Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 10

< 9 August	11 August >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. No sources to indicate notability per WP:ATHLETE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Diarra[edit]

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

This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 00:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sources indicate notability as per [[WP:ATHLETE} (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wassawaly Eric Michel[edit]

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

This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sources indicate notability as per [[WP:ATHLETE} (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nogbou Manouan Markdonald[edit]

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

This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player Wrwr1 (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sources indicate notability as per [[WP:ATHLETE} (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isoumail Keita[edit]

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

This article was created by the football agent. He add some fake and unsourced information which I removed. It seems that there are no signs of notability about this player. Wrwr1 (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 11:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Piotr Anweiler[edit]

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

This article has been around for four years but doesn't really tell us how this individual is notable by Wikipedia's standards. He ran for mayor of Ottawa but did not win, so he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. He is CEO of a company but I only found one newspaper article about it from 2006, and I don't know if that's enough. ... discospinster _talk 23:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company itself (AplusB Software) doesn't have an article, so it's difficult to see how being the CEO or co-founder of that company makes him notable. Mandsford 14:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Aside from election coverage, I cannot find anything being written about this individual. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Virtually no substantive coverage even in Ontario media.If somebody finds more, I'm happy to revisit my delete recommendation. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as A1, article had no context to identify what its subject even is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon Big Brother[edit]

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

not notable, no context. WikiCopter^Radio_Checklist^{Formerly AirplanePro} 23:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolute nonsense stuff, no Pokémon - just Big Brother stuff. Even someone tagged it for speedy deletion as A1. みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This guy named Wave3436 made that page; his user page is also filled up with some Pokémon nonsense there. みんな空の下 (トーク) 06:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is the latest in a string of fantasy reality TV shows that have mainly been popping up in userspace over the last few years. Wikipedia is not a free web host. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Wave3436. MER-C 07:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecution association[edit]

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

There is every indication here that the "prosecution association" doesn't exist and has never existed. It's a libertarian fantasy. No sources, no article. This one has persisted for over a year. BillMasen (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a comic book fantasy idea. --Luckymelon (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a fantasy but a reality. See [1], and [2] as two sources that not only establish its existence, but cover the concept in detail. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the sources provided, it appears that such institutions did exist in eighteen/nineteenth century Britain. I have changed the article from present tense to past tense, since the sources only establish that they existed in the past. --MelanieN (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Whpq's sources are good enough for WP:GNG from where I'm standing. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Reich[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NFF, principal photography hasn't even begun yet on the film. Just a disclaimer, this article had an expired proposed deletion tag that I removed because an editor protested deletion on the talk page. -- Atama頭 22:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 22:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've removed a large chunk of this as a blatant copyvio. – iridescent 22:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I suspect that the creator of this article, Shaunrobertsmith78, is the same Shaun Robert Smith who wrote and plans to produce and direct the film. He was probably quoting himself there, but of course that doesn't satisfy our copyright policy. -- Atama頭 22:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Userfy per WP:TOOSOON. Does not meet the GNG criteria that might merit this article as a possible exception to WP:NFF. If requested, give back to author for continued sourcing toward a possible return... but with a caution toward WP:COI and WP:COPYVIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi. I have no problem with the policy in general. In this specific case, I think it is fair to say objectively that it's a green director who made an inadvertent error. He took the WP step too soon. If you look at the plan for his film, it's a location shoot with several well-known actors. That's enough pressure; let's be lenient on the fellow his first time out. Varlaam (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Thank you for your comment. I too prefer to be lenient on newcomers, which is one reason why I chose to start this discussion to give him a say in the fate of this article rather than deleting an expired proposed deletion (the other reason is that you had objected to the deletion, though not by removing the PROD tag per standard procedure). We have a common standard that applies to all articles on films, WP:NFF. The film industry is somewhat like the music industry in that planned projects often do not reach completion, and so articles on films that have not yet begun shooting are not accepted unless there is a lot of coverage about the film to establish that the film is particularly notable even in pre-production. Also, even when shooting begins, some coverage of the film is usually required before an article is accepted. I wish Mr. Smith well with his creation, but Wikipedia is not the place to generate interest in his proposed film. Once it is released and the film can be shown to be notable his input and participation in the article may be quite welcome, while of course keeping in mind our conflict of interest guideline. My own personal feeling is that there's enough established talent in the film (looking at the cast list) that if it survives and gets a general release that it should merit inclusion in Wikipedia at a later date, but that's only speculation -- Atama頭 02:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified my comment above to include userfication. Absolutely no harm in allowing it to be worked on until it's ready for return to mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea also. -- Atama頭 15:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy per nom and Schmidt. Cliff smith ^talk 17:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Hi this is in fact Robert Morris - Shaun Robert Smith's PA. I am in control of his web interest and promotion etc. I had no idea that these rules applied - for that I apologise. WP is a fantastic source for information and a first stop for the general public to find out about practically anything. Shaun had WP at the top of his list. The 4th Reich is infact in full swing with pre-production - a little delayed but still on track for a 2011 release. I understand your policy and is similar to that of IMDb. We thank you for your leniancy and urge you to keep it or let us carry on editing for a future addition.RobMorris 21:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunrobertsmith78 (talk • contribs)

Reply - Thank you Robert for joining the discussion. So far the consensus seems to be to "userfy" the article (though that can still change). If userfied, the article will no longer appear among the regular Wikipedia articles, but it will instead be a subpage of your own user page. That way we satisfy the guidelines for film articles but you can continue to work on it in your own space, and add details and even collaborate with other editors to improve it if you ask for help. If production goes well and the movie becomes notable enough to meet our criteria, then it can be moved back into regular article space for the public to view. I do wish you, Shaun, and everyone else involved the best of luck as you create this movie. -- Atama頭 23:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dat kid from cleveland (Mixtape)[edit]

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

DELETE. Completely NN mixtape. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 21:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. There is no source which indicates that this mixtape is notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 22:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable mixtape and an unofficial mixtape. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Back in May 2009 a previous article about this mixtape, with the correct capitalization in the title, was redirected to Kid Cudi for lack of content and notability. See here. Be suspicious when you see an article title with poor capitalization. A redirect could probably be the solution here too, but WP:SALT might be worth consideration.--DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mixtapes are not noteable per WP:NALBUMS and this isn't even an official mixtape. Red Flag on the Right Side 19:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Halsey[edit]

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

Asserts notability as director of multiple videos. However, no non-trivial sources seem to exist; only listings on Gnews were trivial or related to other people with the name. Simply directing multiple videos doesn't cut it, because notability isn't inherited. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only Ghits I can find are either trivial or consisting of user generated content. Also agree with nom that having directed several music videos does not equal notability.RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Google Books and Google News archives do turn up a few mentions of Sherman Halsey but probably not enough to justify an article, despite his relatively long and reasonably significant career as a music producer/manager. It is surprising to discover, however, that there's no Wikipedia article about Sherman's father, Jim Halsey, who has had a long career as one of the most powerful figures in country music. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No evidence that its notability will last. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Albuquerque, New Mexico office shooting[edit]

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

A news item which violates the WP:NOT#NEWS policy. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 20:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Article is clearly written as a news item, and likely wouldn't pass WP:EVENT. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 21:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I deProdded it because there has been ongoing news coverage about the incident and its sequelae. WP:NOT#NEWS does not apply to incidents with continuing effects and sources. Bearian (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really a notable event, just news. —fetch ·comms 20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously as the creator. I believe this nomination verges on disruptive behavior; the article is a stub that could use some work on. Admin who decides on this, please disregard the two votes above mine which are simple votes without argument. How can the violent shooting of persons not be notable? This article was attempted to be speedied already, take a look at some opinions there of experienced editors who were against. Workplace violence is a growing concern in the US, and is definitely notable; that makes it a part of something larger, not ONEEVENT. This article passes WP:GNG. There are a gazillion sources. We have in practice been keeping these types of articles, I believe this one is an ok addition to the project.WildHorsesPulled (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are a growing concern but every murder or shooting doesn't need an article. If you believe this article can be saved, try and save it. Another recent shooting, Hartford Distributors shooting, is notable enough to have an article not only because of how deadly it was but because it has become a racial issue. --NortyNort (Holla) 09:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Insignificant news-of-the-day. An encyclopedia is the sum of all knowledge, yes, but that does not mean every scrip and scribble that enters into the 24/7 news cycle. People need to learn how to separate the wheat from the chaff here, to tell what has lasting significance or importance from what bubbles to the top for a few days and then sinks into obscurity. Tarc (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOM but maybe merge into List of workplace killings by number of victims if the shooter was in fact disgruntled.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - though I hate to say it, it seems fairly 'run-of-the-mill', with little to make it clear why this shooting is particularly significant. Possibly deserves mention on the list linked above, but not its own article. Robofish (talk) 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate for a while, or possibly userfy if that's preferred. NOTNEWS is a serious issue at present, but that could easily change at any time. Since we don't know if it will gain continued coverage, we should keep it somewhere other than mainspace. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't keep articles around in userspace on the off-chance that they may someday become notable. Just delete it, and someone can request udeletion down the road if need be. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used to think that too... until this. This topic has a far better chance of becoming notable than that one does (i.e. it's still getting some coverage), so userfication would probably be fair assuming somebody wants it. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CovertAction Quarterly[edit]

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

In the two and a half years since the previous AFD, none of the proponents for keeping who cited that there were reliable sources establishing notability have come forward to add them. Doing brief searches myself, I'm in the similar boat as the previous nominator, I just can't find any. Q ^{T C} 20:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This might be a good starting place. Gamaliel (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added references to books anthologizing CAQ articles and to one Project Censored award (I believe there were several other such awards). JamesMLane t c 23:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm curious as to how searching for references would not find them... Notability is clear and well established by publications of the period it was most popular during... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has been expanded and sourced. Notability established. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kourosh Zolani[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

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

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

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

After an extensive search for reliable sources, I found none. The awards and recognitions could not be verified and do not strike me as notable anyway (see the article before I got my paws on it. I can find no coverage in Google News of this person, just this press release. The albums haven't charted, etc. No notability, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree. I don't think that the article is significant enough to be included in Wikipedia. Furthermore, it has no third party references, just a link to the persons own biography. On further inspection, I also noticed that the paragraph user Thomasshane had inserted into this revision of the article, is a copy from this website - one of the two first party references. Even subsequent edits to the article made by this user were almost identical to the information on this website. Furthermore, as user Drmies has said, it seems that Google brings up few, if any, hits about this person. In conclusion, I support the deletion of this article. I do hope not to upset user Thomasshane, as his edits do seem to have been made in good faith (although they may be considered as advertising, especially since they were copied from a first party website), but the article just isn't significant enough.Beeshoney (talk) 20:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC) One more thing. The only image used in this article that was added on the 6th of August, is going to be deleted on the 13th of August because of insufficient copyright information. Beeshoney (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me clear some facts here. First of all, the image link provided by user Drmies in the find sources box is a filtered link. This is what you get when search “Kourosh Zolani” in google image. I am not saying that he did it intentionally to misinterpret the information but the question remains why the image link suggested by this user is a filtered link. Secondly, in revision (20:09, 10 August 2010) user Drmies after reverting my edit to the article, commented there and I quote “he was a finalist, not a winner in 2003 …”. The article has never indicated that Kourosh Zolani was the winner in 2003 USA songwriting competition. Indeed the article had mentioned HE WAS THE FINALIST there. Also, he wrote “competition seems non-notable as well. However, the songwriting competition is the world's leading international songwriting event according to the organization’s website. Again, I am not saying that he did it intentionally but the question remains why misinformation is provided here. In another example, user Drmies has questioned even the reliability of some of the sources that have had long history and reputation in USA. In this version he deleted the artist’s award as the best solo instrumental album in JPF competition in 2004. Later on the discussion he commented: “that is not a reliable source, and if it were, it's minor.” Please note that, JPF is the largest independent music award in the world. For those, who said they did “extensive search” and found nothing, I have a question: how do you search? Do you intentionally filter the search to find nothing? Thomasshane (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Dear Drmies and Beeshoney My friend Thomas brought this discussion to my attention. We are a group of Iranian-American graduate students who are trying to introduce notable artists and scientists from our community in Wikipedia to increase peace and understanding among our cultures. I am really sorry that our attempts causes problem for Kourosh Zolani's page. I understand my friends made some mistakes editing his page but we did not intend to cause any harm. Kourosh Zolani is a respected well-known artist in our community. He is an independent artist and his music is not commercialized but it is well received by local radios and TVs. I heard his interviews on KPFK Global Village show and recently with the Jon Lewis show. Kourosh has done a lot of work to reach where he is now and I strongly believe he deserves to be presented in wikipedia. If I may, I would like to invite you to just watch his new music video on youtube [3] and get a sense of who he is. Our group policy is to select artists who at least have google hits higher than 30,000 in google search engine to introduce them on wikipedia. If you search "Kourosh Zolani" in google, he has above 70,000 hits. Please give us a chance to correct what we did wrong. I will work on his page personally and make sure to include reliable sources. I sincerely apologize for all the trouble we caused. In conclusion, I strongly suggest to keep this article. Thank you, Sozlati (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. The number of Google hits is not relevant. What matters is reliable sources. Find those and this discussion can be closed very quickly. This isn't about doing anything wrong and there is no need to apologize. BTW, "Drmies" gets almost 5,300 hits in Google--I got some more work to do. :) Drmies (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the number of the hits in google is not relevant, why did you bring it up at the first place? I am referring to the note above: "Furthermore, as user Drmies has said, it seems that Google brings up few, if any, hits about this person." I really try to stay positive and assume that you have good intentions but I started to feel that you are taking this matter personally and misrepresenting the information that is available in the Internet. I expected more from the senior editors of WP. Sozlati (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Delete~~. With all due respect, WP is not a webhost to promote local community members. The artists that you hope to include, may be notable on a community or local level, but may be fall short of the required criteria to establish notability here. WP relies on secondary and third party sources to establish notability. The only sources that I find to support inclusion are those found on the subject's Internet website, which are not considered reliable. If additional sources can be found to support notability, I would opt to keep the article. Until then, I recommend deletion. Cindamuse (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In my opinion, this article now appropriately indicates notability, supported by reliable sources. Cindamuse (talk) 06:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Under Ignore All Rules. Decently done bio, no harm in keeping, info lost in deleting. Carrite (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The harm lies in its non-compliance with WP:BLP. The article does not have a single reliable source. In the end, the only source that can verify the claims in the article is the subject's website. Ignoring that makes a mockery of the project. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are saying the article does not have a single reliable source which is not true. Please read the note below by Thomasshane. He provided the link to a reliable source before your new post. Here is the link again to one of Kourosh Zolani's awards [4]. His name is mentioned in the 7th category from the bottom of the list. Sozlati (talk) 05:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Read WP:RS: that is not a reliable source, and if it were, it's minor. Drmies (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I made some bad edits on Kourosh Zolani's page which I apologized before and I do so again. However, I do not understand why you should question the integrity and nobility of the artist and his recognitions. I found this third party link to the one of Kourosh Zolani's awards. His name is mentioned in the 7th category from the bottom of the list. Here is the link to the organization's website [5]. This award was mentioned in his page before it was removed: Best Solo Instrumental Album of the Year – Peaceful Planet, (selected among 10,000 CDs spanning 85 countries), Just Plain Folks International Contest, 2004. I vote to keep this article. It has the capacity to become an informative page on the WP. Thomasshane (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Please do not remove deletion sorting notices. cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the author should provide reliable sources independent from artist, verify if 2 albums are released via a well known records company with wiki page. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 08:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hello again. When I said: "as user Drmies has said, it seems that Google brings up few, if any, hits about this person", I mean third party and reliable references. This link you've mentioned does not support any of the information you want to insert into the article. Most of the information you want to insert into the article (as I mentioned above) is a copy from the persons own biography. If you are part Iranian, have you perhaps thought about creating the article on the Iranian Wikipedia? There's a whole list of different language Wikipedia's here. Once again, please do not be offended about this, but the person certainly doesn't seem to be notable enough to be included on the English Wikipedia. I still support the deletion of this article. Beeshoney (talk) 10:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hello again. The link that I mentioned does support one of the Kourosh Zolani’s awards and it is from the award organization’s website not his website. Thomas provided this link to establish that Kourosh Zolani's awards are authentic because Drmies put the page for “deletion discussion” when ThomasShane was working on the awards section (please review the page history). Thomasshane stopped working on the biography, when he learned that he was not doing good edits. The biography was the same as it is now and he was not trying to change that anymore. He was working on the award section when the page went up for the discussion. As I mentioned before our purpose is to introduce notable Iranian-American artists and scientists in English WP because English is one of the most spoken/known languages in the world. Our hope is to communicate and educate people that beyond fear and uncurtaining that exist in the realm of politics, when it comes to the people, we are very much the same, accomplished artists, scientists, teachers….
It seems to me that this discussion is turning to a cultural differences debate. Who is a notable artist? We consider an artist notable judging by his work not by trivia. If an artist is not a mega artist and has not been featured all over the tabloid, then he is not good enough to be presented on WP? Kourosh Zolani is a well-respected composer and inventor. He has given a new life to an ancient instrument from 699BCE and modified it to a completely new modern instrument. I still highly recommend keeping this article; it adds more to the body of knowledge stored in WP. Sozlati (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. What establishes notability for our purposes is Wikipedia:Notability, specifically Wikipedia:Notability (music). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read this (Biographies of Living Persons), this (Notability), this (Verifiability) and this (No original research). Please be assured that there is no "cultural differences debate" going on here. However, I would like to bring up your statement: We consider an artist notable judging by his work not by trivia." I am specifically pointing to the We bit. Whether the article conforms to the Wikipedia guidelines I have just mention will determine if it stays, not what you think. Also, I quote this sentence from the No Original Research guideline: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." I will not be commenting again in this discussion if it involves me repeating what I have just said. Beeshoney (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for directing me to these sources in WP. I read them all and I tried to edit the article based on their instructions. I added several reliable sources to Kourosh Zolani article. Three of the publications are in Farsi. Since Kourosh Zolani has modified an ancient Iranian instrument, it should understandably be approved by Iranian scholars. These sources are acceptable according to the WP guidelines on Verifiability: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. Also, the references that I added are third party reliable publications, so the article is not an original research. Plus, as instructed in biographies of living people, I removed all the links or references to the artists’ website in the article. I only mentioned the artist’s official website under the external links. In addition, according to the WP Notability guidelines for musicians, a musician should at least meet one of the criteria listed on the WP article to be considered notable.

Here are some of the criteria chosen from WP notability list that Kourosh Zolani meets:

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Please see the reference section on Kourosh Zolani page which provides such sources.

2. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Kourosh Zolani has been credited in several sources for modifying the Santour, an ancient instrument, and performing the new chromatic instrument in the complex orchestrations for the first time in the history of this instrument. Also, his work has been acknowledged by independent organizations such as California Traditional Music Society and Los Angeles County Arts Commission. (Please see Kourosh Zolani article, references and external links)

3. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. As mentioned in the article and supported by the references, Kourosh Zolani is a pioneer in performing and composing with chromatic santour.

4. Has won or placed in a major music competition. One of Kourosh’s albums was awarded the Best Solo Instrumental Album of the Year in the Just Plain Folks International Contest in 2004. This award according to the organization’s website is the world’s largest independent music awards.

5. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Kourosh’ work has been broadcasted on many radio programs, and just recently (July 16, 2010 at 1:00pm PDT) he was featured on the Jon Lewis Show on 6PR 882 radio station, an Australian radio with worldwide broadcast through the Internet. Link to the interview.

Considering the above note, I would like to invite you to vote to keep this article. According to WP determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity. Kourosh Zolani is an accomplished artist who deserves to be presented on WP. Thank you, Sozlati (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. While the process of discussing Articles for Deletion (AfD) often looks like a democratic vote, this is not in fact true. This discussion presents an opportunity to recommend action according to established policy. There could hypothetically be seven keeps and one delete. If the policy cited recommends to delete, the closer will follow that recommendation. Wikipedia is not concerned with "need" or whether or not a subject "deserves" to be included in the encyclopedia. Opinions have no bearing here. What matters is notability that is verified through reliable secondary and third-party sources, properly cited. In order to verify the Farsi sources provided, we need to have a translation. Can you provide this? According to policy, the translation can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. Inviting others to vote a particular way won't really help within this recommendation process. That said, I would like to be able to verify the content within the article as sourced through the Farsi references. If this information can be provided, I may be more inclined to recommend that this article be kept.
The article as it currently stands needs work in order to bring it into conformance with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. In order to assist you as you move forward with editing future articles, I would like to suggest a review of WP:FOOTNOTES, WP:MOS, WP:BIO, and WP:BLP. Compliance with the policies presented in these areas will help you to possibly avoid future deletion discussions. It may also help you to review the article on how to discuss an AfD. There are a few more days for others to weigh in with their recommendations on this particular article. Either way, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you decide to stick around and add more to the encyclopedia in the future. In the meantime, I hope my ideas help somewhat. Cindamuse (talk) 07:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The articles in Farsi are long and it takes time to translate. However, if necessary I can scan them and include the pdf files to the footnote while we translate them. Thank you for pointing me the footnote, I will read the section and follow the instructions. There are only three Farsi references, other references in this article are verifiable and reliable sources in English.
Also, thank you for welcoming me to WP, I am a new editor and started this project with good intention but sadly I do not feel welcome here. Over, the last few days, I followed all the rules and instructions in WP that I found myself or someone suggested me here in the discussion and the day after, new accusations about the integrity of our references or the notability of the artist emerge on the discussion. It seems to me this article is being treated with oversensitivity. I looked at so many articles in WP to learn from them and I found many articles about artists that have not provided half of the references that there is in this article and there are many links to their personal blog, websites, etc. Sozlati (talk) 16:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just read the article and it's history and took a look on it's reference. also I did a quick search on internet myself. I think Kourosh Zolani's work is very notable and so important in music science. The composition of an ancient instrument from East with a complete set of modern instrument from West is a notable brilliant work. This is not a temporary notability. His work verified on The one of most official newspaper in Iran ,Irannewspaper which is issued by the government.(The link connect you to an article on this newspaper regarding to reference no 2) In addition, the last article has a strong structure and supported by very good and reliable references. It seems there is no more excuse to remove this article. So I strongly support to keep this article. thank you.mamali (talk) 06:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)— Mrjalali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blatant IP vote-stacking collapsed

