Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 7 September 9 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep per WP:ENT and ask Swedish editors to help w/ the sources. Cheers, I'mperator 00:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Anderzon[edit]

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

There is no assertion of notability or importance, and the only source is imdb. My nordic is sketchy, so I'm not sure, but there only seems to be one article available about them on Google News, here. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

for the film Andra dansen. She also portrayed one of the main characters in the film Göta kanal eller Vem drog ur proppen?. That should establish notability as an entertainer (actor). --Bensin (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Quite a number of roles (as listed in the article) and for long time a fairly high-profile actress, though possibly not very visible in non-Swedish-language productions. Tomas e (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for input from Wikiproject Sweden. She was involved in many more project s than just the few listed in the article. That and her award allows me to feel she meets WP:ENT. Yes... needs expansion and sourcing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:18, 13 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. Consensus here among uninvolved editors that the topic does not satisfy our standards for inclusion. Fame is not notability and self-authored pieces are not reliable sources.  Skomorokh  00:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Kreth[edit]

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

Not notable as an author and her being fired only received mention in an NY Times article on the subject. Brandon (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete.She's a PR person with a knack for promoting herself, but virtually none of the major-publication articles which give her prominent attention actually support notability; instead, she's cited as an example of a trend/whatever, not as a trendsetter -- it's as though she's had a string of BLP1E events. In one New York Times piece, she's cited as an example of people who need hefty doses of anti-anxiety drugs to get them through the winter holidays; in another, she's mentioned as a potential apartment buyer who turned down an attractively-priced unit because it smelled of cat piss. She's apparently a good interview subject with friends in the press who occasionally call on her for comments, but that's not encyclopedic notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She is mentioned often in the media, but is not the subject of these pieces, merely a well-connected bystander. Vartanza (talk) 05:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nypress.com/article-17240-sorry-girls-hes-single_.html http://www.nypress.com/article-17389-outside-the-box-stand-by-your-man-(or-else).html http://www.opendiary.com/entryview.asp?authorcode=C100878&entry=21161 In addition I have authored other published pieces in other publications such as: http://ourtownny.com/?p=497 http://www.mrbellersneighborhood.com/story.php?storyid=2162

And lastly I was the NYC Trends reporter for GMTV--the UK's biggest morning show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MD4vTpt-vr8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKc3ilvSyeYKellyAnnKreth (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Kelly Kreth[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Task-Focused Interface[edit]

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

Neologism coined by the founders of Tasktop Technologies Inc.. Not notable, no significant coverage in secondary sources. Chrisahn (talk) 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. This certainly reads much, much better than the original article, now that the inventor has given it some attention. This, of course, raises further conflict of interest issues, which themselves do not require deletion: it obviously did help in this case for the article to get attention from someone who knows the subject well. I am not yet convinced that this particular software or technology is of abiding historical or wide general interest outside the realm of software developers and managers, or whether it might be profitably merged into another article about similar technologies.

    If this is kept, I suspect that it ought to be moved to task focused interface or Mylyn task focused interface, per the style manual on capitalization. Yes, TLAs are a red flag. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To address the concern of the historical and general relevance, I will take another pass at the page and link it within related articles on software technologies, project management and human-computer interaction. To address the conflict issue, after I've filled out the critical points and grounding, I will invite others involved with creation and application of the technology to elaborate on the entry. This is a relatively new technology, but by most accounts of technology dissemination, it has recently reached critical mass in terms of significance. Regarding the title, it does appear that the author made a mistake in capitalization. I think it's best not to rename to "Mylyn task focused interface", since there are significant implementations of the technology that are unrelated to the Mylyn project, but to use your other option of Task-focused interface, similar to Object-oriented programming? Mik Kersten (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Note that I'm considered the inventor of this technology, but did not update this article until today, when I was informed of it being marked for deletion. I agree that when marked for deletion, the article did not demonstrate the relevance of the technology. However, this technology is in daily use by a very large portion of software developers, a rapidly increasing number of software managers, and the "task-focused interface" term is a very important and well reckognized term for the 5-10 million who have downloaded it (For real-time download stats in the past 2 months see the Eclipse Download page and do a Find for "Mylyn").
    To address the feedback, I have edited the task-focued interface article in a way that I hope addresses all of the key issues raised. Regarding the other specific points:
    • Neologism coined by the founders of Tasktop Technologies Inc.. Not notable, no significant coverage in secondary sources.
      • The technology predates Tasktop Technologies by 2 years and the impact reaches far beyond the one company. I hope that my updates to the History section make this clear, but let me know if not and I can add additional references and elaborate on the history.
    • Only a handful of the Google Scholar results appear to be about this non-consumer software product.
    • while this is a fairly extensive walled garden, it's still a walled garden of dubious articles written in unreadable prose
      • If the above answers provide enough evidence of the importance of this article, I am happy to address this "walled garden" problem and improve the description of the technology, which I have not yet touched, and improve its linking and categorization. Beatmik (talk) 04:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quote: 'the "task-focused interface" term is a very important and well reckognized term for the 5-10 million who have downloaded it' - that is an unfounded statement. Most users download the whole Eclipse package and are not aware of each of its components. For example, my colleagues (several dozen) and I use Eclipse a lot, but we don't use Mylyn, let alone the term "task-focused interface". I also doubt that it is used by 'a very large portion of software developers'. What percentage? Are there independent sources for that claim? Chrisahn (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point, I should have substantiated this claim. Eclipse downloads, counted as unique requests to the Eclipse Download page, trend around 1M per month (see page 10 on Eclipse Galileo report). Mylyn has been download 15-20 million times as part of Eclipse (it's in over 70% of the downloads by count from server logs, can derive a similar approximation from the counts on the current download page, it's contained all but "Eclipse Classic"). I was dividing that number in two to get the 5-10 million. That provides a rough estimate of downloads, but the main argument that follows addresses your point of awareness and relevance of the term "task-focused interface". Given that the Eclipse Downloads page is by far most popular page on Eclipse (see Google ranks, web logs confirm this), we can assume it is an accurate representation of Eclipse users' understanding of Eclipse. The term "Mylyn" is the most common term/technology on the Eclipse Download page and is explicitly included in the summary of the majority of Eclipse downloads. Assuming that a user reads the 1-2 sentence description of what they're downloading, they are aware of the term Mylyn (do a "Find" for "Mylyn" on Eclipse Downloads page to verify). It follows that Eclipse users are aware of the term Mylyn, and either they know what it means or do not. "Mylyn" is defined as a "task-focused interface". There are 1,250 exact matches for "mylyn is a task-focused interface" returned by Google, almost all outside of eclipse.org. There are 81,500 matches of mylyn+"task focused interface" returned by Google. Given that the Eclipse download page determines the relevance of terms to Eclipse users, that "task-focused interface" defines the term Mylyn, and that the definition of what people are downloading is relevant to them whether they already know what it means is or not, it follows that the term Mylyn and its definition is relevant to Eclipse users. By any estimates, the number of Eclipse users is in the millions, as such the term "task-focused interface" is relevant to millions. In addition, as the article now indicates, over the past year the relevance of the term has reached well beyond Eclipse (43,100 matches for "task-focused interface" -eclipse, ie, matches not containing the term "eclipse"). Browsing the Google hits linked should demonstrate the broad need for a standard definition and article on the Task-focused interface, which needs to stand alone from the Mylyn article which is only relevant to the subset of readers interested in the Eclipse-specific implementation. Mik Kersten (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are 1,250 exact matches for "mylyn is a task-focused interface" returned by Google, almost all outside of eclipse.org, but almost all are simply copies of the first paragraph at www.eclipse.org/mylyn.Chrisahn (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The relevance of the term has not reached beyond Mylyn and Cube°n (a NetBeans plugin now at version 1.0.3). There are 347 Google matches for "task-focused interface" -Mylyn -Tasktop -Cube (matches not containing the terms Mylyn, Tasktop or Cube), and most of these pages use the term "task-focused interface" for very different concepts. For example: "Employs Task-Focused User Interface. Inference Studio’s graphical user interface and associated operating characteristics are modeled on the mature and familiar operating paradigms present in Microsoft Visual Studio and Microsoft Office."[1] Chrisahn (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As a software developer who has done a significant amount of development, and as an editor who has spent a few years writing about software development innovation at InfoQ.com, the introduction of the task-focused interface in the form of Mylyn, which is free and open source as a part of the Eclipse project, was a truly revolutionary change in how software development was done. It has been covered and extended a lot, and this article focuses on the concept which Mylyn and other conceptually similar user interfaces are driven by. It's not some run-of-the-mill over-marketed term that some ad agency came up - it's a meaningful concept in the software development field. -=Straxus=- (talk) 18:14, 12 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) 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Bear-a-Thon[edit]

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

Non-notable local charity event held yearly since 2007. Deleted after PROD in April 2009. No indication notability has increased in past 5 months. L0b0t (talk) 23:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: On the talk page, the author wrote,
Cunard (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both for your comments and feedback. After reviewing WK:0RG, I agree that under such guidelines Dance Bear-A-Thon fails the notable organizations test; however, I'd like to also point out the organization is still quite new, and is only now truly reaching out into the Springfield community (and thus has not yet had much reason to be covered by any independent news sources) I wonder if there might be a way for the article, therefore, to perhaps be simply put aside or archived until a later time when it would be more relevant. Is such an action possible? I'm (as you have seen) a new user to Wikipedia and am still not familiar with all of the possibilities for handling new articles. TheSherwinator (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article can be userfied. When this organization is written about in multiple, third-party reliable sources, the article can be moved back to the article space. Cunard (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy and fix. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a single news article or other remotely reliable source about this minor fundraising event, and suggesting that moving a such vastly overly detailed unsourced article to a user space indicates the article as is may actually soon be able to achieve notability once a source can be found and/or indefinitely exist/expand in a vacuum outside the reach of other editors or Wikipedia standards. Flowanda | Talk 05:20, 13 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) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freaky Flickers[edit]

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

Not notable toy article being used as a coatrack for an off-wiki legal dispute. Brandon (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Some discussion in blogs and sources of limited importance, but no real indication that these toys are notable. Fram (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - please look through the revision history for this page. It used to be a much higher quality article, but now it is no better than a CSD spam delete. With that in mind, even the best version of the article (see [2]) was, seems to me, sourced entirely from corporate promo. Well-written spam is still spam. Without third party sources and assertion of notability, this is a borderline speedy. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:13, 13 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) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tasktop Technologies Inc.[edit]

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

Does not meet criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) - no significant coverage in secondary sources. The article does not cite any, and none could be found on the Web. Chrisahn (talk) 22:51, 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) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haemotaphonomy[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable fringe science or neologism. Google search results and the article indicate that this "science" only appears in the works of its inventor, one Mr. Policarp Hortolà, who also appears to have written this article as Policarp (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  22:35, 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 arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mik Kersten[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative_professionals. Was tagged as not notable, but the tag was removed without comment or discussion. The article was largely written by User:Beatmik, who is, one might guess from the name, identical with the subject of the article, so there may also be a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Chrisahn (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge. Article may need to be rewritten somewhat, but he ahs received considerable attention in reliable sources, both in English and other languages. Sources like [3] (with biographical info on Kersten at the bottom) are reliable and independent, but since most of his notability comes from a single product and company, a merge to Tasktop Technologies Inc. (if kept) or Mylyn may be the best solution. Fram (talk) 08:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am the creator of this article and I agree that Mik Kersten has received considerable attention in reliable sources. For example, Kersten's opinions have been cited in eWeek on topics as varied as Google Chrome [4] and software industry aquisitions [5]. As shown by these articles, Kersten's notability extends beyond his roles in Tasktop Technologies Inc. and Mylyn. Kersten has also made substantial contributions to the field of Aspect-oriented programming through his contributions to advance the AspectJ programming language. I've updated the article accordingly but tried to keep it concise. Please let me know if you think I should gather further references to Kersten's impact on the technology industry. Telmocean (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I'm Mik Kersten, the target of this entry, and was just informed about the deletion suggestion. It sounds like I meet the Creative Professional Notability guidelines, but I won't comment on that further due to conflict. Regarding the comment about my edits to this entry, after seeing the original posted, I decided to add my publications so that those browsing Wikipedia would not need to go to my personal page for the most notable publications. If there isn't utility in that, I'm happy to remove the Publications listing. Beatmik (talk) 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — notable enough in my view, although the publications could be pruned to the really significant ones. I suggest the main author selects up to five total, say, or deletes all of them and points to a fuller list elsewhere instead. At the moment this reads more like a CV rather than an encyclopaedic entry. I have improved the categories anyway. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I originally thought it made sense to include all the referred and prominent magaznie publications, but the result is, as you point out, that it read too much like a CV. So I just pruned the publications to only leave the very highly cited and read ones, which left 8. It's hard for me to judge which of the remaining entries is least significant, so if still too long it would be good for someone else to take another pruning pass. I wasn't sure what to do about the Selected Interviews that were added to this section, so I moved those to the External Links. Also, I'd originally included references to the direct PDFs in order to avoid readers needing to create accounts with the publishers, but I changed all the references to be the publisher. Mik Kersten (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is well-constructed, well-cited and self-supported. --AStanhope (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes creative professional guidelines, see "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work". Ironholds (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • does not pass creative professional guidelines - you did not quote the complete sentence, which reads "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." (emphasis mine) Chrisahn (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My apologies for not having noticed the last sentence (your emphasis) and not including these when I created the entry. There over a hundred periodicals that reference Mik Kersten's work [8] and I'm also aware of the following two independent books:
      • Eclipse AspectJ: Aspect-Oriented Programming with AspectJ and the Eclipse AspectJ Development Tools [9]. "The AspectJ Development Tools" in the title of this book is largely the work of Mik Kersten as described on the AspectJ page.
      • Java Power Tools [10]. This book contains a chapter about Mik Kersten's work on Mylyn. Telmocean (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep several published works and reliable sources establish notability. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:17, 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 delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Summer Rain[edit]

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

Non-notable author, article created primarily to promote said author. A clone article Mary Lee, aka author Mary Summer Rain, which contained pretty much the exact same text, was speedy deleted but for some reason the speedy of this article was declined. Fails WP:Author. - <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No notable reliable sources supporting notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is gonna be a regretful Delete. I like it, but that doesn't make her notable. Dangit. We need more demonstration of notability. Please change my mind? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and strongly consider salting it. I stripped it down multiple times, and once all the spam and OR was removed, there was almost nothing there. Same editor returned multiple times to revert without discussion, and delete all sources critical to the subject. For the moment, I'll leave it in that non-encyclopedic state, so people can see what an OR/spam magnet it is. If it's not deleted, it will have to be protected. These sorts of articles waste everyone's time here. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
diff on what it looked like before the return of LisaPea. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep this title, Earthway: A Native American Visionary's Path to Total Mind, Body, and Spirit Health is from Atria, a division of Simon and Schuster (ISBN 0671706675), a major publisher. when i worked in the book business, her books sold by the carloads to new age and metaphysical bookstores, enough for her to be picked up by this trade publisher. she may not be a bestseller by stephen king standards, but within the new age market, she is extremely notable (i am not a fan of hers, by the way). her main publisher, hampton roads, is not a mainstream publisher, but they are known for starting authors out and cultivating them. If the article is blatant advertising, thats easily fixed. if kept, i will also attempt to trim out advert and just leave the basics. and i do support protecting it, since it will unfortunately attract all the wild eyed newagers again and again. i agree that its a waste of time constantly fixing up articles ruined by people with no idea of how to write an npov encyclopedia article, and think this is a free webhosting service and fansite, but that may be the price we pay for what we are doing. dont ask me about pokemon...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indefinite protection is not something that will be accepted. It will always eventually be unprotected and the spamming will begin anew. Anyway, that aside, I don't see anything supporting claims of notability, like WP:RSes... we need multiple instances of them to establish notability. The subject seems to fail WP:Author. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're concerned about those who would come here and ruin Wikipedia because they think this is a free webhosting service and fansite, please refer to WP:AFD for a good answer to the solution. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I remember something about being published by a major publisher constitutes sufficient for WP:N - though I could be thinking of a similar criteria in WP:MUSIC. Can't find a note about it. Somebody clarify for me? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Must have been music. WP:Author doesn't say anything about being published by a major publisher. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion here but the discussion never gained traction. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment (back again): this author had 2 books published by simon and schuster, earthway and beyond earthway. her main publisher, hampton roads, while not a major trade publisher, has had numerous bestsellers: Conversations with God and "When Everything Changes, Change Everything: In a Time of Turmoil, a Pathway to Peace" which is currently ranked at about #1800 at amazon.com, and was higher at one point.[11] not bad for a smaller publisher. this is not to establish notability by association, but to show that IF hampton roads can be considered a major publisher (albeit new age), then mary summer rain, with over a dozen books from this publisher[12], some of them bestsellers for this publisher, must be considered notable. I do understand the arguments given here, and if she was less notable, i wouldnt hesitate to agree to delete and salt. i think its just not appropriate. oh, and i agree that the article as it stands is a piece of crap. im just being honest...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh... still not a good enough reason to keep IMO. The major publisher criteria never gained consensus, so even if Hampton Roads could be considered a major publisher (dubious, requires a lot of synthesis and creative interpretation)... <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • apparent WP:COI, no evidence of notability -- delete pending the proper presentation of WP:BIO notability. This is the responsibility of the editors wishing to keep the article, not of those voting delete, so please pull your own weight. --dab (𒁳) 14:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to fix up the article as long as the consensus appears to be deletion. ive made my arguments, which may not be enough, and i accept that, and i personally dont care about this author, who appears to be a "twinkie" or "plastic shaman". however, another comment: I have to confess i had not checked out WP:Author, and i had assumed it was a fairly detailed policy. it appears to me to be very vague, much too vague considering the importance of authors. I feel somewhat uncomfortable participating in discussions for deletions of author articles with guidelines like this in place. I will try to bring up my concerns at the proper forum, not here, but i hope others who would like to clarify author notability guidelines could help, probably at the author project. And i want to thank User:Kathryn NicDhàna for linking to this articles abhorrent past, it breaks my heart when people abuse their privileges here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Author is fairly vague, good luck herding the cats into revising it . I tend to think that CSD#A9 should include "unremarkable books where the author's article doesn't exist". <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or revert to older non-spammy version. Hairhorn (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no good references support notability. NTK (talk) 21:15, 15 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ayllu Initiative[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it's not notable, and is blatant advertising for an organization. Hires an editor (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. —Hires an editor (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This AfD nomination got lost somehow, so I'm listing it. I wonder why dumbot failed in this case? Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, obvious advertising, a non-notable business startup with grand aims: Ayllu's purpose is to replicate 'social enterprise' models that solve root causes of poverty, like health, education, and climate change. If they could do that, they would be notable, but they can't, so they ain't. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, perhaps not even a startup yet, and ddefinitely not notable. Nyttend (talk) 23:00, 25 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) 11:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Razor D[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO, which requires significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Searches come up with diddly squat except his bebo profile, which fulfils none of the requirements. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 2 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 21:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Almost nothing in the way of sources, and none of the ones available are considered reliable. A blog refers to him as "hugely popular", but all it really says about him is that he was a fan of D-Generation X. I don't think anything can be done to this article to help it assert even a bit of notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:07, 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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation from established editors to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Micah Solusod[edit]

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

Contested PROD (removed with no edit summary) Reason for PROD was: To meet the notability requirements, a subject needs significant coverage in reliable sources. This article does not meet the general notability guidelines One source has been added, animevice, but this does not appear to be an independent reliable source.  Chzz  ►  21:16, 2 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 21:40, 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. NW (Talk) 00:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Arkan[edit]

