclopaedia than a dictionary, despite its name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment While I agree this article should be kept, I feel compelled to point out that as the English Wiktionary "accepts all words in all languages" and there are Wiktionaries in many other languages that do exactly the same, if this article were a dictionary definition, it wouldn't matter what language it was a definition of a term in, it could still be transwikied to Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Right about Smith's. And the current Hyperetes entry is not at all written like a dictionary definition; did I miss something? It doesn't explain the term as a semantic and syntactical entity, but functionally as a concept, both in the context of magistracies at Athens, and in Greek Jewish texts, in a way that is not characteristic of a dictionary. The article already has five footnotes. Although I don't see any significant article links at present, I can see the potential for linking from articles on related topics already touched on here. Besides, if this were a character on a sitcom that lasted four episodes, there are those who say that a few million people saw it and that by definition makes it notable; I don't agree, but I wouldn't try to delete such an article. But then again, I guess I'm one of them-thar inclusionists. I say if it's got sources (in this case quite respectable scholarly sources), and it Does No Harm, and potentially provides somebody benefit (say, by popping up on a Google search of the term), exactly what is the rationale for deleting it? Unlike the aforementioned sitcom character, this article in its tiny way increases Wikipedia's scholarly gravitas. If the term has remained in use for, oh, more than two millennia, I'd say there isn't much of a basis to call it ephemerally trivial. (For instance, the gravitas article right now is pretty much a dictionary entry; however, it's a stub, and a discussion of the term in its Roman cultural context, and a look at how and why the latin term survives into contemporary usage, would make it an encyclopedia article.) Yes, the Hyperetes article is narrow and of minuscule importance in the cosmic scheme of things; but it meets notability criteria. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Shorey[edit]

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

See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime stories. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where the one event he gained notoriety for aren't the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly in the news, and that is all. But we are not a news source. Delete. Dominic·t 08:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources are about Sandy Ratcliff, the actress he dated.GunGagdin ^Moan 14:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Most murderers aren't notable and there is no proof that this one is. Joe Chill (talk) 23:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 04:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don Fierro[edit]

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

Non-notable band. The mention of a review in a non-redlinked newspaper barely squeaked the article past speedy as I was new page patrolling, and the prod was, to the surprise of no one, removed by the author. A very paltry 275 Ghits and nothing on Google News. Not signed to any major label, no notable releases. Alex finds herself awake at night _{(Talk · What keeps her up)} 07:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable band, fails WP:BAND. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Love (DJ)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (again) per CSD G3, G10 and A7 - most of the 'sources' used in the article had nothing to do with its topic and there was unsourced negative material on what seems to be a non-notable person. Article salted to avoid recreation.. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Love (DJ)[edit]

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

Non - Notable DJ Searches find no ghits (do not confuse with Tim 'Love' Lee or Tim Love of the Love Brothers Band). Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Triwbe (talk) 07:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 07:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, if he was a celebrity (even if for no particular reason) there would be a myriad of GHits. As a DJ, I couldn't find any source either. McMarcoP (talk) 07:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Doha#Education. Cirt (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Summit Academy Doha[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG, nothing in gnews. I have problems verifying this academy even exists as almost all the google search entries are mirrors of the Wikipedia entry. LibStar (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Doha or a more appropriate article covering the educational institutions of the region, if there is one. It's pretty well established that primary schools (Age 11 and below) do not warrant an entry on their own unless particularly notable. ~Excesses~ (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Doha#Education, per normal practice, since the oldest age, grade 9, makes it a middle school. The existence of the school is easily verified, here for example. TerriersFan (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and uses a yahoo account as the school's email account. I'm not totally convinced. LibStar (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ace of Base discography. Article history retained if there is anything worth merging. Cirt (talk) 17:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Base demos, b-sides, unreleased songs[edit]

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

No sources at all, pure trivia info, not a relevant article Fortunato luigi (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, nomination might be a bit POINTY, but could well be correct. Let's debate strictly on the merits... Abductive (reasoning) 08:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Ace of Base discography ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. This is the kind of info that I'd expect in the discography. SithToby (talk) 08:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 06:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Straub[edit]