keep I vote to keep this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.38.47.68 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 95.38.47.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I vote to keep this page. There is no reason to delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.172.73 (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 94.182.172.73 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I vote to keep this page …. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.39.188.78 (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 78.39.188.78 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I vote to keep this page, I now proclaim my readiness to support Koorosh Zolani, Please keep this page and don't damage your admired reputation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.127.5.201 (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 79.127.5.201 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I vote to keep this page …. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.219.143.34 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 217.219.143.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
keep I vote to keep this page …. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.182.50.169 (talk) 09:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — 94.182.50.169 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Please be aware that ALL of the above IP addresses voting to keep the article have made no edits to Wikipedia except to this page. (I am starting to get a bit suspicious about this - Thomasshane has gone surprisingly quiet) Also, user "Mrjalali" has only made edits to the article being discussed for deletion, and also to Memoirs of Sangesar, which simply redirects to the article being discussed for deletion. I think that this article should also be deleted, as it has no in-line references. (I am probably going to put it up for speedy deletion as it is a bio) Just to some up, nearly ALL of the people voting to keep the article on this discussion page have made few other edits to Wikipedia. Beeshoney (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe we agreed that this discussion is about the article and not the editors. As I mentioned before (my note on 21:25, 10 August 2010) we are a group of Iranian-American graduate students who started this project to introduce Iranian-American scholars to English speaking people hoping to enhance peace and understanding among our cultures. And yes, we are new editors. We said that ourselves several times, there is no need to mention it at the end of every comment. Every senior editor has been a new editor one day. I followed suggestions on the discussion along with WP guideline and edited Kourosh Zolani article over last few days. The article in current format meets the criteria WP criteria of notability for music (please see my comment on 02:03, 13 August 2010). Please evaluate the current article on its own, not based on the editors’ experience or its editing history. I think the comment “I am starting to get a bit suspicious about this - Thomasshane has gone surprisingly quiet” is not constructive. Thomas apologized several times for his bad edits. In our team, we decided that only one person contribute to the edits and discussion about this article to avoid distraction from the main topic. Why is that suspicious! I have been respectful to all people who made comments in this discussion and thanked them for their advice. It is not right that you write about us like we are bunch of suspicious people with suspicious intentions. By the way, I don’t know where these IP supporters came from. We did not invite anyone to weigh in or to vote for the article and as you see this move does not even help us.Sozlati (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. All IP votes should be excluded from this AFD, its clear there is some form of rule breaking going on either its one person posting many times or this is being advertised somewhere. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is exactly what I've been thinking.Beeshoney (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You are right it has been advertised but by Wikipedia itself. User cab put this deletion under Iran-related and Musician-related deletion discussions. What do you expect, you call a musician who people like unauthentic and they react. Please do not make fool of yourselves. Think about a comment before posting it. Here is what user cab posted:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. cab (call) 00:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomasshane (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've just tagged three IPs as {{spa}}s. Everyone is allowed to comment here: IP editors may offer sound arguments for keeping or deleting the page. The IPs I tagged, however, appeared to regard this as a vote: that is quite mistaken. The decision to keep or delete the page will be taken based on the quality of arguments, not the number of "votes". Indeed, this is explicitly not a vote. TFOWR 10:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - This would be harder for me to decide if it wasnt for all the cheating going on above. Sadly wikipedia depends on reliable sources to judge notability and at present they are clearly lacking. It is not very nice and i can see why it doesnt seem fair, but other actors, bands and musicians get their articles deleted or do not even get one at all. If some more 3rd party reliable sources are found ill change to keep. But the google search i did only came across the newswire press release mentioned by Drmies above about an agreement with "eileen koch" which does not have an article either. The fact this guy is in America and there is no reliable news sources to back up notability is very problematic, i could understand if this was someone in Iran, it would be harder for us to find western sources to judge notability and so there would be more justification for keeping without such sources but to be without coverage in western press about someone in the USA is a problem, there should atleast be some newspaper articles about the guy. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep - I am changing to keep, whilst the article needs more reliable sources still other editors appear to be willing to put some work into the article and some other sources have been found. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You called some of the above activities cheating. What do you call filtering the image search on Google provided by user Drmies in the find sources box on the top of this page? Here is the actual link. Here is the filtered link. Thomasshane (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would like to invite you to review the discussion board and the edit history of the last few days. I do not understand what you are referring to as “all the cheating going on above”. I followed the WP guidelines and appreciated every single advice and applied it to the article where applicable. The article is in a better shape now and there are also third party resources in English. If you are referring to the IP supporters as cheating believe it or not this is an uncalled support. I don’t know how that started and it is even undermining my work of the last few days. Plus, this does not change the fact that the article must stand by itself and any support in discussion without sound reasoning will not help. Kourosh Zolani has been in the US for just a few years. He has worked with well-known musicians in the US, his work has been featured on different radio programs and he has won local and international awards. He is not a pop artist; he is an independent musician who is well-known among people who appreciate different types of music and has received one of the largest independent music awards in the world (please see the article and my note on 02:03, 13 August 2010). According to WP notability guidelines “determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity”. Not being featured by Western press doesn’t question the notability based on WP notability guidelines for musicians. Sozlati (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Administrator note I've put the obvious vote-stacking by similar IP addresses above in a collapse box, and semi-protected the debate to prevent a recurrence of the same. ~ mazca ^talk 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am suspicious about Thomasshane going quiet as it could suggest that one person is using multiple accounts (which is forbidden under most circumstances in Wikipedia - see sock puppetry). Also, I do not believe your comment "I don’t know where these IP supporters came from". It would be very unusual to get so many KEEP votes from IP addresses which are unrelated. The final decision about whether the article should be deleted will be made by an administrator in a few days. Beeshoney (talk) 18:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think some misinterpretations and miscommunications are going on here. With the new comment made by user Beeshoney, if I only had the feeling that it was getting more personal than fact checking, now I am confident that this is a personal attack. If making accusation is that easy, then I can make the argument that Beeshoney and Drmies are the same person with different accounts which is forbidden in Wikipedia. Drmies has been quiet as much as I have been for the last couple days. Thomasshane (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am glad that a WP administrator is making a decision and not someone who obviously has bias and personal preferences in this issue. If I wanted to bring in these IP supporters, I would not spend three days working on the article based on WP guidelines. It is not even reasonable, when the decision for keeping the article is not based on the number of votes. By the way, I will not discuss your cheap shot about sock puppetry. If WP administrators would ask, we can easily prove our identities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sozlati (talk • contribs) 19:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC) (sorry, I forgot to sign)Sozlati (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as Its unclear if the albums are released through a knwon label, Iran newspaper cant pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please check other references in the article too. Iran newspaper is one reference; there are more references in Kourosh Zolani article now. However, this reference is verifiable too. Please see the WP variability article: Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. Plus based on WP guidelines for establishing a musician notability, many different criteria can be considered. Only one of them is releasing albums through a known label. Kourosh Zolani meets several of those criteria. Please see my note on 02:03, 13 August 2010. Thank you. Sozlati (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. For your information Thomasshane, Drmies has not been quiet as you can see from the users contribution log here, whereas your contribution log made no edits from the 10th of August until now. And yes, an impartial Administrator who has not been involved in this discussion will make the final decision about whether to delete the article or not. However, I am not biased, as my reasons for the deletion of this article are clearly stated above and are within Wikipedia guidelines. Beeshoney (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes of course you are biased. Go through your comments in this discussion board. I am a new user, so what? The artist is not notable because you don't like me? Thomasshane (talk) 21:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I thought this page is just for discussing about the weaknesses and strengths of the AfD. I am really sorry to see Beeshoney,as an editor of WP, has forgotten commenting about new edited article and guiding and helping new editors to improve their article. Instead, s/he’s gone to personal attacks and judging people and accusing them to be beginner and advertising without any evidence (look at his above comments). First, I didn’t want to write about personalizing a discussion by a WP editor here, but, to keep it in the history of the discussion:

1- Based on the WP’s rules and regulations, all people have the right to announce their ideas about an article or a subject and the number of their previous comments doesn’t have any effect on their comments’ quality. But Beeshoney insists that people with higher number of comments have priority on others. It seems that s/he is responsible to counting the number of each person’s comments! just take a look at her/his comment in edit history of this page and this help annoncment at end of page

2- I’m sure that the administrator can easily see the date of my user ID initiation which is January 17th, 2006. Why should Thomasshane need to create several user names in WP to edit Kourosh Zolani’s page as Beeshoney said “it could suggest that one person is using multiple accounts”?! These users are not for same person and have not been created for short-term purposes. they are just new editors and this is the first experience of editing something on WP. Do you have any problem with this?

3- Kourosh Zolani is a known musician in his field. He has many fans all around the world who visit his fan page and website every day. As his WP article’s link exists on his fan pages, it seems completely normal that some visitors come to the WP page to get more information about him and his works. Normally, when fans realize that his WP page is nominated for deletion they react to support him by voting to keep the page. Just a glance on the IPs shows that all these fans are not from a specific place and are scattered on different places around the world. Does Beeshoney bilieve the only people who visit WP are her/him and her/his friends??

4- Some keep voters were judged to be the same person as Thomasshane, him being absent for a while, by Beeshoney. While I prefer not to judge Drmies and Beeshoney as the same person. Instead I conclude that Drmies has done his professional editorial duties, has gotten the necessary guidelines, and after positive changes on the article has been waiting for the other editors’ ideas and the final decision. But Beeshoney, as him/herself mention here, it is her/his first time to involve in a AfD project and s/he think s/he have to win this case!

Finally,I thank all professional editors to help us to make a strong article about Kourosh Zolani and I hope other editors come and give us useful comments to improve this article to keep it here. mamali (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)— Mrjalali (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. This is not about anyone "winning a case". If a couple more reliable sources to back up clear notability are found im sure Beeshoney and others who voted delete (including me) will change their vote. But it comes down to the sources. There is only so much improvement to an article that can be made with limited sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable artist of highly unusual instrument who is credited on Grammy nominated artist's world music album [6]. All the crap athletes and other rubbish and we can't make room for this distinguished musician? Sure he's in the early stages of masterful self-promotion, but he's got talent and including him improves the encyclopedia. Santur now santour forever!!! Freakshownerd (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will change my mind if the article is significantly improved. However, the subject of the article must be notable, which, compared to most other Wikipedia articles, is not. There is no "case to be won" here. Just so you know I am keeping an eye on the article to see if it is being improved. Beeshoney (talk) 10:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've gone through and made inline notations within the article. These are the items and issues that need to be cleared up regarding the notability of this article. At this point, the article fails notability, because the claims made in the article cannot be verified. While it is true that foreign sources may be used, WP:NONENG states that translations must be available on request in order to verify dubious information presented in the article. These translations may be placed as footnotes in the article or added to the talk page if the translation is very long. Either way, without these translations, this article fails notability and verifiability. There are a few days left to bring this article into compliance with WP policy that would support inclusion. Anybody can claim notability all they want in this discussion. However, if the claims are not backed up by secondary and third-party sources, the claims mean nothing. Good luck. Cindamuse (talk) 13:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is clear, as user Cindamuse has shown, that the article is still not good enough. I still propose that the article is deleted, unless there are some very significant changes. I find it hard to believe that the article can be improved considering how scarce third party references are in English. Beeshoney (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Beeshoney, what is wrong with you? You ruined an article in a good shape for your own agenda? Do you even follow WP guidelines? Here is link to the article when I left it yesterday before, you made your edits. WP is based on common decency. You wrote “No reference saying he went to the University of Art in Tehran. No reference saying he studied classical composition. No reference saying he trained with Faramarz Payvar.)" What do you mean; you expect to see the artist college transcript? What is your agenda? This is way beyond constructive editing. Are you behaving like this because he is originally from Iran? Sozlati (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I quoted several times from WP that it is all right to use non-English source in some circumstances: "English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material.” Why did you remove reliable sources in Farsi against WP rules? Unfortunately, I see a trend of anti-Iran activity in your edits. Sozlati (talk) 16:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Your edits have been reverted - Do not vandalise the article by re-inserting un-sourced information that has already been deleted for good reason. Your account may be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you continue to do so. Please improve the article in it's current form, by adding references where the following phrases currently are: "says who?", "verification needed", "according to whom?", "citation needed", etc. It is not me who added the phrases, but rather, this user, as you can see from the article's history. The way you are behaving at the moment will not improve your chances of the article being kept. Beeshoney (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Your act of reverting all the edits at once is Vandalism; not my attempts trying to add new references one by one in response to the comments (see the page history). Did you even care to look at the new references to the radio interview and online radio stations before threatening to block my user account for “re-inserting un-sourced information”? Sozlati (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. It is not right to change someone's comment in AFD. I changed my comment to what is was, before user Beeshoney added something in the middle of it! Sozlati (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Referring to your previous comment, Wikipedia's Verifiability guideline goes on to say: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote". If you care to look at edit summaries the articles' history, some references were deleted because a translation was not provided, even after being given a second opportunity. You have once again (now a third time) re-inserted edits without a translation. Beeshoney (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As I've said in edit summaries, I would be very surprised if you could find valid references for this article, due to the scarcity of third party sources on search engines. Beeshoney (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please open your mind; put away your distrust. I appreciate those who suggested keeping this article. However, in this discussion we have been mostly accused of being suspicious, cheaters, doing sock puppetry and so on. Do we get treated like this because we are originally from Iran?Sozlati (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your ethnicity has nothing to do with this discussion, and doesn't alter my opinion of the article in any way. Please follow my suggestion above of adding references to the article in its current form, which may change my mind about whether to keep the article or not. Beeshoney (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My act of reverting all of your edits using my Rollback rights does not constitute vandalism. Furthermore, you did not add any new references except links to the radio stations, but because of other sentences being deleted this is no longer relevant. Once again, please continue to improve the article in its current form, and once that has been completed (which I doubt because of a lack of third party references), you may add new sourced information to the article. Thank you. Beeshoney (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

there are numerous comments here about editing the article. They belong on the article's talkpage, not here.
there are several examples of less than civil comments, and a few examples of personal attacks.
there are far too many comments that do nothing to address arguments for or against deletion.

Stop it. All of you. Go to the article's talk page and discuss ways to improve the article. If the personal attacks continue I'll start blocking editors responsible. TFOWR 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OK, that's fine. I'll start putting these comments on the articles talk page. Beeshoney (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I am not "attacking" any editors, nor do I wish to do so. Beeshoney (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is the translation of the article in Iran Newspaper that we found in our archive: "A conversation with Kourosh Zolani about chromatic Santour".Sozlati (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I went through the new revision of the article. Some of the editors’ questions and comments on the body of the article are not even relevant to the topic. For example, asking why MUSIC was considered TABOO in Iran!! Are you aware of the current situation in Iran? Making this kind of arguments is like someone questions all the historical facts. It is like questioning the history of slavery, questioning World War I and II, questioning whether many protester in Iran were killed last year after the June 12th election and whether Neda the young Iranian girl was killed by the government gunmen. I think you don’t need to be from a certain country to know about some of their historical events, which the world was influenced by. Asking these types of information to be included in the article is a mind game to cause the deletion of the article. I still recommend to Keep the article. Thomasshane (talk) 21:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be a decent amount of sources available. Unfortunately these don't appear to be in English, but per WP:NONENG that should be acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You are mistaken. Those espousing this view are taking the policy out of content. Foreign sources may be used. However, translations must be required. Here is the WP:NONENG policy in whole:
Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material. When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text or in a footnote. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians. When citing a source in a different language, without quotations, the original and its translation should be provided if requested by other editors: this can be added to a footnote, or to the talk page if too long for a footnote. If posting original source material, editors should be careful not to violate copyright; see the fair-use guideline.
Many statements have been in and about this subject of this article that cannot be verified. Accordingly, before the notability can be established, translation must be provided. Policy clearly states that if requested by other editors, the original content AND the translation must be provided. Short of that, this article fails notability and verifiability. No reliable sources are available to support inclusion. Cindamuse (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is the link to the translation of the article in Iran Newspaper. Also, here is the link to the article in Farsi.Sozlati (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Looks like we're getting somewhere. ;) Add this information to the footnotes, using appropriately placed inline citations within the article, or copy the translation to the talk page. Do not simply provide a link to the online translation, because oftentimes these links are removed or experience a location change. This would invalidate the source. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 00:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is a pdf file. I could not find how to upload a pdf file to an article. Thanks Sozlati (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. The article content needs to be transposed rather than uploaded. You could either use a .pdf → .doc utility or simply transpose the referenced section (in context) to support the claim in the article. Cindamuse (talk) 01:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the risk of being redundant, can I just point out that none of the sources in English about our subject count even remotely as reliable sources? The most reliable of 'em all is that link for the Grammy, but participating on one album, even if it wins a Grammy, does not make for automatic notability. If this is the only relevant thing that we can verify, then the subject deserves a redirect to that album, no more. Drmies (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I apologize for having to repost part of my note from 02:03, 13 August 2010. According to the WP Notability guidelines for musicians, a musician should at least meet one of the criteria listed on the WP article to be considered notable. The language of the reliable sources is not metnioned as a concern in WP Notability article.

Here are some of the criteria chosen from WP notability list that Kourosh Zolani meets:

1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Please see the reference section on Kourosh Zolani page which provides such sources.

2. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. Kourosh Zolani has been credited in several sources for modifying the Santour, an ancient instrument, and performing the new chromatic instrument in the different orchestrations for the first time in the history of this instrument.

3. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre. As mentioned above, Kourosh Zolani is a pioneer in performing and composing with chromatic santour.

4. Has won or placed in a major music competition. One of Kourosh’s albums was awarded the Best Solo Instrumental Album of the Year in the Just Plain Folks International Contest in 2004. According to the organization’s website, this award is the world’s largest independent music awards.

5. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. Kourosh’s work was recently (July 16, 2010 at 1:00pm PDT) featured on the Jon Lewis Show on 6PR 882 radio station, an Australian radio with worldwide broadcast through the Internet. Here is the link to the interview..

There is enough support to keep this article. Sozlati (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Like myself, you sound like a broken record. We will never get anywhere until you figure out what our guidelines are for reliable sources. Please stop repeating yourself, cluttering up this AfD (which is already ridiculously long and filled with sock puppets and hollow verbosity), until you know what a reliable source is (I mean, really--that jpfolks website?). Drmies (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is the link to an independent source about JPF awards written by Casy Rae-Hunter, communication director in Future of Music Coalition, a non-profit organization that works to support artists from diverse musical culture.

Comment. Please read Civility article which is part of WP code of conduct. Sozlati (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Has this source been used at all [7] Its a press release so hardly neutral, but the fact it is on "Singapore's Finance Yahoo" site suggests a bit of notability and would seem a more reliable source than some of the others presently in the article. I must admit because of their dedication in keeping this page, i am considering atleast changing my support for delete to a relist, to give them longer to improve the article more and try and find some more sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you BritishWatcher for being fair. No, this source has not been used yet. Thomasshane (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Please continue the discussion above, and further discussions to do with improving the article, here. Also, just so you know, Sozlati, just because an article is notable does not mean it will be kept on Wikipedia if it doesn't have enough reliable sources. This is especially so when dealing with Biographies of Living Persons. Please familiarise yourself with this Wikipedia guideline, as you don't seem to have done so as of yet. Also, currently there is not enough support to keep the article. Remember that the outcome of this AfD is based not on the amount of votes, but on the value of the being arguments presented. Beeshoney (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I now support the deletion of this article even more than I did previously. The article now says that "He is known for designing and playing a playable chromatic santur." In what way is this notable? It used to say that "He is known for designing and playing the world's only playable chromatic santur.", but no references could be found to back this up. The fact that no references could be found shows just how un-notable this person is. Beeshoney (talk) 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I strongly support to keep the article because it is fully backed up with the sources now. Let’s not let our personal interest, opinion or judgment intervene in editing and improving this article. Thomasshane (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. that the instrument is unique is now sourced and there is an English translation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to WP neutral point of view (NPOV), "all Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias…". With the help of several editors, the article was fairly presented Kourosh Zolani. However, an editor changed the content to poorly present the artist and undermine his work. The administrators who decide to keep or delete the article, please compare these two versions. I strongly supported to keep the article all along this discussion and tried hard to edit it base on WP guidelines. However, the article in this form harms the artist reputation and provides biased information to the WP readers. I don’t think it would have any value to keep it, if it represents ill information as it does in this form. Sozlati (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. The article is in its current form because you keep on inserting un-sourced information. As I have said many times, this is not allowed on Wikipedia. Also, if his instrument is unique, we need an online reference in English confirming this, not an Iranian Newspaper. If he really is that prominent, this shouldn't be difficult. At this current time, I still support deletion, as the article doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. In the past few days, very few new, third party sources that are in English have been added. Beeshoney (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion rationale. So, what do we have after all is said and done? Beyond all the comments, we have:

a lack of notability. WP:NRVE states that notability requires verifiable evidence. This article provides none.
a BLP that lacks reliable sources to indicate that the subject of the article is notable.
an article that claims that the subject is a composer, but provides no list or information to support or verify his work. The article provides no information on work that he has composed.
a musician that plays what he claims is a unique instrument. We have no idea what makes this instrument unique.
a statement from one of the original authors, in an attempt to provide clarification, stated that they were simply "trying to introduce notable artists and scientists from our community in Wikipedia to increase peace and understanding among our cultures." With all due respect, Wikipedia neither the U.N. nor the place to promote members of a community for whatever reason.
several editors who have offered assistance in good faith to provide direction to the original authors of this article. This assistance has been refused. I have added inline notations to indicate where attention is needed within the article. The notations were read, ignored, and deleted. After a week, this article continues to lack support of reliable sources. It appears that his most notable contribution is serving as a session player in an album that was nominated for a Grammy Award.

Therefore, I propose that this article be deleted according to the following criteria within the deletion policy:

A. Promotional/Advertising article without relevant content

B. The article cannot be attributed to reliable sources

C. Thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify article content has failed

D. Article fails to meet the relevant notability guidelines (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:COMPOSER and so forth). It is very telling that as a musician and composer, he fails every criteria within those categories that would or could possibly establish notability.

That all said, this article needs to be deleted. It's not a racial slur or slight as has been mentioned above. Honestly, it's not personal. It's just policy. Cindamuse (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It can easily be pretended that the sources are not reliable and Kourosh Zolani has not done anything notable. The traditional Santour is an ancient diatonic instrument. Kourosh Zolani has modified it to a chromatic instrument for the first time in the history of this instrument. His compositions are now streaming all over the Internet radios. Choosing not to acknowledge his invention or his compositions, does not change the fact what he has done. An impartial judge can easily see what is going on here by checking this discussion, the article talk page, and the fair version of the article before an editor changed everything to a poor version. Truth speaks for itself. I will not repeat what I wrote here before about non-English reliable sources or notability criteria. Sozlati (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. With all due respect, what has Zolani invented? And if he has composed several pieces, why is it that not one is listed in this article? There have been several assertions made about the subject of this article, but they are not supported by reliable sources. Articles on Wikipedia either stand or fall based on the use of reliable secondary and third-party sources. The lede needs to establish the notability of the subject. The article states that Zolani has composed several pieces, but that statement is not backed up with reliable sources. The lede states that Zolani's instrument is unique, but fails to provide sources or clarification as to exactly what this means. Why is it so difficult to provide this information?

You speak of "fair" versions and "poor" versions. The inline notations are appropriate markups to indicate where the article needs attention and assistance in order to satisfy criteria for notability and inclusion on Wikipedia. These were provided to assist the editors that are striving to ensure that this article is not deleted. However, rather than using the notations as guidelines to improve the article, the notations have been ignored and at times arbitrarily deleted. It would be to your benefit to address those notations rather than ignore them. I have never experienced so many people actually going above and beyond to help others ensure that an article is kept, only to have their advice be tossed aside and ignored. This is truly sad. Cindamuse (talk) 17:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This information was in the article but different pieces have been removed from this article over and over that it hardly makes any sense now. The traditional Iranian Santour is a diatonic instrument. Kourosh Zolani’s invention is creating a “chromatic Santour”, which is for the first time in the history of this ancient instrument. A diatonic instrument is like a piano without the black keys; the chromatic instrument is like having a piano with both black and white keys. Over the history of Persian Santour, many had tried to create a chromatic santour but it remained in experimental phases and never became functional. Some even believed that it is impossible to design a chromatic santour. That is why Zolani’s invention is notable. This is backed up by Farsi articles which translations are available on the talk page. I would like to invite you to watch this music video on YouTube. Here kourosh zolani performs one of his pieces, “Memoires of Sangesar”, with his chromatic santour. This piece is full of chromatic intervals and modulations which is impossible to play it with a traditional santour. Regarding his compositions, there was a list of his works at the very beginning version of this article which someone removed them and called it self-serving. Here is a link to the list of his songs on iTunes.

Look, over the last few days, we followed your suggestions, translated the articles, and provided more third party sources. I don’t even dare to edit the article anymore and check things with the senior editors first (see the history of the edits). Honestly, do you believe yourselves the way some editors treat us here is with good faith and helping intentions? Sozlati (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. Just an example to show that some editors are intentionally interfere with improving this article: an editor recently removed a citation to the piece in Mehr newsletter from the article, arguing the translation is not available. However, the translation of this article was provided the day before on the talk page. Sozlati (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. If a translation was available, it should have been in the article, NOT on the talk page. Beeshoney (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NONENG if the translations are too long they can be put on the talk page instead - which is why I stuck a long translation on the talk page and why the second one is there as well. If you want to put it in the article feel free to more it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why are you deleting the comments? Can a user really do that? You don’t even let the editors to contribute to the discussion. What kind of logic is that? If anyone dose not agree with you should be deleted? Here is the link to what the user did. Thomasshane (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'm just thankful that I'm not the admin who has to decide over his whole discussion. How long can an AfD get?! Beeshoney (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that you can't just delete any comment because you don't like it. Please do not do it again. Thomasshane (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC). (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I did not delete comments I do not like. I deleted comments that were to do with how to improve older revisions of an article, and are no longer relevant. I am not going to comment any further in this discussion until an administrator has made the decision, and I hope this article will be deleted. Beeshoney (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please make yourself familiar with discussion section in Guide to Deletion. This is a quote from the discussion guidelines: "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith."

Here is what you did which is against the Wikipedi’s discussion rules.

Why should you hope for an article to be deleted? The decision to keep an article should be based on Wikipedia’s rules not the personal desires. Thomasshane (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC) (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC) — Thomasshane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Admittedly a borderline case, but I just added this reference from Earth Times. The foreign language sources are easily translated and not a concern. J04n(talk page) 19:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Important Note. I would like to bring it to the administration’s attention that the user Beeshnoey has removed huge amount of our contributions to the discussion at different incidents over the last few days which was not previously noticed by other editors. Here are the incidents: on August 15, 2010 and August 16. The incident on August 16 was reverted but what was removed on August 15 is now missing from the discussion. Is this a good faith that a user has been trying to remove our comments from the discussion against WP rules before the administration makes final decision? Sozlati (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC) — Sozlati (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you desire to participate in the AfD to determine the closure of this article, the discussion must take place in this forum. Continue offering recommendations above this notice.

I have continued the conversation here. Please post all future messages to do with improving the article at this page.