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

not clear how this article could meet notability guidelines for either biographies or musicians. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - Google has hits, but none of them I saw are notable. The article doesn't make a lot of sense right now either. My hesitation is that perhaps there are german language sources, but someone should add those soon. Shadowjams (talk) 08:45, 8 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 21:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on how you think this person is notable? Also counting Google hits doesn't demonstrate notability, references to 3rd party sources do.--RadioFan (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes it difficult to write an encyclopedic article on this musician. ThemFromSpace 02:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A myspace musician does not notable make. Also tagged Samuel Arkan's ORIGINS for deletion (prod). NTK (talk) 21:19, 15 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 Zoids. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoids Graphics[edit]

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

This is just a very trivial list of toys. Notability is not asserted. TTN (talk) 18:20, 2 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 21:36, 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 redirect to Zoids. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robo Strux[edit]

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

This list of toys does not assert any kind of notability. There is no reason for this single line to require an article. TTN (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Wikipedia does trivia, pop culture, porn, reality shows etc very well. Its more serious subjects that we often have problems with. :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Zoids#Robo Strux. Though the page is essentially unsourced there are plenty of sources available from which the target section can be expanded. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:26, 7 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 21:34, 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jirina Mazankova[edit]

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

non-notable pornographic actress. See WP:PORNBIO. No awards, nominations, or significant coverage in reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO, no other claims to notability, no indication the subject might meet the GNG, no sourcing, lots of unsourced apparent OR. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:43, 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 21:33, 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) 21:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balyndah Bumpus[edit]

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

Non-notable casting director. Article is unreferenced and mostly a collection of names. IMDB show a couple of minor films she has worked on. Lacking GHits to support notability and no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cast this article into the deleted bin. Self-promotion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:32, 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, JForget 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion that any of the films or videos are notable, and in some cases can not even be verified. Bearian (talk) 17:36, 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 redirect to Molson_Indy_Vancouver#Deaths. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Patrick Hein[edit]

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

I would love to redirect this to the 1990 Molson Indy Vancouver article, but the trouble is does it exist, hence my nomination. Also my other reason is failure of WP:BLP guidelines. Donnie Park (talk) 15:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:BLP, WP:N, and WP:RS..South Bay (talk) 16:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't delete the text developed here, though it could be merged into Molson_Indy_Vancouver because that's a short article. Ideally that latter article will be expanded over time to reflect any other notable events during the history of that race. --Milowent (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I purely think it could be intergrated into the 1990 Molson Indy Vancouver article if there is somebody who is willing to create it, I would love to do that but trouble for me is I'm trying to scale the amount of edits and created articles down before it start to take over my life. Therefore I tagged {{rescue}} as it is savable for that redlinked article but not as an bio. Donnie Park (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems crazy to have to create individual articles for each year this race was run, so as to include a section on this death in the 1990 article. The current Molson_Indy_Vancouver already mentions the death, it makes sense to put it there because it is a notable event in the history of the series. Other events may follow. Maybe some day some splitting will be needed. But not now. --Milowent (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't think it really is when what it will also offer is results as every F1 season has that. Donnie Park (talk) 16:17, 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, JForget 21:28, 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) 07:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of famous Television and movie coperations. Includes each indivual franchise.[edit]

List of famous Television and movie coperations. Includes each indivual franchise. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list duplicates the contents of various other pages such as List of assets owned by Disney, and lumps it all together in a very unproductive way. There's no reason to have this information for Disney, The WB, Sony, and CBS all on the same page. Sorry if this nomination went screwy, I'm using Twinkle and it didn't work the first time. Leoniceno (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC) I should add that I prodded this and pointed out to the page creator that the content exists elsewhere. He removed the prod and said he wasn't done editing yet. But even if he does finish editing, the concept is flawed. And the page name misspelled. Leoniceno (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Flawed concept, no clear inclusion criteria mentioned. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think that it could be a useful resource (for someone, not me), but why wikipedia? Isn't this better served on a different site? I'm not convinced this passes the WP:DIRECTORY test, yet. SithToby (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "famous" is inherently POV, and the useful information in these lists is duplicated elsewhere. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:48, 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. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Dimino[edit]

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

No evidence of notability apart from one patent on Global Tracking Systems which is also being propsed for deletion. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage about him in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 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, JForget 21:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find anything about this guy in reliable sources. There's someone of the same name who is CEO of a landscaping company. Fences&Windows 22:46, 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) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Anthony Rivers[edit]

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

PROD tag removed, hence AfD. Subject does not appear to be notable. Singularity42 (talk) 04:34, 2 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 21:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear self-promotion, reads like a resume. Edward321 (talk) 13:55, 15 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) 07:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of actors considered for the Batman character[edit]

List of actors considered for the Batman character (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An indiscriminate, mostly unsourced list of actors who didn't appear in Batman movies but were supposedly reported, rumored, suggested, proposed, or fantasized as being part of the cast, or had roles and quit, were fired, or written out. Unsalvageably awful. Inaccurately named, too Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and merge sourced information into the articles for the relevant movies. No reason to have a separate page for this. Leoniceno (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too trivial.Borock (talk) 02:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - the passing on roles or selecting another actor is a common and insignificant part of film-making and showbiz. The list seems like original research, and some actors seemed based on rumor and conjecture. -Sharp962 (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • If you have a problem with this Batman list, then I suppose that the same can be said about the one about James Bond:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_actors_considered_for_the_James_Bond_character - TMC1982 (talk) 11:46 p.m., 9 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Mostly unsourced trivia. Any sourced material can go into appropriate film pages. p.s. The Bond one is equally as shoddy. Fences&Windows 10:45, 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. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Tiley[edit]

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

See 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 he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 21:06, 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. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asylum Seekers (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable indie film that lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. A couple of gnews hits, but almost all are simply mentions of the title in a list of films being shown at the Vegas film festival, which the film dodn't win any awards at. Article cites 3 sources (all the same magazine). The first is totally about the director and doesn't mention the film at all. The third is much of the first article reprinted and just some updated material added to. The second is an article about the type of camera used to film this movie (and another movie) and really has little to do with the movie itself. Minor attempt at notability by saying it is the first indie film using that type of camera, but it wasn't the first film, just the first indie one. In general, film fails WP:FILMNOT. Not suitable for redirect since there is no article about the director. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The criteria for WP:FILMNOT are not yet met but, should the film be widely released at a later date, then it will satisfy criterion 1 of the guideline which requires it to be (i) widely distributed and (ii) to have received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. The second part of the criterion requirement is met by virtue of reviews by eFilmCritic and Las Vegas Weekly. Currently, though, the film does not satisfy the first portion of that criterion due to not having been widely distributed but this article indicates that Shoreline Entertainment has obtained global distribution rights to the film so this should be treated as an indication that the film might be widely released at some point. Even barring that scenario, the film still passes the general notability guidelines and WP:N always trumps WP:FILMNOT or, for that matter, it trumps any other specialized versions of the general guideline. The film is, then, notable by virtue of significant coverage in the following sources: indieWIRE, Las Vegas Sun as well as Filmmaker Magazine. As the nominating editor mentioned, the main topic of last link is cinematography but the film is mentioned in a non-trivial manner and Filmmaker is definitely a reliable source. Per WP:N, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you are saying is that it might meet WP:FILMNOT in the future? You men like WP:CRYSTAL? The ScreenDaily ref is a 3 paragraph article telling us someone got the rights to distribute it. Not much about the Not sure that can be called significant. Yes, there is a review in Las Vegas Weekly. As I pointed out in the nom, there was brief coverage in Vegas papers during the film festival, where a number of films are covered. Again, a 4 paragraph review, the longest which is telling us who the characters are. The Sun article? Actually more about a publicity stunt. efilmcritic? A site that specializes in finding films at festivals and questionably reliable. And the Filmmaker ref was addressed in the nom.....the article is about the camera, not so much the film. Sorry, I'm stil not seeing the significant coverage aside from some mentions in the Vegas papers during the local festival, which I mentioned in the nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that WP:N is met by virtue of all of the above links which mention the film in a non-trivial manner. The Filmmaker article is about the use of the camera, yes, but it specifically mentions and discusses the film in a non-trivial manner. Since WP:N applies to all topics that could possibly be covered by Wikipedia, it does not elaborate on what "trivial" means but WP:NOTFILM gives this explanation of "trivial coverage": newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews," plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as "Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide," "Time Out Film Guide," or the Internet Movie Database". As I pointed out earlier, the film itself does not need to be the main topic of the Filmmaker article, as specifically spelled out by WP:N; it only need be mentioned in a non-trivial manner and, per the explanation of "trivial" by WP:FILMNOT, the article definitely speaks of the film in a non-trivial manner. As far as other articles are concerned, this is an interview with the director of the film that specifically and in detail discusses the film; this is an article from a reliable source that discusses the film's premiere as well as the publicity stunt at it's showing; eFilmCritic and Las Vegas Weekly are full-length reviews by virtue of offering critical commentary rather than being a mere description of the film's plot. They are all reliable publications conforming to WP:RS so, combined, they should all reasonably satisfy WP:N.
WP:FILMNOT is not met, I concede that and I'm not trying to argue whether or not it has been satisfied. What I was trying to say by discussing the points of satisfaction of criterion 1 is that, same as with any other policy or guideline, a certain amount of common sense should be used in order to improve Wikipedia, basically employing the spirit of WP:IAR to a reasonable degree. What I mean by that is that if this was an article whose subject has not had any coverage to prove itself notable (and in that sense is unlikely to be searched on Wikipedia by a reader) and is unlikely to ever become notable, then its inclusion in Wikipedia is, in all probability, unwarranted. But if the subject already passes WP:N and we have an indication from a reliable source that it will pass WP:FILMNOT (by being widely released), then the subject should warrant its own article. The indication here is that a notable subject will possibly satisfy even stricter notability criteria in the future in addition to the general notability criteria which it already satisfies. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, those links don't look like significant coverage to me. I saw most of them when I looked at coverage before I nominated the article. We'll see what others think. 03:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the sources are particularly about the film. The most in depth one is about the publicity of the film, because a couple got married going into it, or something like that...The entire plot section is completely unsourced, and reads like a promotional. There are no reviews of the film. In short, there is nothing to write an article with, and it doesn't meet the GNG. Quantpole (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The particular plot in place at the moment seems to have been plagiarized but that will soon be fixed. Just a note that per WP:FILMPLOT, the plot does not need a source since the film itself is a primary source. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 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 20:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As a reference to editors new to this discussion, this was the version that was nominated for deletion. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 02:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with thanks to User:Big Bird for the tremendous amount of work he put into the article since it was first nominated to address original concerns. The article is now enclyclopedic, well-sourced, and notability shown. It improves the project to have this article remain and further grow. Good job Big Bird! MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:MichaelQSchmidt. ninety:one 20:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think MichaelQ said everything needed Hutch1970 (talk) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I removed this article from T:DYK since it's actively being considered for deletion. Daniel Case (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and a nod to Big Bird for above-and-beyond work cleaning this one up. – iridescent 21:40, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ezakiah Valentine[edit]

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

No sources. I can't find anything about this person on google books, google scholar, or google news archive. This article was created by an IP user in 2005 and there have been no substantive changes since then. Seems likely to be a hoax. Prezbo (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating International Rejectionism, Valentine's purported most famous theory. It was created by the same user at the same time, and I can't find any sources on it either:

International Rejectionism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete. Yes, I smell a musty British humor hoax as well. What's interesting is how the article was crafted to sound plausible enough to people not paying close attention, but be revealed as a hoax to anyone reading closely. I'm sure there's more to the joke I'm not catching. Plus he dropped the term in a few other places, like this fake yahoo answer here. And thus these two articles sailed along for four happy years, getting a few random bot hits here and there, I suppose -- I mean, who is going to google these terms, save for some night at the pub when the author showed off his wikipwning skills, surely impressing all the females. Also, International Rejectionism would be be a good name for a fake punk band; let me dub their first album Speedy Delete. --Milowent (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of whether it's a hoax (though that looks very likely) it fails WP:V. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 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. While the headcount is similar on keep and delete sides, DGG's argument stands clear and has not been refuted. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene F. Lally[edit]

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

This self-written biography is for a rather typical and non-notable engineer from the early 1960's. Other than being amusing for its florid self-serving style the article serves little educational or historical purpose. His references are very obscure and there scant independent and verifiable evidence that he made any of the fundamental contributions he claims or was considered notable then or is considered notable now by anyone except in modern articles he has written about himself. Aldebaran66 (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this story at news.com.au basically gives the guy credit for coming up with the idea for the digital camera. If this is the case he probably deserves at least a mention somewhere. Given that this seems to be repeated elsewhere I'm a bit surprised by the lack of easily available coverage. Guest9999 (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article (for some Murdoch/Fox publication) doesn't start to hint at any source for the assertion. It doesn't mention any camera manufacturer, or even any present-day member of NASA, crediting Lally. Indeed, the article has a link to this WP article, raising the possibility that WP is his source. -- Hoary (talk) 06:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for nominator: In this edit, you wrote (in reply to the assertion Lally was/is a Jet Propulsion Laboratory/Caltech scientist who published a paper in 1961 containing the first concept of digital photography) that: Lally's 1961 conference presentation proposes a spacecraft guidance system and does not mention photography. No version of any of his claims ever appeared in a refereed journal or patent or can be shown to have had any impact on later developments. The veracity of this document is also in question as it is available only from the author himself. However, the URL of that PDF file suggests that it's available from your website. Would you care to explain? -- Hoary (talk) 06:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was obtained directly from the author (Lally) by another editor and passed on to me as a pdf. I have been unable to find any other source for it or independently verify it. Aldebaran66 (talk) 06:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Oxford Companion to the Photograph is historically oriented. Its article "Digital imaging" says nothing about the period before the development of the CCD in 1972. (Conveniently, and perhaps even legally, the article is reproduced here.) The Focal Encyclopedia of Photography, 3rd ed (1993) simply starts the story of "Electronic Still Photography" with Sony's 1981 announcement/prototype. -- Hoary (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There may be weak grounds to keep the article if the references state what they are claimed to state. There are several newspaper references which might need to be verified. A matrix of photodetectors could be used for spacecraft guidance as well as for digital imaging. But his 1961 conference presentation, as shown above only talks about guidance systems and never refers to photography. Any TV camera from years before 1961 with an image orthicon had "a matrix of photodetectors" as well. However, the absence of mention in a history of photography does not mean that the individual did not make some contribution to the field. Are there reliable and independent sources which give the individual credit for the contributions claimed? I agree that the one recent newspaper article might be traceable back to Wikipedia. A problem with conflict of interest writing, in an autobiography, is the danger of overstating the importance of one's own work. Google Book search [13] shows that he did work at Jet Propulsion lab. I would say that being a senior researcher there in the 1960's puts his importance above that of the typical engineer. Space/Aeronautics, Volume 40, 1963 verifies his status as a senior researcher there. Other citations in the Google Book search verify the existence of several of the other papers, if not the content. So much for the above comments questioning the existence of the 1961 mosaic paper. Edison (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're correct in saying that the absence of mention in a history of photography doesn't mean insignificance. However, absence of mention in a succession of histories may be telling. I turn to The History of Photography as Seen through the Spira Collection (Aperture, ISBN 0-89381-953-0). This is a companion to a collection of historical photographic equipment. Its history of digital photography starts in the 1980s, but on the second page of this history comes a flashback: The concept of taking pictures electronically was first proposed by Alan Archibald Campbell Swinton FRS in 1908. [...] Campbell Swinton [...] delivered his 1911 [address as President of the Roentgen Society of London] on the subject of 'distant electric vision', describing in detail a system resembling today's television [...]. Not that Wikipedia is a RS or anything, but it does have an article on the handsomely mustachioed Campbell Swinton, and Google Books has a lot of material to back this up. No similar mentions of Lally at Google Books, and no mention whatever of him in the Spira book. The Oxford Companion article cites S. H. Edwards (ed.), "Electronic and Digital Photography", History of Photography, 22 (1998), which sounds promising; does anyone here have access to this journal? -- Hoary (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Swinton only gave a speculative talk on electronic television, all analog. Lally specifically called for computer analysis of the electronic image from the "mosaic." In this way, his writing relates to digital photography, while Swinton's did not. Edison (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Astronautics was an industry newsletter. He apparently did write a few speculative articles for it, does this establish him as a "senior researcher"? Like his conference presentations, this work is never cited and seems to have had little, if any, influence. Aldebaran66 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are too many sources out there to ignore, and they can't be brushed aside by saying "They could have been sourced from Wikipedia." Many of the sources aren't related to digital photography, but to other aspects of his JPL work. New Scientist treated him as an expert in "spaceship design."[1] He shows up a lot as "Eugene Lally" and "E.F. Lally." There appears to be a content dispute over his importance in the field of digital photography, but that isn't necessarily essential to establishing his notability. The Carl Sagan Center, for example, characterizes him as an important figure in the early US space program [14]. He's one of the few nonacademics invited to lecture there (another signal of importance), and one of the very few invited to present historical matters rather than current research. Handling issues related to this article by AFD is heavyhanded and way premature; settle the content issues first, then perhaps return here. But right now I'd go along with New Scientist's and the Sagan Center's view of his significance. And there are surprisingly many links to the video of his lecture at the Sagan Center, another signal that he's viewed as notable by the outside world (not proof, but a signal to be taken into account)[15]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Hullaballoo. It is frustrating that the references are not viewable online, but there appears enough there to determine he was a senior researcher at JPL in the 1960's and made significant contributions to spacecraft guidance via electro-optics, as well as conceptual work on the use of spin for artificial gravity on long duration missions, and was considered an expert in spacecraft design. Any COI puffery in article is correctable via normal editing process. Edison (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would not expect many references in Web of Science, but I find only 1, ( CONCEPTUAL SPACECRAFT DESIGNS FOR EXPLORATION OF JUPITER Author(s): LALLY EF Source: ASTRONAUTICA ACTA Volume: 11 Issue: 4 Pages: 219-& Published: 1965_ and it has never been cited by anyone. As far as I am concerned, that falsifies the claims in the article that he has a significant role, except perhaps as a technician. DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He was a degreed electrical engineer, and a "senior research scientist" at the JPL, so it is a bit demeaning to call him a "technician." There is no evidence he merely wielded a soldering iron and built, repaired or adjusted things others designed, or carried out detail work under the direction of a scientist or engineer, which would be my understanding of a "technician's" role. Edison (talk) 19:30, 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, JForget 20:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-If: You really can't speculate like this- Einstein was a patent clerk and many engineers today spend more time with budgets than widgets. If the sources check then he would seem to have at least as much notablity as the local licesned AM radio stations that are notable by definition. Many trvial patents generate notability in fact for their triviality and absurd ideas from good institutions get covered too- we can't judge merit to a significant extent and can't make ad hominens/presumptions based on titles or qualifications. I'm currently looking at an article with similar problems in that a certain concept was described as if one person was alpha-to-omega of the topic, Swenson in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Maximum_Entropy_Production , but with some additional work it looks like it is salvagable. COI from one author can be fixed if the topic is worthwhile. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the sources check then he would seem to have at least as much [notability] as the local [licensed] AM radio stations that are notable by definition -- or indeed the spaceships in the "Star Wars" "universe" or the squillions of Japanese "voice actors". However the latter are not pumped up to be more than they are (either in this or another "universe"). Indeed we can't judge merit to a significant extent but we can go looking for authoritative sources for or evidence of claims of merit. I made a humble attempt to look. DGG did it more seriously. Where would you look? -- Hoary (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lazy-out-loud again, I don't always look but I'm trying to get some idea of what happens in these various arguments and get general ideas of encyclopedic merit :) I often just make comments based no what I read here and move on. I guess if much of this rests on a dead tree source, like a 1960's newspaper, it may be possible to contact the paper directly for a credible copy of the article much as is done with images, assuming it doesn't come up on goog news archives already. His name seems to come up a few times on goog books but most seem passing mention and internal reports or things like "juvenile nonfiction" and the preview doesn't help with context. I gather he was named in internal documents as more than just "staff" or "contractor X." Not sure what to make of 2009 au ref- odd to come out of no where. I guess merge is usally a good option here if there is an article that covers his putative contributions, " some evidence exists that Lally invented this but he is not widely acknowledged as the inventor[ etc]." ... comment added at 00:35, 9 September 2009 by Nerdseeksblonde
      • If you want to look at particular 1960s issues of a Pasadena newspaper, you look for that newspaper in the OPAC of a large library in Pasadena or thereabouts; and, if you find it, go there and struggle with kilograms of the real thing, or mind-numbing microform thereof. I'm thousands of kilometres away; how about you? -- Hoary (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, for an encyclopedia maybe the paper would have enough interest if you have a specific claimed date of publication, it was just a thought. If they have their own arcives online and computer readable that would help too. Dead-tree sources would not be easy for most casual wiki readers to verify in an case but "obscure-but-notable" seems like a reasonable realm for even a free volunteer encyclopedia. Wikipedia reliability to others is supposed to separate wiki from blogs :) Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not understand what you are saying here. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that any of these newspapers will be available online. If you believe that any of them is, then please provide a link. If you are near a very large US library (or conceivably other library) that stocks 40+ year old US newspapers, then feel free to visit it and divulge what you find there. -- Hoary (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just thinking, easy verification is important to reliability but obscure and dead-tree sources are perfectly valid and can convery hard-to-find information to a web wiki user. That's all. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 14:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, although the comment that DGG added to his finding may be demeaning, the finding itself carries some weight, and nobody has directly challenged it. Secondly, there's nothing inherently wrong with 40+ year old newspaper articles as sources, but no editor in good standing has offered to check these (and most editors, including myself, are geographically constrained from checking them even if they wanted to). It's odd that reliable and far more accessible sources wouldn't by now exist to provide information about somebody of the degree of notability that's asserted in this article and seems assumed by the "keep" comments. There's something fishy about the article, although I hesitate to say that it's a hoax or lie. Anyone who wants to work on it may have it userfied. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honor and respect technicians. I've known many excellent ones, I learned a great deal from them, and they can be as important to a project as the scientists. But it is extremely rare that one of them will make sufficient recognizable contributions to be notable individually. What Hoary sees as fishy, I see as exaggeration. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (Nominator) The article fails WP:N, WP:COI and WP:RS (among other things) and it does not seem that anyone is willing or able to correct these fatal flaws. The article is inadvertently hilarious in its exaggerations and I would leave it for its entertainment value. However, editors inside and outside Wikipedia are restating these unconfirmed claims as fact, such as we have seen in the Fox newspaper story quoted previously. Aldebaran66 (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (repeat !vote). As somebody who's worked, long ago, in industrial R&D, I can just say I believe DGG is dead wrong on this question. Steve Wozniak was an amateur engineer, and probably made more important contributions to PC design than most scientists involved at the time. (What's Wozniak published, anyway?) NASA was run by engineers, not scientists, for the most part. The head of JPL at the time discussed here, although his Wikipedia article styles him a "scientist," had his principal degree in electrical engineering. And there's still way too much focus here on the digital photography claim. Which reminds me Edwin Land, another engineer styled a scientist in his Wikipedia article, no earned scientific degree, and no important publications. Does that make him a deletion target, he asked maliciously. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The digital photography claim was the one that I thought I might be competent to start to investigate, thus my concentration on it. I regret to admit that I've just now looked at the New Scientist reference for the first time. It's intriguing, yes, but the Google reproduction is too snippified to be more than merely intriguing. Incredibly, "my" library doesn't stock the New Scientist of any year. Surely somebody here has access to a library that stocks 1962 issues and can tell us a bit more. -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has intrigued me and I think I have access to such a library — should be able to check tomorrow (16 Sep) if this debate hasn't been closed by then. Qwfp (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion one way or the other, but I noticed Hoary's implied request that an editor with access to local papers check up on the sources. I have access to an online PDF database which includes some of the papers cited. I was unable to get the "Browse" mechanism to work, in order to check the specific dates/articles cited, and was unable to find them through searches either... which seems a bit fishy to me... though, I suppose, if I had devoted more time, I might have been able to track them down... but other subjects call... A search on Lally's name, however, did pull up a few hits including:
    • Star-News | Pasadena, California | Monday, June 29, 1964, p.17 - Portrait of Lally, with caption: "FARAWAY GOAL — El Monte engineer Eugene Lally studies a small model of the planet Mercury, goal of a fly-by for scientific purposes which he will propose this week to a meeting of scientists in Washington." above an article titled "El Monte Space Firm to Urge Mercury Probe."
    • Independent, The | Pasadena, California | Monday, June 29, 1964 | Page 17 -- same portrait, similar article/caption.
    • Bridgeport Telegram, The | Bridgeport, Connecticut | Thursday, September 06, 1962 | Page 39 : Artificial Gravity Proposed For Men on Long Space Hops; "Eugene Lally of the JPL's systems design section believes... Lally says in an article in Astronautics Magazine, etc..."
  • And to Hoary-- If that's saba you smell, save some for me... I love saba... Dekkappai (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=X6hFAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Eugene.+Lally%22&dq=%22Eugene.+Lally%22&lr=&as_brr=0
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Fram (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitality law[edit]