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

The subject does not appear to be very notable. He is currently a contestant on a reality television show, but that does not necessary give notability. The sources in the article are either from the show's website or the the subject's hometown newspaper. Perhaps down the line he will be notable, like if he goes on to win the show, but for now he does not appear to be notable. either way (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as not notable on his own, per WP:BIO1E ~Excesses~ (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants) critera as to if a reality tv personality merits an article on Wikipedia. Straub appears on two reality television programs and thus meets the criteria. (talk)21:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't exactly count it as two reality shows. The models show is really just based out of Project Runway. It's not really a seperate show since it basically just uses the same footage as Project Runway. Additionally, Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants) is a failed notability guideline. either way (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would still say that it is, as of currently, the only guideline that is set fourth and this article falls well within that guideline. It IS two different reality tv shows (although related to the same subject), and so technically this article should be allowed under the current set of guidelines. Until a guidline is agreed upon, I believe there is no reason to hastily delete this article. This article is only just starting out and I do plan to research additional sources and increase the content in the coming weeks. For now, it is a reasonable article that complies with the loose (non-technically agreed upon guidelines) with a few reasonable sources and a good starting point so I feel there is no reason to delete this article as I promise you it will be expanded in the future. Thanks, (talk)22:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As there is no specific notability guideline (like Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants)) for this, it falls under the general WP:BIO guidelines for notability. It fails this because there is not enough coverage in reliable sources for the subject. The only coverage is in his local newspaper, or as part of the coverage of all of the cast of the show. either way (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not specifically refer to Vita.mn as a "local newspaper"... it is a Minnesota state-wide newspaper. Likewise, Star Tribune is considered one of the nations largest metro newspapers and encompases a tri-state area and I believe the USA Today is a nation-wide newspaper. My original article was deleted under the "Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television Participant) guideline. I have since met that guideline (although I know it is not 'official') and am working to make a very valid entry. Please leave the article up. (talk)8:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I meant local as in state level. The USA Today is nation-wide, yes, but as I mentioned, I don't believe it establishes notability for him since he's just mentioned along with every other contestant on the show. either way (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets the GNG and thus can have an article. Merging is possible, but not desirable because most of the details would be lost in a merge (a bio of this length would be inappropriate on the page about the show.) BLP1E shouldn't apply as the guideline is intended to protect people who were merely part of some major but otherwise remain "normal" people, not people "famous for only one thing". People purposely seeking fame do not need 1E protection. P.S. Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants) is a failed guideline and as such has no relevance. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Keeping would be inconsistent with the current dominant practice regarding reality show contestants. Merging isn't viable because Project Runway season articles are pretty spare on biographic information. Although Wikipedia:Notability (Reality Television participants) failed to reach consensus, in practice very similar standards are being applied. I go to a lot of reality TV articles, and only certain contestant articles seem to get kept: winners of their season, people that end up on another reality show, people that end on other TV shows or film, contestants who garner significant media coverage for their off-show professional exploits before or after the show. The gray area seems to be non-winners who are eliminated in the final episode. Sometimes they get article and sometimes they don't. Counting PR and Models of the Runway as two shows seems contrary to the spirit of the two show proposals. That proposal seems to address contestants whose fame is should to be more durable because they were cast for a second show and is longer in duration because the shows were not aired simultaneous. But the original runs of PR6 and Models of the Runway are simultaneous and the shows air back-to-back. Models of the Runway likely does not bring in many new viewers. If tacking on an extra half-hour conveys notability, then Biggest Loser contestants should be notable because their show is generally two hours. And if simultaneous extensions of a parent show count, then why not count Big Brother After Dark as a second show? I think counting Models would go against the spirit of the second show idea. An article for Christopher Straub would be inconsistent with treatment of similar reality contestants. So I think the only viable options are delete this article or allow articles for every contestant of PR, Survivor, Amazing Race, Top Chef, etc. (or at least every contestant who has won a challenge). --JamesAM (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with ThaddeusB. Contrary to JamesAM, it is unknown if "Models of the Runway" brings in a lot of additional viewers, but it is a completely different, (although a spin-off) independent show. If JamesAM insists on this article being deleted I would also point to several other contestants from previous seasons (that have only appeard on the single show - Project Runway) that have been allowed to have a wikipedia page and is not being considered for deletion, such as:
- Kevin Johnn from season 1
- Daniel Franco from season 1
- Wendy Pepper from season 1
- Kara Saun from season 1
- Dianna Eng from season 2
- Kara Janx from season 2
- Uli Herzner from season 3

and so on... my point being, similar designers from different seasons (with similar backgrounds) have been allowed to have a similar page. Most of the listed designers have done less than Christopher Straub, and some of them had even been removed from the show in an earlier challenge than Christopher Straub. Given the following and popularity associated with the show a page should be warranted for most designers. I would think there would be a bigger need for articles for designers than 'Survivor' or 'Biggest Looser' contestants because, much like an artist, people may be looking for information/background on this person as opposed to many other reality television shows.--Coope247 (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - It should be noted that the contestants you listed above actually do meet at least one of the criteria I mentioned above for reality contestants. Pepper, Saun, and Herzner all made the finals and had their work shown at Fashion Week. In addition, Saun was a costume designer for several broadcast network TV shows. Franco appeared on two seasons of PR. Eng's article notes that she also published a book, won the Yahoo! Hack contestant, and has had her work featured on newspaper and magazine covers. The two closest case to Straub are Janx and Johnn. Janx reached the penultimate episode, but other aside from that good performance on PR, no other notable professional achievement were in her article. However, the article does cite a People.com announcement about the birth of one of her children. That does show that she has achieved a level of celebrity that People Magazine considers her notable. Johnn's article merely asserts that he was a PR contestant and has his own clothing line (without noting any particular renown or success). I think Johnn and Straub are in the same boat. If Straub is deleted, Johnn ought to be deleted too. The article don't provide a basis that the other designers mentioned "have done less than Christopher Straub." As of now, Straub's article is confined to the facts of his participation in PR and selling his accessories online. If he has other achievements that merit a Keep, they should be added to the article to be consider in the deletion evaluation. --JamesAM (talk) 03:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' - I would like to point out that only 3 episodes have aired of the sixth season. Straub has been fan favorite for the first three weeks and it would be expected much more press will be announced in the comming weeks. I would like for the article to stay up for at least that long so I can make additions so please do not hastily delete it, which seems like a reasonable request. Thanks..--Coope247 (talk) 9:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