Comment: I've just restored a whole swathe of deleted comments. I appreciate the editor(s) responsible did this in good faith, and have already agreed not to repeat this. I'll repeat it for the benefit of everyone: do not remove comments, !votes, whatever from this discussion. Yes, this AfD is a nightmare to read. No, that's not our problem. Some poor soul is going to have to wade through all this, and they have my deepest sympathies. But they're (presumably) experienced in wading through lengthy discussions - we shouldn't be second-guessing what they do and do not need to read. I'll note also that some of the comments removed were mine. I am officially outraged. TFOWR 22:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its also worth commenting that I presume that people claiming "no sources" have made some attempts to find sources in Farsi? It hardly seems fair otherwise to declare "no sources" for an Iranian whose native language doesn't even use the roman alphabet. Especially when he doesn't come from a country where English is widely spoken (such as India). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and recommendation World music does not sell like Britney, and only a relatively small number of people in the English-speaking world understand, for instance, the importance of musicians such as Dr. Nico or even Charlie Christian to the way the guitar is played today. Unless you have some slight clue about the world of Iranian classical music, you really ought not be commenting here since you're unlikely to be able to assess notability. When an artist elicits articles in English from Iran, Pakistan and Palestine as well as having his own page in the site of Britain's most significant music paper, the NME and winning awards in the USA, I have trouble seeing him, as he has been represented above, as merely a "local community celebrity", and some aspects, some criticisms here, give rise for concern that good will and the upholding of sound Wiki information on fringe subjects is being sacrificed and all sorts of specious attacks upon every aspect of the article are being mounted by editors who have not the slightest interest or knowledge in the field. I find this unacceptable editing. For example, the lede is not, as tagged, an unfair summary of the article, nor is poor writing a reason for deletion. When I find such loose assertions mixed with pic-deletion requests and incivilities, I start thinking it is time the deletion-seekers took a good look at their aims - and preferably explained to me one good reason not to KEEP this article. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW here is the NME link: http://www.nme.com/artists/kourosh-zolani. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I note that use Cindamuse specialises in articles for deletion, usually backing deletion, and here provides the only organised and civil rationale for deletion. However I must disagree in user's assertion that the subject's record releases and compositions cannot be verified. Further, I have no option but to understand user's failure to understand the significance of the development of a chromatic santoor as wholly rooted in a lack of knowledge of music theory that user has not taken steps to correct.

Given the above, as notability may be a subjective matter, I like to compare articles that a given user DOES clearly rate as notable. I note that Cindamuse's Wiki-editing began with Heather Veitch, a USA stripper who became a missionary - and continued with several other missionary-girls, formerly, assertedly, "high class" prostitutes (an interesting concept). Ms Veitch scores one third of the hits of Zolani on Google. The references that establish her notability are;

A Myspace page.
A spam link to Ms Veitch's video sale site
An Iafrica article entitled "Holy hottie delivers naked truth"

I'd like politely to suggest to said user that s/he review the integrity of her notability requirements, ensuring that a single standard be applied and that s/he seek a modicum of understanding of the subject being edited and the article's place therein, before continuing to recommend deletion of articles, as I believe this will benefit Wikipedia. Thx. Redheylin (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Redheylin, this is an AfD. It's purpose is to discuss policy-based reasons for keeping or deleting an article. It is not the place to discuss another editor's motives for !voting, or another editor's conduct elsewhere. Your comment above appears to have absolutely no bearing on this discussion, and I'd encourage you to remove it. TFOWR 13:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE: I understand the tenor of your comment yet, as I say, I am unhappy with standard of expertise and neutral application of policy in this field. The assertion of notability depends partly upon editor's subjective views and partly upon a degree of knowledge. I do not find myself in agreement with the standards and findings of notability asserted in the editor's resume above, and I wish to point out to the said user, who recommends many deletions, how easy it is to assume non-notability in a field in which one has no personal interest, as compared with the possibility of assuming notability in areas in which one has an interest. For example, I have an interest in world classical music, and this makes the article seem important to me. Therefore I am requesting the user to consider these things in the hope that the user will resubmit a more balanced resume of notability criteria in this case, which will presumably have some effect on the outcome of the present AfD. Thanks. Redheylin (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well let me put it like this: your comment above was not pertinent to this AfD. It was an attack on an individual editor. Pull a stunt like that again and I'll either remove your comment or punt the issue to WP:ANI. Is that clear? TFOWR 14:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an attack but an appeal or request. There is no incivility and no allegation of bad faith - quite the opposite. Your views and the way you express them are duly noted. However, if you take this or any matter to WP:ANI I suggest you ensure that your own comments are free from bullying language and unfounded allegations. Got that, sonny boy? Redheylin (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have got to say this, as I think it shows how well acquainted Thomasshane (and furthermore Sazlati because he said they are working as a group) are with Wikipedia's policies. In response to Redheylin's comment above, Thomasshane posted this thank you on Redheylin's talk page, thanking him/her for their "professional input" and "expert opinion" to this AfD. In all honesty I can't understand half of what Redheylin said, and it has nothing to do with this AfD. I can't wait for this AfD to come to a close (I don't care which way it goes, but I hope the administrator dealing with this case sees sense). Beeshoney (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We talk about the article here not the editors. However, Beeshoney you should not weigh in this AfD discussion anymore because what you have done to mislead the integrity of the discussion so far. Please just stop it. Here are some examples:

This user deleted big parts of the other side comments from the discussion two times on August 15 and Agust16.

Here is a link to a barnstar from Beeshoney to another editor thanking his/her edits and contribution to this AfD discussion

Here is a link to special barnstar from Beeshoney to Drmies for “contributions to the (ridiculously long) AfD discussion”

Here is a link to a deleted conversation titled “kudos” between Beeshoney and another editor on Beeshoney talk page regarding planning and plotting for deleting this article.

Just stop this unconstructive approach. Let us do the work to improve this article. Thomasshane (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given how much bad faith there has been I suggest the discussion is closed as a default keep. If the article doesn't reach an acceptable standard it can be renominated in 3-6 months. The article isn't so bad that it will destroy Wikipedia by staying, and its not like its a featured article or anything like that. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, should be closed as Keep. If there has been no improvement to the article in a few months and no new sources provided then renomination. Relisting now would continue the mess which has been the debate above. Its clear the guy does exist and has a limited amount of notability at least. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This AfD process has been compromised by proponents and opponents. The article seems to deserve a chance. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 14:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable product. No references to establish any kind of notability. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - i vote to keep the article, its all over Google, Trapper Keeper is a very notable product. I even had my own Trapper Keeper when i was in the 6th grade. However the article could use some work though. - Dwayne was here! ♫ 20:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did you even look for sources? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I looked in the wrong place, because none of the pages I looked through contained any semblense of a real source. TPH, please assume good faith, the tone you take with me is unnecessary.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 04:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per TenPoundHammer. Huge amount of sources available here. A South Park episode was even based on it: Trapper Keeper (South Park). Please read WP:BEFORE, especially #9. Theleftorium ^(talk) 21:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so much these days, to ask for AGF? I've read the damn policy, please stop acting like I haven't.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 04:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I really don't see what this has to do with AGF. I'm just saying that your nomination statement was rather weak. Theleftorium ^(talk) 09:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- The sources above more than adequately demonstrate notability. And honestly, I'd have been stunned if this article was deleted for notability reasons, to say these things were ubiquitous during the 80's and early 90's is like saying the Star Wars films made a little bit of money. And like the user above, I had one or two myself in school. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper. Oh my freak, it's the Trapper Keeper! Like way totally notable with major refs available online. Dude. Cindamuse (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Product immortalized by South Park. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Lots of sources, popularized on TV and in books. —fetch ·comms 00:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Back to the Future cast members[edit]

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

Article contents are already detailed in Back to the Future, Back to the Future Part II and Back to the Future Part III, and the article does not introduce any information not already found in the main film articles. This would be better served as a category instead. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sottolacqua's reasoning. The Back to the Future film articles have the cast members listed in their respective Cast sections, so a standalone cast list article is not necessary for it and is also examples of trivial information and listcruft material. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial stuff as what I am seeing, so delete per nom. みんな空の下 (トーク) 19:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unnecessary and redundant to the esxisting articles -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be useful, why delete? IainUK talk 00:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted for no assertion of notability. The album content has been moved elsewhere, the article about the band gives no indication of notability or coverage. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Dementia[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:BAND. Evidently this band's article originated as a messy overwrite of a different article for someone else's album of the same name. The article also included info about their 2007 album which I deleted today because it should go in a separate album article. But for the band, they have not achieved enough notice for a WP article. I found one third-party interview here and one substantial album review here although it's a blog. Everything else available on the band is social media and a few listings for live appearances. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - You beat me to it. I noticed that there were two articles combined into one, so I split one off (Twilight Dementia (DragonForce album)) and left this. I had to go AFK, but listing this at AfD was my next step! I definitely agree, delete. Only sources I'm finding are the band's website, MySpace, Twitter, etc, other than those two reviews you mention. However, the first review is bare-boned at best, and the second seems to be a hobbyist review. It's useful to search "twilight dementia -dragonforce", because that DragonForce album generates a lot of other results. Anyway, doesn't seem to fit a single criterion for WP:BAND. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 19:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what happened is someone created a legitimate article for the DragonForce album, and then a person who wanted to create an article for this other band (also called Twilight Dementia, coincidentally) messed it up by removing the text about the DragonForce album and simply over-writing it with stuff about this other band. Gorilla, you did a good job clearing that mess up. For everyone else, note that the article for Twilight Dementia (DragonForce album) is legit and not part of this discussion. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something like that. Sorry if it sounded like I was introducing the DragonForce album to this discussion. — GorillaWarfare ^{talk-review me!} 19:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This doesn't meet WP:BAND standards, nor does it seems notable in general. —Waterfox (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find no evidence that it meets WP:BAND let alone WP:Notability -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Comment: There is now also a proposal for speedy deletion for the band article, possible because it has only two sentences and makes no claim of notability. Before I started the AfD today, there was a little more specific information concerning the band's 2007 album, but I deleted it because it was stuff that should have been in an album-specific article. Not sure if that matters at this point, but that's why the band article is so skimpy. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 01:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Gates railway station[edit]

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

Written in error , as further research on the Richmond line reveals that a station of this name does not exist. Britmax (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ordnance Survey has a place called Dalton Gates near a station on the line but that station was called Moulton. Britmax (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This station was closed in 1969. See: http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/dalton-gates-railway-station/ みんな空の下 (トーク) 19:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compare and contrast this article with our own. This is a mirror site. Britmax (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not shown on Jowett's Railway Atlas, which is a pretty reliable source as to the existence of railway station in UK. Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell this didn't exist. Dalton Gates mentions it but without a source, and Google gives me nothing relevant. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, because it never existed. Chris (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I could not locate it earlier when I made this comment on the line. Keith D (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since there are no sources whatsoever to verify its existence, this station probably never existed. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked various editions of Bradshaw and no mention of it there either. NtheP (talk) 14:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just checked {{Butt-Stations}} - no record. Nearest is that Eryholme was called Dalton Junction until 1901. NtheP (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It doesn't seem this existed.--Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator based on apparent consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Triona (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MILF[edit]

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

Delete, or if it does not already exist on Wiktionary, transwiki. This is a dictionary entry and unlikely to amount to more than a trivia collection. It's not likely to develop into encyclopedic content even though it's place in popular culture is at least supported by references. Triona (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. Sources and notability are not the issue here. The issue is that this is a dictionary term, and that as such, it's going to be really difficult to turn it into an encyclopedic article. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Keeping this here isn't going to build anything more than a place to file a bunch of trivia - there's too little to write about beyond a definition. Triona (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By this clarification, this becomes a malformed nomination because the post below mine shows that the term has existed for more than four years and another editor has demonstrated the article can be turned into an encyclopedic effort. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary had had MILF for four years already when this article was first created. Uncle G (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships - I can't see the acronym itself being notable, and per wp:notdic, it's thus not a suitable candidate for an article. The phenomenon can be covered in the article previously mentioned. --Claritas § 18:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This popular Acronym is rapidly becomming a household name. It's not really a "dictionary" word, but more of an Encyclopedic term that needs to be explained. It's also an evolving term which, although originally began as 'Mother(s)' is being applied to women that look or are from about ages 30 to 45, whether they are Mothers or not. This this is a New term which will eventually become a well-known and often used term, it's something that people need to understand it's original, current, and future meanings. Glenn Francis (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information wp:info, and the future well-known-ness of the term is irrelevant per wp:crystal. --Claritas § 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is sort of a tough one, since MILF is now part of popular culture. But this is a dictionary definition in the final analysis and, repeat after me, "Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary!" Carrite (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously now, WP is not a dictionary. Cindamuse (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As disgusting a concept as it is, it is quite obviously notable. Keep per WP:ODD and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per everyone else tbhis is a dictionary page.Slatersteven (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable cultural concept in fairly widespread use. Let me point out also that deletion is not a valid option either way, because there is an unambiguously notable organization that is known by the same acronym. So this could be a separate article on the MILF concept, it could be a disambig page with a brief note about the MILF concept, or it could be a simple redirect to the article on the organization—but deletion would be silly. Everyking (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My gut feeling says keep, but I can't see how the article can be expanded beyond its current dictionary definition and trivial "in popular culture" references. Epbr123 (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This nothing more than a dictionary entry and is highly unlikely ever to be more than a dictionary entry. Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make a disambiguation page for this and "Something Something Liberation Front" Dicdef adequately covered already at Age disparity in sexual relationships#Slang terms. If this is deletable as a dicdef, what about Cougar (slang)? Edison (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships#Slang terms. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough real-world usage and WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, we are !voting on the concept not the current state of the article, lots and lots of usage can be added and there is an abundance of internal article links. I never go to Wictionary from inside Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable to me PvsKllKsVp (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I wouldn't mind keeping it and there has been policies mentioned here that would seem to imply "keep" (WP:ODD and WP:GNG), but it is one of those articles that's a maintenance nightmare and it's just not a good encyclopedic article. Redirect it to Age disparity in sexual relationships#Slang terms per DCEdwards suggestion. Dawnseeker2000 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks like it goes beyond a basic dictionary definition as well as shows mainstream notability of the term. –MuZemike 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s introduction of reliable sources, cleanup and other edits. The The O'Reilly Factor transcript easily seals the deal that this term is in the mainstream and meets WP:GNG. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection to merging this into Age disparity in sexual relationships, and if it should become large enough there to split back into it's own article, then so be it? Right now this is a dictionary definition, no matter how much people say it can be expanded. As a dictionary definition, policy says it's deletable. As a part of coverage on Age disparity in sexual relationships it would probably have better visibility and a chance to develop. Triona (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to base my reasoning off of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject..." That last bit is currently under discussion. I don't believe any deletion based on that part of NOTDICTIONARY should go through until that is reconciled. There are other reasons in that policy that apply. Namely: Concept. MILF is not just a term. It is a concept that has become so widely known that it has its own genre of porn. That alone is sufficient for an article. It transcends just being a fetish involving older women (since that could be an article called "Older woman fetish") though. The concept has become part of pop culture and is reflected in various forms of media. But if it is to be deleted and "Older woman fetish" is to be created it needs to be put up for a move discussion since "MILF" is how it is known. All of the notability arguments should touch on the fact that Google News, Google Book, your favorite video store, and God only knows where else point to it being common enough. And it is already more than a dictionary definition so a merge is not adequate. Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have just seen term used in a forum by someone who had misunderstood it and it's useful to be able to put up a link to show the correct meaning.
Keep An article about a word doesn't make it a "dicdef with noise". The word nigger is also plausibly a "dicdef" article with nothing more than trivia as well, no one would dare delete that. Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships based on a review of both. The target article adequately attempts to cover what's notable and important about the term, and is small enough that any additional pertinent detail would fit nicely there. Casascius♠ (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am surprised by the overuse of the rationale that Wikipedia is not censored. Fuck fuckety shitty shitty motherfucking shitty shitty fuck. It's not about censorship. The most prominently represented reasons for MILF being a deletion candidate have nothing to do with it being a reference to profanity. Sometimes it seems as though all common sense goes out the window when someone wants to remove something that contains profanity because no matter why they want to remove it, it's gotta be "censorship". I agree there are good arguments as to why the article should be kept, but WP:CENSOR is not one of them. Casascius♠ (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe don't need someone telling us what words are good or bad. Keep spiritual censorship of the Internet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1kem1lls1369 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a sock/meatpuppet; no other edits. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia should not be a clearing house for all the silly stuff computer nerds come up with in their mother's basements. Wikipedia is not a "urban dictionary for idiots." Frank Fascarelli (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann.[reply]
KEEP. The usual moral/religious objections as a rationale for deletion, that were raised and disregarded in the previous AFD [8]. WP:NOTCENSORED stands. Archivey (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just a definition - a widely applied concept and popular joke, sourced with many applications, and not at all synonymous with "age disparity in sexual relationships" or whatever sanitized professorial term is being recommended here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does WP:NOTCENSORED apply here, censorship wasn't a consideration in the deletion rationale. Triona (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I fail to see why this article has been nominated again after we discussed and arrived at a consensus in this previous afd: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mother_I'd_like_to_fuck_(MILF)? It pains me that people cruise around wiki looking for articles to be offended by! MILF is a Social/Pornography/Media even Comedy catagorisation. If it was a simple dictionary definition then the article wouldn't be as long as it already is. Age dispartity article is a seperate social issue, the common usage of MILF in media and every day language is sufficient justification for keeping this article (again!, untill the next 'moral' idiot takes offence) andi064 ^{T . C} 12:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I see why this article was been nominated, the first time. The same free speech discussion, repeated, does little. Words are weapons. Some of them hurt and or offend. It is foolish not to know the words, even if you don't plan to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TedJostedt (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC) — TedJostedt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, not just a definition. The previous AfD already pointed that out. Jarkeld (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 01:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KOTC Sniper[edit]

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

No notable names taking place. We don't need pages for every single event for small organisations. If we did, we'd have every single Ring of Combat page, or every single Tachi Palace Fights card Paralympiakos (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These individual events are trivial. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N which specifically says routines sports coverage is not notable and "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." Individual MMA events, especially from minor organizations, are non-notable by these standards. Papaursa (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:MMANOT. Jakejr (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bikemagic[edit]

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

This website does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for inclusion. It is part of a walled garden of articles which all include external links to the same websites (all of which are owned by a company called Maficalia) and references to the same websites (which are also owned by Magicalia). There is are no third-party references to establish notability. Peacock (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More advertising by Magicalia. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising, nothing stating it's notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YixilTesiphon (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry about that, I forgot. --YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 13:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. みんな空の下 (トーク) 19:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - definitely non-notable. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roadcyclinguk[edit]

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

This website does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for inclusion. It is part of a walled garden of articles which all include external links to the same websites (all of which are owned by a company called Maficalia) and references to the same websites (which are also owned by Magicalia). There is are no third-party references to establish notability. Peacock (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising. Creator launched exactly one other WP article, Magicalia — the company producing RoadcyclingUK. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertising / non-notable. --Biker Biker (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search Engine Marketing Professional Organization[edit]

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

Spam for a non-notable organisation. They are spammers by nature; look at the links in the article. It is not going to improve. The only people who could ever care about this are spammers, and should not be trusted. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really is spammy. Right now, there are fifteen links in the body text, all going to the same domain, and all from vague phrases like "resources", "articles", and "online courses" of the kind that SEO scum love to link back to themselves. 81.152.72.174 (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Advertising. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Spam. Chris (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
The nominated text surely qualifies for speedy deletion as obvious advertising from top to bottom:

...a global, non-profit trade association founded in 2003 to serve the Search Engine Marketing (SEM) industry and marketing professionals engaged in it....
purpose is to provide a foundation for Search industry growth through building stronger relationships, fostering awareness, providing education, promoting the industry, generating research, and creating a better understanding of Search and its role in marketing....
Anyone with an interest in Search Engine Marketing and a desire to help further the industry can become a SEMPO member....
These courses are geared toward a wide variety of Search, marketing, public relations, sales, IT and business professionals. Because the courses are online, students learn at their own pace and can login from any computer to take the lessons and the tests....
The Institute offers online distance learning courses that will provide a breadth of Search Marketing instruction.

Not sure if there are better versions in history (was apparently AfD'd in 2006) but this is all sleaze. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, still. The current version reads a lot better, but I am not sure that an announcement that it had elected a board of directors, a certificate of incorporation, or the announcement that it was offering a certificate to people who completed a class it offers, establish the long term historical notability of this organization. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done something radical and despammed the article to its last good version. What existed before was a short but reasonable article, which has recently been spammified by a single purpose account. It's not great, but it's much better. If you look at the previous AFD discussion there are loads of references there which could be used. Maybe we could keep and close the AFD now? Chris (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice cleanup job, Chris, but there is still nothing to indicate notability of this organization. Sources supplied are all self-referential. Google News provides only press releases and blogs. Glancing at a few of the references from the previous discussion, a couple mention the organization in passing, in connection with click fraud; others are trivial or unavailable. --MelanieN (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; already speedy deleted by TFOWR (talk) almost two hours ago as G7 under author request. Non-admin closure. みんな空の下 (トーク) 19:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Koschal[edit]

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

Does not seem to me to be a notable person, but then again i don`t know much regarding autograph hunting mark nutley (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but the article needs a complete rewrite. A quick search for this fella turns up quite a lot sources showing he is the subject of much controversy in the autograph world, to the point where to some, he is a thoroughly despised individual. Three sources are Miami New Times, Autograph Dealer News and Autograph Magazine Live. I'd like to know what are considered the most reliable sources in terms of Autograph Industry publications; but judging from the google search of his name, he's probably been written about in them. Steamroller Assault (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. since already Transwiki'd by Dreamfocus Scott Mac 11:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nana to Kaoru[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Search for third party sources only comes up with a couple of trivial mentions related to changes in a manga magazine. No significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources found to pass WP:BK. Contested prod by IP with a history of deprodding every manga-related articles. —Farix (t | c) 12:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 12:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability, I have included it on the lists over at Young Animal and Young Animal Arashi however. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Peaked at #30 in monthly sales, and otherwise coverage has been very throwaway and limited as far as my CSE can see. --Gwern (contribs) 05:48 11 August 2010 (GMT)
Not again! Ugh, this is getting ridiculus. I go to Wikipedia when I want to look up something I do not know about, even if is something obscure like a comic that is in top 30. I suppose I should just quit trying to add articles on obscure subjects cause they all get deleted anyway. What is the point of having for all practical purposes unlimited storage space if you are only going to use it to for articles on famous subjects most people already know about. I really hate the notability policy. It ruined wikipedia and I for one am tired of it. So long and adieu. Lord Metroid (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We agreed on the writing of an encyclopedia but we never had a definitive agreement on the contents of that encyclopedia. Unfortunately the line has to be draw somewhere and sorry for you to be one the wrong side of the fence. Your statement is incorrect about English Wikipedia being made of articles on famous subjects most people already know about. Wikipedia is made of articles written by people who have the will, the technological means and enough English mastery to write on subjects of their liking. In no way this premise would guaranty that what Should be covered subjects by Wikipedia will have articles. A good example in manga field would be Yoshihiro Tatsumi A Drifting Life despite all the coverage it received and two Eisner awards is still lingering in the Animanga project requested articles department. --KrebMarkt (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bla bla bla, obviously there is a delitionism Vs. Inclusionism debate raging all over wikipedia and the internet. You make it sound like there is a concensus amongst the community to delete everything on wikipedia which is obviously very wrong or you are refering to we as in you and I. Which then I highly dispute cause I for one do not see the point of delitionism. Lord Metroid (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meuuhhh.... Stop playing "The Good guys vs the Bad guys". That kind of dogmatic rhetoric has been played over and over on Wikipedia to the point of ad nauseam. That kind of self-righteousness speech can only convince the convinced. It's difficult to be a supportive of article created on "It exists" x "I read the illegal scanlation" x "I like it" because those articles very rarely give a fuck to Verifiability, No Original Research & Quality.
Now back to the subject:
Nana to Kaoru 4-ongoing? volumes series by Ryuta Amazume published by Hakusensha ja1 ja2 ja3 ja4, serialized in Young Animal Arishi first before moving to Young Animal. No evidence of passing either General notability guideline or Specific inclusion guideline for books found within my capabilities. No licensor found in French, German, Spanish & Italian. Based on that the article should deleted.