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

Article establishes that Hospitality law is not a single area of law, and is not (as far as I know) considered an independent area of law. The article was created by a group with a massive conflict of interest, and as a result is both suspect and filled with some slight spam. Ironholds (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but needs a rewrite. As the article mentions, there are a number of books about "hospitality law", making it an established (but not really well-known) topic. E.g. this one from respected publisher Wiley, a 3rd edition as well (so it has some longevity);[16]. It is e.g. a subsection on lawyer's directories[17] as well. It is teached in e.g. Boston University[18]. Fram (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Taught, but fair enough. Nom withdrawn, but I can never remember how to close these damn things. If someone could do it for me..? Ironholds (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll do it, I always wanted to close an AfD where I had voted already :-)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Arrow Honor Society[edit]

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

This is a honor society for the University of Miami and is linked by that main article and the UM template. However, the only references I could find to this organization were in UM website, the student newspaper, the UM staff newspaper, and one obitutary of a member. In the 1980's, the Dept. of Education threatened to withhold Federal Funds from UM because the organization would not admit women, and Iron Arrow sued to challenge the legality of Title IX. Before the case could be considered by the US Supreme Court, the University told them they could not come back to campus without women regardless of the outcome of their court case. The case was dismissed as moot. This was a one-time event which does not warrant a separate article for Iron Arrow, and receives only brief mention in the article. (If necessary, it could be covered in Title IX or University of Miami.) There is no showing of notability beyond just this campus. While there are many worthwhile honor societies on many campuses, this one fails WP:N and WP:ORG. While the organization describes itself as UM's highest honor, it does not appear to engage in any activities which would bring it news coverage, independent of the press releases in the house organs that more members have been added. Racepacket (talk) 20:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This organization is as notable as any other honor society. There are third party non-trivial mentions. This is more of Racepacket's lack of knowledge of the subject and disruption when it comes to the article on the University of Miami. If anything, the coverage of the court case is thorough throughout times (with quotation marks).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Organization was part of a major, defining Supreme Court case regarding federal funds and organizational gender integration. Widely known as highest honor of the university. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The case was moot before it could be decided by the Supreme Court, and if coverage of the case is necessary, it could be handled by a sentence in either the Title IX or University of Miami articles. Many organizations decided to challenge Title IX in court, the only unique element here was that the University President sent a letter saying the organization would not be allowed back on campus even if they won the lawsuit, without letting in women. So it is not "a major, defining Supreme Court case", and is not even among the cases discussed in the Title IX article. Racepacket (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case was prominent--and the organization is too. Absent the case, it still would not warrant deletion, just as many other listed collegiate honor societies on here do not. In fact, of all the listings in Category:Collegiate secret societies, I'd say Iron Arrow is among the most notable and inclusion-worthy. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response the case is separate from the organization and was a one-time event. There are 52 "Collegiate Secret Societies" which are different from Iron Arrow. Iron Arrow is for students, faculty and staff, while the others are student groups which (although "secret") have done things to gain notability in independent secondary sources. There are probably more than 1000 college campuses and most have some honorary societies. Few make the cut. I think this google search Miami "Iron Arrow " -Heckler -IX -Califano produces a better idea of the organization instead of the lawsuit. I could not find any reliable independent secondary source. Racepacket (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also in support of inclusion, here is an entire book apparently written on Iron Arrow Honor Society: [19]. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 02:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response That book does not count as a source. It was published by the Iron Arrow Society itself, so it is not independent. Amazon lists it as out-of-print, but we don't know if it was just sold to members or if the book was ever sold generally. Please see vanity press and WP:SELFPUB. Racepacket (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response I didn't suggest the book as a source, and it isn't listed as one. But the fact that there apparently is a 170-page-plus book on the organization is further suggestion that it is a notable organization with a rich history and notability. Article should stay. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 14:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation: That is not how WP:N works. Self-published books that did not undergo the vetting of a normal publishing house cannot be used to establish notability. I have spent hours looking, but there is no media coverage of the group by the New York Times or other independent media. The 1980 lawsuit was a one-time event, WP:NTEMP. Come up with sources that meet WP:N. Racepacket (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response An article does not need a New York Times citation to be notable. But, alas, even if it did, this has that too. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response Please show us a New York Times (or any other independent reliable media) article that covered the group, and not just the lawsuit that carries the same name as the group. The other "Collegiate Secret Societies" have met the notability criteria, this article does not. 66.173.140.100 (talk)
Not every article has such a major reference. Iron Arrow is notable because of its connections to a notable university and the fact that a case concerning it was brought to the Supreme Court. Your campaign against UMiami topics is getting tiresome, Racepacket.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep primarily on the basis of the supreme court case. In general I am rather dubious about the actual notability of single-campus honor societies, but this is a special factor. DGG ( talk ) 06:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For another publication in which Iron Arrow was discussed, please see the following article in National Geographic Magazine: Nicholas, William H. with photographs by Justin Locke. “Miami’s expanding horizons,” The National Geographic Magazine vol. XCVIII, no. 5 (November 1950), pp. 561-594. (UNIUMIA (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    Note The above !Vote is the only contribution User:UNIUMIA has made. I will go to the library and check his reference to see if it is substantial coverage. Racepacket (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of the nature of the account, UNIUMIA does provide another reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The National Georgraphic online archives do not go back to 1950, so a physical trip to the library is necessary to see if it is an appropriate reference. Racepacket (talk) 17:57, 15 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, without prejudice against a merge should local consensus so decide.  Skomorokh  00:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Seaside Rendezvous[edit]

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

Per WP:MUSIC, I don't see that individual gigs are ever considered notable enough for seperate articles. Notable content could easily be merged to Muse (band) or The Resistance (album) if deemed necessary. Only been covered in any exceptional way by the BBC. U-Mos (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's far from true! It has been covered in the media by many newspapers, magazines, etc., and it is notable in itself anyway. There is quite a lot of information available and it can be expanded further. Check the individual reviews! Andre666 (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge with The Resistance Tour: At first blush this looks like it might meet notability requirements. The references are good generally, though regional sources such as Western Morning News should only be used for information content and not notability and tweets are discouraged in general. But if you look at the articles in detail it falls apart. The Telegraph is mainly reviewing the music and the performance and commenting on the local boys make good angle. The same article, more or less, would have been written if the concert was in London or Manchester. Similarly for The Guardian's review which also talks about the upcoming tour and album. There have been some notable tours and more notable albums, but for individual concerts you better be talking about Woodstock or Live Aid.--RDBury (talk) 01:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Merge having learned of the existence of the second article.--RDBury (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely keep - I normally don't bother to input on issues like this but when I saw this page was nominated I was both shocked and confused. Muse are an extremely notable band and these two gigs together were a very big deal and covered widely be the media. The references are accurate and many too so what is the problem? It is an article people will want to read and get a lot of use out of - that surely is the main priority in creating an article and it has been covered well. Officially Mr X (talk) 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as notability is concerned, nothing sourced is worth anything. After all, most gigs from notable bands would be covered locally and in music publications and music coverage in newspapers. As mentioned above, the only argument I can see for its notability is the level of coverage given to the gigs by the BBC, and Radio 1 in particular (which includes the documentary due to be broadcast this coming Friday on BBC3). However, I personally do not think that, al coming from one broadcaster, is enough to establish notability. U-Mos (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mostly for the reasons as stated above, the two gigs got a shitload of coverage not only from BBC but general magazines before the project went into fruition. Wiki is supposed to be source for information, and the Teignmouth gigs are one of the big staples of what Muse did for the fan community and for themselves, one of their bigger projects which took quite some time to establish. I don't see any reason as to why articles about tours, especially this one, should be deleted. Carbo45 (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article about a tour, it's about a single event. If it was about a tour then it probably wouldn't be an issue. My suggestion is to first rename the article to something like "Muse 2009 tour", then refocus it to be about the tour and remove some the extraneous detail about the individual concert. Use an established tour article like Rolling Stones Tour of the Americas '75 as a pattern. Most importantly, if it's getting so much coverage on the BBC then put links to it in the article. The BBC is a highly regarded source and a few verifiable cites from will go a long way to establish credibility. I'll even give you one to get started: [20]. I have nothing against The Muse, but this an encyclopedia, not a blog about the awesome concert someone saw last night.--RDBury (talk) 21:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which there is already an article on The Resistance Tour. Which I also nominated for deletion, but depending on how both discussions go it may be worth a merge. U-Mos (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with that but then I'd suggest renaming it to Muse 2009 Tour or something like that. A Seaside Rendezvous isn't something that could largely be considered a part of The Resistance Tour. Some people like to call it that but it hasn't even kicked off yet, ASR was more of a tribute type of gig, Muse are still to support U2 before they go off on their own again, which could also be added into a 2009 Tour article along with the VMA Awards gig. Carbo45 (talk) 15:54, 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. The author's discourses are much too long to usefully consider in their entirety, and Judo112's keep comment is weakly argued, whereas Drmies's review of the sources, in fine, is persuasive.  Sandstein  04:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kresimir Chris Kunej[edit]