- Note: Coope247 has already "voted" keep earlier in this discussion. either way (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BIG FAN OF PROJECT RUNWAY. You should keep this page up...I'm interested in his designs and feel this page is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.203.49 (talk • contribs)
Delete -Even if this article meets the unofficial guidelines for "notability" it reads like a poorly written fluff piece meant to advertise his clothing lines. Also, it seems like there's little precedent to have articles which detail one reality show contestant's weekly progress. 128.104.93.117 (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article could be better written and I would strongly encourage other people to make additions and help to properly cite and word the article. If you notice, this is my first attempt at an article and I am working to learn the process... it is not a particularly easy-to-use site so it is taking some getting used to. It would be ideal for the article to stay up and allow for proper additions and modifications as the show progresses. Deleting the article will not help, it will only hinder the process. I would hope this article could be considered a sort of "work in progress" as the show is in its early stages and the contestants are just beginning to receive press and acknowledgment from the fashion community. Also, I would like to point out that the contestants on Project Runway cannot be compared to other reality television stars such as on the "biggest looser" or "Survivor" because it requires pre-existing talent and some notability just to be accepted as a contestant... people on this show are not just normal people that got on a show like many other shows may be. Right now it seems people are quick to want to delete articles when it seems it would not hurt anything to give it a few weeks to be further developed.-- (talk) 15:03 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus strongly suggests that the movie is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Break, Break, Break (movie)[edit]

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

The film is non-notable. There are no results for the film except for IMDB and Wikipedia (or merely in a list of other films). This result, searching name and actor, provides with no information. This result, with name and year, still produces hits on the Tennyson poem. This result does the same with Tennyson hits but none for the movie. Google books has only a listing of the name with no detail or Tennyson hits. The nominated page has no information and can never have information. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not know the notability policy for movies, but my opinion is that because the producer, writer and the main cast all have their own articles then this movie is notable enough for an article. Using google hits as a notability standard is biased against a film which had its heyday before the Internet. Putney Bridge (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires proof of notability in third party reliable sources. Either provide some or your vote above is invalid. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putney, see WP:INHERITED. Ironholds (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a court case with lawyers trying to make points of law. I do not have to provide any proof of notability or consider WP:INHERITED (which happens to be an essay). My personal opinion is that I would have expect to see an article on the film and I wanted to make a valid point on google hits. Putney Bridge (talk) 22:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, you do. You're voting keep for an article in a deletion discussion based on whether or not it. is notable. If you're not providing anything to support your point then your argument isn't worth the bandwidth it took to upload it. AfD is a discussion, not a vote - worthless arguments are just that, worthless. Ironholds (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no I don't. As you say, this is a discussion, although you do contradict yourself saying I am voting. I am here to point out that history began before the Internet. A lack of google hits does not automatically make things non-notable. I am pointing out a flaw in the original nomination. The onus is just as much on the "delete" opinions to prove non-notability as it is to prove notability. To be honest, I do not really care about the article and I am just going to walk away. Putney Bridge (talk) 23:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is actually on proving notability. There is no assumption of notability per default. Sorry, but that is how Wikipedia works. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why would a silent movie made in 1914 have to have any internet footprint to demonstrate notability? Simple internet search engines are not going to determine if a 1914 silent film meets Wikipedia:Notability (films) in my opinion. In the spirit of WP:PRESERVE, I suggest you withdraw this WP:POINT [11] nomination of a film that obviously existed, and wait for someone with actual expertise in the sourcing of this field to judge whether this film was notable or not. Putney Bridge makes an excellent point regards the principles. MickMacNee (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires proof of notability in third party reliable sources. Either provide some or your vote above is invalid. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to make demands upon editors offering good faith opinions. The GNG does not trump all other notability guidelines. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is AfD, not a vote. You have to respond to queries or your "vote" does not count. He must provide evidence that there is some kind of notability. There has been no evidence of such presented. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above two points, couldn't say it better myself! Jeni ^(talk) 13:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote, so you need to provide evidence that there are third party reliable sources on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The film isn't in the current Halliwell's or Time Out film guides, which are both pretty exhaustive, and probably the only really good likely sources for a film of this age (at least, sources I can lay my hands on). I remain neutral however, pending more expert opinion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is listed in The Braff Silent Short Film Working Papers and American film personnel and company credits, 1908-1920, which are the silent-era equivalents of Halliwell's (pages 56 and 478 respectively, to save you looking), so it's possible to demonstrate its existence if that's what you're concerned about. Both list over 25,000 films, however, so a listing shouldn't be taken as prima facie evidence of notability. Neither listing is anything more than a simple cast-and-crew list. – iride scent 15:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not inherited, so I don't give a fig who was in it. Fails WP:GNG, so shouldn't be included. Ironholds (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss merge to the article on the filmmaker, screenwriter, or one of the principles. Note: GNG is not policy and does not trump other notability guidelines. In cases of historic films, guideline grants and even points to exceptions to INHERITED... Per WP:NF "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." This film from the early history of cinema is the poster boy for such common sense considerations. Verifying their particpation through reliable sources is what's required, not deletion because a 1914 silent film does not have the ineternet or media coverage of a current majorly hyped studio blockbuster. Why the hurry to toss this out? Why no discussion about a perhaps suitable merge? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no information to merge so there cannot be a merge. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote at first does seem to suggest the article should stay, until you look at the line directly beneath it:"An article on the film should be created only if there is enough information on it that it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there." This is not the case with this article. All we know about it is who produced it and that it is "charming". — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per these results. Not the volume of mentions one would expect for a modern notable film, but notability is not temporary and therefore the fact that this film was from before movies started talking, let alone the internet was invented, should be taken into account. The Seeker 4 Talk 16:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of those documents contain anything but the title of the movie. You need to have -substance- in a source for it to be considered a source. Furthermore, many of those results are to the poem still - "The Yale book of quotations‎ - Page 750" is to the poem. "The British film catalogue, 1895-1970: a reference guide" That is actually to the poem. "ASCAP biographical dictionary" that is to a song. "The International who is who in music" Also to a song. etc. Your link doesn't provide what you think it does and doesn't justify a keep. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MichaelQ. Not that it matters but this article was created by me but I still get a choice whether to keep or delete. I would keep or redirect into a list of films.. Himalayan 16:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Initial impression was of an older film, which suggested coverage, while available, might be more scarce. As someone who's studied film, I appreciate the importance of preservation of early cinema. We need, however, to consider the article on its own merits.