Side-note: I just provided more sources to assert the facts in the article which current among is 0 "unsourced". --KrebMarkt (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The line should be drawn on common sense. If it was in the top 30, its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. And Lord Metroid, if you get tired of watching things like this get deleted constantly, please just start making new articles over at http://manga.wikia.com where they'll be safe. I'll transwiki this one over there now. Dream Focus 01:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to the manga wikia. At this time, this series seems to be not notable enough for Wikipedia. --Malkinann (talk) 01:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tsar of Serbia[edit]

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

The page serves is pure nonsense. Not only is it empty and redundant to Serbian Empire snd List of Serbian monarchs, it also serves to promote an invented pretender to the Serbian throne. The article actually reminds me of that created by the guy who claimed to be King of Bosnia. Oh, bad memories. Surtsicna (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced and highlty POV.Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is nothing to merge, but a redirect is cheap. Bearian (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Annual Halloween Art Exhibit[edit]

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

The article fails the general notability guidelines. Since creation in 2008 a number of links have been added but these appear to be self-published or poor quality sources. Examining the sources included and Google News, there is no evidence of significant impact or impact on the long term historical record. There seems little prospect of this being corrected in the near future. Fæ (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:Autobiography or at least completely WP:COI: this article appears to be about the editors' own project. Also, per nomination, references are non-major sources with no evidence of meeting WP:RS editorial control. (CLTV reference appears to be for a promo spot.) --Closeapple (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable art exhibition; article so poorly written I had to go to Google to even find out what it is or where it takes place (I added that info to the article so it wouldn't be an issue). The article is even inconsistent about the name of the thing (is it the Annual Halloween Art Exhibit or the National Showcase of Halloween Art?). Sources are self-referential or trivial. --MelanieN (talk) 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Noce[edit]

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

fails WP:POLITICIAN, and the only real coverage falls foul of WP:BLP1E. There is also an OTRS removal request; ticket number 2010080910014195, for y'all in the system. Ironholds (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is often edited to seek to remove the notable item of the private jet scandal with which this person is associated. I've no idea who the guy is, but the scandal appears to add to his notability. I've reverted a load of attempts at removing it from the article on the basis that it is cited. I am suspicious of any deletion request through OTRS as an attempt at whitening the gentleman's name by removing what appears to be an authoritative cited issue of direct interest and relevance to him. I have no political or other interest in the gentleman or the article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how it passes WP:BLP1E? Ironholds (talk) 13:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show how it fails it. He is notable for more than the ATCO scandal. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such as...? The inclusion guidelines are negative in nature; when a valid argument against inclusion is cosnidered, it is up to article creators and those arguing for its inclusion to show that it is important. What else is he notable for? Ironholds (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't bother me one way or the other if this article is deleted. I have stated my thoughts for retention. I neither know nor care who this guy is. But it seems to me that those proposing deletion need to make the strongest argument when the article has been around and this kept by consensus, for a reasonable length of time. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been kept by consensus; it just hasn't been considered either way before. You are not obliged to give an actual reason for keeping it, but similarly the closing administrator isn't obliged to consider the waste of characters that is your rationale. "Fiddle Faddle" is accurate. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks are amusing, uncivil and have no place in a deletion discussion. That something has not been considered in this manner before does not mean that there is no consensus. Until your nomination the consensus was nemine contradicet. By your rationale every single article here must survive a deletion discussion. Patently that is not so. I have no further interest in the words of someone who acts with rudeness. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, by definition something never being discussed means there is no consensus over it; it means, however, that there is no consensus to either delete or keep. Once a discussion is started, whether it is by CSD or AfD, the onus is on the keepers to show why it should be kept; our entire notability system is built on the principle that X references must be found. If the balance of probability went the other way, people trying to delete an article would be required to show that there is not sufficient mention of the subject in all written works known to man. Patently, that is not the case. Your dismissal of my statements on the grounds of rudeness would be worth more if you had at all replied to my comment, most of which was based around the obvious invalidity of your argument (to summarise: you haven't so far made one). Ironholds (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes notability for a politician on point 2 (2.Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.) At least, I consider Edmonton to be a major metropolitan city. 143.210.103.223 (talk) 18:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The press coverage being of this single event, which fails WP:BLP1E. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't refering to the scandal-related parts, I was refering to him as a person. Being elected to a metro council makes him noteworthy, which means that he should have an article. Red Fiona (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN; he was on the city council and ran for mayor but was not elected. The so-called private jet scandal is trivial: he and three other city council members once accepted a free ride on a corporate jet. If that's what passes for a major scandal in Canada, then your reputation for niceness is more than justified. More to the point, the news coverage provided is trivial; he is mentioned along with the others in two television news stories about the incident; that's hardly significant coverage. A search of Google News mostly finds other people by the same name, all of whom are apparently more notable than he is. (BTW a question to Fiddle Faddle, who is convinced this "scandal" justifies keeping the article; would you defend articles about the other three councilors involved, namely Larry Langley, Bryan Anderson (politician), and Rose Rosenberger, with equal vehemence? Oops, two of them don't even have articles and the third is a stub which IMO should also be nominated for deletion.) --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What vehemence? Do not attribute vehemence to me, please. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry. I thought "I've reverted a load of attempts..." sounded pretty vehement. No offense intended. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this person, an Alberta municipal council member, is on the cusp of notability. I believe that in such cases, AfDs for Biographies of Living People should default to deletion, especially if the subject has expressed concern about the article. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim to WP:POLITICIAN is marginal; WP:BLP1E is relevant, and (I assume) the subject requests the deletion of the article. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.

I have not even tried to count the number of "keeps" and "deletes" in this discussion. It appears to be roughly even, perhaps with slightly more keeps. But given that (a) consensus is not a vote; and (b) this debate has been unduly affected by a large number of poorly reasoned "votes", counting is not helpful.

Consensus is particularly not a vote when there are policies (as opposed to inclusion guidelines) that affect the discussion. This is the case here. WP:BLP1E is part of our biographies of living persons policy. WP:NOTNEWS is also a policy that goes to the fundamentals of what the project is, by defining what it is not. These policies were raised consistently by those who argued to delete the article such that there was one clear reason to delete that underpinned just about all of the delete !votes. The arguments were cogent and persuasive.

On the keep side, various arguments for retention were used. First, it was argued that there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Those arguments need to be given less weight because they fail to recognise that notability-based reasons for inclusion are subject to overriding policies like BLP1E and NOTNEWS. Second, analogies were drawn to other articles that had been kept. These opinions also have to be given less weight: for every "similar" keep there have been notable "similar" deletes. Every article is different. That's why we have AfD.

The more compelling keep arguments were those that attempted to show that the article surmounted BLP1E and NOTNEWS, thus directly addressing the core concern of the delete !voters. There were two strands here. Early in the debate, some argued that Slater would remain significant over time. Clearly, that crystal balling should be given little weight. The second strand, later in the debate, was that the coverage of the incident surpassed BLP1E. Ultimately, I don't think this argument was made with sufficient strength, or had sufficient support, to stand in the way of the policy-based consensus to delete the article. The arguments to keep struggled to get beyond the assertion that "massive amounts of news coverage" gets an article past BLP1E.

Accordingly, there was one core policy-based reason to delete against fairly scattered arguments to keep of varying natures and (often low) weight. When viewed objectively, the consensus in the debate - based on an analysis of the arguments and applicable policies as opposed to headcounting - was to delete. And I stress the word objective: I have no problem with the article personally, but when assessing the strength of the arguments here objectively, the result seems clear.

I recognise this will be a close that will disappoint people. Anyone who wishes to appeal this decision to deletion review can feel free to bypass questioning the close on my talk page. Thank you to everyone for an interesting discussion. Mkativerata (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Slater[edit]

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

Though the article contains references, it is a classic case of WP:BLP1E and I therefore propose that it be deleted. Favonian (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for new folks: "WP:BLP1E" is a shorthand link to guidance on "Subjects notable only for one event" in our Biographies of living persons policy --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Favonian. Definite case of WP:BLP1E. CarrotMan (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the gentleman is not yet notable enough for an encyclopedia. However, he may become notable. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC) See below[reply]
Delete textbook WP:BLP1E G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As more "facts" and speculation are added to the article, it is begining to read more and more negatively, another reason for deletion G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Negative in what way? Can you be more specific? If the article stays, it would be a non-neutral point of view to only write about the positive aspects and ignore the negative aspects. –BMRR (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different versions of events, neither have been substantiated and are subject to speculation. Not an ideal situation for a BLP G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥

But the fact that Slater's version doesn't match up with the version given by some of the passengers is part of the fabric of the incident. Both versions are extensively sourced to reliable sources. I agree that it's not an ideal situation for a BLP, but can you explain why the article should be deleted rather than moved/renamed to a non-BLP article? –BMRR (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E, WP:RECENT, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GRAPEVINE G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 20:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Changed to redirect at 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC), see below - Individuals who receive coverage for only one minor event are typically not sufficiently notable for their own article, per WP:BIO1E. -- Lear's Fool 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as soon as possible, per WP:BLP1E.
Delete - couldn't believe there was an article on this guy (linked from Google news) orion eight (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. immediate application of WP:BLP1E is called for. patsw (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added the appropriate merge tags on Steven Slater and Flight attendant. patsw (talk) 13:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E XinJeisan (talk) 14:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I tried to speedy this, there seems to be fairly clear concensus to delete, can we get an early close? G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 14:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hell no. What is the rush? AFD's should last the full period, to avoid drama at deletion review. Edison (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per nom. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E could have been written with this article in mind. No notability whatsoever, the guy stormed out of work and happened to end up on the "And Finally..." segments. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or merge with a general article based on the event. I don't think Wikipedia needs to keep an article based on whatever caught US media's TMZ-style-fantasy. This article is, at least not yet, not about a notable person that we would like to keep a permanent record of in an encyclopedia. His actions performed in a fit of anger, whether justified or not, may seem funny but do not warrant an encyclopedic entry. This has the potential to open floodgates of articles based on events like this. I hope we are not cowed down by the media frenzy on a mundane yet funny event and suspend our better judgment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratyushnidhi (talk • contribs) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': This keep vote does not conform with current policy, but neither did Mr. Slater's kick-ass actions. At least let the AfD run the seven days until the brouhaha dies down.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This has to be my favourite AfD !vote ever. -- Lear's Fool 15:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you :-) My vote may actually comply with policy now, because the news coverage of this guy is overwhelming, he has apparently touched a sensitive cord of the American psyche and its feeling about work. AP, New York Times, etc, etc.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or its just a silly season story in the 'and now for' segments at the end of news stories and just another internet joke (like that cop killer up north) that gets all the sados in a lather untill they move on to the latest dilletante fetish.Slatersteven (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're just worried about being confused with the guy. Much of history is "silly,", e.g., Mary Toft in 1726, Slater in 2010.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete per WP:BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More snow. - Shoulda been speedied... Carrite (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I declined the speedy nomination, as the article did not fit the very narrow conditions of WP:CSD#A7. Apart from that, I'm also in favor of a snow delete. Favonian (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agreed only notable for being a tit once in his life. Come on OK its a great name (and the initials are funny if you have a really twisted sence of humour, part apart from that the blokes a nobody.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete BLP1E. Sources only exist because it was funny. —fetch ·comms 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make this article a stub, or expand it. Don't delete it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moch770 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or put a short note about him into "Events of 2010" or another article about ... I don't know, flight attendant controversies or something. Because a year from now we'll be going "Stephen who?" --Bluejay Young (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A year from now when you're going "what was that flight attendant story about the guy who escaped the plane....?", you'll be able to find it, especially if wikipedia covers it. With the internet, any odd and famous amusing event from the past -- such as Mahir Çağrı, Tourist guy, Bert is Evil, Ate my balls, Mark V Shaney, is within easy reach. Why not give people the pleasure of being able to access the knowledge they want to access?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are not single one off events, they are ongoing (or were) phenomina. Why is this even considerd worthy of a page? Does this mean that every twat who does something idiotic that gets news coverage (and here we see Mr Spigot nailing an albertros to his head) gets a page. Its worse then the Guiness book of people doing daft things to get a bit of attention.Slatersteven (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who was that airplane pilot who landed in the river one time? Edison (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A lot of individuals are famous for 1 event ( John Hinkley Jr, Sirhan Sirhan, Samatha Smith (wrote Andropov a letter),

and there are others, being known for 1 event does not disqualify this individual. Add to it that he was arrested and is now at Rikers Island. KEEP KoshVorlonNaluboutes,Aeria Gloris 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True but the events they were part of were what made them notable, in a senece they are not notable its what they did (or tried to do) that makes them notable. All this bloke did was to lose he temper and storm of a plane his actions will not affext any one but those invloved.Slatersteven (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I would highly recommend a delete and merge, but this should be interesting to watch unfold. The way things are turning out, I am inclined to wait a couple of weeks for things to settle down. He's almost achieving cult status, which surprised me a great deal. --Hourick (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this will (if it turns ouot this is a flash in the pan) be used with the shout of notability is not temporary. Why not delete it and if it does have milage re-create the page?Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of biographies in Wikipedia are about people famous for "one event." In this case, ABC News calls his departure probably "one of the most dramatic ways to quit a job ever." Christian Science Monitor says he is "fast becoming an Internet folk hero." Activities which are the extremes of human behavior may well be encyclopedic. He is not just one more person who quit his job. His response to abuse from a customer has received 1416 instances of coverage worldwide. If Chesley Sullenberger gets an article which survived AFD for one event lasting a few seconds of piloting of an airplane and some good luck landing an airplane it, why can't Slater have an article for one event on an airplane in which he was finally fed up and quit in a way which abused employees worldwide can appreciate? The court case is only beginning, and he says his behavior is a response to out of control passengers. In a legal case, there is not one event but a series of events, lasting months.Edison (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a world of differance between a man saving 100's of lives and some moron losing his temeper and throwing a wobbly (I show em a nick some beer). Most burglary trials last months, some get news coverage are they notable too?Slatersteven (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does that mean in plain English? wobbly, nick? Which burglary trials got 1416 instances of coverage around the world, because the papers and news channels saw something out of the ordinary? Edison (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is plain English and in common usage, throwing a wobbly To throw a tantrum. Reached the end of rational thought and action. So how much coverage would an single event that has legal repercusions need to qaulify as a notable event?Slatersteven (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that on a case-by-case basis editors made the decision to include Sullenberger's article in Wikipedia does not void WP:BLP1E. Editors did not delete WP:BLP1E to make that happen. Practically, what this means is that editors can make the case here in the Afd there's a significance to Steven Slater, that again, on a case-by-case basis, editors can come to a consensus that a stand-alone biographical article on Steven Slater should appear in Wikipedia. Make the case for it because there's a lot of delete votes here citing a policy for doing so. patsw (talk) 21:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Sullenberger is notable for his work outside of that one event. The fact that no article existed doesn't mean he didn't rate one. - Richfife (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Meets WP:BLP1E. ----moreno oso (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep ...the drama will continue to unfold... he will be more famous... he is episodically emblematic of a completed scenario and will be added to the culture's legend Masterknighted (talk) 21:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the keep votes are of the "More things are coming" variety, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. This is a clear one event situation. - Richfife (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pity there's no WP:IICDIINN: "If I can do it, it's not notable". - Richfife (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wrong. Note the Christian Science Monitor and ABC News above, which are not predictions by me that more coverage will be given, but statements from reliable sources of present notability. People magazine says many people are "labeling JetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater a hero. " Not a prediction, a statement of the present state of notability. Time Magazine says "Slater's unique flip-out struck a nerve with frustrated flyers the world over." Edison (talk) 21:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people get called heros on the internet that does not establish lasting notability Time seems to be usurem this has any milage http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/08/10/the-5-best-things-about-flight-attendant-steven-slaters-freakout/. Is this all the internet (and wikiepdia)is for making heros out of tits. I can imagine the fisrt of the pages about some NIMBYs complaining about a new Tesco in Much whinning in the rut.Slatersteven (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. Case of WP:BLP1E. SYSS Mouse (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per yonder votes. Not really notable for anything, just in the news as a fluff story at the moment. cooki e caper (talk / contribs) 22:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't throw a wobbly now, I just wanna keep per Milowent. Yes, I went there. Cindamuse (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to an article about the event itself. This would eliminate any BLP or BLP1E concerns because it would no longer be a BLP article. If it's notable enough for almost every major media outlet in the world, it ought to be notable enough for Wikipedia. (Yeah, I know this is Wikipedia and not WikiNews; my point on notability still stands.) –BMRR (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:SNOW. I was tempted to close this discussion myself, but I'm short on time. If he becomes genuinely notable in the future, we can recreate or restore the article. Until then, it needs to go. --jonny-m t 01:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is just going to snowball. The guy will get stints on talk shows and a book deal...everyone should know the drill by now. If, in defiance of the natural order of things, it fades to obscurity relatively quickly, we can always delete or merge it in 2 months. To be honest, I don't know why people are so eager to delete these sorts of things within 24 hours of them happening. Let the story play out and see how the article evolves for a couple weeks...
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What's a snow delete? Argel1200 (talk) 02:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A snow delete involkes the WP:SNOW essay, essentially stating that, while AfDs normally run seven days, the result is so certain that the discussion should be closed early as a full discusssion is not warranted. It's not a policy, but is intended to be a guide to the application of WP:Ignore all rules and WP:Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. -- Lear's Fool 02:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One gets the impression that people would use "snow delete" when the article's deletion is anything but sure. Get it out of here before there can be any debate. MrBook (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be no question. The man is being hailed as a national hero, already has a fan page on facebook with hundreds of thousands of followers. --Lamrock (talk) 01:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 1[edit]

Strong Keep This is definetely not a case of WP:BLP1E, apparently most of you didn't read the WP:BLP1E. The reliable sources are persistent. Right now, more people around the world know of this guy and this story then will ever know who John Hinckley is. And, according to WP:BLP1E, John Hinckley is the prototype of notability for a single event. There are more notes about this guy than about 99 percent of Wikipedia subjects. Right now, a google search for Steven Slater gives 1.4 million results. All of those results could be characterized as "Notes". If something has 1.4 million notes, then it is notable. Any other interpretation is a psychotic break from reality that, unfortunatley, has taken over the mind set of some Wikipedians. I just did a random article, from the home page of Wikipedia, and came up with "Chemlab", a band. Googling it reveals 90,000 results. How is that more notable than the millions for Steven Slater? There is no way that the notability of this story is going away. Keep.--Marcwiki9 (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mbstone (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with those who say delete. This man is worthy enough to have an article...it is an ongoing story...come on, there are plenty of pages on here about people who killed one person, or robbed one bank or got nude in public once; for this man, he freaked out and got the media's attention. Of course the article needs sprucing up; but please consider keeping this page. It will gradually blossom. Tinton5 (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to blossom first, then he can have an article. I'm surprised this hasn't been cited yet, but Other Stuff Exists is a pretty important precedent here. - Richfife (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not a case of WP:BLP1E this was a notable event in western culture. It was a safe and sane dramatic event. The first since 9/11 - and as such should be applauded and remembered. This is a historical event of note by virtual of the safety within a space deemed to be the most dangerous. Pakse 10:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.141.193 (talk) [reply]

Ummm... A little early to be calling it "historical" and "seminal" (from the edit comment) isn't it? - Richfife (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to MOVE - see below Once off yes, but wasn't the Cuban Missile Crisis a once off event? Didn't Jack Ruby get famous for a once off event? I believe this one should stay because of it's iconic status. It's certainly exceptionally notable, just look at Google News stats. It's probable that his actions really show an industry wide problem. No one has claimed that this was a stunt for self-promotion. The guy flipped, did so in a manner that caused instant global fame, and is regarded as a hero by many. His actions though crazed highlight a developing situation of passengers and staff being pushed too far by security and airline policies. This incident is quite likely to be looked back on as "Where it Started". I would say we should instead agree to revisit the AfD in 6-12 months. This incident's impact reflects on so much more than a once off meltdown by a disgruntled employee. Sorry, I have no login as I choose to edit directly. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 04:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You really think he's going to start a social movement? His actions are not 'so much more' than what they are. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's with all the weird messianic vibes that keep showing up? How is this different from, say, this scenario: A security guard on the fifth floor of a department store is hassled by a customer, rags them out on the store wide intercom, grabs a hat a he likes and takes off down the fire escape. Cops find him screwing his wife. - Richfife (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an airplane fetish, that's what. Two people killed in a car? Boring! Two people killed in a plane? News! Morenoodles (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a much bigger picture here. The entire industry is struggling with some impossible balances. Security "concerns" vs Passenger convenience, Profitability concerns vs staff morale, Space vs size of people, The innocent cabin crew have become the Airline company point contact for the well documented increasingly angry travelling public. The insistence of the Securocrats on control vs the realities of human nature and needs. Luggage fees vs Carry On behaviours. What this is is an unmanagable, unbalancable set of competing needs. Steven Slater's actions have shown a major policy and system debacle in a human and personal way. It was highly notable and globally published, and it reflects a much larger issue of an entire system breaking down. Notable, encylopedic, historical - and most of all - people want to read it - newspapers don't publish things people don't want to read - of course it belongs in an encylopedia - some people want to read about this guy in more depth than just a oneliner in the JetBlue article. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all very good and valid points but wikipedia is not the place for them as per WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several mainstream news sites have likened him and his drama to Balloon Boy, Joe the Plumber, and Chesley Sullenberger. Didn't the articles of all three survive AFD? Edison (talk) 23:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - classic case of WP:BLP1E. Quoting the policy: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." If this guy become really famous down the road which I doubt, then the article can always be recreated.—Chris!_c/t 05:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even if Slater falls back into obscurity, he would have something in common with John Hinckley, Jr (see WP:BLP1E) who did not get up to very much after his assassination attempt, except going to jail. The event in this case does have significance as the first time that a flight attendant has made their own emergency exit, a hero in popular culture and the most outrageous way to quit a job. The event also highlights the rudeness of passengers these days. We can't predict where this event will end as it is still unfolding. I say let the article evolve with the incident and review later. Freelion (talk) 06:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - Let's wait for a week to see what happens, then put back deletion on the table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.28.251 (talk) 07:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policy goes the other way: If he's not notable, delete the article and recreate when he is. - Richfife (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is questioning notability with thousands of newspaper reports on him. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, my friend. The only reason this article has been put up for AfD is for the claim of lack of notability. If this AfD ends with a deletion, it will be done because of the presumption of a lack of notability. Since that outcome will strain all credibility, I doubt if even Wikipedia would continue to make that claim. Please vote to Keep.--Marcwiki9 (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People want to read about this fellow, and Wikipedia is one obvious place. When there's a juicy murder (or celebrity suicide) there are copycats; perhaps now dozens, hundreds of people will be shouting "Take this job and shove it!" Perhaps we should wait a week and see whether wage-slave capitalism collapses. Morenoodles (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are people really comparing this to an attempt to assassinate a president, or to a nuclear war almost starting? I was so certain that this was WP:BLP1E that I almost blanked the article as a courtesy as soon as I saw it, expecting it to be deleted within a few hours. I don't know why this doesn't seem so obviously cut and dry...am I really missing something?Qwyrxian (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is August, or what in Britain is called the "silly season". The floods in Pakistan (just to take one example) are several million times more important, but people don't want to read about that kind of stuff. In contrast to hundreds of thousands of actual endangered humans, Slater (population: one) is a "human interest story"; and if he's not "the common man" then at least he seems closer to that elusive ideal than do any number of cringe-inducing faux-folksy politicians. Morenoodles (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possible compromise solution - So many people are calling for deletion per WP:BLP1E, maybe we need to follow WP:BLP1E....... I see no event article, maybe that is a suitable compromise? Create an event article as that very much deserves an article, and would probably be better to have than an article primarily about the event than one that is lodged under someones name. Whatever happens this incident should somehow find it's way to a wiki article. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to an article on the event, and keep. (Thanks to the IP immediately above.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. I'm trying to learn wiki. We all talk about WP:BLP1E, and it opens with some great guidance "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person". Everyone, including me, who is expressing outrage at the prospects of banishment of article wants the issue in wiki, i don't think anyone has yelled that they want it covered in Steven Slater specifically. If he does become mr working class folk hero, we can revisit. Move 24.23.198.90 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we move it it should not be to a page about this incident but to a page about Stewerds wiging out. Lets put it into a wider context.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - If Fuck for Forest has a place on wikipedia so does an article on this dude - lighten up guys! Kotare (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several actually:

I do not think we are yet at the threshold of Balloon boy hoax in terms of having a deeper story. An anon editor started a factual summary at Flight attendant to which I added the information on the arraignment.
Some of the keep votes are merely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and do not engage any points we have raised re WP:BLP1E. They are arguments to avoid.
A large volume of media coverage in itself is not sufficient.
If we move this article to Overhead bin controversy or Notable nonlethal incidents on aircraft and the story just ends with Slater taking a plea deal for the misdemeanor charges, it still is just about one individual which lasted for 2 news cycles. patsw (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Considering that after less than 2 days, the fan page[9] on Facebook for this individual has over 100,000 followers, I think that itself should show notability of this individual, possibly developing the triggering event. Anakin-Marc "DJ AniZ" Zaeger (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Given the level of effort required for one to "Like" (not follow) Steven Slater, this claim is nonsense. Notability in the context of an Afd is term of art. Does the article meet the criteria for WP:N? Facebook is coverage but it's trivial coverage. patsw (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A classic case of BLP1E distortion. The point of that guideline is that we should not have biographies as spinoff articles from notable events if the people in question were ancillary to the event. But this case we have one person, one event, one article. The topic is highly notable, being covered globally in major news media and so merits coverage in some fashion. The name of the article and its scope is not a matter for AFD as it can be addressed by ordinary editing in accordance with our editng policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thats not how I read it, BLP1E says that we should not have articels about people who are notable fro one event, and nothing else. Not tnat we should not have articels about people whoes only notability is being involved in an event.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - there are numerous people who are only famous for one major event and we properly have articles upon them because of their great notability. See Rosa Parks, Tank Man, Gavrilo Princip, &c. The essential point of BLP1E is that a major notable event is not the occasion for writing separate biographies about all the people who were caught up in it. Separate biographies should only be created for individuals whose role in the event was central and are notable by virtue of the extensive coverage given to those particular people. We seem fine in this case because the person in question was quite central to the event and there is no separate article about the event. We are therefore not multiplying our articles about this notable matter beyond necessity. Removing all mention of the matter completely would be improper censorship contrary to core policy in that it would be based upon our own personal judgement of the matter rather than following the lead of the numerous independent professional publishers and editors who have decided that this matter is worthy of note. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Mr. Slater, you keep commenting here but fail to disclose your COI. How were you editing from jail yesterday anyhow?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 14:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blast and dam found out. OK I admit it I am in fact called Steven Slater.Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know anons have no suffrage here, but I don't care. Once the topic makes it to the front of Google news, and the Wikipedia article is in the short list of links, it passes as notable and gets to stay. I mean, there is an article about some random midwest music store that no one has ever heard of, surely this deserves to stay. --65.10.51.35 (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not everything that gets to the front of Google news gets a Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting that as a new criterion? patsw (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe Washington Post has another article about Slaters action, in which they say Slater has "has become a folk hero to his fellow stewards of the sky. Also, to everyone." The article said "Hit that slide. Soon the phrase will become this generation's 'blow this popsicle stand'" and the article notes the appearance of that definition in Urban Dictionary. (Washington Posts's prediction and noting of a neologism, not mine). New York Magazine noted new ballads about Slater's escape by Jimmy Fallon ("When you're mad as hell and can't take it anymore, ya gotta get 2 beers and jump") and others. Slater expressed the feelings of millions who deal with rude, childish demanding customers and who dream of chucking the job in one great splash. Edison (talk) 14:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's getting a LOT of media coverage at the moment. Perhaps he is notable for only one event—but I would say it is probably one of the most notable single events of recent months. —WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 14:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and move to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052, an article we do not presently have. The event is notable and we routinely cover unusual, non-fatal airliner incidents; for precedents, see: Eastwind Airlines Flight 517, Continental Airlines Flight 1883, 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion, JetBlue Airways Flight 292, Northwest Airlines Flight 327, CityFlyer Express Flight 8106, America West Flight 556, Korean Air Lines Flight 85, 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion. A particularly relevant precedent is Northwest Airlines Flight 188, the flight where the pilots overflew their destination by hundreds of kilometers; we have an article on the incident, not the pilots. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have also left notes about this AfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airlines. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's an incident about a flight attendant and we already have Flight attendant. It is already summarized there in about 50 words. patsw (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 2[edit]

Keep but rewrite and move - The incident is clearly notable. The article should be rewritten so that it's not a BLP about Steven Slater, but about the incident. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': This man is being viewed as a hero to the disgruntled working public. There is no reason to remove him from the records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.126.127 (talk) 16:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and move - Agreed with A Quest For Knowledge. Focus on incident not individual. AlexJohnTorres12 (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Cult hero in the making. It's easy to judge people like Slater as persons of 'minor importance'.Maxis ftw (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC) -Addendum: Like the Salahi's crashing the whitehouse dinner [2009 U.S. state dinner security breaches], rewrite this article about the incident itself; as per a quest for knowledge.Maxis ftw (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article seems to be receiving the same kind of hysteria that was visited on the "Balloon Boy" article when that story first happened, with people saying there shouldn't be a news article because it was a fleeting trivial news story. Of course now, many months down the road, Balloon Boy is still a talking point and a notable reference that will still be popping up years down the line, and calls to delete the article now sound kind of silly, and I can just about guarantee you that the Steven Slater incident will be the same way. Just because it's current does not mean it's not noteworthy. Whether he's a "hero" or a "criminal" is, of course, irrelevant to whether or not the article should be deleted, but it seems obvious to me that either way it should be kept. For the public reaction alone it is noteworthy. MrBook (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw a question about this at the BLP noticeboard, but Slater is the poster child for BLP1E---a policy I don't particularly like and think gets over used. But in a month this event will be all but forgotten. This is a one hit event where nobody is going to be asking "who slater is" or "has he done something like this before." It's purely news.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article is now a cultural meme and is therefore the traceable lineage of the soon to be term "thanks, it's been great." as well as "grab two beers and jump". which is associated to Jimmy Fallon. This should not be associated to the Flight in question as the story is based on the actions of Steven Slater.---Indigo.Buffalo 13:36. 11 August 2010 (CST)
Delete. BLP1E, clearly. There is other evidence that cannot yet be cited that this may become a meme, but until that's shown reliably, this is just a news event. Wikinews is over thataway. --MASEM (t) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received extensive media coverage, and there's been talk of book-deals and maybe even a movie. Let's wait and see how it plays out. Helvetica (talk) 19:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook example of BLP1E. An article might be constructed around the incident itself, but it should not be based on this article. Horologium (talk) 19:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this guy is notable and is very likely to become even more so. Citybrand (talk) 20:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, with reliable sources. It doesn't really matter that he is only notable for one event: it's just silly to put the article under any other name, and as noted below, Joe the Plumber is a good precedent. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment None of these recent keep votes speak to why WP:BLP1E, WP:1E and WP:NOT should not apply. Memo to the keep voters: Notable (in the sense of getting noticed) is not sufficient. I concede that he's gotten a lot of publicity, but in the long run, nothing of consequence has happened to anyone but Steve Slater in all of this. It is an incident with global coverage of something totally inconsequential. Already, the medias's frenzy with it is eroding and we've moving on. patsw (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the contrary Patsw, many keep votes speak to why WP:BLP1E does not apply. Go back and re-read them, with a copy of WP:BLP1E in front of your face. You will see why the delete voters have neither read nor understand the BLP1E paragraph. And I have a second on the contrary. Can you back up the statement that Notable is not sufficient? I thought notable was the criteria for an article? Notable, in common english, means that the subject is worthy of notice. According to WP:GNG, this subject is clearly notable. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can. Read Wikipedia:GNG, which you cite. Note the last bullet point: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. And the footnote reads: Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources. Now go look at WP:NOT, specifically WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikipedia doesn't cover news reporting; Wikinews does. That's a different project. Horologium (talk) 02:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are trying to say something here by transcribing some bullet points and footnotes into this record, but there is no logic that I can use to try to understand what you are saying. I agree that Editors might reach a consensus one way or the other. I am adding my points to help reach a consensus, and so are you. Why restate the obvious? Merely to point out that we might engage in this debate? To point out that it could end either way? And furthermore, all of your "for examples" listed about have nothing to do with this article. But, Thanks for participating. It's still kind of fun. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was quoting, in their entirety, sections from the GNG. You asked, rather pointedly, whether Patsw could "back up the statement that 'notable' is not sufficient". I quoted a section of the GNG to note that sometimes notability is not sufficient. This is a minor news story, despite the carpet-bombing coverage it has received (it's apparently a slow news week), and the incident should be covered, not Steven Slater. This is something that should be covered by Wikinews, and may merit coverage in Flight attendant (it is) and perhaps a story about the incident itself (which is still a redlink). Horologium (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I get you now. I still think that you and I would have a major disagreement about what GNG really means, and how one decides what is notable and what is not. You might say, for instance, that something is notable but not independent, like a label on a product. I might say, that label is not notable at all. These are important semantic differences. I still vote to keep. I suspect that you would still vote the other way. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will stipulate:

The world (or at least world media) has noticed Steven Slater. He had the good fortune to do this in (1) media saturated New York and (2) on a very slow news day. That's not sufficient. Here's what the oft-cited never-until-now quoted policy is: patsw (talk) 03:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

”

Regrettable keep, not something I would normally do but the coverage is there. Marcus Qwertyus 21:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Should definitly be kept. As stated before, If Numa-Numa can have a page, this guy can too. Merging it into a generic page about flight attendants is not appropriate as this specifically refers to one incident and one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.120.35.193 (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's a silly argument, numa-numa is 6 years old but is still resonably popular and in fact is rated as the second most popular viral video of all time by some sources, references and the likes have continued to appear in mainstream media sources. This is only several days old so we have no way of knowing what, if anything, will be the long lasting effect of this. If you do know the future, I would like the money so can you give me some info that will help like next weeks lottery numbers? Please give it privately or it will defeat the purposes. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fairly notable, with a wide variety of sources. Once the storm has passed, and the facts of the case been estabilished, this article should boil down to a fairly decent little article on the event. LukeSurl^{t c} 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chesley Sullenberger has a page and he's famous for one event as well. I've seen about as much news coverage of Steven Slater as I saw about Chesley Sullenberger. 68.45.109.70 (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For comparison, Chesley Sullenberger has 2720 hits at Google News archive, while Steven Slater has 3354 hits at Google News (too new to show up in archives, apparently). Edison (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is comical though. Can single event ever be applied given that this was covered by the worldwide massmedia? Like the first comment about that viral video. Or is this a case of other crap exists? --Luckymelon (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is NOT a subject of WP:BLP1E which reads: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, AND if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual".. Slater is NOT likely to remain a low-profile individual. He is likely to have a reality show, a book deal, and much more because his name and story has become a valuable brand that captures audience attention, and that's what drives continuing media. Harry4000 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The number of sources and the media coverage does not affects its notability (for more or for less). We are working for an Encyclopedia, not for a gossip magazine. Caiaffa (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: I said keep last time, but on second thought, this should probably be renamed "Steven Slater plane incident" or something similar as the incident is the notable thing, not Slater himself. 68.45.109.70 (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's a hero. The term "pull a Steve Slater" is already creeping into our vernacular. His actions are going to have people review how customer service representatives in any capacity are treated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrfoldes (talk • contribs) 01:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep': Obviously this is the first ever episode of this kind that would directly relate to the current security crisis that local and international airports are having all over the world. The difference is this time the contribution came from an airline worker and because the physical act was not directed at either the crew or passengers, it will without a doubt add another law to the Patriot Act.--American Values • ^{talkAmerican Values (talk)} 02:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)American Values — American Values (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' wow looks like I've hit the goldmine, another person who knows the future. I'm awaiting my lottery numbers. Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If the Numa Numa guy has a wiki then Steven Slater deserves one as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.129.126.127 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see above. You too are welcome to give me some lottery numbers or whatever if you can see the future Nil Einne (talk) 12:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:ONEEVENT, WP:RECENT, WP:NOT#NEWS, etc. And please, no more arguments about how this person's notability is certain to increase with book deals, multiple appearances on Oprah, made-for-tv movies and the like. As the situation exists now, this is an unsuitable topic for a Wikipedia article. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this person does not have to have been famous as an actor or musician or related to politics. He did become part of current Pop Culture, (example) Susan Boyle. ring a bell? He did do something wrong but, he acted in a way a portion of americans wish they could without losing their jobs. don't judge him too soon, you don't know what might come of this in the future. Wikipedia is made for "everything." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.209.175 (talk) 03:03, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — 70.173.209.175 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
No, it is not. This is an encyclopaedia, and topics must be appropriate for an encyclopaedia to warrant inclusion. -- Lear's Fool 03:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Great stories and exciting gossip are welcome elsewhere, but we do not preserve someone's bad day in a pseudo encyclopedic article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Biographies of the person have begun to appear in major news sources, extending this beyond just a single event as he becomes known for being himself. BloodmoonIvy (talk) 05:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC) — BloodmoonIvy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, though consider moving to an event-centered article rather than a person-specific one. There can be little debate now that the incident has sparked a larger discussion in the populace about both general employee disenchantment as well as simmering problems with air travel. (And, of course, there can be absolutely no complaints about notability.) This is not the type of article that BLP1E was designed for, and the attempted rigid adherence to an incomplete idea of BLP1E (whilst completely ignoring what it actually says) is rather silly. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 05:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 3[edit]

KEEP BECAUSE HE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm just kidding, just kidding. I say delete, because although his story is a hilarious one, it's not to the point where it warrants an article. Maybe if there's more media coverage surrounding this guy and it turns into a saga of some sorts, then it would be appropriate to have an article on him. Sidenote: I got here by typing his name into the search box, fully expecting to for an article on him to exist. And I have plenty of edits on Wikipedia, but most of my contributions are under a different IP. No need to mark my presence with suspicion. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 06:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- the amount of news coverage on this is explosive, and the a NY times reporter wrote an article comparing him to Chesley B. Sullenberger III from the Hudson river landing. He may not have been notable at the time when this article was nominated for deletion, but he certainly is now. Nomader ^(Talk) 07:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- generated significant general discussion about the working conditions for flight attendants, along with parodies of the event. If necessary, convert into article about the event, but not delete or integrate into the general flight attendant article. 118.208.40.174 (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the amount of news coverage. It is a mischaracterization of WP:BLP1E to say this is a classic case. WP:BLP1E Requires that he both be notable for a one time even AND that he remain a low-profile individual. He is no longer a low profile individual. He is being extensively covered by many news organizations, including The New York Times. Plus the story keeps growing. Witness this article published today JetBlue’s Response to a Fed-Up Employee’s Exit, which queries how Jet Blue should deal with the publicity. Steven Slater is no longer a low-profile individual. —Ute in DC (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as I believe that in the last two days the incident has attained notability. I agree that the article should be about the event rather than the person. I also draw attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brendan McMahon (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Robertson (Australian) as former one-event biographies for comparison. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to jetBlue Airways. For all the coverage about Steven Slater it is just about a single incident which was over in seconds. The background of his life is only of interest to news organisations in connection with his reaction to the disruptive passenger. He might forge a public career in the future but that can't be certain; for the meantime the incident is notable but Steven Slater as a person is not. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MOTION TO CLOSE AS NO CONSENSUS: Per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Colorado_balloon_incident. We've had scads of people weighing in, and at best we are heading to no consensus. We can revisit in a few months.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 12:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JetBlue Airways (moved from Delete) per Sam Blacketer. This person is not notable, but the current coverage at JetBlue Airways seems reasonable to me. -- Lear's Fool 12:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could someone explain how Steven Slater has a non-low-profile after the media moves on? His last few seconds of his 15 minutes of fame are nearly over. Unlike Chesley Sullenberger, he is not likely to be honored by the airline industry and his occupational groups for a lifetime of achievement in his profession. Unlike the Balloon boy hoax there's no deeper story here about premediating a media hoax and child abuse. Unlike the many notable performers in arts and sports cited for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS above, which is not an argument to make, but an argument to avoid, he doesn't have a record which distinquishes himself among others in his category. If this WP:AfD passes, we will have to establish a category for persons who have saturated global media for 48 hours so that any person at some threshold of media coverage ought to have a Wikipedia article for any reason or no reason at all. Slater's story is superficial: he blew up in unprofessional way, deployed the evacuation chute, and was arrested. Everything else is coverage about the coverage. patsw (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A redirect to Jet Blue Airways is not correct. The actions of Steve Slater were related to his employment in the airline industry as a flight attendant, and not specifically to employment at Jet Blue. patsw (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This event receives a brief mention as an incident related to JetBlue Airways in the article, which strikes me as being perfectly reasonable. If you're questioning which article the coverage should be in, you should bring it up on the relevant talkpage, but for the moment, this remains a plausible search term for an even related to JetBlue Airways. -- Lear's Fool 13:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect probably to Jet Blue Airways. No evidence of significant long lasting notability at the current time so article not suitable per WP:BLP1E. Even if a seperate article is warranted, it should be on the incident not the person so the article should be renamed. If significant long lasting notability eventuates, the article can of course be recreated Nil Einne (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and retitle/reshape as an article about the event. The level of coverage has been enough, in my view, to justify an article about this. I agree with those who say WP:BLP1E is being misapplied in arguments to delete; what it indicates is that we should probably not have an article about the person, but about the event for which they are known. Propaniac (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The advantage that Wikipedia has over other sites is in its ability to combine the most up to date information with background information, something that a news site can't feasibly do. First and foremost, this is a reference. I'm sure that some people have mentioned "Wikinews" and the truth is, nobody reads Wikinews, nobody. Although my guess is that the Steven Slater will not prove to be historically notable, nor even a trivia question, my guess is no better than anybody's else's. I imagine it will be nominated again a couple of months from now, at which time the answer to the question "Do you remember the flight attendant who cussed and slid down the slide?" will probably be "No, what are you talking about". For now, the no consensus result, that sets no precedent one way or another, will be satisfactory. Mandsford 14:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This event, and the person involved in it, will be long forgotten in six months. This has no real notability except as any of a myriad of "fifteen minutes of fame" stories do. It doesn't rise to the level of needing an encyclopedic article. The simple mention of the incident that exists on JetBlue's article is sufficient coverage. Ithizar (talk) 16:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article isn't even clear about what happened and if this is to believed, things happened very differently G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 16:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response I am unclear what the relevance of that article is to this discussion. The fact that there are conflicting stories does not affect whether or not the Steven Slater article is about someone who is sufficiently notable. —Ute in DC (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because while the arguments for deletion are all on WP policy grounds, the arguments to keep are all that Mr Slater is some sort of folk hero leading to a lot of crystal balling about his notability. This shows that its just as likely something else happened and the things were embellished by the media to make a better story. The article isn't even very clear about what happened and when it all boils down, its about a guy who flipped out, and quit his job (in albeit spectacular fashion). The fact that it made it to a few novelty news sections doesn't impart notability. The issues that have been highlighted by this incident are certainly noteworthy and an article or section in flight attendant about the changing role and work conditions of flight crew could include a piece on this, that is where this guy belongs, not with an article dedicated to him. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge to Jet Blue, since nothing in his actions were specifically a reaction to factors at Jet Blue which are different from other airlines. A merger to Flight attendant would make somewhat more sense, about as much as meerging Balloon Boy to Balloon. Clearly you have not looked at the coverage at Google News, since the 4597 instances of coverage includes respected news sources worldwide, and not "a few novelty news sites." Other claims that coverage "will soon diminish" and he will soon be forgotten are pure crystal-ball gazing, in contrast to the sources cited above which state that he is already a "folk hero" to many who are tired of dealing with obnoxious customers. Edison (talk) 19:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important cultural landmark. Spontaneous reaction in broad swathe of the public, renders the individual symbolic of a range of important ideas that needed succinct expression and that found it in what was really a very small act that was not apparently even recorded by video or in sound. Nevertheless just the description of the brief unfolding of a relatively unimportant event has apparently captured so many people's attention. I therefore think the individual behind that event should have a Wiki article for reference purposes in keeping with Wikipedia's need to serve as a resource for significant ideas. Bus stop (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for keep This is insane, I didn't think it would be this global. Here is a Korean report about it. [10] Additionally, I went ahead and created JetBlue Flight 1052. I don't know if it would qualify as an "incident" but I thought I'd threw it in there.--Hourick (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and move to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052. Cindamuse (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I SECOND THE MOTION TO CLOSE DUE TO LACK OF CONSENSUS. Cindamuse (talk) 18:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible ever in a million light years delete - I also object to any premature close. This is not a vote it is a policy related debate...for which this is global and important cultural landmark has no weight at all in the closing position. One event notability only.Off2riorob (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand... Isn't one event notability enough? WP:NOT PAPER. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Reliable sources may not use the terms that I used above (important cultural landmark) but I think some reliable sources have characterized the event in terms similar to those. Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its trash, trash , trash, trash, a fleeting trash at that, keep it if you like it but it is valueless un-encyclopedic trash and imo if you like it and want it, there are many wikis you can create yourself and its free, please don't degrade the quality of this one. Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice WP:IDONTLIKEIT tantrum, which does not contribute much to the present discussion. Edison (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like it, my commets are in reply to a lot of the keep he is really famous and iconin comments, its rubbish, utter one event rubbish, do with it what you like but its crap and not what the wikipedia is here for, please consider hosting such crap at other locations, well famous, iconic, yes really must keep this crap.Off2riorob (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, many of the keep vote represent WP:ILIKEIT and they should be ignored when closing this afd.—Chris!_c/t 19:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems like the obvious and logical solution here is to move the article to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052. Doing so would put the focus on the incident rather than on the person involved in the incident, and I believe this would resolve any BLP1E issues because the article would no longer be a BLP article. –BMRR (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this even I voted delete earlier.—Chris!_c/t 19:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Snow delete, and who ever suggested this be merged with the Flight Attendant article must of been "smoking the reefer;" what a stupid idea. --A3RO (mailbox) 19:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This nomination is really bullshit. This event is OBVIOUSLY notable, it is sourced to multiple RS. That should be the end of the story here. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No shit the event is notable. The nomination is to delete the article referring to the person, not the event. In this case, this idiot who has become famous for no damn reason. I support delete per snow, but support a merge to the flight number. --A3RO (mailbox) 20:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one could merge to flight number, but per WP:NAME I'm pretty sure his name is the correct title. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Snow Delete clearly WP:BLP1E. "Popular" does not mean "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padillah (talk • contribs) 12 August 2010

Comment: WP:SNOW in no way applies here, at least not in favor of deletion. For those who aren't aware, SNOW is a call for early closure in one direction if there's not a "snowball in hell's" chance of it going the other way. The last time I counted, there were quite a few more "keep" than "delete" votes, and the trend has been towards more keep votes as the debate has progressed. So if it's going to be closed early per WP:SNOW, it would have to be for "keep" or "no consensus." -Helvetica (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if this were a voting election, you'd have a point. But it's NOT. This is a rundown of arguments and the number of people that bring inane WP:ILIKEIT arguments don't matter, they will be evaluated as WP:ILIKEIT rather than valid reasons to keep the article. As opposed to the dozens of people citing several different policies why it shouldn't be kept. That is why this is a SNOW delete, because, according to the policies of Wikipedia, the results of this discussion don't have a snowball's chance in hell of making this 1-event BLP into any kind of sustainable, notable event. There's not a snowball's chance in hell that this guy is notable or will be notable in the future. Besides, even if there is a chance he can parlay this into some kind of Perez Hilton-like noteriety that's still going to happen in the future and keeping the article based on that violates WP:CRYSTAL. So, since there is a snowball's chance in hell of this article NOT violating WP:BLP1E and a snowball's chance in hell of this article NOT violating WP:CRYSTAL then it should be deleted - per WP:SNOW. Padillah (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Padillah, while you're right that it's not a simple matter of what has the most votes, there is still a matter of consensus, and, as of this point, we have nothing even resembling a consensus to delete. Your novel reinterpretation of WP:SNOW is convoluted at best. If your "delete" vote is based on BLP1E, then just cite that, but SNOW makes no sense in this case at all. Other users have simply looked at the same policies and come to a different conclusion than you have. The "delete" votes which simply cite "SNOW" are essentially not citing a reason at all. -Helvetica (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, per all of the excellent reasons above. He has achieved far more notable than most other BLP1E articles that were decided to be the level of notable necessary to override the rule. This man seems to override it as well. His cult status and the ongoing reams of coverage attest to that. Silver seren^C 20:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Okay, now that I've studied it, the question here seems to be whether this event, which will be known mainly relative to the name of the person, and which is about that person's speech, should be under that person's name, or a name which Wikipedia gives that event (or which we get from RS). So the question is, do RS give an alternate name for the event as the primary name they give to the incident? Is the flight number really the title RS give this event? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:22, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And BTW... many of the votes above seem to be about notability, as mine was. This nom is unusual. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's almost achieving cult status User:Hourick... he will be more famous... he is episodically emblematic of a completed scenario and will be added to the culture's legend User:Masterknighted..His cult status User:Silver seren .. Important cultural landmark.User:Bus stop .. the amount of news coverage on this is explosive, and the a NY times reporter wrote an article comparing him to Chesley B. Sullenberger III from the Hudson river landing. He may not have been notable at the time when this article was nominated for deletion, but he certainly is now User:Nomader..the incident has sparked a larger discussion in the populace about both general employee disenchantment as well as simmering problems with air travel.User:bbatsell ..don't judge him too soon, you don't know what might come of this in the future. Wikipedia is made for "everything."{{User:IP:70.173.209.175]] ..it will without a doubt add another law to the Patriot Act.User:American Values..Keep: He's a hero. The term "pull a Steve Slater" is already creeping into our vernacularUser:Jrfoldes ..Keep: Should definitly be kept. As stated before, If Numa-Numa can have a page, this guy can too User:67.120.35.193 and there's been talk of book-deals and maybe even a movieUser:Helvetica..He is likely to have a reality show, a book deal, and much more because his name and story has become a valuable brand User:Harry4000.. hilarious.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right it is funny, kind of, but I'm not sure of the point you're trying for? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 4[edit]

Delete When I read WP:BLP1E this is the type of article I think about. The weight of the world of fluff journalism is against me/us, but I'm !voting my principles here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an AfD that seems to be heading to no consensus. Do not rename the article in the meantime. The debate for that can wait. Wikipedia has policies for naming articles, and it is certain that Jet Blue Flight 1052 will not be how the world remembers this incident in the same sense that KAL 007 and TWA 800 are the names given by history to those events. patsw (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - prime example of WP:BLP1E. This is the kind of article that policy is written to prevent. We're not exactlyu talking about Chelsey Sullenberger here. Robofish (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add, I don't think the event is notable either, otherwise I would suggest that this article be rewritten to focus on it. Robofish (talk) 23:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Keep, definitely a well documented event with coverage both National and International. I count this as more or less equivalent to Joe the Plumber and we got an article on him.Naraht (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Urging Comment D...E...L...E...T...E (it)!! --A3RO (mailbox) 23:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user has already voted once above. Silver seren^C 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{Rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^soliloquize 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. SnottyWong ^soliloquize 00:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. I agree with Robofish completely. PvsKllKsVp (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He passes WP:BIO and WP:RS. We can always revisit the article in four to six months to see if he was just a flash in the pan. Otherwise, let it slide. :) Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 00:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment @Regent, your comment goes against everything encyclopedic; so we decide to come back later and see if he is really just a "one-hit wonder?" -- I can tell you now, HE IS; per BLP1E, this article has to be deleted!; or atleast mentioned as a section in another article pertaining to either the airline or the flight number. Simple. --A3RO (mailbox) 01:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all those !voting to delete per WP:BIO1E: this event is a reasonably widely covered incident involving Jetblue Airways, meaning it is not unreasonable for it to get a brief mention in the "Incidents" section of that article. I agree that this individual is not notable, and that this event is not sufficently notable to warrant an article. However, given that there is an appropriate level of coverage in the article on Jetblue Airways would it not be better to simply redirect this article to that section, thus retaining it as a plausible search term? -- Lear's Fool 01:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete - As I fear that this may lead to a new trend of people doing crazy and off the wall things, just in order to get a wikipedia page about them. We really should begin to strictly enforce WP:BLP1E, or eventually it will begin to get out of hand.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 or something of the sort. The incident is notable, yet the person fails WP:BLP1E. gidonb (talk) 03:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Substantial precedents and even a notability essay already address unusual aircraft incidents:

1. Wikipedia's coverage of aviation accidents and incidents is especially comprehensive and high quality, thanks to the work of some diligent, knowledgeable editors. Wikipedia does an unusually good job covering this material. As an aviation incident, JetBlue Airways flight 1052 is an event Wikipedia will want good coverage of next month, next year and next decade regardless of whether the general public remembers Steven Slater.