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

I don't see how this subject is notable. He is a translator and one of his papers is required reading--that's not enough. A claim is made about his having received Croatian media attention, but the article (and the references) provide no evidence of such coverage, except for the brief TV segments. If a caption of the closing credits is necessary to provide evidence of media attention, then we are really clutching at straws here. Drmies (talk) 18:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The primary author has done much to wikify and improve the article. However, those efforts have done nothing to demonstrate the notability of the subject. There is no evidence whatsoever of any significant coverage of this translator or his work (as opposed to the notability of the works he has translated). Bongomatic 23:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • hold on. I am the author of this article. Please allow me to respond tomorrow, I simply do not have time to do so today. Would voters please wait for my comment tomorrow? Please do not quickly delete article yet.Turqoise127 (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions run for 7 days. Nobody needs to hold on for you to have the opportunity to comment. Most people who participate in deletion discussions continue to watch the AfD page and the underlying page, so can modify their opinions on the introduction of new information. Bongomatic 01:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bongo is right; nothing is going to happen overnight. Drmies (talk) 03:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, did not know. I thought someone could delete right away. I am relatively new here.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please. Obviously as the article creator.
Respected editors, please read the article in question thoroughly and follow the sources links, they tell a story. Do consider the following and forgive the lengthiness in advance;
Note on possible bad faith nomination:
From very early on in this article creation, editor Bongomatic has had a problem with it tagging it. I jumped through his hoops and continually worked hard on article, improving cite style and adding sources. After I felt article was good enough, I messaged Bongomatic to please review again and/or comment which he did not do for over a month. I sought advice of another experienced editor (which is maybe what editor Bongomatic resents), who removed the notability tag (must have felt article was sufficient). Bongomatic re-tagged notability, and after I wrote him why he persistently dislikes the article and asked if it was some prejudice against it or me the article appeared on AfD (done inconspicuously, nominated by a third person who seems like did not look at article very well, but Bongomatic “delete” vote is smack dab underneath).
Now, I have stated many times and I reiterate, I respect Bongomatic’s work a lot and it is obvious his contributions are relevant, but I feel he is quite influential here and has numerous allies, so I hope this vote can be fair- because I do not have allies here nor am I influential. I understand it is not the number of votes that decides, but arguments.
Mr. Bongomatic, please do not make this a grudge or personal, I implore you to be open minded.
Now, I am relatively new to Wiki and wish to contribute more. It is difficult these days to write an article; everything seems to be done and written about. This was my first article and I thought it great because I know the person who is the subject as a colleague in profession, and a rare possibility for me to contribute.
The notability here (in addition to person’s achievements) that does not jump out obviously is the fact that translator criteria are not very regulated anywhere in the world and are of great importance. Legal documents that need to be translated from one language into another (like for example for war tribunal cases, countries joining the European Union, and even secret service translations to protect the US) need to be done accurately, and if there are no criteria for the profession of translating then accuracy is questionable. Imagine you write something and it is butchered in translation in the Czech Republic, for example. Your ideas were not relayed, but it was translated word for word by a Czech person who babysat children in the UK for a year and is now doing professional translations. This is what is occurring in Croatia.
The person who is the subject of the article was the first who I am aware of that raised these questions on a national level (in the Republic of Croatia) and was an activist on the issue. This issue will certainly be heard of more in academic circles.
Before going into the technical aspects of my keep vote, let me also state that keeping articles like this will help balance our systematic bias towards recentism and the US & UK, and that I read an interesting statement from a respected editor on here stating that, “We seem to have two rules now at WP. One, except for BLP, 2RS=N, regardless of how non-notable the event of person or event may have been in any normal meaning of the term. The other, applying to BLP only, is that it has to be more than one event, unless the event is particularly important.For everyone who quotes BLP, do you realize you are saying that when he eventually dies of other causes he will become notable?”.
In addition:
I believe WP:BIO, WP:GNG is satisfied and verifiable.
“Basic criteria: A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.”
  • There is significant coverage of a national TV station news show, two shows as sources. There is only 5 TV stations in Croatia, these listed are the main national ones. I cannot understand how the nominator can state there is no evidence of such coverage when it is sourced in accordance to Wiki sourcing, right down to the minutes the segments appear in! I attempted to upload 5 screenshots, only two were left undeleted due to copyright issues. One screenshot shows Mr. Kunej and the caption lists him as tic publishing, media coverage and activism has undeniably made a significant impact in the discipline of translating/interpreting. If all the media coverage of this in Croatia is not deemed enough, the fact one of his academic papers was used as required reading at also a major university in Germany indicates this.
WP:PROF 1 The academic work may not be highly cited (see quote below), you must remember this is an Eastern European state and translation is not a popular profession.
Citation indexes: the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journal articles in most subjects is to use one of the two major citation indexes, Web of Knowledge and Scopus. They are, unfortunately, very expensive: Scopus will be found mostly in university and large college libraries, and Web of Knowledge in major universities. Scopus covers the sciences and the social sciences……. but only the largest universities can afford the entire set…….These databases are furthermore incomplete especially for the less developed countries.
Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline.
  • The introduction of translation regulations in Croatia by the national agency for norms (as flimsy as they may be) qualifies as solved a major problem in academic discipline.
For scholars in humanities the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information. In these cases one can also look at how widely the person's books are held in various academic libraries.
  • This person is a scholar in humanities, and his works are held in various academic libraries, this is sourced.
“WP:PROF 2. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association…….”
  • This one I concur is perhaps partially satisfied, but do take a look at the article’s section “membership in organizations”. Some are national level appointments, not professional associations.
“WP:PROF 4. The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions.”
  • Following the person’s activism, national department for norms and measurements in Croatia introduced certain regulations for translation standards, and the university of Zagreb introduced a “translator” study major. This is great effect in Croatia (not the world, but #4 does not mention world). This statement is verifiable, sources listed lead to this easily (website of department of norms, technical committee members, dates, and dates of new standards and new major).
Criterion 4 may be satisfied, for example, if the person has authored several books that are widely used as textbooks (or as a basis for a course) at multiple institutions of higher education.
  • One textbook he translated is being used continuously at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering for courses. An academic paper of his was used as required reading at the University of Tubingen in Germany. These are sourced.
WP:PROF 7. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity.”
  • Most translation agencies and language schools in Croatia now claim regulated status, quote Mr. Kunej’s work, and indicate awareness of the situation. Existance of the Chamber of Commerce languages groupation indicates this (sourced online).
I would also like to list here the following:
Caveats to WP:PROF
Note that as this is a guideline and not a rule, exceptions may well exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is important to note that it is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of numbers of publications or their quality: the criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field. Also, this proposal sets the bar fairly low, which is natural: to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable.
And Wiki Common Sense:
Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution.
In conclusion, I respect the work of all editors, even exclusionist ones. Yet you must agree this article is not your usual AfD candidate that I see every day. I believe “keep” arguments are there. I hope the decision reached is keep, so that we are not withholding information from our knowledge base.
Thank you for your time and patience.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Thanks for tidying up my vote text Bongomatic. I wish you had taken the time like that to help me with the article as an experienced editor instead of simply tagging and voting delete on Afd. Also, the comment editor ChildofMidnight made which was later removed (I found it in page history, "Let's speedy delete just to be jerks") was not very nice. I hope it is not an indication of motivation for this nomination....Turqoise127 (talk) 18:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since Turquoise127 wishes to discuss conduct and not content, and imputes bad faith to the nominator and myself, I shall also make a few comments along these lines. References in this comment to the article are to this revision.
First, with respect to bad faith. As can be seen from my extensive comments on the article's talk page and on Turquoise127's talk page, I have made extensive efforts to engage in a discussion about the notability of the article's subject, basing my stated opinions on guidelines and logic. Further, Turquoise127's description of Wikipedia's content and style guidelines as "my hoops" shows a bizarre disregard for the consensus here, and comments that I "dislike the article" or harbor "some prejudice against it or me" are unjustified. Imputations of bad faith on my part should be refactored,
The nominator's statement that the nominator "inconspicuously" nominated the article for AfD is plain wrong (the fact of the AfD nomination was displayed prominently on the article itself and notice was placed on Turquoise127's talk page). when in fact it "seems like" the nominator "did not look at article very well" is not justified by anything other than the nominator's disagreement with the conclusion—an unjustified assumption of other than good faith (openly acknowledged by the nominator as such) that should be refactored.
Turquoise127 has engaged in inappropriate WP:CANVASsing (see here), spreading conspiracy theories in the process.
Despite being active for half a year, Turquoise127 pleads to being "relatively new here" and has made almost no contributions to article space outside of the article at hand.
Back to questions of content.
Turquoise127 makes a general case that translation is important, hence translators are notable. This is fallacious and in contrast to WP:NOTINHERITED. While it is certainly the case that correct translations are important, that does not give rise to the notability of any specific translator or even to the translation profession for any country, region, or specialty. For a possibly imperfect analogy, consider an atomic bomb assembly person—it is obviously critical that someone do that job correctly, but we wouldn't expect to see encyclopedia articles even about shop foremen/women for such a role.
The claim of notability under GNG/BIO relies on the claimed "significant coverage" on television. This claim fails as the coverage is neither significant, nor of the subject, but rather of an initiative (even if linked to the subject). If the initiative itself has garnered significant coverage—which is not suggested by the article (in fact, the contrary is in regards the newspaper coverage, generally more probative than non-news shows equivalent to Good Morning America), then it may be notable, but that is not inherited and ONEVENT may apply.
The claim under PROF criterion 1 is not valid. Having authored one paper used in even numerous classes as required reading is insufficient. There is no claim of this paper being widely cited or having an impact on a field of scholarly inquiry.
The claim under PROF criterion 4 is also not valid. Having translated a book is not the same as having authored one. The claim of "significant impact" is not supported by the claimed facts. There is no claim of direct cause and effect between the subject's works or efforts and the introduction of a major, and even such a link wouldn't really demonstrate anything—lots of people convince universities to create new courses and majors, but those outcomes cannot in and of themeselves be considered "significant impact" on an area of academic discourse.
The claim under PROF criterion 7 again diminishes the concept of "substantial impact" beyond what is customarily meant by these words.
The final appeal to "common sense" turns the concept upside down. Common sense says that simply having received some recognition for work in a field doesn't make someone notable. Bongomatic 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response of author to conduct
Thank you for your input Bongomatic. I do wish to discuss content, but I believe conduct may also play a role here and be relevant. It is for that reason I engage such discussion. I have not been offensive nor used profanity. Keep in mind that while you may not like this, I believe you should not supress opinions here, it is not a scrapbooking forum; I for one think Wikipedia is important. Your calls for refactoring are simply not founded, I have a legitimate right to voice my opinion if I believe unjust treatment to be present, and I do suspect so due to the timing of this nomination as I stated before and the fact the nominator states in his reason "If a caption of the closing credits is necessary to provide evidence of media attention, then we are really clutching at straws here..". There are two screenshots, not only closing credits, and there is no caption under the closing credits. This indicates not having looked well. Also, another editor who you seem to often converse with on your talk pages in a friendly manner also made a comment that was later deleted that leads one to sense questionable practices. There are no "conspiracy" theories, as cute as that is the way you put it, just some persons' possible overt sense of ownership of a public venue (i.e. the "Sheriff" syndrome).
As for your comment regarding extensive contribution on the articles talk page having followed "guidelines and logic", this is debatable, because all you did was unyieldingly shoot down my arguments and used YOUR logic. It is unfair of you to state that I have a disregard for Wikipedia consensus simply because we do not agree. Also, I have submitted a quote by another editor clearly showing how guidelines seem to sometimes be ambiguos "we seem to have two rules now at WP. One, except for BLP, 2RS=N, the other, applying to BLP only, is that it has to be more than one event, unless the event is particularly important." Who decides if this event is particularly important? Something important to you may not be so to me. This is why I listed WP:Caveats and WP: common sense at the end, which you claim "turns the concept upside down".
I was not aware asking for advice of other editors is inappropriate WP:Canvasing. I never directly asked anyone to do anything, I simply asked for advice. Is that not allowed in Wiki? If it is not, I am sorry and do not please implicate editors I asked. Not having looked at WP: Canvasing, I am willing to guess that this may be another mis-interpretation of guidelines by Bongomatic.
My comment of being relatively new stands. Even being active for a half a year, I do not have much time to contribute, and I did mention I am having a hard time finding article subject not already covered or ones that editors like Bongomatic will dismiss due to one event or alike.
  • Response of author to content
I did not make a general case that translation is important, hence translators are notable. Did you really gather that from my comments? Astonishing. If you wish to simplify so, I stated translation is important, but mostly not regulated, and this person was the first to actively pursue regulation on a national level to improve the profession (in addition to his other achievements), and with all the media coverage and consequences of his activism, this translator is notable.
Thank you for the atomic bomb analogy. It is actually perfect for my point, but I will restate: Consider an atomic bomb assembly person—it is obviously critical that someone do that job correctly, but the people doing it have no expertize in that and there are no training and education criteria necessary for them to satisfy in order to be assembling. So street vendors could in theory go do this. The person in this article noted this was the case, and took action to change things for the better.
I simply do not agree with your assertion that WP:N, GNG failed. I believe it passed. Let others decide.
PROF 1, your statement that it is not valid simply relies on not being widely cited. You offer no evidence and that burden is on you. I, however did add the guideline of subject of humanities not always well cited and subject being in many academic libraries.
PROF 4, Some people will argue that having translated a book IS the same as having authored one. Some will say it is even harder than authoring, because you are pouring the knowledge from source to target language and relaying concepts and ideas in another language. Are you in the humanities field Mr. Bongomatic? We may need someone of an academic background to assist here. And there is significant impact shown. Introduction of new regulations by national department is impact, and I did show a date correlation between activism and introduction of new university major. If you think it is easy to convince universities to create a new MAJOR, why don't you try to do this? Anyhow, claims are significant impact in my book, maybe not yours.Turqoise127 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your statement that "the people [assembling atomic bombs] have no expertize in that and there are no training and education criteria necessary for them to satisfy in order to be assembling" is factually incorrect. But if you prefer, there are ample analogies where non-notable people with a great deal of expertise, training, and skill are required for important tasks.
Your comment that Wikipedia "is not a scrapbooking forum" is risible—it's only adherence to notability guidelines that prevents it from becoming one, not enforcement of them.
Your comment that "I never directly asked anyone to do anything, I simply asked for advice" is false. You specifically requested "I would appreciate you voting"—this is not a request "for advice". Bongomatic 21:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your contiunued misunderstanding of my points indicates that you do not carefully read articles or arguments, and I hereby implore decision makers to take this into account as evidence that it is "more likely than not" (similar to the preponderance of evidence concept in law) that my comment and arguments are valid. What I stated WAS NOT that "the people [assembling atomic bombs] have no expertize in that and there are no training and education criteria necessary for them to satisfy in order to be assembling". I used your analogy and rearranged it to say that: The fact that the translator profession is not regulated by criteria necessary for one to be a translator, it is the same way as IF the profession of atomic bomb assemblers were not regulated by criteria necessary for one to be an atomic bomb assembler. Would you like non-qualified atomic bomb assemblers? THAT was my point. Is it clear now or should I further explain?!Turqoise127 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I took a look at WP:Canvassing. Sorry it took me until now to familiarize myself. I think my requests for advice were all just that up until the last one that you have listed here. Let's see... it was a limited posting, neutral (because I did state "vote if you wish") and not by any means secret. I would say I had no wilful negligence of Wiki guidelines since I openly asked all inquiries, while I could have used secrecy.. Votestacking could be mentioned here as a possible canvassing offense, I concurr, but list here that WP:Canvassing states there are occasional exceptions. I believe if I feel I am being treated unjustly and show some indications of it, asking for someone to vote (without telling them how to vote) in a neutral tone would be ok.Turqoise127 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • That nominator would be me, not Bongo. Neither Bongo nor myself are responsible for editor ChildofMidnight's comments, fortunately. I nominated the article for the reasons given in the nomination, and in this very lengthy discourse on the article and its status I have seen nothing to change my mind. If this person is so important then surely one could cite more than a screenshot, and if you feel like questioning my motivation, I can do one of two things: a. point formally at WP:AGF, or b. simply state that I prefer Wikipedia to contain articles on notable topics. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may also be noted that, despite your implication of a smear campaign or conspiracy, it was I who removed ChildofMidnight's comment. Bongomatic 21:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't make a difference which of you two removed if I have suspicions that you two may be allies. Does that make sense to you?Turqoise127 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's at Let them talk, let them talk, let them all talk. Bongomatic 21:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Kresimir Chris Kunej may deserve to build out a webpage on the internet (with the author's permission to take this work product perhaps, which clearly took time), but not here on wikipedia. Isn't it amazing how sometimes articles on very notable subjects are very short, but articles on non-notable (under wikipedia guidlines) subjects can be soooo looong with all this detail about their schooling, where they moved, etc. To change my opinion, I'd need to see proof of multiple media mentions of this individual. I'm willing to help improve the article to rescue it if sources exist.--Milowent (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your vote, Milowent. I originally had the article fairly short, but I copied other similar ones in format and source adding so it turned out long. Valid comment, article is long. Thank you also for willingness to help with the article. I don't understand how that can happen though if you vote delete and/or the article gets deleted. I would love to change your opinion, but what exactly would be proof of multiple media mentions? 3,18, 25? I provided verifiable sources from 2 different TV news shows, 2 different high print newspapers.I showed his work featured at; Croatian Library Network on the internet, National and University Library in Zagreb, Rijeka City Library, Croatian Museum Documentation Center among others. For non-BLP, 2RS=N. What exactly is it for BLP? If there is no exact formula and it is just per editor interpretation, I propose "keep" because I at least doubled the non BLP criteria...Turqoise127 (talk) 14:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commment: I'm not sure which sources you are citing when you say "3, 18, 25"? Can you copy links into discussion here? Google translate does have a Croatian option, so I'll give it a whirl. On another point, the fact that his work is held by some croatian libraries is of very limited value. --Milowent (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact many of his works are held in numerous Croatian national and university libraries is very important, Milowent. It is a satisfied criteria for WP:PROF.Turqoise127 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I just thought of a question, for anyone really that possibly knows the answer... Is there some additional place where I can list this for discussion? Like for example AfD for academic articles or alike? I mean, from day one I have been treating this article like any other regular one and have battled here on AfD like it is any other article, but maybe since this article deals with a specific profession in the field of humanities I would also like the opinions of editors who are possibly in the academia circles and who do not think anyone can get a university to create a new major? (this is not a jab at editor Milowent, despite vote not agreeable with me, it was straight forward with offer of help).
Am I at a disadvantage or being short-changed because of what I stated above and the fact that most people do not speak Croatian and possibly cannot grasp the complete picture due to a language barrier?Turqoise127 (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The more you make personal comments like "Am I at a disadvantage" or speak of your being "short-changed" the more the COI appears to dominate concern for improvement of the encyclopedia. Bongomatic 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, I am sure there are wikipolicies somewhere out there about this already, but when all the sources are Croatian, it does make me wonder about the notability of this person for the english language wikipedia. Foreign language sources are not prohibited, of course. --Milowent (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The underlying topic of unregulated profession (similar case in whole world makes topic notable. The inability of some editors to follow sources and refs because of Croatian is a problem here, but not reason for delete...Turqoise127 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am the author of the article. This is my first and only article. I worked hard on it, I am proud of it, I wish it to remain, of course. If deleted, I am left with my 13 AfD discussion participations (like you mentioned on my talk page when you accused me of canvassing) and no article contributions.Turqoise127 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's good that you started this article, Turqoise, but who created or edited an article is not part of an AfD discussion. As far as the article goes, I would like to see better references supporting the author's activities. It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the references at the moment refer to the author's writings more than the author. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment, editor A More Perfect Onion. I do not quite understand your edit on the article. Thank you, and I wish you had tried to help out before this AfD nomination, but the references that you cited as missing in your edit of the article today can be found below in subsequent paragraphs (both for media attention and academic publishing). Did you mean I should have also inserted those in the introductory paragraph? Anyhow, the "missing sources" tag is I believe pointless because the sources you refer to are in the article.Turqoise127 (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The statements in the lead paragraph ought to have in-line citations at that point. I suggest reading WP:CITE; I'll be reading it as well. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at this article further I can provide this executive summary: Dude born in Croatia in 1975. Moves to US in 1987. Goes to High School in California. Takes a few college courses. Goes back to Croatia in 1997. Starts working as a translator, translates some stuff. In 2003-04 he pushes for some standards to be adopted for Croatian interpreters, this push gets some Croatian print and TV press. Dude returns to US in 2005. Is working for the state of Utah doing something or other. Finito. I'm an inclusionist, but am having real trouble with this one. Lots of unsourced stuff that could only be known by knowing the guy. Plus there's the problem that none of the sources are in English.--Milowent (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least you seem to have read the article, but executive summary omits key facts. After the dude's push, national agencies introduce laws, major university creates new major, profession changes, language centers and transl agencies change approaches. Also, academic publishing he has published on the topic of this problem attracts attention in Germany, it is required reading at a seminar. Please give it a better look Milowent, if you are an inclusionist. Sources are there, even in Croatian, I worked hard to make them undersandable to English readers. Turqoise127 (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I would just like to note that the article was vandalized today by a user hiding under an I.P. address. Editor Milowent deleted the vandal addition and proposed they vote on AfD page instead. Is that canvassing? Thank you Milowent for deleting the vandal entry, but is it really necessary to invite such persons to vote on Afd?Turqoise127 (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turqoise: The vandal edit I reverted was potentially making a good point (in an uncivil way), so I figured that editor could be more constructive if encouraged to join the debate. An AfD is "not a vote", so having more discussion is not a bad thing. --Milowent (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I asked an experienced editor to vote, one with MANY quality contibutions who had helped me with article, I was accused of WP:Canvassing. And look, this editor abstained from vote below due to respect of Wiki guidelines and the accusation. Low and behold, editor Milowent then invites an IP address vandal to vote. Is this a comedy sketch?Turqoise127 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Wasn't this article previously at AfD? Why isn't there a link to that discussion? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Sir, this article was not previously on AfD.Turqoise127 (talk) 14:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per well-written article, sources to claims etc etc..--Judo112 (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abstain given the possible canvasing, i ain't voting, this is a marginal article, but rather than punishing a new user, it would be better to encourage article improvement. Pohick2 (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment by author of article I appreciate the chance to provide commentary here and I most definitely respect the Wiki editors' community and regulations (I believe this is self-evident despite questioning certain motivations). I also respect all participants here, regardless of their vote or my possible disagreement with them. I believe that I was able to show that the article is relevant and well-sourced. I supported my claim with ample WP criteria above, and I believe firmly these are satisfied. From what I understand only one WP:PROF criterion satisfied would mean notability, I provided several. I hope all gets taken into consideration. Some editors agreed with me, others did not; those who did not were not very convincing -in my opinion- in their arguments stating no notability (comments mostly reduced to stating "no notability" and not much evidence to support them). If article is given the chance to remain, I would most definitely sporradically keep working on it and adding sources as I find them. Thank you.Turqoise127 (talk) 21:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Turquoise, we appreciate your comments--but we would appreciate brevity even more. I have tried reading these very long paragraphs but it's too much. What remains is the article, and so it should. It looks impressive, with a long list of sources, but the first two (well, one, really) establishes that the guy exists. Refs 3 through 12 establish that he did work. Ref 13 does nothing, and if it did it would establish--possibly--that once a document of his was used in a university seminar. Symptomatic of the level of the article is that IF such a use of a document of his is notable, one would expect other scholarly sources to pick up on this. In contrast, if I teach The Cult of the Saints, you shouldn't be surprised that there is an article on Peter Brown (historian), and a wealth of literature discussing him. Refs 14 through 16 establish that once he made the news for this quality proposal of his--great, but again, if screenshots is all the coverage there is, that ain't much. Refs 17 and 18 establish that he paid his dues for membership in professional organizations. So do a lot of people. None of this, NONE of this, could even remotely be considered in-depth coverage and discussion in third-party sources, and no amount of arguing could remedy that. Drmies (talk) 03:54, 16 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. If anyone wants to take on the responsibility of salvaging the content for use elsewhere, I'm happy to userfy on request.  Skomorokh  00:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afterschool, Out of School Time (OST), Extended Day[edit]

Afterschool, Out of School Time (OST), Extended Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Either an excerpt from a student essay or from a website, can't decide which, but it does seem rather promotional -- leaning towards promotional, since the article was created by User:Afterschool.edu (who also removed the prod after providing three external links in lieu of references). Ir's an original research essay about how afterschool activities are important, but it's not an encyclopedia article, nor do I think it can be one. ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Original research piece. Reads like a personal essay rather than a reference article. After PROD, author added three references, one of which was to the author's own organization's home page; another to the home page of the Newspaper Association of America, which doesn't seem to be an inherently authoritative source of information on afterschool programs, nor does the word "school" appear anywhere on that page; and the third, which I've deleted, was the name of some person. No objective, third-party reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Source material, original work, misguided use of wikipedia at best. The creator(s) of the article probably do have the knowledge base to help improve articles like Extended day program and After-school activity with cites if they tried.--Milowent (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Any worthwhile material here could be added to After-school activity.--RDBury (talk) 03:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useable information from this essay into Extended day program and After-school activity -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with After-school activity. The current title of the article is a major roadblock to usability. These other alternative names can be added as a parenthetical to that article, but a user would never type all three in sequence separated by commas. I can't see any difference in intended scope between this article and After-school activity. Racepacket (talk) 12:29, 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. except Live Phish Downloads: Headphones Jam \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Live Phish Downloads: 10.31.90[edit]

Live Phish Downloads: 10.31.90 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Being bold, I am nominating 83 articles for deletion. All of these recordings are live recordings which were only released on Phish's official website. These were not released in stores. The latest article to be added to this collection was nominated for deletion, and later deleted. Other live albums have also been deleted. Letting these articles stay would be setting a large precedent, and would allow articles for every download listed on [21], [22], [23] to be created. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few notes

  • No I don't hate Phish. I like some of their songs, and love Phish Food.
  • Not a ballot added since the sheer size of this AfD, and the size of Phish's fanbase, which may come here to vote.
  • While most of these articles are exactly the same, special attention should be given to Live Phish Downloads: Headphones Jam, Live Phish Downloads: Coventry, and Live Phish Downloads: It. These articles are significantly different than the other 80 recordings.
  • I have manually tagged all the articles, but to save time and a ton of space, all the articles that I am nominating are contained in the below template, which I have made:

User:TheWeakWilled/phish afd

  • My opinion on the matter is that the downloads from 12.31.02 and onwards (every show since and including this date has been officially released following the conclusion of the show) should be deleted, while those from beforehand should stay.