This fails to meet WP:N (and WP:NOTFILM for that matter). Recognizing the online search bias toward modern subjects, I understand sources for historical topics may be offline or limited to specialized databases. As well as searching for evidence of study in gscholar, my search included academic databases on humanities and film resources. No sources—in fact no indication sufficient material for an encyclopedic article actually exists—turned up.

Examining the article history as a starting point shows its origin is a series of rapid sub-stub creations, often of the form "X is a Y that Z". The article creator's contrib history (warning: long page) in that month shows their cookie cutter nature. Here, some random examples: a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j. All, remain the same as they were 3 years ago. No evidence of unrealized potential, for expansion, is apparent.

This is a short film. We don't know how short, because the article was never created with that detail; we don't know what it is about, because the article was not created with any detail. We can only assume that it exists or at one point existed, though no reliable sources were or were subsequently presented to WP:Verify that. –Whitehorse1 16:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOEFFORT is now a reason to delete?? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should re-read my comment, MQS. Also, it's no coincidence the italicized word potential in my comment also appears in the main paragraph of the shortcut you linked. –Whitehorse1 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'd rather keep it per iridescent's sourcing, but if all we have is cast and crew, there's not much point. On the other hand, if there isn't much online information outside of here, it might be worth keeping for the link to the sources... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
- Time then to visit an actual library I suppose and not rely on google book snippets. This search shows 22 book sources most of which do not have even snippet views online. But the Library of Congress received received 58 prints on September 17, 1914 [12].. so more information will be available through the national archives. Time for more digging. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I debunked the above claim about 22 sources here. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You "debunked" 8, not 22.... and it has already been granted that google has proven unsuitable for research on this 95-year-old short silent film from early cinematic history. Time to visit a comprehensuve library... specily since 58 prints were archived in the Library of Congress... rather than continuing to assert that records there do not exist. Anyone here care to visit it personally? I am myself live in California and cannot afford the plane fare nor time. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I stopped at 8 because it was 100% obvious where it was going. You have not provided anything to back up your assertions. So, either do so or stop. And being in the Library of Congress is meaningless as -all- publications are there. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Normally, when a film is "non notable" it is new and/or insignificant, where sufficient reliable sources do not yet exist and/or may never exist. In this case, there seems to be a good-faith assertion that it is so old that sourcing simply isn't available anymore. While acknowledging the principle of notability, I would be far more willing to give a film in this predicament the benefit of the doubt than a more modern work. Having said that, if all we have is enough to meet WP:V, what can we really say about it that will be instructive to our readers? Thus, I officially have no opinion, leaning towards keep. Jclemens (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article was created as a series of stubs generated by Dr Blofield, of which he has been criticized for in the past simply because he does not check for notability first. We do not have enough to meet verifiability as there is no content. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So now this argument ias about the good faith of the author? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a statement saying that this page was mass produced without any check of notability before hand. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is different about this film than any other like say The Moon Riders (serial) etc? I think notability was taken for granted given the status of the actors/film directors at the time. These silent film articles all starred notable actors and were made my notable production companies, I believe that is what makes them notable.... If they were independent one off unheard of actors then you might question it. The problem with these silent film articles is the lack of knowledge online to expand them, note many of the films are lost so are unlikely to be expanded. Himalayan 18:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:INHERITED. Ironholds (talk) 18:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia, not a random assortment of articles that can never be longer than a sentence. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that the article can NEVER be expanded is not convincing... and verifiable stubs are acceptable. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then prove me wrong with a hard source that would allow for expansion. Unless you do, I will take your whole comments here as nothing more than a bluff. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree somewhat, technically the same information could be conveyed in List of American films of 1914. (if it was converted to a table like the others to display director and cast) ..... Himalayan