2. Our Aviation accidents and incidents article says the term "Aircraft incident" is formally defined in the Convention on International Civil Aviation as "an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft, which affects or could affect the safety of operations." This event will be considered an "incident"; Slater has been charged with "reckless endangerment" and an internal JetBlue memo leaked to the Wall Street Journal emphasizes the safety threat Slater's action posed.

3. We have a task force just for articles about aviation accidents and incidents: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force. The task force's work includes many, many articles about non-accident incidents; here's a small sample: Eastwind Airlines Flight 517, Continental Airlines Flight 1883, 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion, JetBlue Airways Flight 292, Northwest Airlines Flight 327, CityFlyer Express Flight 8106, America West Flight 556, Korean Air Lines Flight 85, 2007 San Francisco International Airport runway incursion and Northwest Airlines Flight 188

4. There is an essay (not a guideline) with a section specifically addressing the treatment of accidents and incidents: WikiProject Aviation/Notability#Accidents

5. There are standard templates for these types of articles: WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Templates

6. The task force has a proposed style guideline: WikiProject Aviation/Style guide/Layout (Accidents)

7. There are annual lists of aircraft accidents and incidents; see: Category:21st-century aviation accidents and incidents

8. Mr. Slater's personal fame may indeed be fleeting. If he wants to avoid 7 years in prison, he needs to keep a low profile until his case is resolved. By then, the public may have moved on in which case his hypothetical book and movie deals may have evaporated.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not a collection of the merely unusual events in the news. Not every reckless endangerment arrest is going to merit an article. That is a very low bar for a crime-related article. patsw (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. Please take another look at my comments both immediately above and elsewhere in this AfD. This should not be a crime-related article. I never said it should be a crime-related article. I said it should be converted to an aviation-related article with a new title. There are many community-supported precedents (including several hundred well-edited aircraft accident and incident articles), a well-developed structure for such articles, a proposed notability guideline and a Wikiproject for dealing with aviation incidents. Based on all of this, this event should be covered as either a full article or a well-developed subsection in the JetBlue Airways article. If you disagree with how the community handles these sorts of articles in general, then I suggest you start a conversation at the appropriate Wikiproject and on the talk page of the proposed guideline I cited previously. In the meantime, I am suggesting that we handle this event in accordance with well-established practice. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed my point. It is not correct to apply the aviation incident template to this article. The only aviation hook is the unauthorized deployment of the evacuation slide by a flight attendant which resulted in no injury, no panic -- therefore no consequence. It is a non-event in terms of big aviation. This is but one aspect of the big story. It most certainly is a crime story, a popular culture story, a how-did-the-media-cover-this story, how did an overnight hero become a lying and unemployed loser story, a secret fantasy-fulfilled story, etc. Aspects of all these narratives apply. patsw (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouod now tend to agree (especialy as it now seems he was rude and stropy thruout the flight) that this is more about the airline industry then theis one man. It shouold be merged with an article about this kind of incident (is there one)?Slatersteven (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.It now begins to kook like a drunk steward unable to control himself wigged oot and is trying to defelect blame and keep his job. This is going to turn out to be a one hit wonder. As tol being a hero, all I can say is Yoour May bsht may. But it may refelct a wider problom of poor attitude and work ethic from cabin crew and atrempts to cover up drunkeness of cabin crew by airlines. So maybe this will have some millage.Slatersteven (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC) Comment.I think this case illustrates nicely why we shouod wait before creating articels on curretn news events. It now begins to lokk like a very different situation from the one the artciel first represented. The artciel, will have to be constantly updated just to keep abreast of the changing story. If however a week or so had been waited then then we would have a better articel, and an idera of its actual significance.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My friend showed me this and it cracks me up. Encyclopedias are supposed to be stuffy. This is not an encyclopedic article. As far as rules, you can bend them and cite anything you want. There are rules supporting keep and supporting delete. Someone must have made up Wikipedia rules to conflict on purpose. The only way to decide is for you to be arbitrary since the Wikipedia rules conflict. This is just a goofball person. Notslater (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no god-given rule that encyclopedias have to be stuffy but this conception does seem to be at the root of the attitudes which one sees in such discussions. Myself, I grew up reading the Children's Encyclopedia which was a cornucopia of knowledge about all sorts of things presented in an accessible and entertaining way. If writing is stuffy or boring then it is off-putting. We have an explicit policies that Texts should be written for everyday readers, not for academics and that Wikipedia is not censored. Being stuffy is not our policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 5[edit]

- Keep - The parallels between this article and what the Chesley Sullenberger once looked like is striking. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, one was a man whos actions saved hundreds of lives, the other was a man who appears to have got drunk and made an arse of himslef. One has a respected record as a safty oficer and has won numoerous awards the other is a man who wigged out on an airplane? How are these people alike?Slatersteven (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage is now making parallels between Slater's actions and Sullenberger's (I linked a NYtimes blog article comparison between the two), and Slater's becoming part of a wider discussion of the animosity between passengers and the airlines in general. I really feel like he's easily now more important than a WP:BLP1E. Nomader ^(Talk) 16:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the event may have wider resonance as an example of airline passenger relations (though it seems to be more about airline worker attitudes towards passengers and airlines). But he is not what is important, its what the overall case represents. That is why I say merge into a larger article. Also blogs may demonstrate that some one gives a hoot, not that that hooting is notable.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - These section breaks are not "Abritrary", they are actually necessary to the readability of the page. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was done to prevent edit conflicts. Dream Focus 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something can be arbitrary and necessary at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. Arbitrary refers to the fact that the locations where the section breaks were inserted were chosen arbitrarily. SnottyWong ^chatter 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Massive amounts of news coverage, and this isn't just one event, but a phenomenon this guy created. This page has been viewed 61,596 so far, and its only been here three days. [11] People have a subject they are interested in reading about, Wikipedia should be the place to find it. Dream Focus 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you. Whats to prevent people from doing something off the wall and crazy, in order to get a wikipedia page about themeslves? That was, I believe, the whole reason for WP:BLP1E, or am I mistaken? Yes there seems to be massive coverage, but not enough for this guy to have his won article. A section in another article would deal with the notability issues.--Jojhutton (talk) 17:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just being an 5 minute Interlebrity should not be reason for inclusion. Nor is the amnount of covrage. Its been (what) 5 days and its still the saem story. No changes in law. No reason to assume its anything more then it is a minor one off blown out of all proportion by an attempt to create an internomina so that some smart alecks can sit back and say "we created tha2".Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation I don't think I've ever seen this many individuals participate in a discussion, but it's now more than 100. For those who are counting opinions, it's 36 of one and 64 of another (or is it the other way around, hmmm...), with other comments being labeled as redirect, merge or no opinion. My only concern in letting one of these go on for seven days is in the potential for hard feelings. However, I'm pleased to say that it's been a very pleasant discussion of ideas. In fact, the only mention of the word "civil" has been in a reference to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Congratulations to all parties on this one. Mandsford 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By my loose count, it appears to be 55 Keep/Change Name to 46 Delete/Redirect. I might be off by a few on both, since some people voted weird or buried their vote in what they were saying or stuff like that. But, for the most part, this entire discussion seems to be a almost exact No Consensus. Silver seren^C 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, AfD is not a vote. SnottyWong ^chatter 19:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it matters. I suggested away up this pile of crap that this be early closed as no consensus, but a ball-bearing admin is needed for that task.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does this make him more notable? SnottyWong ^squeal 19:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. I saw that on the Taiwanese national news, they did a whole CGI animation of the whole incident, its hilarious.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 20:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He passes WP:BIO and WP:RS. don't be so uppity and think that he's not good enough for the "wiki-world".... Lighten up and let him stay... Lighten up Francis! 21:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NICENICE (talk • contribs)
Comment Sheesh, I just knew that not only would someone write an article about this, but that the article would be listed on AfD! Does anyone else find this predictability troublesome? I believe that we need to find a better way to handle Nine Days Wonders, a phrase made famous by a publicity stunt performed by one William Kempe, whose biographical article might have vanished into the maws of WP:AfD had it not been that he worked with someone far more famous than he. Anyway, if I were pressed to opine on this matter, I'd agree to keeping the article for six months & then listing it to see if anyone remembered this notorious flight attendant: if the consensus at that time was "Who's he?" then we have a clear reason to delete the article -- or make it a redirect to Jetblue. (On the other hand, if the article is deleted now, I probably wouldn't miss it -- but I probably wouldn't miss the vast majority of the 3.3 million articles on Wikipedia. And I can't figure out why anyone would care if it was kept for a while.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do have a duty of care to living people, in three months when this person is happily forgotten and back to living his private life then our hosting a biography about this single reported issue in his life may not be the best thing for him. He has a right to our following our guidelines in an attempt to protect him and not being like a free web host that creates articles about such single issues in not notable peoples lives, or even worse anyone that three citations can be found and all similar so called viral internal issues that users find interesting Off2riorob (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there needs to be a much stricter enforcement of WP:BLP1E. This can get out of hand very quickly if all one needs to do is get a little press, and BOOM, theres a wikipedia article all about that person. I fear that a trend may begin to evolve in which people start doing crazy things just to get into wikipedia. The only way to combat this would to strictly enforce WP:BLP1E.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I would say the last thing Slater is concerned about at this moment is an article about him on Wikipedia. For example, a SWAT team had been sent to arrest him for his activities. And if I remember the latest tv news story about him correctly, he was facing felony charges. Other people have overreacted about his antics who can hurt him worse physically & monetarily than an inaccurate Wikipedia article -- llywrch (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other bad things are happening to him does not mean that we should ignore our policies and host an article about him. I do appreciate that he may well have presently other worries, but in a few months these people are eaten by titillating society and because we allow our policies to be hijacked by the viral attention are stuck with hosting the poor guys single notable act forever and a day. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So our policies dictate that we protect people from their own stupid actions? And even if the article is removed & all charges dismissed, in a few month when Slater starts looking for a new job, potential employers will remember what he did & decide whether it is worth their while to interview him. He made his bed; he can sleep in it. -- llywrch (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the suggestion that Slater has bigger problems than this article: Currently, that is true. But what about in two or ten years time? After the legal processes about this one-day wonder have passed, he may go to a job interview where the interviewer is reading this article. Of course Slater will always feature in archives of blogs and gossip aggregators, but Wikipedia has very high Google impact and is often considered important in the real world. We do not remove negative material because it might cause trouble for an individual, but we have a responsibility to ensure that BLP articles really do meet notability requirements, particularly when we can see that the article will aggravate the damage for this person. Since the only reason to keep this article is that the incident is awesomely funny (and was therefore widely reported), this BLP fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good points (although potential employers who Google his name will be just as likely to find articles from ABC, CBS, NBC, NYT, WSJ, etc. -- I suspect those would be more damaging than a Wikipedia article, and I also suspect that those organizations are not going to remove those articles from their web sites out of concern for Slater's future employability). All the more reason to move the article to JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 and put the focus on the incident, rather than the person. BIO and BLP1E would no longer apply. –BMRR (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has JetBlue suspended the flight number? Does this "incident" fulfill the criteria for inclusion in Lists of aviation accidents and incidents? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also notability is not temporary. I have seen the argument lets keep it for not and see. IOts often ends up with a second AFD and a well if he was famous then he still is now approach. What is the point of crystal if we ignore it?Slatersteven (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Steven Stater *really* wants the article about that other Steven Slater to get deleted! I guess as long as there's an article with that name on Wikipedia it could be be hard to live it down ;-) -Helvetica (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a textbook case of someone only known for one event. Just because somebody had received a burst of reports for a single minor action, that doesn't mean we should write an article about them. This mania for writing about previously unknown people who are thrust into the headlines has to stop! This isn't remotely like a proper biography, it's a wide-eyed "he said, she said" account of somebody losing their rag. (I think he's superawesometastic, for anyone about to wheel out WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Fences&Windows 02:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball no consensus - and in general, it looks to me like trying to delete a "fifteen-minuter" after only ten minutes is just an exercise in masochism and can be expected to have this result. Wait the full fifteen minutes, then move to delete. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 04:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should become familar with WP:BLP1E before coming to a conclusion.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with it. I'm just saying. You AfD immediately, you get a mess. You AfD later, it goes away with much less fuss. This is my limited experience, it is not statistically significant, not endorsed by the Wikimedia foundation, no purchase required, must be legal drinking age, etc etc. --99.245.206.188 (talk) 04:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOM. I was reading about the event in the news and can't believe I found an article for it on Wikipedia. While the article did make more sense and laid out the events better than a press report, I couldn't believe it was on Wikipedia. It has received an enormous amount of press but that is a media frenzy. People hailed him as a working-class hero but passenger's say he was the rude one, so the fervor will probably die down. Unless something significant, like a major change in JetBlue's policy, Steven Slater t-shirt sales hit 5 million, etc, I see no reason for the article to be on Wikipedia. --NortyNort (Holla) 06:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and strike out/ignore the ten or so first votes, as they break the ten minute rule. If someone or something gets his AfD started hours before he even hits the evening news, then he may be truly notable! Revisit issue in about a year or so. Maybe by then we can move this to Slaterism. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??What is the ten minute rule? I've never heard it before and I can't find anything on it. Being technical and pedantic,the first vote was made over 20 minutes after the AFD went live. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was only invented by 99.245.206.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) about 300 minutes ago. It refers Andy Warhol's "15 minutes of fame." You should not start an AfD before someone's first fifteen minutes of fame is over - worse yet, if it has not even started. Wait till after the evening news. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break 6[edit]

Comment - It has become obvious now. --A3RO (mailbox) 13:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you vote already? I'm not the most up-to-date on Wikipedia policies, but it's my understanding that you're only supposed to make *one* bold "keep" or "delete" vote. Everything there after should be labeled (if at all) as a comment. Helvetica (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are only allowed to vote once. And yes he has already voted, I would susgest this vote is struck.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [12] and [13] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went and struck out the second vote under Arbitrary Section Break 4, which leaves only the user's original vote up higher on the page. A3RO, please remember to only vote once or it will seem like you are trying to vote-stack. Silver seren^C 16:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took 4 people to say the same thing? --A3RO (mailbox) 16:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so. :D Silver seren^C 16:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This does appear to have become drunk airline stewards wigs out and throws a wobbler story with no wider significane then that. Oddly then part about Jetblues actions which is far more interesting and important seems to be being ignored in the frenzy over a stroppy steward.Slatersteven (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's under dispute whether or not he was drunk before he wigged out. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the problom wiht pages about ongoing evetns, we don't know the final outcome. If they were some earth shatering news sstory there might bne some justification for it. its not its just some bloke throwing his rattle out of the pram (at best). also his status as a folk hero is in dispute.Slatersteven (talk) 19:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and if necessary when close the debate at the appropriate time as no consensus) - This event is clearly notable given the widespread coverage and the fact that so many people have responded here indicates white spread interest on Wikipedia. However there is no article on the event itself. It looks like there has been some ping pong with JetBlue Airways Flight 1052. Given the complexity it deserves a stand alone article rather than merginging into flight attendant, flight rage or Jet Blue. Editors are making a good faith effort to flesh out the story. People quoting Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event seem to be quoting the headline and not the graph which says When an individual is significant for their role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, as both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles become justified. There is no policy that prohibits writing about an event that has received widespread coverage. Since we do not have an article on the event then the most logical space would be Steven Slater. I think anybody looking for information on the case will look for "Steven Slater" and not "nutty flight attendant at Jet Blue" and certainly almost nobody would look for the flight number. The precedent on this article to me seems to be Joe the Plumber.Americasroof (talk) 20:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment, this guy Antoine Dodson had lots of keep I like him votes and was still this week AFD deleted as a one event, he has a million views on the tinternet and is at number three in one of the download charts is an internet meme whatever that is, he has more claim to wikipedia notability and he was deleted, this guy should be deleted also. Off2riorob (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You say he "had lots of keep I like him votes and was still this week AFD deleted as a one event." Could you please post a link to the archived AFD discussion which had all those "keep I like him votes"? For some reason I couldn't seem to find it...Funny, huh?! -Helvetica (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure its relevant (and I was involed).Slatersteven (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between that AfD and this one is that most of the Keep votes in this discussion are actually using policy-based rationales. For example, the Keep vote right above your comment. Silver seren^C 22:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at this person and I look at the coverage in the citations and the world wide reporting of this person and if the article is kept tidy and well cited, I still support a name change but I could vote comment keep . Off2riorob (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, definite BLP1E. GregJackP Boomer! 02:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Here we have just an idiot who got drunk and slid out of a plane. The media overdid the coverage that will blow over soon. In no way does this one-event moron deserve an article. Reywas92^Talk 15:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Request: A user has moved/renamed the article to Steven Slater air rage incident. As a result, it appears that the article is no longer protected from anonymous IP vandals. Before it was moved/renamed, anonymous IP edits had to be confirmed by reviewers. Could an admin please fix this? Thanks. –BMRR (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have reverted the undiscussed page move (it actually didn't require admin privileges), but the page protection is an unrelated issue. As can be seen from the log, the protection was temporary and has expired. If vandalism persists, you should request an extension of the protection at WP:RFPP. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't realize that it had expired. The vandalism certainly hasn't stopped, so it should continue to be protected. –BMRR (talk) 22:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Article has been protected for another week. Favonian (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is pretty much what BLP1E was designed for. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event is notable. Therefore since Slater was the event, his article is kept. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a classic BLP1E case. This guy didn't do anything so earth-shattering that he deserves his own article; maybe a brief mention somewhere, but not an entire page. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nonotable person, nonnotable event. But read this before deleting on the grounds that the media overdid the coverage and BLP1E. Take This Job and Shove It: JetBlue's Steven Slater isn't the only one: why more and more American workers are unhappy. People, incidents, words, can become notable for reasons that have nothing directly to do with them and everything to do with a resonance they strike with key issues that had until them lacked a notable vehicle of expression. Its the kind of notability that gives a successful catchphrase notability--and a place in Wikipedia. Steven Slater and his actions on JetBlue Airways Flight 1052 has that kind of notability. --LittleHow (talk) 05:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete WP:BLP1E, this is no John Hinckley, Jr.. J04n(talk page) 14:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Along the lines of what LittleHow wrote, the incident has been something of a proverbial "lightning rod." There were millions of people who wanted to do something dramatic like this but hadn't - either because they couldn't or (depending on your perspective) because they had too much patience and self-control and/or too little cajones. A lot of analysis has been published as to the greater meaning of the event - such as the one LittleHow linked to, and this one Before flying was bad: My glory days as a flight attendant. The incident touches on a lot of issues - including: the current state of the economy (with wage stagnation, job insecurity, etc.), the conditions of workers in service-industry jobs, the current state of air-travel (including the stress resulting from all the post 9/11 security measures), and sexual orientation/homophobia (Slater is among the first gay people to be considered a folk-hero by millions of straight people, though much of the backlash against him has had homophobic overtones.) So for these reasons, the incident is notable and relevant to sociology, history, economics, and other related areas of study. Much analysis of these issues has already been published in very reliable and noteworthy sources, and much more is likely to follow - especially with the trial, which is scheduled to start next month. Helvetica (talk) 17:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is ubiquitous, it would be silly not to have an article about it. The incident's widespread fame overrides BLP1E. Don't object to renaming if necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This has gone beyond WP:BLP1E. Perhaps he is not John Hinckley, Jr. -- Steven Slater did't try to assassinate a president.. but he has made ripples around the world by leaving his employment in a manner that is unique, exceptional, and inspiring. Peggy Noonan: We pay them to Be Rude to Us. Steven Slater is now an icon and, in all honesty, will have a greater cultural legacy than John Hinckley, Jr.. There are thousands of relevant news stories about Steven Slater and Wikipedia has always maintained exceptional coverage of Air-related incidents; how would this not be an air-related incident worthy of coverage? — Twomper84 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Speedy close, and keep for now We're obviously not going to get a consensus and editors are unlikely to change sides for philosophical reasons. As for me, I find that the article is well-developed and sourced. If this article is to be deleted, it is not now since the events are too fresh to assess the impact this will have on the industry and laws. —CodeHydro 18:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunatly consensus is not a vote, but based on arguments by both sides of the issue. As WP:BLP1E supercedes the only two arguments used as keep, which are WP:BIO and WP:RS. This is the whole reason why wikipedia has WP:BLP1E.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, "consensus" in this case is based on 130 kilobytes of rubbish (and counting). Nothing against any individual comment or commentator, just that collectively, it's a waste and a general embarassment to Wikipedia. --192.75.48.150 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just shouting "BLP1E" does not achieve the deletion of an article about a person or their actions or an event which has gained worldwide notability in thousands of instances of significant coverage by independent and reliable sources, such as the present [5 thousand plus references at Google New3s for Steven Slater. Otherwise we would have deleted Joe the Plumber, Balloon Boy, and Chesley Sullenberger, all of whose articles survived AFD, along with numerous crime/criminal/victim articles. Edison (talk) 02:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Psychedelic Horseshit. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shitgaze[edit]

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

Shitgaze is not a genre or subgenre of music nor is it used to describe any music scene. The page has been recommended for deletion for some time with no new citations or evidence put forward. The term Shitgaze appears have been invented as a in-joke by one artist to describe their sound and has not attained any wider usage beyond the original artist who invented the term. Silverwood (talk) 09:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obscure neologism destined for the, ummmm, shitheap of linguistics... Carrite (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears to refer to one band, Psychedelic Horseshit (what a charming name), so merge anything of note there and either delete or redirect. There is certainly not enough for a stand-alone article and I would imagine that there would be about one sentence merged. Keresaspa (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Per above comments.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Psychedelic Horseshit as one of its members apparently coined the term. "Shitgaze" has actually been applied to at least two other bands, but the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes a stand-alone article inappropriate. Cliff smith ^talk 17:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now, keep the information in the edit history incase this does actually become a used term (how ridiculous would that be...) - filelake shoe 16:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster Presbyterian Church (Tiburon, California)[edit]