-Mgard7331 (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is this the equivalent of an album?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. — MusicMaker5376 01:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Aren't most albums of notable bands notable? What is different about this one?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the objection stems from the fact that they weren't released as albums, per se, but instead released online. All of them -- save for the Headphones Jam -- are live recordings of concerts. The band has released essentially every concert since 12/31/02 as such, and, it can be assumed, intends to release every concert they will play in such a fashion. This has the potential to be just the tip of the iceberg. However, as noted by Mgard above, the first 20 releases or so have been archival releases.
        • Most albums of notable bands are notable. It will be next to impossible to determine their charting status, as, if I'm not mistaken, downloads aren't charted, nor will it be likely to determine the individual notability of each release, as the sheer number of them tends to dilute their individual notability. However, I can say with some confidence that a large subset of Phish's fanbase will likely own them all. — MusicMaker5376 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • O.K. Delete all except the award winner--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a lot The Jammy winner should be kept, but unless there is a good rationale on a case by case basis for the other albums they should go because the songs are already on notable albums and these are mere rerecordings, a mass product really, which deserves mention in the artist article but not these endless lists. Hekerui (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the winner of the award (Headphones Jam). Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information and I don't see the notability of the other releases. ThemFromSpace 02:44, 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 redirect to Stunticons. Clearly no consensus to keep, and while Stunticons isn't suggested below as a target, it seems to me to the be correct place, and I don't think there's anything notable here to merge.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Strip[edit]

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

This character does not assert independent notability. TTN (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of independent notability. Eusebeus (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, either to Dragstrip or List of Decepticons. Powers T 13:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No evidence or assertion of non-notability as the term is at least worthy of an article in the racing sense as confirmed by Google News and Google books. The character is also a toy from a notable show that you even look at pictures of online, i.e. no reason why we would redlink, maybe merge and redirect, maybe improve, but not redlink. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 13:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term you get results for is drag strip (or dragstrip), not capitalized Drag Strip. The sources you find in Google News and Google Books are not about the Transformers[24][25]. I have no idea what you mean with "assertion of non-notability", of course the article will not say that the subject is not notable, but that is so utterly not the point of the JNN essay that I feel to see why you bring it up here.
      • I believe A Nobody's point is that deleting the page (producing a redlink) is unnecessary since a redirect will be needed. Powers T 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keeping the history when it has nothing to do with the actual redirect is pointless. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really, because given that the franchise it is associated with is an active one, a case for further improvement or merging is a realistic potentiality. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Just like it is for every speedy deleted bio, band or company: they may one day become notable. Fram (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • This one already is notable enough that we do not need to trouble an admin to delete the edit history. A redirect, which is a reasonable argument in this instance, could have been discussed on the talk page instead. AfD need not be troubled with redirectable ones. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to dragstrip. The current subject of the article is not notable, but the title of the article is a plausible search term for unrelated content. Fram (talk) 14:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current subject is notable by any reasonable definition of the term: a toy from a major franchise that includes cartoons, etc. as verifiable online. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. There are many toy franchises for popular games, movies, comics, ... This is a good indication for the notability of the franchise, but not for the individual elements that become a toy. The Snorks are notable, an individual Snork isn't. The Smurfs are notable. The farmhouse isn't, the village well isn't, Puppy isn't. The definition of "notable" as presented in WP:N is a reasonable definition. It is not the only possible one, but to claim that it is not a reasonable definition is incorrect. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The definition presented there is as subjective as can be, which is why few editors outside of AfDs ever stick to it and why most of the community goes with WP:IAR with regards to the needlessly restrictive mubo jumbo. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:N has recently be reaffirmed as a guideline by a very strong consensus at an RFC. As far as I can tell, most members of the community agree that it is a quite necessary threshold. Most people also agree that ignoring WP:N is in general not improving the encyclopedia, so IAR does not apply. Fram (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not in practice. Most editors are focused on building content than commenting in any snapshot in time RfC. We have far more edits from unique accounts and IPs to articles as well as page views than we'll ever have in AfD, RfC, etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • The community means a handful of people who were around to notice and participate in the discussion? IAR is a policy. You don't get around that by having a dozen or less people discussing something somewhere most won't notice it. Without a general vote, the guidelines can not be taken seriously. Dream Focus 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • There's no such thing as a "general vote" on Wikipedia since only a fraction of a fraction of WP's userbase have the drive and time to care about a fake internet government. It's a depressing state of affairs. I suggest taking the route of apathy and using Wikias for detailed content while the people here put all their effort and free time into molding this place into some sort of superior and scholarly(ha) information resource by removing information and posting gigs worth of idiotic arguments no one'll ever see. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to dragstrip, Fram's thoughts on the matter are the same as my own.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no pressing need to delete content first that is not libelous or a copy vio. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no pressing need to maintain content which is not used and will not be used because it is not the content we want in an encyclopedia. Content which is not libelous or copyvio is deleted constantly, this would be no exception. Bios of 14 year old schoolkids, myspace bands, insignificant companies, ... don't even get a seven day discussion. You have to argue why the content has to be kept, not that it isn't a copyvio or libel. Fram (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not content you want, but obviously it is content that the article writers and readers do want and as such it used by other editors and we should be considerate of their interests just as we would want them to be respectful of ours. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • And how is this argument different for this article compared to speedy deleted band articles and so on? Every good faith article was of interest to at least the creator, but that doesn't and shouldn't stop us from deleting many of them. We are here in the first place to create an encyclopedia, and in the second place to be a considerate environment. Reversing the order will diminish the value of the encyclopedia by making it more and more indiscriminate, turning us into a free webhost. Fram (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is not a band with a small local following, but a toy from a mainstream franchise familiar to thousands if not millions of people across the nation and potentially beyond. Apples and oranges. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you don't want this article lumped together with those on local bands and so on, then you shouldn't start with an argument that is equally valid for those local bands and companies as it is for this article. Use arguments which are either specific for this article, or which are applicable to comparable articles, but don't use strawmans or illogical constructions like you did in your "there is no pressing need" at the start of this tree. Fram (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I do not see any logical reason to delete here. If the article is redirectable and there is nothing in the edit history we must protect the public from, we do not need to bother administrators to delete it. Editors can be WP:BOLD and redirect and if contested, discuss on the article's talk page instead. And no, bands and companies are not fair comparisons, because a random local band with an arbitrary name (let's say hypothetically the One Armed Paper Cutter Bandits, which hopefully will be a red link...) do not necessarily have redirect locations. Here, even if we did not have Dragstrip to redirect to, unlike the hypothetical band, we could still legitimately redirect to Transformers and someone could make a case for using the basis of this article's content for the purpose of a toy/character list. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see don't see the arguement that a fictional character has a name that can be confused with a common noun that also has an article is reason why he's not notable. It just means they are both notable. The Tasmanian Devil from Loony Tunes isn't less notable because his article might be confused with the one for the animal species called Tasmanian devil. Mathewignash (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't see that argument either. Who has indicated that the toy is not notable because it can be confused with a dragstrip? The toy is not notable and its article can be deleted, full stop. The term is also in use for a dragstrip, so it is a plausible redirect to that article. There is no connection between the two arguments. Fram (talk) 06:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - This isn't an article about a toy. Anyone who says so didn't read it. It's an article about a fictional character who has appeared in a half dozen different comic book series by 4 different companies, and in 2 different Anime series. He's a character who has had a toy yes, but that's like calling Donald Duck a toy. As for real world notability, there is a link to a news story about a rare variant of the toy selling for $2000 to collectors. I might also point out that the person who nominated this article for deletion also nominated the similar article Motormaster for deletion a few months ago and it was kept. He seems to be just repeating the same challanges over and over, but we have presidence to keep the article. Mathewignash (talk) 23:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of real-world notability. Google searches are not sources. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like Dauros, all but one of the sources are not reliable. The one that does pass the bar is a product catalog from Hasbro, which cannot be used when determining notability. Fansitse, wikis, and most other self-published sites can not be used as sources, much else establish notability. And fictional elements, such as characters, are not immune from the notability guidelines either, at least until additional criteria are established at the currently defunct WP:FICT. A toy or character does not gain notability for being part of a notable franchise. The number of GHits is irrelevant to the issue of notability. —Farix (t | c) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think you can discount news web sites because they are toy-oriented, after all this article covers something that is toy-oriented. Reports of a rare toy selling for thousands on ebay, for instance, do point to it being notable. Mathewignash (talk) 13:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But there are no news sites cited on the page, just fansites and Hasbro's catalogs. The results of an ebay auction has no barring on notability either. You've already stated above that this article isn't about the toy. However, every source dealing directly with the subject have been about the toy, namely in the form of toy catalogs. There has been no evidences presented that the character is notable. —Farix (t | c) 14:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think you can discount sites like seibertron.com. They make money, have official ties to companies, do interviews, get press releases mailed directly to them. They are not just some fan blog, they are a site limited to a small group of interests sure, but they are a news site. Mathewignash (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that this is a notable enough character. I do not know what you mean when you say "Real world notability", does that mean find information that is more out of universe style? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:11, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • Real world notability means that the article has references detailing the development of the character and how the character has been received by the media. Without that, the article cannot meet WP:N. TTN (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So youre saying the article has too much in-universe style info? Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • The in-universe content is fine, though not very well written or managed. Without any real world information to balance it, the information has no place being in its own article. TTN (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are fictional characters, I dont think any real world media has covered a whole bunch of anime characters, but they are notable when it comes to fiction. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • That's not how notability works. WP:N requires secondary sources to provide significant coverage for all articles. If the content is all about the character within the fictional universe, that means that only primary sources are being used and without the content I mentioned, the criteria of "significant coverage" is also not met. You should read over WP:WAF for more information. TTN (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability guideline is often used as an excuse to destroy every character article out there, simply because people don't like it. It was not voted on by any significant number of people. Sometimes character articles are saved(usually if enough people notice them and decide to comment), sometimes deleted. It all depends who is around at the time to comment, and who the closing editor is. Dream Focus 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm obviously an evil deletionist who dislikes all character articles. I'm trying to slowly remove everything related to fiction on this site, and my current goal is to have just a single paragraph called "Fiction" by 2011. It's certainly not like I just have certain standards as to what needs an article and what needs a list entry. It's not like I live and breath fiction, and I just wish to have properly organized articles that give proper weight to the fictional elements. Nope, I'm just someone who hates fiction completely. TTN (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • TTN, it does no good for you to use provocative sarcasm. However, DF, if the notability guidelines did not have wide support among most Wikipedia editors, then they would not be guidelines in the first place. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but it really doesn't do any harm with these guys. Even after a proper discussion with people willing to help source the articles in need of their "rescuing", DF still insisted that the video game project was an evil group of people attempting to wipe out articles because they don't like them. The whole process of attempting to keep every single article while pretending to improve them just so they can sit and rot for years on end really gets on my nerves. TTN (talk) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't keep from becoming emotionally involved from some articles, maybe you should avoid trying to delete them? Simply posting tags that an article needs improvement sometimes motivates people to better articles. You should try it more often. Mathewignash (talk) 23:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the articles that annoy me; it's the editors who feel the need to try to keep every single character by using annoying and often underhanded tactics. Tags are for when an article can actually improve. Very minor character articles that have been in existence for years are far past the point of being improved. TTN (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My choice is not set in stone, I have been sitting here and looking at both sides of the issue, you brought up the point that this is a minor character in the series, usually if that is true I have seen just redirects or a short summary of the character on the main character page if that is true. The thing that annoys me actully is when editors dont discuss possible changes and their findings in the talk pages of the articles, I have seen more than one article go to straight delete with a huge debate on the delete page like this one here. Deletion shoule be a last step thing in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2009 (AT)
  • Actually, in many cases there is *no* discussion even when encouraged until an AfD has been started or the article has already been merged. I can rattle off quite a few instances where other editors have chosen to say nothing on an article's talk page even with a merge tag in place, but when action is taken then you get complaints. So it's understandable to see an obscure character meet an AfD when the article's had no work done on it for a significant length of time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The character has appeared in numerous cartoons and comics, from various companies, as well as being a popular toy. Dream Focus 18:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Transformers (animated series) characters Redirecting to Drag strip will be a mistake in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2009 (AT)
    • There is no reason/need to delete first per the above, i.e. per WP:PRESERVE. Only hoaxes, copy vios, and libel need be deleted prior to a redirect. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed to keep people happy. My reason for not redirecting to drag strip is that the character and the actual thing have little in common in the real world. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:55, 11 September 2009 (AT)
  • Delete - I refer participants to WP:SPS - blogs and pages selling products are not reliable sources. Try some peer-reviewed content published by academic sources through a professional editorial process, for a change. - Biruitorul Talk 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment To be really accurate blogs are usually not RS however RS blogs do exist some examples David Welsh a columnist in Tom Spurgeon's Comics Reporter, Brigid Alverson's Manga blog, who writes for the Publishers Weekly and Matthias Wivel's Metabunker who wrote for The Comics Journal along with comics related books. All examples are just for comics & manga field.
      The bottom line is any source regardless its origin should assessed in term of Reliability, Credibility & Relevance to the subject in others words editors must exert their sense of criticism and given weight accordingly. No systematic, systemic and bureaucratic handling of the sources. Thanks --KrebMarkt 08:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of independent notability. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just requested several books from my local library system which are guides to japanese anime and Transformers, etc. I plan on going over them and citing references etc. If anyone can help me with a guide to writing a fully detailed citation of a book, please point me to it. Mathewignash (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be WP:OR though, if you can cite the book references online it would be useful. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2009 (AT)
  • Merge to List of Decepticons. No real-world notability. Few RS offer no significant coverage, only minor mentions. Fails WP:N, and goes against WP:WAF. Appropriate merge to the character list seems the most appropriate solution. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge a sentence or two. This character deserves a mention but not enough for an article of it's own, and again (like in Dauros) the references are unacceptable. - Josette (talk) 00:06, 15 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 Nomination withdrawn. Take 2 (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leandro da Silva (footballer born 1989)[edit]

Leandro da Silva (footballer born 1989) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although he signed a professional contract, no source he made a professional debut on the field, fails WP:athlete Matthew_hk tc 17:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - new evidence shows he has played in a professional cup competition, so he meets WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 12:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrew He played at Brazilian Cup 2009. Matthew_hk tc 18:01, 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 withdrawn by nominator.. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Rosenberg[edit]

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

This article tagged with {{notability}} since May 2008 lists some publications by the subject, but I am not certain it meets WP:NOTE, significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I searched research databases for secondary source coverage, but I was only able to find brief mentions of the individual in relation to his work, not really enough biographical discussion for an article. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could suggest some WP:RS sources that give significant discussion such that the biographical detail in the article could be given a full treatment? I am not certain there are enough sources available to do that. Cirt (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could, but it isn't necessary in order to avoid deletion. Protonk (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well we should not retain the article if the subject lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the language in the GNG. However, the SNG regarding academics suggests that for important figures within disciplines, the sourcing probably exists even if a cursory search fails to find some. Protonk (talk) 18:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect your view, I would just like to see some of that sourcing. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Start with most of the results on the first page. then try any of the scholarly reviews of his major books. Then try this. I don't want to belabor the point, but there is a reason PROF is written the way it is. Protonk (talk) 18:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly possible that there is some significant discussion of biographical detail in there, but most of those seemed like brief mentions. Cirt (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mighty fast read of more than a dozen sources. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, I went through some of them prior to starting this AfD page. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. My mistake. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Cirt (talk) 18:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He has an entry in Contemporary Authors, which notes that there are reviews of his work in the Journal of Economic Literature, the Los Angeles Times Book Review, the New York Times Book Review, Choice, Economic History Review, and Library Journal. (In my experience, notability for scholarly authors is determined by the sources about their works. There may not be much biographical information on an author, but if we can cite reviews of his or her work, that's usually enough.) Zagalejo^^^ 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Named chair at Stanford, clear pass of WP:PROF #5. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As dry as I found his writings when I read some of them aways back, he makes economic history buffs gush, so he is definitely notable in his field. I pulled up some stuff on 1986's "How The West Grew Rich" and added it to the article.--Milowent (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nom withdrawn. Feel free to close as Keep. Cirt (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There was a "Festschrift"-journal issue in honor of Rosenberg. Added it to the article. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:18, 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 redirect to Tea. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gourmet tea[edit]

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

Redundant fork of Tea and Green tea. Don't see any new material worth merging. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:34, 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 redirect to Daughters of the Moon. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serena Killingsworth[edit]

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

This character does not assert notability, and it's already covered within the main article. TTN (talk) 16:44, 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 speedy delete. Copyright violation. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Fuck Scheduler[edit]

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

Non-notable software product. No commercial releases; product is essentially a hack created by a single user which has been shared on some forums. Prod denied by anon IP user. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:00, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adelphic Club[edit]

Adelphic Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As I said in my Proposed Deletion rationale, this article cites no sources and I am unable to find any sources documenting any such club at the specified university. This secret society is too secret for Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 16:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Borderline hoax; out of the six(?!) Ghits, the only non-Wikipedia one is from eBay, of all places. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if this is completely real, it's also completely unsourced and unverifiable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Metropolitan90. Without reliable sources, can't even prove it exists, let alone that it is notable enough to have an article. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if it's a secret society, they've done a good job of hiding evidence that they exist. Unfortunately, this means that the article fails WP:V. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:11, 12 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arquila INSIGHT[edit]