Keep. I think this film is notable if only for its age alone. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, we keep an article because it is from 1914 no matter that there is no content or that there can never be content? >.< Ottava Rima (talk) 00:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you so confident that there can never be content? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL - I never said that there -wont- be content. I merely stated that there are no references after a very long look to see if there could be content -now-. Sure, maybe someone will publish a few books on this short, obscure film in the future. Who knows. But until then there is no reason to keep within our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been expanded by User:Steve. There's still not a lot there, but it's much better now. I'd say this is enough to establish notability for now. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, but it should be noted that the one reference I've used is probably not enough to push it over the edge. As it stands, it doesn't satisfy the general notability guideline, but what prevents my voting one way or the other is the lack of access to potential sources. Without access to something like the Library of Congress, it's going to be difficult to determine whether this film received the necessary "significant" coverage after its release. Still, I could see which way the wind was blowing so I figured if this were to be kept—either through lack of consensus or through an outright decision from the closing admin—then we might as well make it the best stub it can be. Steve ^T • C 00:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, it's only one reference. This is evidence it received at least some coverage, and it suggests, to me at least, that there is more out there. I'll look at my university library on Tuesday; they have some resources that I think will help here. Anyway, regardless of whether this meets the notability guideline, the info you added certainly made it a better article, one that could actually be useful to interested persons. Makeemlighter (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't technically violate any policies, since all of the basic information is verifiable. And even if the article can't be expanded much further, there's no single, logical place to merge this content, so we might as well leave it where it is. I can't imagine that anyone outside of Wikipedia is complaining that we have too many articles on silent films. Zagalejo^^^ 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not violating a policy is not an acceptable keep rationale. And there is a place to merge the content - the list of 1914 films or the director's page. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG is not policy, and when we're talking about a film that probably predates every Wikipedian, I don't think we have to follow the guideline to the letter (although I do suspect that there's more information on the film out there somewhere). There's too much to merge into the list of films. And why merge to the director? Why not the writer, or one of the actors? Zagalejo^^^ 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is just as fine. They can all have details on it. Looking on their pages, most of them do have the details on it. There isn't too much to merge at all. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film directed by and starring some very notable silent directors and actors. It is difficult to find online sources for some of these early films, but thanks to Steve, an improvement has been made. Lugnuts (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of a participant does not make a place notable nor a production. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasantly surprised actually that Steve could find some info and an image. I looked for yonks to find info about these silent films before. Himalayan 11:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. Notability of one participant may not guarantee notability, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that notability of multiple participants, covered with some proof of coverage at the time, is enough to make it pass the threshold. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some proof would require more than one review that took forever to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per earlier arguments to do so, which I find more cogent than those against, particularly as the stress on the lack of any sources is no longer valid. See also WP:HB. Ty 00:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one real source per RS, as merely stating how many works were produced is not significant coverage. There is little to say this received significant coverage even in the one source that there is a paragraph for. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account the age and type of the film, the actors in it, and the sources available, I consider the inclusion of this article increases the usefulness of Wikipedia for the public both quantitatively and qualitatively, and its omission would lessen it. This is the end for which policies and guidelines were devised. Ty 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the review in Moving Picture World qualifies as significant coverage in a reliable source in my eyes. There is nothing in any guideline/policy that states there has to be more than one source to establish notability, although the GNG says that multiple sources are generally preferred. The concerns that the article could "never have information" have been addressed.--kelapstick (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Break, Break, Break in a "Film adaptation" section. I looked for resources about the film using my university account, but there does not seem to be sufficient real-world context for the film to have its own article. Erik (talk | contribs) 00:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC) D'oh. Neutral on the matter; really could not find anything more, but at the same time, it's not one by a no-name director with no-name people. Erik (talk | contribs) 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I miss something? I wasn't aware that this film was an adaptation of the Tennyson poem. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Erik has a "university account" though, so obviously his ignorant opinion outweighs the uneducated conjecturing of a mere plebian like yourself. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:CIVIL — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepThe film was theatrically released, as confirmed by the review in Moving Picture World, which was the primary U.S. cinematic journal of its era. On its own terms, that would satisfy notability requirements. Furthermore, Pollard was a major filmmaker for his time and his cast consisted of notable actors. Again, pretending this isn’t good enough is just silly. If there is an extremely limited amount of contemporary information on the film, it could very well be that the film is lost – a sad fate that befell the majority of films made in the silent film period. The article says 58 prints were distributed, not that the Library of Congress has all 58 prints in its archive – the Library has the copyright registration of many films that are now considered lost and I would presume this is one of them. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - no significant coverage whatsoever; there is only one source that writes anything about it (the original review, which is copied in the UCSB link), and it wasn't "significant coverage", it was a one-paragraph movie review. All reasons for why people think it's noteworthy (its age, where it was published, its cast, etc.) are irrelevant. We don't go by our own personal deductions to decide what's notable, we go by what's published, and so if no one has cared enough to write much about this film and its supposed historic value in the past 100 years beyond a little blurb from an archive and a review from when it was released, all arguments that it's notable because of being old and historic are purely original. In addition to the notability issue, lack of quality sources prevents the article from ever being expanded past where it is now unless you introduced unverifiable statements or original research — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs aren't bad. Jeni ^(talk) 22:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what's more, being a stub isn't a criteria for deletion. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're mischaracterizing my argument and missing my main point, which is that it is not notable just because a handful of Wikipedia editors thinks it looks significant. Of course being a stub isn't a criterion for deletion, but the fact that it could never move beyond stub-class because of lack of sources doesn't really help. We aim to write encyclopedia articles, not a one-paragraph summary and a list of famous names attached to it. The content may very well be encyclopedic, and may be appropriate to be merged into another aticle, but does not deserve its own because it, as a topic in and of itself, is poorly covered in the rest of the world. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then your !vote should be merge, as delete is for material that has no place in the encylopedia, not material that should be in a different place. Ty 01:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd started out with the nominator saying that the article "has no information and can never have information." Well, a user found information and added it. Now we're hearing "that it could never move beyond stub-class because of lack of sources." This sounds like more hyperbole to me. Just because we haven't found the sources doesn't mean they don't exist. Makeemlighter (talk) 01:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, so I can't make my mind up either. It'd be a shame to lose what little information there is, but I'm unconvinced that the coverage can be classed as "significant". On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be an appropriate place to merge this to. The only other option that springs to mind is to merge it to a new article. What do people think about List of American Film Manufacturing Company films of 1914, which could be the first of several based (to begin with) on these UC pages? The information from this article could be more useful to the reader by sitting alongside the wider context provided by a good lead and similar entries about the other films. Steve ^T • C 07:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For reference, I threw this page together this morning as an example of what I mean. Steve ^T • C 10:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like this solution! I didn't want to delete, yet to keep this article on a topic that is not evidenced to have significant coverage from multiple sources... I think that the list could be formatted differently, like maybe not a table, or using different columns? I support a merge there; a better merge !vote to cast than my previous one in this AfD. :p Erik (talk | contribs) 12:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a curious prejudice for bands and against films per WP:BAND, where an ensemble may be notable if it "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians." Surely the same should apply to films (substituting actors for musicians, that is). Ty 13:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that seems like a nonsense doesn't it? Not your post, but WP:BAND. By that logic, anything that two or more independently notable musicians do together is suitable for its own article, regardless of the sourcing. "On September 9, Roger Waters, Bono and Mark Knopfler went into a bar..." No. What distinguishes the notable from the not-notable—what tells us whether to write an article on a subject—should be independent coverage. Anyway, we're drifting from the point here. What I'm interested in seeing—ignoring issues of notability for now—is whether people think the information will be better presented for the reader in the wider context of that parent article. It'd be a lot of work to construct (150+ films may necessitate a split), but I'd be willing to do a share of the leg-work if it comes to it. Steve ^T • C 13:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea too. My argument is still that a lack of Internet sources does now show lack of notability. At least this solution will keep what information we have available on the Internet. Putney Bridge (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of merging. The article has been expanded and sourced, as per the original rationale of bringing it to AfD in the first place. A short, stub article that is sourced is fine as it is. Lugnuts (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion to merge is because there is only one source that covers the film significantly: Moving Picture World. It does not seem clear that additional coverage could be found. For example, I looked at the director's index at the British Film Institute, and this film was not listed, though other silent films in that period were listed. The proposed list appears to contain films of a similar nature so they can at least be mentioned with the relevant details in a larger context. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. as per clear consensus JForget 22:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Brown (Canadian politician)[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN as a perennial candidate with no actual office. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No relevant articles about him could be found. If they are and therefore the article is kept, those "biography" and "volunteer work" sections need to go, replaced by something looking less like a CV. McMarcoP (talk) 07:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete A7. Speedy deletion tag I placed was denied but there is nothing here which asserts notability let alone demonstrates it. Given that the only refs are to a site named votemattbrown.ca it very much appears WP is inappropriately being used to raise the profile of a political hopeful. (WP:POLITICIAN notes that merely being a candidate does not make you notable and this individual is still only seeking nomination to stand as a candidate.) I42 (talk) 08:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read the position of campaign manager, and president of the board of one organisation he did voluntary work with as assertions of notability - not that I think they make him notable. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:POLITICIAN. Simples. Lord Spongefrog, (I am a flesh-eating robot) 12:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the comments above. Mr. Brown is not notable, does not hold public office, and from what I've read has not held public office worth of Wikipedia per WP:POLITICIAN. If he stands as a candidate and wins in an election maybe, but until then should be deleted asap. Until then, it's just publicity to further an election campaign by using Wikipedia to forward excerpts from his own website. --mjwilson (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpressionism