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

Just an ordinary, non-notable church. St Anselm (talk) 09:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Radagast 3 (talk) 10:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google finds a few pages, but nothing suggesting notability. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no references that establishes notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With all due respect to the church, Wikipedia is not the place to promote the ministry. According to WP policy, the church simply lacks notability at this time to support inclusion. Cindamuse (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I am usually more sensitive with articles of churches, and believe if the church has notability it should deffinetly be on wikipedia. However, from the article, I see no relevance of the church and do not see it as notable. I beg for the article to be improved, but if this does not happen, then it should be deleted. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The user who wrote this is new and may not know how to establish notability. However, my own research does not show notability. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete About the only interesting thing I've found is that the original premises were over a sherbet shop (Herbert's Sherbet, even...) and the kids went to Sunday School in two (stationary) railroad cars. Probably a very nice church, doing its work well - but unfortunately that's not what gets noticed either. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, average churches aren't notable, and this seems to be quite the average church. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I often vote "merge" with place on church articles, but there is not enough here to be worth merging. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Seabrook Accent[edit]

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

This article does not satisfy the notability guideline and it is also unsourced. There is no mention of this accent in the Seabrook, New Hampshire article, where it supposedly originates. The author of this article fails to highlight the significance of the accent. Acs4b ^{T C U} 09:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with Comment This would be an good article if expanded and referenced by linguistic experts. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or move to WP:Article Incubator. The article was created yesterday, and the list of proposed sections suggests that the creator, a new user, intends to expand it. I agree, though, that the lack of sources or claims of specific notability make the article unsuitable for main article space. Cnilep (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since the editor who created the page has not edited it in the seven days since, userfying would probably not be particularly useful. Cnilep (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If any sources are forthcoming, the information can be added to New England English. +An gr 09:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 00:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Airlines Flight 967[edit]

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

This appears to be a news item with little lasting impact, if any. Contested prod. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom, this fails WP:AIRCRASH.Codf1977 (talk) 10:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plane hit turbulence, some folks were injured, no fatalities. Per WP:NOTNEWS and per WP:AIRCRASH. Edison (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep if this entry is deleted for the reasons cited above then so should the one on China Airlines Flight 006. "Plane hit turbulence, some folks were injured, no fatalities." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.185.33.102 (talk) 14:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment' China Airlines Flight 006 was a much more severe incident, and has been covered in books on aviation accidents. There is no comparison to be made with the article under discussion. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable incident. Newsworthy but not encyclopediaworthy... Carrite (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First contribution from a new editor, welcome to Wikipedia. That said, the passage of time shows that this is WP:NOTNEWS rather than WP:N. There is no comparison between this one and China Airlines Flight 006, which happened in 1985, and received very significant coverage at the time (pardon the pun) [14] and which has been written about ever since [15] (2008) [16] (2002). We don't have to have a fatality in order to keep an air crash article-- sometimes, the notability lies in the fact that the quick thinking of someone else averted the disaster, such as in US Airways Flight 1549 -- but the days where an emergency landing was a guarantee of an article are long past. Mandsford 16:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minor incident with no apparent lasting effects. Fails WP:AIRCRASH. I've given the creator some words of encouragement on his talk page and hope that this AfD doesn't drive him away from the project. Mjroots (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 20:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac 00:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farm to Market Road 752[edit]

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

This is actually one of the better road articles, however it is a rather small road (13 miles), one of a network of about 2 dozen in between i 45 and i 20. This is almanac territory, and I've noticed a lot of road articles lately that don't even begin to meet notability criteria. This is one of them. Shadowjams (talk) 09:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This editor has apparently created a lot (over 20) of these lately. I'm not addressing those at this time, although others might want to take note. Shadowjams (talk) 09:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: state highways are generally considered notable for the fact that the state's department of transportation or equivalent has sought fit to maintain, mark and number the roadway in question. Length of the roadway has nothing to do with the quality of the article that can be written about it with the proper amount of time and research. See M-28 Business (Ishpeming–Negaunee, Michigan), 4.873 miles (7.842 km), or Capitol Loop, 2.381 miles (3.832 km), for samples what can be done with even shorter roadways. I don't know enough about this specific roadway to know how much history could be written for it, but the article is brand new and just being started. Imzadi 1979 → 10:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. State highways are not generally considered notable, and the fact a state department attends to my water meter isn't a reason it's notable either. Loops around major metro areas are quite different than loops south east of Dallas. Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:USRD/P and WP:USRD/NT for precedents and notability concepts regarding highways in the US. Past consensus here at AfD is that state highways are generally notable. You're the only one that uses your water meter, but most state highways are used by hundreds to thousands or more cars daily. The fact remains that this article was only created 2 days ago. Length of a roadway is irrelevant to the potential quality of an article that can be created. Of the two articles I referenced above, the former is a Featured Article and the latter is currently a Featured Article Candidate on subject roads 3–6 times shorter than this one. Let's let this article develop for more than 2 days (it will get 7 more days now that an AfD has been initiated) and we'll see what possible with this subject. If it's not showing signs of notability and development, the prudent course of action is not deletion, but rather merger into the appropriate list article. Imzadi 1979 → 11:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USRD is a WikiProject and does not get to set lower notability bars for articles in its purview. Stifle (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they have not set a lower bar. They have given stated outcomes (the precedents page) in response to what was turning into a campaign to eradicate all state highway articles from Wikipedia at the time. They have also given a logical reasoning on why certain articles are generally considered notable for the purpose of inclusion in the encyclopedia. That whole page is about the general case and not the specific one, and so it is not a blanket "policy" for inclusion, it's more of a "litmus test" whereby the page explains some general points to consider on why precedent has been here at AfD that state highway articles are generally notable. If you would like, I can quote the whole thing here every time an AfD is started, or I can just refer you to some pages that exist that provide some insight on the situation, past and present. WP:USRD/NT is not policy, it does not override any other policy, it just summarizes the situation with logical reasoning based on informed opinion. Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If people were paying attention, they'd see that we've (USRD) been trying for years to purge unneeded county routes and minor unnumbered roads from Wikipedia, and about 1/5 of them have been retained here at AFD. I think it's pretty clear that our notability standards are higher than the general notability criteria, not lower. – T M F 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Road appears to be of a decent length and does have quite a bit of information. Dough 48 72 15:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Though it is a state highway (which are generally considered notable), TxDOT itself has flagged this as a more minor highway by including it in a secondary highway system. Are FMs notable? I'm not so sure. Most of them that I've encountered are local access roads that most places would just be major county roads. There are a few, especially as you get in more western parts of Texas, that literally spur off a main highway and end for at a random point for no easily observable reason. (See FM 2119 and FM 2465 for particularly egregious examples.) So I think at the most deletionist end of the spectrum we could say "nuke all FMs from orbit" while one more on the reasonably inclusionist side would say "keep some FMs but not all". (Of course there are some hyperinclusionists who want articles on every county road, but that's a bit radical for me.) If we go with that second interpretation, we have to determine where the line is between the FMs that are "important enough" and those that aren't. I would say FM 752 falls below that line; at best it is an old alignment of US 69 and at worst is just a meandering alternate to it. So, I don't think it's worth having a full article on. List entry, yes, Rockland County Scenario-esque entry, maybe, full article, no. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scott, the only reason I'm willing to keep this particular article at this time is that secondary highway system or not, the article was 2 days old when the AfD was initiated. Past precedent has shown that articles with similar lengths or "non-primary state highway status" can be turned into very viable articles. Two days is not long enough for me to judge the notability nor viability of this article yet. Otherwise every highway stub out there of similar highway length, article length and article development should be deleted. I feel as though this nomination is a knee-jerk reaction by someone that saw several new articles being created en masse. I have counseled its creator to spend more time on the quality of each article being created so that each one can be developed enough to ensure notability. Otherwise, it appears to be a race to finish a "to-do list" to get "all the missing articles created". Imzadi 1979 → 21:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps this is where you and I disagree. I tend to follow a model of AFD as "timeless", where the importance of an topic can be examined separately from the merits of the article itself, disregarding such things such as the age of the article or its current level of sophistication. If we do that—take just the subject of the article into our consideration and not the article itself—we see that FM 752 is part of a class of potential article subjects, that of Texas Farm-to-Market Roads. Are all FMs suitable topics for an article? Let's examine FM 2465. (You can examine this highway on Google Maps by searching for "Farm to Market Rd 2465 Childress TX".) Would this be a good topic for an article? It starts two miles south of the Red River, goes west for 2.8 miles, and from the same point goes east 0.7 miles to a stream crossing, and ends. Notice there are no towns noted anywhere in the highway's definition—the highway is described from an arbitrary point on US 83 relative to the Red River, and the highway is simply denoted as distances from that point. Its purpose is unknown; presumably it was built to connect to the Conkline Creek crossing, but assuming such would be OR. It serves no other immediately obvious purpose, as doesn't connect to any incorporated territory at all. Wikipedia could not do much better at describing this highway than Google Maps does. We could include the two history notes that TxDOT gives us, but that's still barely enough for a four-sentence article. With this example in hand, we must come to the conclusion that not all FMs should get articles. So then, with this in mind, the question for FM 752 is "does the same apply for this route as it does for FM 2465?" Obviously this is more of a gray area, because FM 752 does connect two towns. However, US 69 does the same thing better (it appears to be a divided expressway) so FM 752 appears to be a glorified back road. (From its appearance on the map, it may well be an old alignment of US 69, but the TxDOT designation file makes no such declaration). In my mind, that tells me that FM 752 isn't important enough (important, that is, not notable, since we do have sources from TxDOT and DeLorme that it exists) in the grand scheme of things to get an article. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Improving the article would not be difficult. This provides a great opportunity for the new editor who wrote it to familiarize himself with the project's article standards and get experience writing and improving articles. Besides, I don't want to discourage the guy because we need more active editors in Texas. Fortguy (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this one of the better road articles is a bit of an insult to the editors of WP:USRD considering this is a stub as of this writing. Anyway...we do need to look at how we handle Farm to Market and Ranch to Market Roads. By their very nature, most of them are spurs connecting extremely rural areas to larger, more populated areas. Unless they have a substantial history, they're probably not deserving of standalone articles. We should treat the vast majority as we would members of any secondary state highway system, and that's by merging them into RCS-style lists. However, this decision should be made in another venue, such as USRD or WT:TXSH. Thus, conditional keep on the basis that this subject is notable enough for some kind of coverage in Wikipedia. – T M F 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never heard of the RCS until the link was brought up. If there could be such grouping involved about FMs/RMs, I see only 2 ways to do it: the number range or by county. A quick glance at any TX map with FM/RM routes on it will show that not every county has a uniform amount of routes. Cherokee County (for example), where FM 752 is, has 37 FMs (and another on the way), which would make quite a long article and some might have a problem with an article that is longer than is accepted for most subjects (I guess, I'm still feeling my way around). But to group them by county wouldn't always work, as several FM/RM routes cover multiple counties, which would be difficult to have a single link to. As for the number range in the RCS, how many could be grouped without the article being lengthy? 5? 10? 15? Awtribute (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This road is a state highway, albeit a secondary one, and it does have a good bit of content and the potential for expansion; if anyone could get access to this book, for example, we could probably expand the route description a bit. (For some of the context, see the snippet here.) Also keep in mind that we have GAs on lesser highways than this (several county roads in rural New York come to mind), so calling this unexpandable is a bit premature given the article's only a few days old.

Incidentally, if the tide of this discussion does turn toward deletion, WikiProject U.S. Roads needs to find a policy for merging these before deleting any outright. There's a lot of farm-to-market roads with articles that are about the same as this one notability-wise, and if they're not notable enough for their own articles, they should all be merged somewhere per the current policy on county roads and the like. Since there isn't a decided format for merging them yet, this will probably take some discussion outside this Afd. (And develop some more defined notability rules perhaps, but we can cross that bridge if we come to it.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated one of those rural NY county route GAs for AFD about a year ago; unfortunately it was kept due to a lack of a consensus. That route, unlike FM 752, isn't even signed - it's nothing more than an internal inventory number. I know all about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I see this as another reason to keep FM 752 in some form. – T M F 03:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I agree with you that FM 752 should be kept, I also agree with you about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and I'm not sure that some of those county route GAs are notable either; take this one (in the aforementioned Rockland County, no less), which somehow got to GA with four sources, three of them maps. It's not too bad lengthwise, but one non-map reference and the entire route description coming from Google Maps doesn't strike me as quality sourcing. There's several others like it of varying length and class, mostly in New York and New Jersey (Florida too, but those are mostly stubs and have been getting deleted/merged lately); I don't want to cause more WP:USRD infighting given the project's history, but the project might want to consider whether some of these articles should exist, especially if FM roads start being considered non-notable. (A little off-topic, I know, but still important given the context.) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm all for junking 99% of the standalone county route articles, but there are some highway editors in both WP:USRD and WP:HWY who are hellbent on keeping them. A USRD editor who feels the same way as me once compared the effort to phase them out to tilting at windmills, and he's spot on. – T M F 03:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, given the project's history with these kind of issues, or pretty much anything divisive (naming conventions, NYSR, the first county road debate), getting into another huge debate probably isn't the best idea; I don't want to drive people off over something like this. (That, and I try to avoid road drama as it is; my response to USRD debates is usually to work on another topic until the whole thing blows over. Why must WP:USRD be such a lightning rod for wikidrama?) Though I do find it strange that the less notable county routes seem to be concentrated in two states; I know we have more dedicated editors in those two, but it still seems like a double standard when almost everything else has been merged, deleted, or properly referenced. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 03:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the FM roads are state highways, and state highways are inherently notable. Length really shouldn't be a factor; we don't try to delete Dean Barkley simply because he was a U.S. senator for a very short period of time. Nyttend (talk) 23:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Apparently I misjudged the response here, although I find this somewhat shocking as we've never included every state highway as though it were independently notable. Just do a quick street view of it south of Rusk, Texas. It's a 2 lane blacktop road with no shoulder for a stretch. This is not a major thoroughfare: it's a basic state highway. I fear that the rationale for keeping is either unaware of WP:DIRECTORY or incompatible with it. Let's go back to first principles. What are the WP:RS that indicate notability? What I see for a source is the Texas DOT's almanac listing of every road they manage, and then two references to maps. That's not an indication of notability unless we've expanded the notion of inherent notability to epic proportions. Shadowjams (talk) 07:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Underworld (film series)#Fourth film. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Underworld IV[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER. Released over a year from now, and it is "rumored", which is unclear because it's referred to by name and then as a definite article... either way no references and speculative. Hammer time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge/Redirect to Underworld (film series)#Fourth film The film's prospects have received quite a bit of coverage.[17] Per WP:CRYSTAL, it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur. Since the article is curently not huge in size, its being merged will not overburden the parent article at Underworld (film series), and for such smaller stubs, such a merge is recommended by WP:NFF. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. Shadowjams (talk) 06:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Courcelles 01:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Texas vs. Ohio State football game[edit]

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

This is a regular season college football game with no indication that it's notable more than any other game. The references are some standard sports reporting references, nothing to indicate that this game is notable, and nothing in the article to indicate as much either. Shadowjams (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NOT#NEWS etc. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One at least expects some EFFORT to show that an ordinary, regular season college football game was in some way extraordinary. This article doesn't even try to do that. WP:LAME-O. Carrite (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I must say though, I am a fan of the fraudulent "GA" status in the top right! Paralympiakos (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be amazed how many new articles have {{pp-semiprotect}} on them. Is that part of the article creation template or something? I do have to say though, learning by experience is by far the most natural way... it's what I did. Reverse engineering wiki syntax is a good sign, although... maybe not. Shadowjams (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but I wanna see the article develop. Why keep? It's actually a notable regular season game--the first time ranked #1 met ranked #2 in 10 years outside of a bowl game, and that's significant. The article as written isn't necessarily "harmful" just merely lacking in good information and editing (in other words, there's no reason to delete based on the content of the article). I'm normally not much of a fan of creating an article for each and every game, but in this case for this unique match-up, I say we should work to improve the article rather than delete it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while this was a major regular season game, this isn't the "Fifth Down Game". Not every game is notable, and I don't see this as sufficiently non-newsy to warrant an article. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" said Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle... but we have articles on Kennedy, Quayle, Bentsen, and the quote!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS as per Stifle. Codf1977 (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. as hoax Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Torijutsu[edit]

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

Subject is not notable by any means. No reliable sources on this topic. Seems to use facebook and forum posts as a scholarly references. Fails to meet WP:GNG. Odie5533 (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This appears to be a blatant hoax article, and the sources that are cited are either dubious or have no direct bearing on the topic. Fails notability per nominator when the sources are fully examined. Triona (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as A7 and tagged. No indication of importance. No verifiable, reliable sources. Aditya Ex Machina 07:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Additional information The prior nom was rendered moot by a db-owner before consensus could be reached. Triona (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mattia Destro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Destro may likely to make his first team debut on OFFICIAL Game soon (after 29 August to a date not yet know), as wikipedia is not a crystal ball and "success" in youth international match did not count, the player currently should be deleted as he is not yet notable. Matthew_hk t c 06:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - still yet to make his professional debut, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if & when he does. Giant Snowman 17:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOM as failing NSPORTS and coverage is trivial or sports journalism. Probably not G4 as it includes 2010 data, but when it was deleted a over year ago the few keep opinions all had Destro surely will make his competitive debut soon type comments, but he still hasn't. WP:CRYSTAL says I'd be a bit embarrassed to suggest keep and find he goes another year without playing. Not Yet, Too Soon. --ClubOranje^T 10:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 00:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fookit Ball[edit]

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

Game made up one day. No Google hits, non-notable. JNW (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC) JNW (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this on a brief new page patrol a few minutes ago, delete and possible speedy. The source at the bottom is somewhat deceiving. Esteffect (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't it time we had speedy deletion criteria for games? JNW (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know it's not explicitly covered under it, but I've seen A7 used for games that somebody just made up used before. Esteffect (talk) 04:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Game made up one day, which fails notability due to lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons of disease prevention: The sport was created as a recreational activity, but has turned into an epidemic. I used to play games called Mitchell-League Baseball and Gorp (tennis ball game) when I was a kid. Those don't need Wikipedia pages either. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love it. Apparently it's also extremely addictive, which suggests other concerns, as well. Perhaps the DEA should be notified. JNW (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It seems like something that was made up one day. It also sounds a very well-thought out game if (a) you have to call your own fouls and (b) disputes are sorted out by name calling. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. Strangest set of references I've ever seen...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Young[edit]

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

Bringing straight to AFD as I see a PROD as potentially contested, and as sources given attempt to assert notability, so I don't see a speedy deletion as appropriate. Founder of an LGBT group (Gay in Federal Way) that appears to have no notability beyond that, he's been mentioned in some LGBT press over an incident it appears, but that would go down as the one event rule. The organisation themselves look to be of dubious notability, but I'll leave that for someone else to decide the AFD-worthiness of. Esteffect (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The group didn't just get some "gay press." They got KOMO 4 News, the most award winning and highly reputed tv news station in Washington State. If you go to the Gay in Federal Way story on KOMO you'll see they had the most viewed and most commented story for that day and for the following days, something really rare. They have also been mentioned in the Federal Way Mirror, The Stranger, and others. You're also missing the fact that Gay in Federal Way is the first gay group ever created in Federal Way, one of the largest (and yet somehow least culturally developed) cities in Washington. The creation of the group, with the key player being the groups founder/organizer, is a watershed moment for the city. I'm also not done editing the article, need a little more time, and I have more references. ElmerBront (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect. While I concur that there are reliable sources available, they focus on the organization, rather than the founder. Cindamuse (talk) 23:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The KOMO article was in the "people" section on KOMO's website. They did the story to firstly feature the organizer, who is controversial in the city. I've just added more to the bio to show relevance, including other things he's done and got coverage on not related to the Gay in Federal Way organization, I didn't have time to finish it when I started (and when it was nominated for deletion). Added some references, and have a few more I am looking for about the article Auburn Mayor Bob Roegner wrote in response to his protest. ElmerBront (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, I think that the one notable incident doesn't distinguish the individual enough to prevent this from being a WP:BLP1E. The organisation seems notable, and so any information on the founder in relation to that should logically be merged. The other coverage doesn't look widespread beyond the local and LGBT press, and the larger coverage seems to be centred chiefly on the organisation and himself. Esteffect (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread the article Esteffect, I just added a lot to it showing it's more than one incident, and giving it enough unique referenced information not related to the group to have it qualify for its own article. ElmerBront (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 08:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 08:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the exception of a couple of paragraphs about the rape protest all coverage of the individual is in relation to the formation and activities of the organization. Sourcing is dubious; letters to the editor and blog posts for a lot of it. Per WP:N coverage that amounts to identifying a person as part of a group or identifying them for purposes of attributing a quote don't establish notability. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article seems bigger and more thought out than the orgs page; maybe delete that one. Sources dubious? I didn't know newspapers and news stations weren't reliable sources. I guess we better delete a 100 million dubious references now from wikipedia. 174.24.205.198 (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Letters to the editor and blogs, as well as television reports on the fallout from Young's activism are not considered reliable sources for inclusion on Wikipedia. Regardless of the status of another article, or its use of unreliable sources matters little here. Each article stands or falls on its own merits. Cindamuse (talk) 09:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See prior comments for reasons. ElmerBront (talk) 05:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just in case the closing administrator overlooks, ElmerBlont made the first comment arguing its case (whilst not explicitly stating to keep; just so he isn't counted twice). Esteffect (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rachael Lorenz[edit]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Hall Civic Center[edit]

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

No references that establish notability are given, and browsing through Google News and Google Books hits reveals nothing, no discussion of the topic. One or two articles mention that it's the biggest attraction in Johnson City--but if you've ever been to Johnson City, you know that doesn't mean that much. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would've speedied this as A1. This is not an encyclopedia article. Keep per references added. This user has made numerous sub-stubs that all begin the same way and it's beginning to be a strain on other editors who have to go clean up behind him and verify if the building is notable or not. -- œ ^™ 04:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions.
Keep. I added references from three different newspapers. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and I've now changed my !vote to keep. But this just proves my point. The creator of this article and many others similar to it makes absolutely no effort to add any references or any pertinent information regarding these buildings and relies entirely on the work of other editors to clean up immediately after him so that it doesn't get deleted, and so he may then take credit for creating the article and then boast on their talk pages about how they "updated his awesome article". It's infuriating and I for one will not encourage such behaviour. -- œ ^™ 19:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even with the references, sounds like a very run-of-the-mill venue of purely local interest. The newspapers provided are all purely local; only one is even about the structure (a renovation), the other two are merely "coming events" notices. --MelanieN (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, though I thank Eastmain for their efforts. These sources do not provide significant discussion that explains or verified the building's notability. Eastmain, the moment you turn this into a DYK I will withdraw the nomination! After all, you could do with some practice... ;) Drmies (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mali Kouanchao[edit]

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

I do not think what is asserted is notable by WP:CREATIVE.--these are basically student fellowships and awards, and the permanent exhibits of her work are not in major museums. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; my standards for inclusion are so far above DGG's that I am confident any article he supports deleting is not worthy of inclusion. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's this, no discussion of sources? Not even those listed in the article? The first one covers the subject in some depth, although it seems to be based on an interview with the subject and thus is not third-party. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Fincke[edit]

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

I don't see how he is notable. KzKrann (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: In my opinion, the subject fails the criteria listed for creative professionals at WP:CREATIVE, though failure to meet the said criteria is not conclusive proof that the subject should not be included. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 01:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A poem in the Gettysburg Review is not sufficient for notability. The Rhymesmith (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Wong (pianist)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently assess notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is a conductor with the same name, easy to confuse the two when searching. J04n(talk page) 01:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds like a solid artist and music teacher, but I just couldn't find reviews or other evidence of notability. The more I searched, the more impressed I became by the notability of the OTHER Samuel Wong, the conductor - but I just couldn't find anything about this one. --MelanieN (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V and WP:N. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jujutacular ^talk 00:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster Preparedness and Response Business Process Management (DPRBPM)[edit]

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

WP:OR essay where all sources are written by Paula Smith, Phd. Appears to be a vehicle used to promote the works of Smith and possibly a WP:COI. Drdisque (talk) 00:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the nominator that this seems to paint entirely too rosy a picture, and seems to be intended to sell consulting services:

The DPRBPM can integrate and accommodate all other software applications and systems already in existence. None of these would have to change, or be replaced except as an operational choice....
The process is capable of infinite expansion in its structure, and as such invites collaborative and cooperative use simultaneously. It can reconcile all programs into common use....
The system is very user friendly and easy to operate....
...its use is to drive business and trade transactions – fast, utilizing all resources, communicating accurately and quickly...
This process can reside globally and securely, completely interoperable communications - in a laptop or Blackberry....
The Interoperable Communications component, when included, is reliable and secure, defaulting to the optimal system use with dedicated secure (cots) processes within this system....