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

This is simply an advertisement. Inadequate references and no evidence of notability - plenty other stuff like this out there. Fails WP:N and WP:VER andy (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Arquila is a small Scottish Company. It has been invited to be included in Accountancy project. I should like you to take note of last clause in the last paragraph. I would also like to take exception to some of the lack of professionalism of some of people nominating articles for deletion. I also hate to bring this up, but it seems to me that some of the people have some sort of axe to grind against business and/or small companies. It really is sad to see that some of you are being so hard on a small company that is trying to help other small businesses, and organizations. Hackbinary (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC) — Hackbinary (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • As WP:ORG states:
      • Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.
People here don't have it in for small businesses; it's just that they don't want Wikipedia turned into a business directory. There are other sites that perform that function. As for the definition of notability, your point is taken but then the question is how do you judge "effects on culture, ..."? The key word in the sentence is demonstrable and Wikipedia's standard for that must be external sources. Finally, no we aren't professionals, this is a volunteer run website -- all amateurs.--RDBury (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a directory for all sorts of things. It is supposed to be be an open and free encyclopedia. Insight (and/or maybe Arquila) is a story worthy of being noted, in my opinion, as it is a story of a person imigrating to the UK and starting a business from nothing. It is a small business, and could do with a lot more coverage. It's a story of a small business scraping through the largest economic downturn since the depression of the 1930's. Someone noted that my account was "seemed to be a single purpose account: the reason that I know about Arquila, and started this article was through their help and support of Edinburgh PHP users group, and thought that Arquila/Insight could use an entry on Wikipedia. I profess no expertise in writing wikipedia articles, or even encyclopedia articles. I just would like to see an article in Wikipedia about this product and company, and iluminate a sector which is basically dominated by Intuit, and Sage. Arquila does not have the time and energy to spend in PR to generate press releases so that it get articles published about it in the media, but I think this story, right here is one, then you all will become infamous about your over-zealousy in trying to keep small business out. You are not creating a welcoming atmostsphere, but rather a toxic place that people just do not want to contribute too. Arquila Insight belongs in the ERP/Accounting/Workflow grouping, so please let it. I personally want the article to be the best that it can be, so please inform and dicuss how that it can be better. It is very easy to prove how clever you are, by finding fault with in something, but what does actually prove? That you can find defects in things? If every article was forced to the kinds of standards that you seem to be leveraging on to this one, there would be no wikipedia. Does anyone know about callweaver? There is no article about it on wikipedia because of a consorted effort by some people to have the article removed, yet the article about Asterisk remains. I do question your bias against business articles, and simply think that is unfair. To be sure, this whole thing surrounding the question of the removal of this article is certainly give me a very bad experience and impression of wikipedia, and in this day and age of personal experience, that is everything.
Because a small organisation does not have a lot GHits (I am presuming you meant Google Hits) does not make un-notable. Open for business, being around for a few years, doing something of interest, all seem to me as things that make something noteable.
Who removed my hangon??!!
BTW, by professialism, I meant politness. There is no need for comments like "God yes..."
217.41.5.36 (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you wrote "I know about Arquila, and started this article" I assume that you are the same person as the original author, Hackbinary. The etiquette is to make this clear.
The hangon tag is intended for use when an article has been tagged for speedy deletion. It isn't used when the article has been sent to a discussion like this one.
ghits are not necessarily indicators of notability but they certainly help. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability can be read here. You will see that they require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. There is no such evidence in the INSIGHT article. If you can provide some, fine, otherwise the article is likely to be deleted. andy (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Arquila INSIGHT has been added to the comparison of accountancy software. This software is as relevant as all the other articles listed in the comparison chart. Arquila in 2009 was invited to be a member of BASDA (Business Application Software Developers Association), this has now been added to the wiki page and a reference has been provided. BASDA is recognised by the European Commission, the UK Government, the United Nations and the OECD.
  • Delete Advert-y and not notable per extreme lack of GHits. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand how all the packages in the comparison of accounting software do not fall under the same banner as Insight. I have tried to add it to the comparison of accounting packages article and have asked for reasoning why it was removed. This software is daily replacing many packages on that list. The article comes across as explanatory and list it's largest competitor. There is also links to the comparison of packages page.Daemonk (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have removed some elements that refer to the impact of this product on customers, this to ensure does not carry an advert-y message.Daemonk (talk) 07:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC) — Daemonk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • If you can supply us with references, from reliable sources, which demonstrate that this software is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia then I'm sure no-one would have a problem keeping it. The product would need to have significant coverage from independent sources. Please take the time to read these guidelines before forming a response. Thanks. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Zend technologies is one of the companies that has quoted and mentioned Arquila and Insight in their press releases. Zend as I am sure you know is the main developer of PHP and has millions of commercial users. The pure fact that they are in dialog and have actually quoted Arquila and it's product should be a major plus in it's notability. This reference is on the article. Zend and PHP are massive they would not simple have a dialog / be quoting about Arquila if the company was not note worthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.69.119.253 (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per all of the deletes. Joe Chill 03:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all that's been said above Nja247 10:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I asked for sources from the author about six months ago and those have still not materialized. I see nothing other than cursory mentions in PR and minor SEO hits. Kuru talk 00:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case anyone cares, the creator of the article has just been indefintely blocked for sockpuppetry. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:38, 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 delete. Brandon (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shining Inheritance episode ratings[edit]

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

a complete listing of every rating for every episode of a drama is inappropriate. It fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and I can see it creating a lot of drama itself as to which source to use. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concept Radio[edit]

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

Another non-notable radio station. Fails WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable, third-party sources independent of the subject. Ironholds (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete lacks coverage in reliable sources. Fails most basic notability guidelines RadioFan (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two sources, one self=published, the other a blog. Suspect this is an advert in disguise. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It strikes me NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:41, 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 arguments for deletion aside from Edison. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's Episcopal Church (Cleveland Heights, Ohio)[edit]

St. Paul's Episcopal Church (Cleveland Heights, Ohio) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an average church with no demonstration of notability. Claims of being the largest church in the diocese, even if supported, aren't enough for notability. Nyttend (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion Although the article hasn't been adequately developed to properly include assertion of notability, I think it may be notable. Also i find it a bit odd that the church's own website doesn't show many pics of the church, or describe the building history at al, but I guess that is not their focus. You can see a glimpse of the church building at top of one of its pages. This site gives some history. Okay, and now I find this Cleveland Heights landmarks website, which lists it as one of 40 designated landmarks of the city. There's a downloadable PDF document about all the landmarks with a description of this one on page 12. So it is notable as a historic site. About the failings of the current article, wp:SOFIXIT. :) doncram (talk) 15:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; while a short and uninspiring story by Greek or Chinese standards, it is quite notable by U.S. measure, and has its place in books on the history of Cleveland. Quite generously and available on the web. Even its organ made it to An Encyclopedia of Organ and labelled "definitive" for its builder, FWIW. NVO (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be a contributing property to Fairmount Boulevard District. It's located at 2747 Fairmount Blvd, which is within the district's locations between 2485 and 3121 Fairmount Blvd. Walker and Weeks, the architect of the church, is listed as one of the architects of the district, so it seems likely that the church is a contributing property. So, let's keep this. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, being one of 40 official landmark buildings in a city the size of Cleveland Heights, population 49,000, isn't as impressive as I first thought. By comparison, the city of Chicago has 309 landmarks for its 2,853,000 people. Abductive (reasoning) 17:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It has existed since the 1850's, not all that long, and has had a nice building since the 1920s, with a nice pipe organ. Within its community, is is considered significant by some local board which determines landmarks. I see nothing which argues for more than a brief mention in the article about the community it is located in. I checked the last effort we made at a notability standard for congregations, the rejected Wikipedia:Notability (local churches and other religious congregations), and nothing here would have satisfied that proposal, which represented the views of several editors interested in articles about religious congregations. Edison (talk) 18:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and search for more details and more sourcing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Elkman's statements; I wasn't aware that this was likely a part of a National Register of Historic Places district, which means that we could simply turn this into the core of an article on the district. I would close this as "withdrawn by nominator", except for the delete vote above. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 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 speedy deleted by User:PMDrive1061 just before the creation of this AfD. Evil saltine (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheaper by the dozen 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Cheaper by the dozen 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Falls under WP:CRYSTAL, no reputable sources found, no listing on IMDB found, speculation only at this point. Frmatt (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete per A3 and G4, empty article, the only content of the only version is the AFD notice RadioFan (talk) 14:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - hmmm...well it had content on it when I nominated it! Thanks for the CSD nom! Frmatt (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment - That is very weird, there was a table of cast members when I nominated it, and it is now showing that I created the page with my nomination...any suggestions? Frmatt (talk) 14:45, 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 keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child labour in the diamond industry[edit]

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

Delete, while this is a sad condition that should be addressed as is this is a essay and borderline soapbox article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup The fact that the current article reads like a soapbox essay doesn't negate the fact that there are a ton of sources in the article already, making the subject notable and therefore worthy of an article. The Seeker 4 Talk 14:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve as creator, the current sources and various independent WP:RS is enough, article is still inuse, you may help improving it instead nominating for speedy deletions. Kasaalan (talk) 16:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is backed up by reliable, third-party sources which cover it in significant detail. The article needs cleanup and copyediting, yes, but that isn't something for AfD. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cursory Google search shows plenty of reliable sources. Joshdboz (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
while I still disagree about this article if prevailing opinion continues feel free to close.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still improve the article, the conditions are undeniably bad though some advertising of boycott campaigns are disputed. If you are interested you may help improving the article. I have more scholar book links about conditions, yet it takes time to implement them, no reason to delete. Kasaalan (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. No doubt the issue is notable, but the author must try his/her best to stay neutral and civil. Materialscientist (talk) 22:28, 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 Speedy delete NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rin on the rox[edit]

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

The article appears to consist of only promotional material for this act. The band itself fails to meet notability criteria found in WP:BAND Deconstructhis (talk) 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Seems like blatant advertising to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted, not sure that this is blatant advertising, but it failed A7. Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 03:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Smith (murderer)[edit]

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

See 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 he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. But we are not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 10:42, 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.  Skomorokh  01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cost-shifting[edit]

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

Neologism. Also very short definition article that should be deleted or transwikied per wp:WINAD UltraMagnus (talk) 08:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term seems to be used in the context of health care in the US, especially involving Medicare and Medicaid. Usage goes back to 1980. It might be a right-wing talking point, but I am unsure on what grounds it should be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 09:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps WP:DICDEF. I have no firm opinion on the subject; there are, quite obviously, tons of academic and partisan books explaining it but whether it's worth unfolding an obvioust set of two words into something lengthy... don't know. NVO (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article is obviously not where it should be, but the subject definitely meets Wikipedia's threshold for notability (WP:N). The Boston Globe is not known as a mouthpiece of the right. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not whether something is true, but whether is it verifiable (WP:V). This is a common complaint that has been discussed by many reliable sources including NPR. Not to mention that it is mentioned in 10 articles outside of Public health insurance option, which I started. The article has the potential to be expanded much larger than it is right now.--Jorfer (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a neologism, it's been used in economics discussions for decades. It's a reasonably important concept; the fact that any decent article on the subject must begin with a definition doesn't mean that DICDEF automatically applies. Not that this is a decent article right now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:22, 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) 06:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of commercial-free TV channels in the United States[edit]

List of commercial-free TV channels in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article with only two pages linked to it, and is unsourced, incorrectly named and the criteria is too broad to fit this catch-all piece where HBO exists with PBS and multiple religious stations, along with networks which have long gone to ad-supported. If you read this article more deeply most of these channels do have commercials to some point promoting their own works (TBN and Boomerang, along with the HDNet Networks), are premium channels, where you pay not to have the commercials present, or based on their format, cannot air traditional 30-second spot advertising but do advertise in other ways (such as Music Choice). Otherwise I cannot see a list like this being easily sourced. Nate • (chatter) 08:27, 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) 06:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Music Channel[edit]

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

Likely hoax channel which is almost orphaned but for a another page I plan to bring here, 50 G-hits (the majority of which are either fan web channels devoted to Disney artists, linkspam or confusion with Radio Disney), and seems to have been created by an eager Disney music fan who probably meant well but quickly abandoned the article. It's also unlikely in the YouTube age that anyone is looking to launch a new music video network for young viewers. Nate • (chatter) 08:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although I think it is plausible that the channel may be launched I see no reliable sources say it will be launched. Until there is valid proof of existence it should be removed. J04n(talk page) 16:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 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. WP:NONENG permits the usage of non-English sources if no other English sources can be found for verifiability purposes. MuZemike 16:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arkaim (airline)[edit]

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

By the article's terms there's no indication of notability. Once they have established media coverage it will be appropriate. Shadowjams (talk) 08:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: As near as I can tell (Google translate only does so much) the references are legit but something in English would be better. There is a Russian version of the article, which is encouraging, but it is much shorter. Without any sources in English, it really needs people fluent in Russian to evaluate properly, and the article would of more interest to the Russian speaking population, so perhaps the Russian version should be developed first and then translated into English.--RDBury (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It didn't have much in the way of sources when I found it, and I'm not useful at finding Russian language sources. My only concern at this point is that it is a very recently incorporated company. If this was a new band we'd be pretty critical of claims of importance--if it's a new business we should be careful that the sources indicate notability and aren't mere announcements. Shadowjams (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have expanded the article with sources. Whether they are in English or Russian is irrelevant and has no bearing on inclusion criteria on English wikipedia. I have written many articles on Russian subjects, using exclusively Russian sources, and which are much longer than the ru:wiki counterpart. As this is going to be the national airline of Bashkortostan, there is notability there straight away. --Russavia Dialogue 14:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you're saying is true, there's no policy or even guideline about having only Russian sources. It just makes the verifiability criterion hard to evaluate.--RDBury (talk) 19:24, 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of current ISKCON sannyasis[edit]

List of current ISKCON sannyasis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete - WP:OR list based of mostly non-notables, not supported by decent sources. A fork from other lists of ISKCON members. Reference is made to blogs sites and otherwise disputed sources. Wikidas© 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Disclosure: I am primary author. WP:BIO Topic is notable in itself as it is significant and interesting, both in general and within the assigned category. Blue names are all notable. Red names: WP:SALAT all are notable within Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness. I think this article falls under WP:WPLIST#Incomplete_lists and that is why I have tagged it for Expand list. I think the red names are safe to include per WP:LSC - one would expect to see all these names on this list, each member is verifiably a member of the listed group (can add sources given some time) and it is reasonable to expect an article should be forthcoming in the future. Notability of all names cannot be compared to a list of cardinals or catholic priests as English Wikipedia would naturally contain more data on Catholic cardinals than on Vaishnav sannyasis, and Wikipedia recognises its need to expand Hindu Vaishnav content WP:HINDU/V. WP:PSTS primary source may be used to support content in the article but does not contribute towards proving the notability of the subject and also it may be used to only make descriptive claims i.e. the names in the list. No analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims have been made about information found in a primary source. Not a fork as List of ISKCON members and patrons includes non-sannyasis and past sannyasis, its purpose is different and it is not a duplicate. Reference to blog removed. Also compare List of Ayatollahs with List of Grand Ayatollahs - there is significant overlap yet both articles are valid as the List of Ayatollahs contains non-Grand Ayatollahs.--Tintomat0es (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC). Added secondary sources for most red names.--Tintomat0es (talk) 14:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC). Added sources for all remaining red names.--Tintomat0es (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just as notable as any of the lists listed at Lists of patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops, and reasonably well sourced.--UltraMagnus (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - the above two arguments should be ignored, because 'other stuff exists' is not a valid reason, but is often used. Wikidas© 07:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note No logical argument should be ignored. WP:OSE can be used effectively to assess precedence and consistency. Comparison to other lists of religious leaders provides an important insight into the general notability of the concept. There is precedence in usage of the inclusion of names in various finite lists of religious leaders in order to make Wikipedia comprehensive; it serves no useful purpose to endlessly argue over the notability of a minority of these items. Most of the leaders are notable within the category of ISKCON, yet many do not have articles due to WP:BIAS#Biographies - this is one reason why WP:HINDU/V was created.--Tintomat0es (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep a notable, if foreign, body of priests. All unverified members should be removed from the list, perhaps to its talk page. Only a weak keep because I would like to see sources describing the body as a whole, instead of using them only to verify individual members. ThemFromSpace 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ThemFromSpace: I have added sources for all red names. Blue names have sources on their individual pages. The only source currently available describing the whole list is the official ISKCON Sannyasa Ministry website. Such a source may serve to support content as I mentioned above.--Tintomat0es (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Sannyasis in ISKCON are not priests. There is no independent source to even suggest there is a notability to it. There are NO sources describing body as a whole. Wikidas© 14:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Excellent reference probably not available anywhere else, let alone in English. --AStanhope (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - All and certainly main sources on ISKCON are in English and not in any other language such as Hindi, even its Governing Body annual minutes; and any form of communcation in ISKCON is in English. All scholarly studies and media coverage of ISKCON are in English. None of these sources describe such body as 'sannyasis of ISKCON', since sannyasa is just a stage that is awarded to a preacher or a preist, it is not a position. Wikidas© 14:05, 15 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. G3 Tone 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyass Derfouf[edit]

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

Was CSD but notability was asserted because he interviewed an anorexic model and is about to host a film festival in Europe. However, web search does not return any significant coverage that would indicate why his involvement in these events are notable. He is an actor that fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Information on any other information returned from a web search on his name alone shows only casting agency sites trying to get him work. Edit history indicates possible WP:COI issues, as anon IPs are spamming article with details on how to contact subject through a casting agency. Prod tag was previously removed. SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and salt - This article is a hoax and should be salted from recreation because this is the third time it has been created, deleted on August 15 and August 16 and recreated on August 18 [26]. I can't find verification beyond the source that is given in the article for this person, which is dubious in itself. Most everything I find online is copied from here or are just questionable sources/sites that are user-contributed or copies of some form of the Wikipedia article. Not a single solitary image of this person, who is supposedly a high profile actor. The Venice Film Festival website for the event, which is going on now, doesn't even mention his name, which is quite odd for the "host" of the event (run Ilyass Derfouf in the search. Then add the actual hostess is listed on the site as Maria Grazia Cucinotta [27]) clinches it for me. I think this is a hoax, a self-promotional article. For instance, there's this page at a self-posting site, although I must say, he went to a lot of trouble to be convincing. I don't believe this article should even exist nor run the full course of AFD. It's bogus. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails all WP:GNG criteria. This is obviously a 17/18-year-old high school student who wants to be an actor. The Afd discussion is appropriate since it allow for a prompt WP:G4 speedy in the future. — CactusWriter | needles 13:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. At [28] he says his talent is "the skill of faking things" and this seems to prove it. LargoLarry (talk) 13:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • G3/salt per Wildhartlivie, blatant oft-recreated hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:24, 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) 01:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lorenzo Crisetig[edit]

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

Contested WP:PROD; the subject is a 16-year old youth team footballer for Inter (not even listed in the first team as you can see directly here), who easily fails WP:ATHLETE due to lack of first team appearance. The fact he 'is considered as a great prospect' (sic) and that he was called for Italy at youth level is irrelevant, since it is agreed that youth international caps do not confer notability. Angelo (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete U21 caps did not means he made a professional debut. Matthew_hk tc 08:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Recreate if & when either of these concerns are met. GiantSnowman 09:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I did fix the broken links and refs, clarified the language, and created a talk page, but since Under-21 isn't considered "the fully professional level of the sport", the player doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE and he's still not considered notable for purposes of inclusion in Wikipedia regardless of whether he plays today, or did so four days ago. None of this detracts from his being a great player, though, and I'll be happy to see his page return to Wikipedia when he does first compete professionally. Ohiostandard (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate when he becomes notable Spiderone 12:58, 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 no consensus. MuZemike 16:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Shinwari[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:ENTERTAINER, not to mention it only has a single source. Significant sources are required. — Dædαlus Contribs 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention WP:MUSIC.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Khost Radio lists a song of his at #1 on their "top music" chart: [29]
  2. Both GNews results [30] in a Roman-alphabet search for his name show people describing him as important in his field: "Nawab Khan, in his inaugural speech, said that Rafiq Shinwari was a great music composer" and "Rafiq Shinwari had really renovated Pashto music".
  3. In this magazine column his recordings from the 1960s are described as having a significant effect on the career of another Pashto singer Khyal Muhammad.
Given that we are dealing with a region of the world which is quite underrepresented on the Internet, that's quite enough to convince me that better sources exist offline. Thanks, cab (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a Gsearch and JSTOR search in music/music ethnology return 0 hits. No evidence of notability per WP:V, WP:RS. Eusebeus (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What about the considerable links and evidences already provided in the article? Don't you think that there are certain languages in the world who have been least represented on Wikipedia, least to mention its artists who unfortunately come from an era of "No-Internet". These days even a punk guitarist would get his own blog and several web pages however, a legend (like this guy) in a specific Asian language becomes a non-entity because luckily, whatever links or hits he is still getting on the internet aren't enough for Wikipedia. I strongly think that entries like this are mandatory on Wikipedia to balance the allegation of systemic western bias. Dude, JSTOR isn't that widely read in this part of the world from which we come, still I believe there is enough evidence on internet about his greatness. -- MARWAT  00:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm persuaded by the links in the article and the drift, if not all of the specifics, of MARWAT's western bias argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:03, 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Aleksandrovich Shifrin[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS to support claims. Suspect a hoax. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 07:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Don't see anything indicating particular notability of anyone by this name but I didn't look very hard. cab (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing on Google Scholar, only one mention on the website of his alleged employer: [32] (a list of students who passed a quiz in 2004). The guy who wrote the poetry book might or might not be him, but that guy's not notable either, only gets hits on bookseller websites. cab (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, search turned out self-published academic reviews and a book of poetry that made 300 copies (was it the same person, at all?) and no sign of independent sources. NVO (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Notability is not demonstrated to required standard. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Based on the material in the article, he is not notable as an academic. the work he lists are undergraduate or graduate student papers, and a number of political article. He does not seem to have received the doctorate yet ,at least not the doctorat nauk. I cannot tell whether he is notable as a writer on the present evidence. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 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. Cirt (talk) 01:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacobsen Corporate Services[edit]