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

The result was copyright violation, right down to the copyright itself at the bottom of the page. PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interpressionism[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP philosophy. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original thought. Ironholds (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone beat me to the punch. I had it down for violation of G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Nezzadar (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's also a copyvio as listed at the bottom. Going away as a speedy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Closing without prejudice against re-nomination. Skomorokh 01:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis's Twin Sister[edit]

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

The article doesn't assert any notability for this poem, so we're left to guess (from the template) that the creator considers it notable because it's included in the AQA Anthology. The fact that it's in the anthology is already indicated in the article on the anthology; the fact that certain British pupils are required to study this poem does not confer inherent notability on it or justify a separate article. Simply being in an anthology is not a substitute for the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this survives AfD I might improve it. These articles are ripe for expansion. For example Education for Leisure recently featured on the main page as a DYK. The problem is not notability but the fact this is a useless substub atm. Francium12 11:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding me something to firefight while you delete List of schools in Romania though! Francium12 11:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN requires notability to be demonstrable at any time, not airy pronouncements about how this might be "ripe for expansion" at some unspecified date. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to AQA Anthology. The poem isn't notable enough on its own for an article. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gosox5555 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question The Google Book search [13] shows the poem has been published in other books. Are any of them notable? Dream Focus 14:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~or merge~~ It appears like the 11 google books are all in fact talking about this article. Including [14] which is a text book, 6 other textbooks, mentioned in the book Carol Ann Duffy By Deryn Rees-Jones Ikip (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its in a textbook. Dream Focus 22:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, time to dust off WP:RS again: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion". Ikip, care to show any source providing (per WP:GNG) "significant coverage" of the topic that "addresses the subject directly in detail"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although an article may "not establish notability", that does not mean the subject has no notability; merely that the article must be expanded - as I have taken the liberty to begin to do. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 14:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is established through "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That has not been established in the slightest. Footnote 1 is a self-published teaching guide, without editorial oversight, that violates WP:SPS. Footnotes 2 and 3 merely mention the subject in passing, as part of a long list of poems, and in no way can be considered "significant coverage". Footnote 4 is from a textbook, the use of which is discouraged by WP:RS, whenever "detailed discussion" of the subject is absent in secondary sources (which is the case here). As for footnote 5: sorry, any poet can read her own work, and while Duffy's notability is not in question, her having read one of her poems once in no way confers notability upon it. Thus, we still lack "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", a requirement for demonstrating notability. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Lee[edit]

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

I declined this speedy. This article appears to be "noted" in numerous reliable sources; however, it could be argued that the coverage is not sufficiently in-depth enough. As I can claim only passing knowledge of the notability requirements regarding corporations, I submit this to the community for evaluation. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it's notable per WP:CORP's primary criteria. Has 3 secondary sources. Gosox5555 (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...I noticed the secondary sources, my concern was that the mention of the subject was of a glancing and brief nature. Again, I declined to delete this as a prod and took it to AfD because I wasn't sure. I interpret the criteria to require that coverage be a bit more substantial. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, amend what I said, the coverage in the Globe and Mail seems relatively substantial, so I think you are right and the article should be kept. Lazulilasher (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (edited own comments, 21:42)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arcas (band)[edit]

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

Contested PROD, fails WP:BAND, only references are to online-only reviews of self-published demo. In the interest of full disclosure, before filing this Afd I removed two external links, one was a broken link and the other was a myspace blog removed per WP:ELNO PGWG (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a shame to see an article actually be written fairly well deleted compared to many that get kept, but the band just isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete. Prodder here. The album is self-produced and the reviews aren't enough for notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as no coverage satisfying our inclusion criteria has been uncovered. Skomorokh 01:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endeavour Software Project Management[edit]