In addition to these specific concerns, like many such articles this text is entirely too vague and abstract to really be informative. To the extent that this is one person's theory --- all the references mention Dr. Paula Smith, and the article creator is User:Pabs22 --- this may also qualify as original research. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no indication that this methodology is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional in nature. All sources self-referential. --MelanieN (talk) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Monk (series 7). Stifle (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Monk Gets Lotto Fever[edit]

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

Writing an article about every TV episode of a series doesn't seem helpful. The series may be notable but not every single episode deserves an article. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Though it may not be one of the more memorable episodes of the series, it is nevertheless an important installment in a popular series. Kevinbrogers (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? What makes this episode notable? The article is basically just a plot synopsis. There is no indication this episode won any awards, was discussed at length in the media, or was notable for any other reason other than it happens to be an episode of a popular TV show. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, I agree, the article should be expanded beyond a basic plot synopsis. However, based on various precedents in TV shows (such as the low-rated Arrested Development, which has an article for every episode), I think this episode (and many others) deserve articles. I'm not saying we should throw Other Stuff Exists out the window, just that we go off precedent here. Kevinbrogers (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To a "List of episodes" of the series. "I Like It" is not a sufficient justification for separate articles about every single episode of a TV series. If the episode has not had significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, it does not pass notability. Edison (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Default to keep per obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. I can't vote to delete when the nominator's rationale is simply, "Wikipedia just has too darn many episode articles. I don't like episode articles. This shouldn't have an episode article because episodes aren't notable." Vodello (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list of episodes. Agreed with Vodello, though, IDONTLIKEIT noms should be avoided. Aditya Ex Machina 07:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. The series may be notable, but the individual episodes don't inherit their notability from the series itself when standing alone. Triona (talk) 07:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I share the nom's concerns, but we do tend to keep most individual show recaps so long as they're reasonable, and the series is of at least a certain threshold notability. This one appears to be that. However, I'd galdly reverse that position if someone started mass creating stubs. This article isn't that though. Shadowjams (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I would also support an RfC to define more precise limits on this issue. Because I don't know if every cartoon ever shown should have an article, but every episode of The Sopranos should have one, but that's my own personal bias, which is why maybe we need a better criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the criteria should be better. I don't know if this is the place to discuss such a thing, but I've noticed various discrepancies, such as every episode of House or Seinfeld having an article, when some are barely memorable. Of course, that may just be because no one has noticed them yet. Kevinbrogers (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A worldwide syndicated TV show, every episode is notable. Citybrand (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC) — Citybrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge and redirect per above; nom's issues aside, not all TV series episodes are inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monk (season 7) per TPH. No sources evident, so no prejudice to being recreated or kept when and if reliable secondary sources (e.g., reviews) are added. Jclemens (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect. No evidence of WP:Notability, violates WP:NOT#PLOT. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is clearly a consensus for deletion here, the Keep rationales do not make it clear why this game is particularly notable. "The match has been released on DVD" - so have thousands of others. "It set records" - in that case, as pointed out, we have an article for that (incidentally, one of the records - most goals scored by a team in a PL game - doesn't appear there). I hope this is a clear enough rationale. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 9–1 Wigan Athletic F.C.[edit]

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

An article about a game with nothing more than a rather unusual result. The fact it equalled (not beated) a previous record for the number of scored goals does not make the game notable on its own, and is nothing more worth of a mention in the Premier League article, as well as the article about the Premier League season when it happened. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Manchester City F.C. 4–1 Tottenham Hotspur F.C. and Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C.. Angelo (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We definitely need to make sure that random football matches don't gain an article, but this was big news at the time, and the match has even been released on DVD. The article needs expansion, though. Esteffect (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously the doomed deletion of the two articles, one regarding the Tottenham 3-4 Manchester City FA Cup have set the precedent for separate match pages, therefore I see it right and fair that this match page is removed too. To add to Esteffect's comment, the Tottenham 3-4 Manchester City was actually released on DVD too, but this page is doomed for deletion too, so likewise for this page (Stevo1000 Talk 01:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think I ever seen WP:OTHERSTUFFMIGHTGETDELETED put forth as a valid deletion reason before. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A big score does not make a match notable, nor does a DVD release. Apart from the score, which in itself was not a Premier League record breaker, it's just another league game. Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that just because OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that not anything must have an article, but bear in mind that we currently have articles on single American football plays (one part of a match) (for example Music City Miracle, Immaculate Reception and The Miracle at Michigan). As it stands, those plays are deemed notable even if the match they played in aren't.—User:MDCollins (talk) 01:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the Immaculate Reception at least demonstrates that the play has received ongoing coverage beyond contemporary news accounts, so notability is shown there. The article in question here does not do likewise. There are referencing problems with Music City Miracle (which I find astonishing), but that isn't relevant here anyway and that issue can be addressed in the appropriate place. AJ Cham 03:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as indiscriminate information, failing WP:N. Ignore "otherstuffexists" argument.Edison (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—If this game is notable because of a record, it can be summarized in Football records in England.—RJH (talk) 04:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment (lean towards keep)~~Keep Some individual matches are notable. This match has received significant nontrivial coverage from international sources. If the sharing a record is considered notable in the sources then it might be notable on Wikipedia. Otherstuff essays do not forbid us from pointing to other articles when there is good reason and potential precedent. The article in question currently link to the two separate matches it shares records with. Those might need to be deleted as well of course, but some poking around in books and ongoing news coverage (as in years later, let me know if links are needed) about the sport discusses them. It is safe to assume that this will receive the same treatment. Any biography of Defoe will discuss the game. Any reviews of this season will discuss the match. Some media discussing records might touch on it. Records are typically notable in my opinion. And there are two of them in one match. Records are made to be broken but notability is not temporary.Cptnono (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By that token, every notable club's record victory is notable, as it will be discussed in any book about that club, or any player who played in that game. That makes a lot of articles that could be created. Hundreds, in fact. Bretonbanquet (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I can't see Gillingham F.C. 12-1 Gloucester City F.C. surviving an AfD..... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I. Just like I can't see Preston North End F.C. 26-0 Hyde F.C. or Preston North End 10-0 Stoke City F.C. (although I think it was just "Stoke F.C." at the time) surviving an AfD. (Even though I think the first one is the highest ever score in an FA Cup game.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Although given half a chance, I'll be straight in with Leyton Orient F.C. 9-2 Chester F.C.. Double figures are so vulgar ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are the other two articles about matches that share records with this one going up for deletion as well?Newcastle United F.C. 8–0 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. and Newcastle United F.C. 8–0 Sheffield Wednesday F.C. Cptnono (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are the same, but it should go for deletion as well. That info could easily be merged to the Newcastle and Shearer articles, as it is his achievement, not the game, which is notable. The rest of the article is just team line-ups, which are neither here nor there. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Manchester United F.C. 9–0 Ipswich Town F.C. is the other. If all three are viewed as good candidates for deletion then it makes more sense.Cptnono (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually support the inclusion of the highest scoring FA Cup match if it has had significant coverage. Try it out.Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It may have been a high score, but that doesn't make the game notable (and it's certainly not a record: Man United beat Ipswich 9-0 in 1995, whilst Wigan scored in this game). Nor does the fact that Defoe got five goals (again, not a record - Andy Cole and Alan Shearer had already done it). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what is the cut-off for "big goal" games being notable? Ten goals? Nine goals? Eight? Based on England's performance at the World Cup, if they score two against Hungary on Wednesday it'll be a notable performance! Giant Snowman 17:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable game, a big score does not make it notable. --Carioca (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carioca and because I'm a Wigan fan )-: Stifle (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd like to make the point that (albeit in the majority of cases passively) I have encountered most of the editors I have named below. While I have had disagreements with the nominator on AfD matters in the past, I otherwise have a lot of respect for the work that he and everyone else here has done for the project. However, I have not seen a single good reason for deletion. First up, Edison's argument that this is indiscrimiate is a fallacy, as we are talking about a (joint) record, not a willy-nilly high number that catches a few eyes and we've therefore written about. Secondly, this match equalled the record for the most goals scored by a team and an individual. It is entirely inconsistent to argue that setting a record is notable but matching the achievement while it is still a record is not, as Angelo and DitzyNizzy appear to have done; it is either one or the other. The delete arguments on the grounds that "a score" is not notable (including GiantSnowman, Bretonbanquet Carioca and Stifle) have only given half the story. "A score" is not notable, I fully accept that. But a double record-equalling match in one of the most-watched sports leagues (both in person and on TV) probably is notable. It just so happens that "a score" is one of those two records. Also possibly relevant to the discussion is the fact that Stevo is making a point-y vote because articles he has named, likes, and is trying to keep seem unlikely to survive. I look forward with interest to the outcome of this AfD. Provided that the above arguments are the only things people have, the closure of this AfD will give an indication as to whether admins understand that AfD is supposed to be based upon the strength of arguments. --W F C-- 02:24, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a notable game, and set records. Whilst most sources for it appear to be match reports immediately after the event, they indicate the importance of the game, and articles such as this should not be deleted just because they are relatively recent. Eldumpo (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTNEWS and failing general notability for events. End of the day it was just another football match - and not a particularly good one at that. Worth a mention in a relevant season article, but not particularly notable in and of itself. Even if you accept the equalling record aspect of notability, it only equalled the record for the English Premier League, not the record for any game anywhere. Plenty of other scores higher. Fails . When this record gets beaten it is no longer a record and therefore becomes non-notable - so much for notability being not temporary. Should appear in Football records in England or 2009–10 Premier League, but undue weight to have as stand alone article. Yes it got the odd other mention during the season, and no doubt it will get dragged out again this season when Spurs come up against Wigan, but that is just general sports journalism which is not notability per WP:NTEMP--ClubOranje^T 10:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "When this record gets beaten it is no longer a record and therefore becomes non-notable - so much for notability being not temporary." The clearest possible indiciation that this user has absolutely no idea what "notability is not temporary" means. --WFC-- 18:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite possibly I am not up to date with all the latest policies and guidelines - back when I started there was still a no personal attacks policy where we were supposed to comment on content, not on the contributor. At one time, 3-0 was a record for the premier league. Later it was 4-0. Later still it was 5-3. I remember a time when 7-1 was the premier league record. I do not see individual pages for these records. At one time each was mentioned on the appropriate statistics and records page, where it was subsequently updated with the latest quasi record... and I say quasi-record because that is all it is - a local record in a local league that has only been about for less than 20 years. This information belongs on the appropriate statistics and records page and/or possibly within a season article, not in it's own temporary page--ClubOranje^T 09:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I have done is remove the above on the grounds that I did not make a personal attack. If the allegation is not retracted or appropriately refactored, I will take the matter as far as is necessary. --W F C-- 00:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see what particularly distinguishes this game from others given that it didn't set a new record. FWIW, Wigan also lost 8–0 to Chelsea on the final day of the same season, which perhaps underlines the point that this game wasn't that exceptional. Close but no cigar. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again, this !voter is explicitly stating that setting a record is notable, whilst equalling it is not, contrary to WP:NTEMP. --W F C-- 18:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the outcome, I'd be grateful if the closing admin could provide a proper closing rationale, so that participants can be sure that the AfD was closed as an evaluation of the discussion, rather than as a vote. Even though any rationale should not be seen as a precident, a rationale along the lines of the one here would be extremely helpful to WP:FOOTY in our medium-term goal of working out if/how match notability should be determined. Regards, --W F C-- 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually some decent reasoning for both if you remove the !votes that were simply based on it being a high score. I still think the reasoning to keep is better backed by both precedent and the guidelines. I too would be curious about any closure to delete since that would set some stuff in motion for a change in the notability standards over at the project.Cptnono (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Blood Runs Black[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band and their non-notable album (Allegiance (As Blood Runs Black album)). This article was deleted via AfD in 2006, and nothing has changed since then. They've only released one album, fails WP:BAND. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 03:49, 3 August 2010 (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) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete band and album; nothing found outside a very terse Allmusic bio. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reel to Red Productions[edit]

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

Some hits and google news but not much, able to verify it won some awards but I doubt they would be considered enough to secure notability Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The awards they have won aren't just "some awards." The Webby Awards are considered the Oscars of the Internet by several publications, including TIME Magazine. The Lone Star Emmy Awards are Texas-wide. The Telly Awards are international with major agencies participating, such as NBC Universal and Oprah. They ARE notable. I implore you to reconsider. Captureslikenoother (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2010 (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) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Webby Awards are a total non-award and scam as far as I'm concerned. Christopher Connor (talk) 19:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G8 Research Group[edit]

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

Organisation of dubious notability. Most of the sources I found are from Twitter, Facebook and other pages directly related to the group. Additionally, there are COI issues as the page is being edited by somebody who claims to be managing director of the group.[18] AussieLegend (talk) 04:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, The article may not be written properly at the moment, but it can certainly be cleaned up. The article contains external links within its text that can possibly be used as sources. Moreover, this article talks about a subject that deals with world affairs (G8) and one of the only notable organizations that is dedicated to collecting primary sources of information about the group. Also, contrary to the AFD nominator's claim, most of the hits on Google about this group are not from Twitter or Facebook, there is only one from each site. All other hits provide ample information which support the group in question's notability. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I said was was that most of the hits "are from Twitter, Facebook and other pages directly related to the group". (note the emphasis) Clicking on the link above, the first six links are links to the group's own websites, followed by its Facebook and Twitter pages. As regards notability. The general notability guideline requires that the subject receives "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I don't see the "significant coverage". --AussieLegend (talk) 23:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but there still seem to be some secondary sources that describe the G8 Research Group such as this one. A few exist for the G20 Research Group. Maybe a merge of the two could suffice or userfy until clearly written out using available secondary sources. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:37, 7 August 2010 (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) 00:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G20 Research Group[edit]

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

The subject of this article is an organisation of dubious notability. Most of the sources I found are from Twitter, Facebook and other pages directly related to the group. The article was created and almost exclusively edited by somebody who claims to be the managing director of the subect,[19] presenting a clear conflict of interest She acknowledges that reliable, third party sources are limited,[20] supporting my belief that this orgranisation fails the general notability guidelines. AussieLegend (talk) 05:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, The article may not be written properly at the moment, but it can certainly be cleaned up. The article contains external links within its text that can possibly be used as sources. Moreover, this article talks about a subject that deals with world affairs (G-20 major economies) and one of the only notable organizations that is dedicated to collecting primary sources of information about the group. Also, contrary to the AFD nominator's claim, most of the hits on Google about this group are not from Twitter or Facebook, there is only one from each site. All other hits provide ample information which support the group in question's notability. EelamStyleZ (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I said was was that most of the hits "are from Twitter, Facebook and other pages directly related to the group". (note the emphasis) Clicking on the link above, there are several links to the first page to group's own websites, along with its Facebook and Twitter pages. As regards notability. The general notability guideline requires that the subject receives "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", and I don't see the "significant coverage". Even the managing director acknowledged that "not much is out that is actually written *about* the G20RG, so the source for all citations will be the G20 Information Centre, which we publish". --AussieLegend (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but there still seem to be some secondary sources that describe the G8 Research Group such as this one. A few exist for the G20 Research Group. Maybe a merge of the two could suffice or userfy until clearly written out using available secondary sources. EelamStyleZ (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2010 (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) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shiksa[edit]

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

Delete? I think this should probably be deleted, I feel as if it violates the general WP:NOT-a-dictionary rule. I'm not seeing this ever going beyond an over-glorified dictionary definition, and the cleanup tags from a year and a half ago reinforce that belief. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Possibly could be improved by bringing in the entire Seinfeld episode based upon the word. In general, the article is a little too Oxford-Dictionary-ish for Wikipedia... Carrite (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The term itself is notable [21] and [22] and there's a debate as to whether it should or shouldn't be considered offensive. It's not as well known as the Jewish-American princess, but the stereotype of a "shiksa" (basically, the non-Jewish girlfriend) gets portrayed in novels and plays. I'd never heard of it until an episode of The Big Bang Theory, with Howard describing the shiksa and Sheldon pronouncing it "shixy". Only a weak keep, because it's not a very good article and, as the nominator notes, it doesn't look like it's going to be improved anytime soon. Mandsford 19:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are there any sources that show that this concept is notable on its own, rather than just a dictionary entry with more etymology than typical but without more. See, e.g., Black president in popular culture (United States) which originated as Black president; perhaps there is enough to have a Shiksa in popular culture, and perhaps not. But the article has a ways to go... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2010 (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) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. (And they omitted the common suffix "whore" [23]). Edison (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

not sure I understand the previous comment about "whore". There are seven results from your search of "shiksa whore" but 16,500 results for just shiksa. Does not seem like that common of a pairing whereas "shiksa goddess" results in 1,070 results. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 03:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a fairly clear keep to me. The notability I do not think is in question so it is really a question of whether there is room in Wikipedia for a term like this. The example of a concept / term at WP:NOT#Dict is Truthiness which does not seem to distinguish itself in any way other than the amount of content included in the article. Similarly terms like the "n" word or wop are considered acceptable. Closer to this topic both yid and Jewish-American princess are considered ok describing jewish people which makes me wonder what is the distinction being drawn by the proposing editor. More to the point - Could the article be bolstered? Absolutely. I think a good start might be uses in popular culutre (see: Shiksappeal) or the recent use of the term to describe Chelsea Clinton in respect of her marriage to a jewish man. It appears that when the article was created there was more of this content but it has been removed in the last two years. Adding back conent from previous versions would seem like a good place to go. Alternatively a good etymological overview or an exploration of how the term was used in Yiddish speaking contexts versus how it is used casually by jews in america. Finally it is worth noting that Shegetz is not part of this discussion despite the fact that "The term has enjoyed less currency in English than the feminine shiksa".|► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 03:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To me this is a clear case of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article is about the word, not about the people. I am sure there are articles about Jewish/non-Jewish relationships where this could redirect to a section which mentions various terms involved. Kitfoxxe (talk) 04:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there's a sister project - wiktionary for this, doesn't worth being as an encyclopedic article. Userpd (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More than a thousand Scholar hits.[24] Books, of what looks like widely varying levels of high-seriousness, written about the concept.[25] I can't say that this article will never move past being a dictionary definition, or that the concept is not notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:21, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs work, but there is probably an article here. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Urbanrenew. I encourage expansion as well. Outback the koala (talk) 22:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Carrite and Smerdis of Tlön. This needed work before it was nominated. Bearian (talk)
Keep It is quite obvious that an article can be written about this - see The Quest for the Ultimate Shiksa or Shiksa: The Gentile Woman in the Jewish World Colonel Warden (talk) 21:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 85.210.97.235 (talk) 00:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hidekazu Ichinose[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. In addition to the usual Google book and Google news searches, I checked the references at his Thai, Chinese?, and Japaneses Wikipedia pages but only found blogs, user contributed pages, broken links and his own webpage. Does not seem that the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ENTERTAINER. This WP:BLP has gone unsourced for three years. J04n(talk page) 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. --Calathan (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Even for a stub, this is doing a bad job of asserting his notability. His roles on Reborn! and Ultraman Cosmos seem to be as major characters, but I'm not familiar enough with the series to confirm this. If anyone can, and can source his roles in them, that would make him pass WP:ENTERTAINER. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've sourced three of the four roles and generally cleaned up the article. His role as Hayato Gokudera in Katekyō Hitman Reborn! does appear to be significant. However, I have not yet fond a source for his role as Keisuke Fubuki in Ultraman Cosmos at this time. —Farix (t | c) 21:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A source has been found. Between those two roles, this looks to pass WP:ENTERTAINER, making this a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep having finished sourcing the article and noted two significant roles in two notable television series, it's clear that he minimally passes Criterion #1 of the inclusion criteria for entertainers. —Farix (t | c) 22:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He did the voice of a main character for at least two notable shows Katekyo Hitman Reborn! and Ultraman Cosmos (2001). The second one list him in the cast in that article, and the first one links to the character Hayato Gokudera in that series, which is a major character obviously since he even has his own article. Dream Focus 23:32, 3 August 2010 (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) 00:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:ENTERTAINER and article has potental. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Insufficiently sourced. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noreen Brownlie[edit]

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

Non-notable author, espically since none of her books have a wiki themselves. No sources since October of 2009, and a possible COI. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 14:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article simply needs expansion and sourcing. This author is notable with nine novels published by Harlequin, an industry leading publisher of women's fiction. Existence of separate Wikipedia articles of published works is not indicative of notability. While the subject may have been the original author, COI is not sufficient reason to delete. Cindamuse (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible keep. IF the author is prominent and one can find sources to support that, then keep. Willbennett2007 (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having written several romance novels is not a sufficient reason by itself for an author to have a Wikipedia article. That genre is not generally regarded as serious literature. Romance novels generally are cranked out in huge numbers and have a short shelf life, being termed something like "Issue #513 of Silhouette Desire." I could find nothing at Google News archive which would satisfy WP:Author. Google Book, besides her romance novels, some mention (no preview online) in one "Romance readers' handbook", which might or might not be significant coverage. Edison (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2010 (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) 00:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. Simply being published isn't enough. Her books don't seem to have made an impact with no prominent reviews or awards for example. Having not a single source can't help either. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wormwood (The Acacia Strain album)[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, made up of primary sources. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia, fanwank, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - for editors who are usually sticklers for WP rules and guidelines, you two guys weren't even close on this one. Before I got to the article today, it was indeed full of weak fan prose and unreliable sources. But I see no evidence that the nominator or previous voter did a single second of good faith research before condemning this legit topic to deletion. The article needed cleanup and improvement, which I proceeded to do with minimal effort. As for this AfD, the article text says (and always said) that the album was released on July 20, and then Justin nominated it as a WP:CRYSTAL violation after that on August 3. The album was indeed released on July 20 as seen here. This AfD nomination is illegitimate right off the bat because WP:CRYSTAL was never even applicable. Meanwhile, the album did indeed reach the Billboard Top 200, and is at #195 this week after peaking at #67 and reaching quite high on the rock-oriented charts. Mr. Hammer has a point about lack of secondary sources, except for Billboard, which didn't take me too long to find. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:01, 5 August 2010 (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) 00:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources added. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gallow Hill (Abigail Williams EP)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:MUSIC, demos are assumed non-notable and this is either self-released, unreleased, or a bootleg. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2010 (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) 00:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. (Bootlegs and demos are not notable) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ephemeral (album)[edit]

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

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and I can find no significant third-party coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2010 (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) 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. (Demos are not notable) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NALBUMS. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wings Of Illusion[edit]

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

Self-released demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and I can find no significant third-party coverage. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2010 (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) 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. (Demos are not notable) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NALBUMS. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 15:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unplugged Live[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Koavf - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2010 (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) 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. (Bootlegs are not notable) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 04:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NALBUMS. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 14:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prozak (rapper)[edit]

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

Delete. Problematic WP:BLP article which was tagged as such over two years ago. I don't think the 2008 album release lends any credibility to notability either. Suggest normal deletion due to lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 16:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per charting album, which is generally indication of notability. Very thin but it's there; name makes source-hunting difficult. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks TPH. I know that we (as a community, not me personally) tend to cut some slack when there is a charting album or release, but in this particular case the sales figures look astonishingly low, and the chart placement isn't that great either. Am I misreading the sales figures for this one? And what is the generally accepted threshold for a charting album? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 20:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Usually just "charted, period" is good enough. But I see it went to #20 on a genre chart and #8 on Heatseekers, which is certainly non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a fair response, thanks again. I think by definition then placing somewhere within the top 50 on any Billboard chart defines someone as a notable musician on Wikipedia despite a lack of non-trivial coverage elsewhere. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 22:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep charted. there is also "Rapper denies his violent music led to school massacre" THE SAGINAW NEWS by Sue White, 3 April 2005 that provides a little bio info (article also has a claim of notability for his band, Project: Deadman "The album placed on Billboard's charts"). duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 6 August 2010 (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) 00:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mkativerata (talk) 00:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Uden[edit]

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

Other than one namedrop by Time magazine, what other notability has this subject got, which explains why this article is being nominated for deletion. Donnie Park (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2010 (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) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an ad. LiteralKa (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable spam piece. One source after four years. Christopher Connor (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as copyvio. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Father Gilbert Mysteries[edit]

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

Contested prod, not notable, little third party mention. Anything legitimate can be dealt with in the article on the organisation which produces them, or the author, or the main actor. PatGallacher (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to one of the articles suggested by the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2010 (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) 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as copyright violation and advertising. The entire unwikified block of text appears to have been lifted. This opinion is (c)(r)(tm) 2010 by Carrite (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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