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

Non-notable company. I have not been able to uncover any reliable sources about this topic. In fact, I believe that the company does not assert notability and fails A7. The speedy was declined by Protonk (talk · contribs) with the edit summary, "Speedy declined. Take to AfD if you feel the company is not notable, but I'm cautious about deleting companies under A7." Cunard (talk) 06:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Notability and importance are two different things. An article need not assert notability in order to avoid being speedily deleted (And for cases where an article is covered only by the general notability guideline it is impossible for claims in the article to assert notability, because notability is established by the presence of detailed sourcing on the subject). I'm not trying to read you the riot act, this is a common confusion for both editors and administrators (and it isn't helped by the fact that the language of A7 has changed over the years). I have no comment on the merits of the deletion nomination itself, just figured I would establish why I declined the speedy. Protonk (talk) 07:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but I fail to see how Jacobsen Corporate Services asserts importance or indicates notability. The article does not list any sources for examination, and I could not find any. Cunard (talk) 07:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Asserting importance and proving it are two totally different things. I could create an article on a made-up flavor of ice cream and claim that it's the most popular ice cream flavor on the eastern hemisphere and has been mentioned in countless news reports and culinary articles. There's no way I could prove it, but just the claim alone means that A7 is not applicable. This article certainly attempts to make the company seem notable by talking about performing services in multiple countries. That to me equates to a claim for notability, but when that notability can't be proven then the article should be deleted (in a discussion just like this one). -- Atama頭 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • COmment Dear administrators, please do not delete my article. The article seems unambiguous and advertising, because the company has not been active since the year of its foundation (2005). It has started to function only a few months ago, and due to this we do not have third parties' sources, articles, etc. What should I do in this case? Thanks.(Jacobs516 (talk) 12:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
you've given very good reason why it doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. also WP:OWN and WP:COI apply in this case. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only five English Google hits, two of which are here on Wikipedia. Article has no third-party sourcing to assert notability and so it fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a private accounting consultancy company that provides accounting, controlling, recovery and risk-advisory services. Such a business would have a ways to go before becoming a household name, and there's no showing that this business has done so. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per author's own admission above, the company is in start-up mode; it may become notable, but it isn't yet. JohnCD (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The company has just started to function and due to this we are not in Google, and in other sources. We need some time to make it. The article will meet notability, but it is impossible to implement it immediately. Please, give us some time to work on it. (Jacobs516 (talk) 10:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Sorry, but Wikipedia is not here to help publicise a company before it is notable. In any case, "we are not in Google" suggests that you are connected with the company and have a conflict of interest in writing about it. I will post some useful links on your talk page. JohnCD (talk) 11:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL also applies here. being notable in the future is not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like an advertisement. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - By the admission of what seems to be an affiliated person above, the company's notability has yet to be established because it has "just started to function". Perhaps at some future time the company might warrant an article, but not now. -- Atama頭 01:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Multiple searches on anything related to this company fails to provide any mentions, much less the significant coverage required for notability. Flowanda | Talk 10:03, 13 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) 01:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lennie Smith[edit]

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

See 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 he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He was involved in a crime that was briefly in the news, and that is all. But we are not a news source. Delete. Dominic·t 06:44, 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.

twatstep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.42.103.234 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Football[edit]

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

Website that is not notable, created May 2009 and just over 100 users. Listing here because of failed WP:PROD. Evil saltine (talk) 06:36, 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 no consensus. MuZemike 16:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AIM Ad Hack[edit]

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

I am sure that this is a useful tool for those among us who wish to get rid of pesky ads from such software, but we are not a database of software that internet users may find useful, we are an encyclopaedia. There are only two sources for this article, neither of which would be regarded as reliable sources, and a search reveals plenty of download sites, forums, etc, but no reliable sources which discuss this product in depth, thereby giving it encyclopaedic notability Russavia Dialogue 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep (weak) - I added a new reference of notability to the article. Apparently this piece of software was profiled on G4. G4 counts as a reliable secondary source that is independent of the subject, I'm just not so sure if it's "significant" coverage. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An archive of the segment on G4TV in which AIM Ad Hack was discussed can be viewed here. A reliable source has been added to the article, but widespread coverage is not evident. On another note, I really should assume good faith, but I must question the motive of Russavia, the nominator, who I feel has been somewhat uncivil to me and avoided any discussion of the article with me or other contributors beforehand. After pointing out that it is considered impersonal and discourteous to template experienced users, he responded with this edit and dropped another template on my talk page. Regardless, his reasoning for this AfD is still valid, and I agree that the sources of this article do not represent significant coverage. I have been and will continue to search for more reliable sources in the meantime.Ali (t)(c) 07:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the keeps above. The first link isn't significant coverage and the second link is not a reliable source. The G4 link isn't significant coverage because it is a tutorial and Crenk isn't significant coverage because it is a tutorial. Techspot and WebTechGeek aren't signficiant coverage because they are download sites. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The second link was not included in the article as a source, I just linked it for reference. The second link is the same source as the first link (G4 TechTV), just in a different format. Ali (t)(c) 21:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. I will reword it. Joe Chill (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: For reasons given above and there are no content articles that link to it. Any notable content could easily be placed in the AIM article. Is there other software that performs this function? If so then this product could be listed with others in a more general article. Basically the existence of this product is wholly dependent on the existence of AIM, so anything said about it should probably be in the AIM article.--RDBury (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are other AIM add-ons which perform this function, notably a now-defunct add-on known as DeadAIM. I understand that AIM Ad Hack may not be notable enough to have an article of its own, but it would not be a bad idea to merge any notable information from add-ons such as DeadAIM or AIM Ad Hack into the main AOL Instant Messenger article. Another option would be to create a single article for AIM add-ons, where we can merge all notable information from the various AIM add-on articles to. I am not vehemently opposed to the deletion of AIM Ad Hack, in fact, I nominated it myself for deletion the first time around. Ali (t)(c) 04:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons noted by Ali (despite his keep vote). Doesn't have demonstrable notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:28, 13 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. Subject-specific guidelines such as WP:ATHLETE are secondary to the general notability guideline, and it has been credibly asserted here without credible refutation that the topic meets that fundamental threshold.  Skomorokh  04:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Bates[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH, which requires subjects to have "competed at the fully professional level of a sport." Practice squad players, by definition, are not permitted to compete. Bongomatic 03:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Passes WP:BIO. WP:ATHLETE is not a policy. Google news the guy.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, the burden of evidence is on the person who adds the content to the page, this is particularly true for living people, saying "Google news the guy" is not actually providing reliable sources. If you had provided third party reliable sources in the first place, this would never have gone to AfD (or been proposed for deletion in the first place). --kelapstick (talk) 18:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, but the AfD process actually requires the AfD nominator to perform a good faith search for sources prior to nominating for deletion, of which a Google News search would be standard to meet the good faith test. As AfD is for removing articles that cover subjects that are actually not notable, and not just removing articles that fail to properly demonstrate it. We have various clean up tags for that. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, however when an editor creates an unsourced article about a living person with questionable notability, they should not be surprised when it comes to AfD. --kelapstick (talk) 15:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Though WP:ATHLETE is not a policy, it should be amended to include NFL practice squad players. As the NFL is the highest level of pro football, it stands to reason that any practice squad player in the NFL is talented enough to play in the CFL, af2, UFL, etc. Practice squad players often end up playing in the NFL in some form or for another league. While many are undrafted players, the practice squad guys are the elite players of that bunch. We're not talking about guys that are signed in April, cut in June and never heard from again. A guy who spends the year on a practice squad, and especially one that spends multiple years on them, should be notable for that alone.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your bias and facts prove otherwise but that is outside the scope of this discussion. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not talking about importance here anyway, we are talking about notability, the ability to find reliable sourcing to create a fair and verifiable article. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the references above, some are references to student newspapers; all (except the roster) they are all local coverage of local events that don't establish notability. See WP:N footnote 6. Bongomatic 07:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, how would that contradict what I stated?: I believe "there will be enough reliable sources for a V, NPOV, NOR to start an article on this subject." Secondly, "minor news stories" does not exclude local and state newspapers, it excludes passing references. Thirdly, WP:N is a helpful guideline for interpreting our content policies; it is not our content policy. DoubleBlue (talk) 08:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am commenting for the benefit of other editors who may wish to opine here, not trying to suggest your opinion is inconsistent with policy or internally inconsistent. Bongomatic 08:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG per the sources brought up by DoubleBlue. I told you to not create these one line stubs, Chris because things like this happen.--Giants27 (c|s) 18:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very week keep I tend to be a little more strict with what I qualify as "Significant Coverage in a Reliable Source that are Independent of the subject" for minor league baseball/college athletes. First I don't include school newspapers as I don't consider them independent of the subject. Of the list that DoubleBlue put up I would say that 3, 7, and 8 would fit the bill for me. Personally I would like to see a stop to creation of separate articles about players that have not played in a major league (with the exception of those that can "walk on water", or have some sort of notability outside of their sport) and have them put into some sort of list that groups similar individuals. I think that would be more comprehensive and helpful than creating a bunch of articles (that are all BLPs) that are destined to be orphaned for ever with few people watching them. But that's just my opinion.--kelapstick (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:BIO/WP:NOTE through multiple, third-party RS. Just needs a "more sources needed" tag. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These sources provided above are extremely weak--they are entirely local, sometimes providing only a sentence worth of mention, and contain no significant discussion of the subject. Contrary to the author's assertion that all these practice squad players are somehow automatically notable (he's created dozens or more of them), they are not. The ones I looked at are not notable as athletes, and they do not pass general notability guidelines. This one doesn't. Drmies (talk) 05:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability, as far as I am concerned, is a matter of size. The bigger the paper covering some subject, the bigger the notability--that should go without saying. This is not an argument for 'global notability' and it does not mean that local coverage doesn't count for anything; it just means that if there's nothing else, then there isn't much, and here there's nothing else (and even the local coverage is flimsy). Look, this morning I read that Cory Wilkes, who is on the 'practice squad' for Troy University, has to make like Tim Tebow cause they're playing Florida. Nice article (longer than Bates got in his university paper), with a picture (he looks like he's high on being Tebow) and quotes--and no way does this make this nice young man notable. Bongo below makes a similar point; I butted in since I made the original remark. (Bongo, I'll apologize on the talk page.) Drmies (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The geographic reach of a source is relevant to the question of whether coverage—even if in-depth—is sufficiently independent for the purpose of establishing notability. For example, the reliable (and excellent) Anderson Valley Advertiser has done a series of articles on an assistant coach at a local junior high school. Notwithstanding the existence of that coverage, a large number of editors would not consider the subject to be notable because of the limited interest of the very local source. Not all editors agree with this approach, but many do. It is inconsistent with neither WP:GNG nor Notability (people). Hope that's helpful (not in persuading you of the correctness of this view, but why some people hold it). Bongomatic 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know people like to think notability is global notablity, but the fact remains that neither BIO nor NOTE require this and do not discount local coverage in any way. Now, some local sources will fail as RS, but that's a source by source determination. But the notability guidelines, including the local guideline proposal where the consensus has been we don't discriminate against local stuff, are the places for any local discount, not in AfD where we try to stick with current policy/guideline and apply those to the article in question. Discounting local sources is equivalent to I don't like it. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The guidelines provide no precise definition of "independent", so it is within editor's good faith assessment (and I'm sure you always assume good faith) to determine when reliable sources may not be independent. Equating the classification of certain extremely local coverage as insufficiently independent with requiring notability to be "global" is fallacious. Bongomatic 07:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." looks pretty promising to me for a precise definition? But, independent and local are two separate issues (and thus your equating would be your own, so I'm not sure what fallacy you are going for since only you just brought up "independent"). As to independent, you do know the dirty little secret in journalism is that many "stories" are re-hashes of press releases and are not exactly completely independent (something you learn a college journalism class). That's how news organizations find much of their news. You should compare some press releases from say BusinessWire or U.S. News sometime to news articles covering the topic. But in the end, for Wikipedia and notability, that sources are not completely independent really doesn't matter much. The thing is, we are going for notability, as in people have taken note. In the case of any RS type source, unless they are paid (i.e. an actual ad for say a Labor Day Sale), the media outlet decided to go with the story, which is taking note, as they are exercising their editorial judgment on what topics to cover in their often limited space. Otherwise, should we discount coverage on ESPN.com of MLB because MLB advertises with ESPN and they have other contractual arrangements? Should we discount coverage of politicians in newspapers because those politicians advertise for their campaigns in those newspapers? Or should we even discount coverage by the Washington Post if they quote President Obama, as then that would not be completely independent since that quote came from the subject of the news article? Far-fetched, but it demonstrates that much of our sources are not completely independent. That's why for me, independent means "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc." which means local sources that meet that definition are A-OK. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←You address a number of issues:
  • Precision of definition. While the definition is precise about what it explicitly states to be nonindependent, it says "but not limited to", opening up the universe to what reasonable people acting in good faith may find to be not independent.
  • Independent and local are two separate issues. Per "but not limited to", your statement that "local sources that meet the definition are A-OK" is qualified by the judgment of editors that coverage in such sources is independent of the subject. In a local paper, reasonable editors in good faith may argue that topics of solely local interest are covered because of their proximity to—i.e., nonndependence from—the sources rather than because of the notability of the subject (coverage of the local high school quarterback, say). See above comment on the Anderson Valley Advertiser as a specific example.
  • Other forms of nonidependence. The fact that the guideline ostensibly permits (though the "not limited to" proviso gives room for editors to argue) lots of stuff that you and I don't think of as independent is not a reason to abandon a genuine investigation of independence in other contexts. Personally, where the only coverage in reliable sources that themselves are independent of the subject consists of rehashed press releases, I argue (occasionally successfully) that those are not independent. As to whether publications that accept political advertising can provide independent coverage for the purposes of notability, it should be on a case-by-case basis for the same reason (I think that people who attain the highest elected office in a country are specifically considered notable). I won't address the question as to whether such sources are reliable for the purposes of verifiability, as that's not related to the issue at hand.
If you don't feel this way, that's fine. But in order not to see how logical reasonable editors acting in good faith might see things like this is inexplicable. Bongomatic 10:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. You tell me "You are wrong", and I then demonstrate a different opinion backed by reasonable interpretations. Which then you take as "inexplicable"? So, you can call me wrong, but I can't argue different, and that is some how a violation by me of good faith? Interesting process there. But to be perfectly clear, other editors are free to put forth all sorts of theories, which in the past have included ones where if someone does not pass WP:ATHLETE then they cannot be notable despite that BIO says otherwise (and ATHLETE is part of BIO). Other editors are then free to discredit those theories, but it must be done through logic, which is what I have presented.
As to your contention of "opening up the universe to what reasonable people acting in good faith may find to be not independent". Actually, not quite. In law we use what we call statutory interpretation, which is quite useful to use when parsing rules, which we have here. One key rule is that when you have a list of something, it is not superfluous. If we actually open it up to ANY argument that something is not independent, then the examples given become superfluous. Instead how we read that is like this: Here is a list of items that we know are not independent, but there may be others, please use the commonalities of these listed items to guide you, as new things such as Twitter and Facebook can develop and we need to be able to plan for those without coming up with a 500 example long list; thus things similar to these examples are what are not independent. And here, what are the commonalities? Things directly related to the subject or closely related, but this isn't closely related in geographic terms, but closely related as in the source and the subject matter have a direct reason to promote the subject matter. For instance, a story in a company's newsletter about Bob the janitor would directly promote the company and help the image of the company because Bob is so awesome that the company must also be, which is why PR people put out crap like that. That's why advertising is listed, but nothing about a news story in a newspaper (local or national) where the subject matter is also a paid advertiser (for instance movie reviews next to the ads by the movie studios). Further, and this is key, if we go with your theory, it also makes the local interests proposed guideline superfluous as well. As in, there would be no need for that proposal if the community agreed with your theory. And if you check the talk page of the proposed guideline you will see a consensus against any sort of limitation regarding local sources. Not to mention, again, that no where in the notability guidelines does it say anything about limiting sources to non-local, and trying to get around that by trying to question the independence of the sources is just too much of a stretch (especially as I have noted that no source is immune from these issues). But feel free to disagree. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject had an unremarkable college career and is paid to be an extra body on an NFL practice field. There is certainly no consensus that these things confer inherent notability. I think we can parse the definitions at WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO, and WP:ATHLETE all day long, but in the end they are all just guidelines. In my opinion, the overall volume and depth of coverage does not indicate that the subject is (yet) notable. Location (talk) 23:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am persuaded that the coverage identified by DoubleBlue is sufficient to meet WP:N and establish notability. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 13 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) 01:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seed UK[edit]

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

The category is religious denominations, the subject is an adult education organization, and the only source is an essay published by Rabbi Joseph Grunfeld, the leader of the movement. Notability has not been asserted properly, nor are any reliable references readily available. An expert on the topic might be able to merge this information into a broader religious article. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just installed some links on your user talk page, which probably should have been done back in August when you created the Seeduk article, which was tagged for Speedy Deletion. This second article still does not meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Please view the "Your First Article" link, as well as the links on subject notability WP:N, WP:ORG and on reliable sources, WP:RS. If you have additional sources, please include them ASAP on the article talk page, for review during this AFD process. It will normally last 5-7 days, giving you time to add material that may not be currently present. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 22:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need to merge info on a completely non notable organisation. No reliable independent sources with info on this organisation could be found. Fram (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG. Eusebeus (talk) 20:26, 13 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) 00:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft interview[edit]

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

This appears to contravene policy with both copyvio issues with regard to Microsoft's intellectual property and also OR. There is also inadequate secondary sources. Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

  • I agree in part, the long lists of dubious origin must go. However, WP:BEFORE says clearly "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." There's plenty of secondary and tertiary sources, so keep. I'd be more than happy to fix it myself, but it won't happen till this weekend. P.S. Some dumbhead personnel clerks even use it even for jobs in retail and accounting. NVO (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are too many companies parroting this technique, taking the attitude "well, Microsoft does this, so should we" or "we want to be as successful as Microsoft, so we better do what they do, too." Furthermore, there are several books on the subject, such as How Would You Move Mount Fuji?, Slashdot Review from 2003. If the list of questions offend you, then you need to also be offended at Fermi problem, because the silly questions they ask are more properly called Fermi Questions, or Fermi Problems. One police department I interviewed for back in the early 1980s asked some of these same sorts of questions, including why are manhole covers round? I strongly disagree with the statement The Microsoft Interview is intended to seek out creative thinkers and those who can adapt their solutions to rapidly changing and dynamic scenarios as the question part of the interview is only good at selecting candidates who are good at trivia and Fermi questions; and leads to Microsoft claiming that they cannot get enough software engineers. Tangurena (talk) 12:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is the manhole Q also a Microsoft regular? oh really? shame on them. Most of these things in my town are actually rectangular but very few of them twenty-two-year-old-recruitment-stars ever look under their feet. NVO (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The book How Would You Move Mount Fuji claimed that Microsoft stopped asking that particular question back in the 1990s, but was still hooked on a cargo cult of Fermi questions. The PD (which was in the Los Angeles metro area) who asked the question was mostly trying to figure out if the interviewee (me) had any common sense (apparently, they had trouble with some candidates being as sharp as a bag of bowling balls), as police could reasonably guess that we'd be out in bad weather, and that we might be encountering lots of stupid and crazy things (people trying to steal them to sell for money for drugs) as well as quite boring things like electrical workers trying to restore power during a storm, or at night. Or more likely broken water mains flooding streets (optionally, after an earthquake). I've had many interviews in my long life, but that particular one stands out very clearly 26 years later. And you're right, some manhole covers are square, and some are triangular. Tangurena (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per NVO. The article needs love but deletion is not a solution. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep many sources, notable. Ikip (talk) 01:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ikip. Varks Spira (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This has only one source independent of the topic, using Microsoft itself to support most of its content. If more secondary sources are not found by the next AfD then I will likely side with deletion. Chillum 03:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a reasonably notable phenomenon. Easily verifiable and supported by WP:RS, including even a few "scholarly" results. Eusebeus (talk) 20:25, 13 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. The burden of proof is on editors in favour of retaining the article to show that the topic is notable. It's fair enough to say that sources proving notability may be available beyond the reach of other editors, but no credible claims have been made here that such sources exist for this topic.  Skomorokh  04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie McKenzie[edit]