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

NN software. Unable to find any reliable, third party sources about the subject (though the name of the software doesn't help matters) ^TheWeak_Willed 16:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Endeavour is a valid Source Forge Open Source project. What other "third party sources" on the subject are necesary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by E-cuellar (talk • contribs) 17:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Ones that indicate that the software is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. ... discospinster _talk 17:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more from the "enterprise management" spam engine. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- NotInherent: W does have some catagories that create a presumption of notability that is difficult if not impossible to rebutt. For example, local licensed broascast stations apparently are notable for their drive time DJ's and TV shirt give aways. Sourceforge itself may be notable as would many book publishers but that does not make every book or author notable. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids HMM[edit]

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

This is a trivial list of toys without any sort of assertion of notability. TTN (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A list of non-notable toys. Joe Chill (talk) 23:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note WP:JNN and User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note WP:DONTPOINTMETOESSAYS. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Zoids. One of the plethora of Zoids articles up for AfD. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 14:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chop-Socky[edit]

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

gnews search of "chop socky" reveals a lot of non Australian entries. This search on the groups work shows hardly any coverage. LibStar (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Appears to at least be verifiable: [15], [16].--Michig (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 03:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GBooks search turns up nothing relevant for the ensemble; I've also tried GNews searches for the group name and for the surnames of individual members and turned up nothing: [17]; [18]; [19]. Michig's two links are duplicates or syndicated versions of the same content; alone, a single TV listing of a single piece of work of theirs is not enough to indicate substantial coverage for the group. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andhra Mahila Sabha School of Informatics[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. hardly anything in gnews [20] LibStar (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a college that offers Masters Degrees this is notable. TerriersFan (talk) 00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 01:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan. Reputable degree granting college=notability. Priyanath ^talk 04:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but ... Clearly notable as a degree granting institute. Secondary news sources are also available. However parts of the article are copied verbatim from the institute's website and this copyright violation needs to be remedied. (I am not nominating it for speedy deletion only because there may be some non-copyvio parts). Abecedare (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arabic chat alphabet. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arabish[edit]

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

A minor variant of Arabic chat alphabet. The article makes claims of millions of users, and famous tools by big companies, yet no sources can be found. Most references don't mention Arabish; the ones that do are Urban Dictionary, a forum post, and a Microsoft ad that mentions the word in passing as one of the synonyms for Arabic chat alphabet. The article is largely a copy-and-paste job of Arabic chat alphabet and Arabic language. Nice doggy (talk) 08:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to call this a better version, and more proper and accurate definition of What you call it Arabic chat alphabet which we never heard about it. What you call Arabish has been used by Microsoft & Google with the introduced the conversion from English-Arabic (Arabish) to Arabic fonts. While we never heard about Arabic chat alphabet, i am amazed how 3 words name of another definition of Arabish could replace it and taken for granted as its the right way to explain Arabish? references been added for Arabish, and its growing day by day. I request any wikipedia responsibile to give it time and chance to get the proper modifications and reference to match the criteria. Archivirst (talk) 14:47, 30 August 2009 (GMT+3)

Merge to Arabic chat alphabet. None of the references footnoted use the word 'Arabish'; the only sources that do are Urban Dictionary and a blog posting. Cnilep (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Seems to be a variant or subtype of the Arabic chat alphabet. I'd be more ready to consider keeping the article if there were an Arabic version, but the foreign language link goes to the Arabic page. Some of the other foreign language links are the same, kinda cheating IMO. There are no content pages that link to this article. --RDBury (talk)07:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arabic chat alphabet which includes the term 'Arabish' in the lead, noting that the target article also needs referencing On a side note, having had limited conversations in Moroccan Arabic via SMS and IM, there are no official standards. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus whatsoever for deleting this article. JForget 22:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pstoedit[edit]

(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) 03:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep already discussed in the first AfD.--Oneiros (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added one source and easily find three refs in books: [21], [22], [23]--Oneiros (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Those are all trivial mentions because tutorials don't show notability and the last AFD didn't go by the notabiliy guideline. And voting speedy keep because this is the seocond AFD is not a good reason to keep it. Multiple nominations are allowed. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source is non-trivial, right? And the last AfD did go by notability: "Free software with no evidence of external notability."--Oneiros (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I said that they are tivial and there is no evidence of external notability. The source in the AFD is trivial because it is just a database to search for software. In all of the software AFDs (A lot. Hundreds of AFDs including all topics is over a hundred) that I have participated in, tutorials were never considered significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - If the source in the AFD was significant coverage, you would need more than that. Joe Chill (talk) 22:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm asking about the source I added to the article. And the argument from the last AfD still applies: Included in most Linux distros and BSDs.--Oneiros (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "And the argument from the last AfD still applies". Concensus can change over time and that has never shown notability for software (except when the rules were less strict). Read WP:CCC. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to Keep per the numerous Google Books mentions and the German magazine article currently cited in the article. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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