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. simply being an author of books doesn't guarantee automatic notability. could find hardly any third coverage of this particular Valerie McKenzie as an Australian author. [43] LibStar (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment regarding WP:AUTHOR I believe this author specifically fails criterion 1 and 2: "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" and "The person's work either has won significant critical attention" LibStar (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Could find no articles about the author (the ones provided in LibStar search, except for possibly (2) are actually for a Dr. Valerie McKenzie, Biologist. Regarding her books, the Ms. McKenzie discussed in this AFD, yes she is a prolific writer with 15 books to her name, however none have been reviewed, even by an affiliated party let alone a 2nd or 3rd party source. All the books range between 90 and 150 pages. Sorry, I cannot find anything to establish notability under any of our criteria's. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 02:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonably prolific author whose works predate the web (hence why they don't appear on google searches). Isn't it a little unfair to expect to find reviews of books published between 1971 and 1990 on the web? The world of relaible sources existed before the inverntion og google! The publishers appear to be genuine (i.e. not vanity publishers). I would suggest a visit to a library and a look at back catalogues of newspapers, magazines etc. would reveal a multitude of sources. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - More than happy to change my mind if someone can come up with the references. I looked and looked and looked and I could not find them. Regarding the timeframe of 1971 through 1990 for not being able to find references on Google - Google News - Google Books or Google Scholar, sorry to disagree, but I have sourced and referenced articles from newspaper pieces and books, found on the internet, back to the mid 1800's. As to being unfair, I do not think so. One of the major requirements for establishing notability is the ability to be able to find - 3rd party - creditable - verifiable and reliable sources no matter the date frame that the article is involved with. If you find them, just point me too them. As I said, more than happy to change my opinion. Hope this explains a little better for my opinion. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 02:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I took a shot using the Gale (Cengage) database. It has two hits but both for others with the same name. I then checked the National Library of Australia catalogue as they often have bios. There's no bio in this case but they have cataloged 13 of McKenzie's books. Rather than adding a comment I went with delete. It's pretty easy to construct the Valerie McKenzie bibliography and so if someone ever runs across reliable evidence of notability then they can recreate the article and will be able to source it right from the beginning with the WP:N evidence. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on the absence of WP:RS indicated above to establish notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mattinbgn's arguments. I have found Google singularly unhelpful in finding material prior to 1990 (even though some items pop up) and therefore I am loathe to toss things out simply because the God Google fails to find them. Gillyweed (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then you need to provide sources establishing notablity. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, taht verifies she's an author...but I'm thinking we need some third party coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 05:51, 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 delete. NW (Talk) 03:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Steuart[edit]

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

This is a companion to my previous nomination. Obviously a member of a prominent family about whom much is documented, but nothing makes Dr. Charles Steuart especially notable himself. Leoniceno (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Charles Steuart is of note in that, as a physician and a member of a planter family in Maryland before and during the Revolutionary war, his loyalties were divided between The Crown and to the fledgling United States. The American Revolution may in part be seen as a kind of Civil War, in many ways a fratricidal one in which families were divided. Steuart's family shows this very well; he himself was a Tory and yet joined the flying camp militia, and was on social terms with George Washington. So he helps to illustrate the very grey nature of loyalties during the Revolutionary War and is therefore part of an important historical context - Alex Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteuartw (talk • contribs) 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any reason why this chap is particularly notable. A local notable maybe, but not sufficiently important for Wikipedia. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be genealogy - no evidence of historical significance. Eusebeus (talk) 20:22, 13 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) 00:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Clifford Peters[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Worthy local politician who received a minor honor in recognition of his efforts. However, I am not seeing the combination of having an MBE with being the leader of second tier council as being enough to establish notability. There is some relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Does an MBE confer notability?. Delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - having an MBE and being the leader of a second tier council are not enough to establish notability. That doesn't mean Peters isn't notable, though. Has he been the subject of coverage in the local media? This ought to be assessed before we decide to delete the article. john k (talk) 04:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probable delete. This district council mentioned seems to be some sort of (bygone) Parish Council, which really doesn't qualify. Added to the fact that this reads far too much like an obituary, I can't see a case for keeping this unless someone thinks it can be salvaged. If a page for the district council is created, he could of course be mentioned in that and a redirect created from this page. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The MBE is certainly not a high enough honour to qualify someone for inclusion automatically (my general policy as a writer of many biographies of British honours recipients is that at least a CBE is required for that) and the leader of a district council is also not a senior enough position for notability (especially since this actaully seems to be a pre-1974 Rural District, which were considerably smaller than post-1974 districts). -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO. Nothing on any of the Gsearches, article is currently completely unsourced. Even if confirmable, MBE is insufficient for notability (100k+ living recipients). RayTalk 14:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO as above. Eusebeus (talk) 20:21, 13 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. The sources dug up do not seem to meet the reliable source standards. NW (Talk) 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurus-A (Band)[edit]

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

NN band. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if [44] and album review because they both seem to be user submitted. A while back (2004) Metal Crypt posted on the website that it was looking for reviewers [45]. As for the UG one, it has a username at the bottom of it, but I'm not 100% sure if or not it could be used. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, wasn't aware of that about Metal Crypt, very interesting read.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went over some of my recent edits where I'd used Metal Crypt as a ref, and it seems the text may or may not written by a staff writer, the star votes are definitely user ratings. Didn't see that. Bugger!!!  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about the 5 I just posted above?  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 05:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the effort to dig up WP:RS is admirable, but they fall below our standard as simple and marginal fansites (Check the alexa stats for metalcrypt, for example). That does not constitute reliable coverage to demonstrate this passes our standard at WP:BAND. Eusebeus (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a quick pointer, Alexa ranking isn't 100% accurate, as I have a website who's Alexa rank is in the low 400,000's, and I could name quite a few websites that get higher traffic, and their rank is in the 1,000,000's. Just FYI. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, but for our purposes of establishing notability for websites (and by extension their value as a source) at WP:WEB, Alexa is ok. Eusebeus (talk) 21:24, 13 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. A7 Tone 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue (web site)[edit]

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

Standard NN website. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know what 'NN website' is, but if you explain I am willing to improve the article.--Dchmelik (talk) 03:06, 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Steuart (physician)[edit]

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

The article is entirely sourced to a self-published book. This is one of several articles all sourced to that one book, and they probably all bear looking at. This one in particular, though, doesn't seem to assert much notability. He was a military doctor who retired to his farm. Probably of great familial interest, but not encyclopedic. Leoniceno (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced to a self-published book but one which includes a great deal of primary material. James Steuart is of note in that, as a physician and a member of a planter family in Maryland before and during the Revolutionary war, his loyalties were divided bewteen The Crown and to the fledgling United States. The American Revolution may in part be seen as a kind of Civil War, in many ways a fratricidal one in which families were divided. Steuart's family shows this very well; he himself was a Tory and yet joined the flying camp militia, and was on social terms with George Washington. So he helps to illustrate the very grey nature of loyalties during the Revolutionary War and is therefore part of an important historical context - Alex Williams —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asteuartw (talk • contribs) 07:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom and also no indication of notability in the article itself. Shadowjams (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Neutral - good work since nomination Shadowjams (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete A Google book search shows that James Steuart was a prominent physician in Maryland. He promoted vaccination. In 1822 he reestablished a society for promoting vaccination History of Baltimore City and County (1881) page 734. He was on a 5 man commission to set up a college of physicians in 1803 (p 735). Smallpox deaths in the area declined from 26 in Feb (when he established the vaccination operation) to 3 in April (perhaps "original research " to give him credit.) Medical Annals of Baltimore, (1884) p26. He was apparently quoted by Washington Irving regarding customs in Annapolis in his youth "Side-lights on Maryland history" (1913) (p227). He "rendered valuable service" in the War of 1812 (p228). He is said to have been an associate of Washington, and was an Edinburgh educated doctor, not that common in pre-revolutionary America. This one is borderline. There may be print sources not available on line, and if someone dug them out and referenced it perhaps an article could be recreated. Not quite seeing that WP:BIO is satisfied at this point. Edison (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm having second thoughts based on the content turned up above. Since there is an editor committed to working on the page, perhaps we should let it stand for now. Leoniceno (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like part of a series of genealogical articles. Obviously a local worthy, but not notable enough for a WP article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice attempt at cleanup, but there is still no assertion of historical significance. Eusebeus (talk) 20:14, 13 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 keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 12:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation[edit]

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

With the given references, I don't see how notability is established. Further discussion is on the article's talk page, but 2/5 references appear to be self-submitted (and maybe paid) listings on sites; 2/5 are press releases, one of which was definitely written by the company; remaining 1/5 is their own Web site. Hananekosan (talk) 01:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of references at this Google News archive search. -- Eastmain (talk) 04:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - First let me welcome you to Wikipedia and just point out that one of the responsibilities with nominating an article for deletion here at AFD is to review the criteria for deletion at Before. With that said, on to my Keep opinion. The company is one of the nations largest suppliers of student loans. Which can be found by just checking Google News, as shown here [46]. The same search can be done by just clicking on the "Find Sources" news, right above your nomination. I also did an additional search at Google Scholar, as shown here [47] and found that they are considered "Experts" in their field, which qualifies them for inclusion. This is further supported by a quick search at Google Books as shown here [48]. Though they are not the specific subject of any of the 100+ listed, looking through a few, I did find they were cited as experts in their field. I'll add additional references and cites to the article itself over the next couple of days. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 04:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Thanks for the education. I now see that my initial opinion was wrong. However, I did try to find additional references before the AfD; most everything I turned up was similar to the Google News result set (bankruptcy hearings/legal documents from their borrowers' bankruptcies), which do not help establish notability. Those, combined with the fact that the majority of the references in the article are not secondary sources, as I explained on the talk page and here, and, IMO, notability was not met. However, Google Scholar turns up more relevant and secondary sources which do establish notability. Therefore, I have seen the light and it says "Keep". I apologize for the mistake. To show good faith, I made some edits to the article as well. Humbly, Hananekosan (talk) 06:29, 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Moore[edit]

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

Article is on a non-notable political activist which has extensive editing by a party with a conflict of interest and has significant WP:YOURSELF issues. Most of the refs violate WP:EL#Avoid_undue_weight_on_particular_points_of_view when taken in total and the other refs are primarily to things unrelated to the subject (organizations, events, etc). Merely promoting already famous ideas or being associated with notable organizations does not create notability in the general or specific forms. For these reasons I believe this article should be deleted. MBisanz talk 01:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. References should be about the subject, not written by the subject. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I could go either way on this one. On one hand, the article as it currently stands appears borderline-lean-towards-delete, but I think it also might have potential for improvement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One does not generate notability by writing about him/herself. This article needs to identify the subject in independant sources. ThemFromSpace 23:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and DC Anti-War Network page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Keep Yes, she is a naughty WP editor for writing an article about herself. However there are enough secondary sources that discuss her, inculding at least one review of her book, to make her notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bring up "other stuff" but fellow activist Robert Parry has exactly one secondary source with his own website providing 90% or so of the information in his article. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. There are 3, an article in depth, a list with him as one item, and a TV interview with him. But still much less than Ms Moore. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI from Carol Moore:I did not create the article about myself as was asuumed on my user talk page and seems to be assumed here also. It was created by an anonymous IP here who wrote a rather silly article. I put up with it for a year or so, then rewrote a very POV/WP:OR peice as a newbie that was quickly reverted. As I slowly learned the ropes I deleted the junk, added the most important factoid of notability and a bunch of refs. But then I got more complaints and read COI carefully and swore off editing the article since December 2008. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:30, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. "When you assume you make an ass of you and me." :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 03:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Solidly non-notable. Very, very little in the way of RS's. IronDuke 03:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promoting famous ideas of others or being associated with notable organizations does not create notability in general and RS's lacking. skip sievert (talk) 04:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I feel that people are voting on the quality of the article, not the notability of its subject. I agree that it is a badly written article (and probably does Ms Moore more harm than good), however among the sources there are a few that point to her possible notability, for instance reviews of her books and news interviews.Steve Dufour (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Keep: I did a google news archive search for "Carol Moore" and waco[49], and got a number of press mentions (including Washington Post, Dallas Morning News, Tortonto Star) from the mid 90s, unfortunately these mostly are pay-access articles. (some are not - [50] ) I then did a search for "Carol Moore" and antiwar, and got some more mentions. passing mention in Baltimore Sun (2009), decent chunk of NYSun article (2005). Article needs reworking, but not deletion.--Milowent (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the article was created long before Carol Moore ever edited it herself dispells the notion (and arguments made) that this is about self-promotion. There is a significant amount of coverage on her as pointed out by Milowent and along with the sources cited there, WP:N is met. Tiamuttalk 17:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and suggest a long hard read of our inclusion, reliable sources and verifiability guidelines. Third-party sources independent of the subject means third party sources independent of the subject. Ironholds (talk) 18:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the problem is in how we define "independent of the subject" in this case. Just to make sure we are on the same page, could yoy give me an example of a source cited there that you see as being one (if any), and another that you see as not being one? Tiamuttalk 19:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I never considered the "significant coverage in reliable sources" part of policy to mean "significant amount". The coverage is not significant. From what can be seen, she's mentioned in passing, as Milowent pointed out. She doesn't appear to have been the subject of any significant coverage. Promotional or not, the article doesn't satisfy inclusion criteria at this time. Lara 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that without examining the content of what's in the articles that came up Milowent's search that the coverage of her we can read so far is of borderline significance. (Though this one has a few paragraphs devoted to her thoughts and activities.) I should have been more equivocal in my keep vote above, and mention that I'm assuming that some of those cites are to articles that focus on her a bit more, as there is one article (at least) that is cited in the article now (from 1984) that seems to fit that the definition of significant coverage. I should confess that I'm something of an inclusionist though. Tiamuttalk 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you say that like its a dirty word. Inclusionist. OH THE HORROR! --Milowent (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Long week hanging out with some hard-core (and selective) exclusionists. Thanks for laughter and remembrance. Tiamuttalk 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - many, many violations in this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are they? Are they things that can't be fixed? The sources by Milowent plus a few in the article seem to indicate that a decent article could be built. If people could be more specific about what these violations are or how they are defining third-part independent sources, it would help others to understand if they've misunderstood. Tiamuttalk 03:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt they can be fixed. They range from lack of NPOV, to lack of Notability, to CoI, etc. The page right now has many, many soap violations which would require a complete cleansing of the sources as they seem more about selling a product than actually dealing with references. The article would be best if it was just completely destroyed and, if there is ever any serious coverage of her life by notable sources, then is rebuilt. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does seem riddled with COI issues (the ref list smacks of a mission), but beyond that, this simply doesn't meet our standard at WP:BIO; unnotable local activist with no claim to significance. Eusebeus (talk) 20:13, 13 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) 00:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Byun Yoon-Cheol[edit]

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

Does not appear to have competed at a professional level; apparently fails WP:ATHLETE. Contested prod. PC78 (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Strike my comment above. The K-League site does have a record for him (I've added it to the article) and he has never played in the K-League. Article fails WP:ATHLETE and no sign that it would pass WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Angelo (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 15:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Delete. The official record states, "No data." -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:23, 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) 01:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Choi Kyu-Hwan[edit]

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

Does not appear to have competed at a professional level; apparently fails WP:ATHLETE. Contested prod. PC78 (talk) 01:07, 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 Speedy delete. 19:56, 8 September 2009 Nihiltres (talk | contribs) deleted "Lady Paula Merry" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Paula Merry[edit]

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

The article was just reduced to a stub due to issues of claimed original research, but I believe the article needs to be deleted. It is unsourceable using reliable sources, as far as I can tell. I can verify that the subject wrote a children's book and that's all; they are not the subject of any coverage in reliable sources, let alone significant coverage. Fences&Windows 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possible A7 speedy. As was clear from the longer version of the article, her (one) book was published by a vanity press, so it seems highly unlikely to be the source of any notability, and I don't see anything else. Even the long version of the article didn't have much that I can interpret as an assertion of significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but not WP:A7. WP:A7 is not appropriate. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Speedy, thought WP:A7 was WP:G7. I'm tired... Gosox5555 (talk) 02:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to be notable at all, from what I could tell from Google searches. Netalarmtalk 21:46, 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) 00:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mehernosh shroff[edit]

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

Bio. Not really enough notabilty. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 00:20, 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. Tone 16:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bouchard Transportation[edit]

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

Delete, Looking through google found a lot of business profiles but not a lot in reliable sources. In my opinion this is a borderline spam article on a family business. 4 generations is very impressive aside from the above comments though Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyrighted material suitably deleted. No longer a "substantial article" however. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 14:59, 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) 00:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that the copyvio and spam issues have been sorted out, what we have left is an article a stub about a notable shipping company. Plenty of sources in Google News. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing under the google searches (news, books, scholar) is abundant, and even if almost all are incidental mentions, the quantity suggests that this company's been around for a long time. RayTalk 14:48, 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. There seems to be little verifiable information currently, and the delete votes are more backed up by policy that the keep votes are. NW (Talk) 03:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snootworld[edit]

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

Fails guidelines for future films. Lugnuts (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Once (a lot more of) information is found it will likely be notable, but at the moment nothing is known about it except for the fact that it (very likely) will be shot. McMarcoP (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Upcoming film by a notable and significant director. Zazaban (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whilst unreleased films can be notable, there doesn't appear to be coverage of this in reliable sources. Even though it has a notable director, it still needs decent sources. Quantpole (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge (for now) to David Lynch. Notable project. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:21, 2 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) 00:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable perhaps, but is it verifiable? Chillum 03:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A David Lynch film? This will be anticipated for years. Let all the fans collate their facts here. Varks Spira (talk) 02:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Letting fans collect their facts here is precisely what we do not want to do. We do not engage in original research here, we base our articles off of reliable sources. This is why we don't have articles on subjects that don't have significant coverage, they end up being original research. Chillum 03:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy. We are not a crystal ball. Imdb is not a reliable source. We don't know what if this is really what it will be called, we don't know if it is really David Lynch, we don't know anything. Anyone can insert any information into imdb if they know how. When a source on which we can base an article exist then and only then should we have an article on the subject. Chillum 03:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete whenever this gets to be official, have the article done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.201.28.220 (talk) 03:40, 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. Tone 16:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Chi'en[edit]

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

This person's claim to fame is one single incident, where he said "fuck" thinking he was off-camera--that's it. No reliable sources to prove any notability otherwise. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to WPIX, subject's current station. Nate • (chatter) 05:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think a redirect is appropriate to WPIX, since this isn't a significant part of that superstation's history. If anything, it's more appropriate for the Opie and Anthony Show article, since they got some mileage out of it. In any event, we don't have a lot of articles about other WPIX reporters, and "fuck" is not a magic word for having your own article. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 1 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) 00:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article states that he won two Emmys, but I cannot find a source for that. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford. RayTalk 14:43, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_8&oldid=1142642887"