Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 23 August 25 August >

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. Courcelles 03:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2B (magazine)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
2B (magazine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable magazine. Previous AfD was no consensus recommending speedy renominate. Lionel (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Lionel (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The solution suggested last time was to create an article about the publishing company, Communications Etre, which publishes three magazines, of which this is one. There's no indication that "2B" is, in itself, notable. I don't want to repeat the obvious Hamlet's soliloquy joke, so I'll just say 2B will mean "too bad". Mandsford 00:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Unless this magazine becomes much more influential very quickly, there's no reason for it to have its own article, nor to move it anywhere else. Chromancer (talk) 17:06, 29 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 with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission:2110[edit]

Mission:2110 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable game show, no sources, no indication of importance. — Timneu22 · talk 12:38, 10 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 23:07, 24 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. The consensus is that beyond having a famous father, there is no personal notability for this individual. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Cagney, Jr.[edit]

James Cagney, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails to supply evidence of notability of the subject other than being the son of a famous man, which is not of itself sufficient substance for an article. The subject appeared as an unbilled extra in one of his father's films, which is by itself insufficient reason for a separate article on the subject. The article contains no citations or sourcing. The article appears to violate WP:NPOV and WP:OR, in that it advances a point of view and appears to have been written based primarily on first-hand information or original research. The article is unencyclopedic in style, particularly as relates to WP:NPOV. The first reason given above, however, is primary. Being the non-famous child of a famous person does not in itself provide notability. Any sourced information pertinent to this person could easily be placed in the article about his very notable parent. Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete As Wikipedia indeed says: "If a topic has received significant coverage...." The citations posted today merely confirm that Cagney Jr. was the son of the famous actor, that he died on a certain date, and that during his life he sold a farm and moved. None of these qualify as significant coverage nor do they convey significance to the subject, but merely reflect the significance of his father. Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - He is primarily known for being the son of James Cagney, however, that alone was enough for him to be noted in the media, including obituaries from major dailies when he died. At the very least, this is a merge. -- Whpq (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is ONLY known for being the son of James Cagney. James Cagney had a daughter. Where's her article, then? Where are the articles for John Wayne's non-famous children? My concern is that there's nothing to make THIS particular celebrity's child stand out from the thousands of other children of celebrities. Monkeyzpop (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of her. There are none of the sources that you see in the article on him, for her. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found several articles covering her, none of which mentioned her brother. She christened a ship when she was 8, for example (Newport Daily News, 17 Feb 1950). But simply being mentioned in an article isn't significant in itself, especially if the person would never have been mentioned had it not been for the significance of the parent. Thanks for reading. Monkeyzpop (talk) 21:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article shows notability. It may be interesting though that his notable father had this son, so include him there, briefly. Superp (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or as suggested merge. As mentioned by others there is no real notability for this person on their own. If he weren't the actors son the facts mentioned in the article sound much like the life of any one of millions of people who lived through the 1900's. The article as it stands is also confusing. Did the sister live her whole life with him? I had to read the sentence about their deaths twice to figure out which one died first. On the other hand I can see that "RAN" has put in some work into the article so I would suggest that a shortened version of this might go on JC's page as an illustration of the travails of his family life offscreen. MarnetteD | Talk 21:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with James Cagney along with some critical pruning of information as I have to concur that most of details in the article are interesting but hardly notable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete - seems he is primarily notable for dieing? Sorry, I'm afraid notability is not inherited. Articles need a reason for notability, not just a small selection of sources covering events that were only taken note of due to the relationship with a notable person. I wouldn't object to a merge as has been proposed by a couple of editors. Yworo (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article provides reliable and verifiable sources about the subject, meeting our notability requirements. It appears that the article's sourcing took place after the article was nominated for deletion and RAN has made significant improvements to the article from a sourcing standpoint. Alansohn (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the article has better sourcing now. However, that sourcing does nothing to provide notability. It merely confirms a relationship with an actual notable person and verifies that the subject lived and died, basically. Had the subject not been related to a famous person and therefore had to rely on his own activities to determine his notability, this discussion would probably not be taking place, and possibly the sourcing articles would not even exist. Even with sources, this is a case of inherited notability, which as WP makes clear in WP:NOTINHERITED is not actual notability. I don't mean to come across as having an ax to grind. I have nothing against the subject at all. I simply am surprised to see an article on him without some personal notability of his own, and I fear dilution of WP's value if anyone at all can have an article as long as they're related to someone notable. Considering the arguments I've had with people proposing deletion of articles about actors who have long and verifiable film credits of their own, it's surprising to me that there's any resistance to this particular deletion proposal. Thanks to all who are participating in the discussion. Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to James Cagney, who is also a "Jr." This is one time I don't think an NYT obituary confers notability. It's very short because the guy just didn't do very much. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. I think this is an exception to the rule that if the NYT gives an obit, (an obit, not a paid death notice), it proves notability. We could best keep the rule but justify the exception by saying the single paragraph is not significant. I am very unhappy about making an exception here for fear or starting down a slippery slope, but it just does not seem common sense to be to have the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or possibly redirect, but not merge. RAN has incorporated some of the key elements into James Cagney, which I've now trimmed and reorganised. Jr. simply isn't notable. Obits may generally confer notability, but as DGG argues, a short obit is not significant enough to reach the GNG. Additionally, a whole section on a son in the father's article isn't appropriate; it's enough to identify him, who he married and grandchildren produced, and that they were estranged. All of that is useful information which wasn't in the article before. The rest isn't. A redirect is probably less useful, as if a user searchs for James Cagney Jr, they could a) be looking for the actor (who was a Jr himself) and b) reasonably expect there to be info on the son in the father's article, which there now is. Additionally, the software would direct the browser to the father's article, as that exists and is well established. GedUK  08:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The offspring of celebrities often achieve a degree of publicity for being the offspring of a celebrity, but unless they actually do something themselves, these mentions do not confer notability. To expand on comments by others regarding the New York Times, I agree. Let's look at what NYT actually said here. It's a very short obituary that devotes more words to his father. Note also that the obituary title doesn't even give his name. It says James Cagney's Son Dies. (I hope his gravestone doesn't say "James Cagney's Son") You have to keep reading to see what he was called. According to his obit, his achievements, in the order given by NYT were 1. being James Cagney's son. 2. dying 3. being divorced. 4. having 2 kids. These points don't meet our criteria for notability. Most people could easily achieve points 2 to 4, especially 2. There's nothing special there. That leaves only point 1 - he was James Cagney's son. I'm not about to purchase the full article from the Philadelphia Enquirer but in the opening paragraph that is freely available, the mention of Cagney Jr.'s death seems almost incidental to going into a revelation of Cagney Sr.'s grief. This does not equate to notability. The sources are reliable but the coverage is not significant. Cagney Jr. had a notable father, but Cagney Sr. did not have a notable son (or daughter). Rossrs (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rossrs, I couldn't have put it any better myself. ukexpat (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the key is "significant coverage" which this one doesn't have. Passing mentions because you are someone's son do not equate to "significant coverage". Ealdgyth - Talk 15:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with all the above comments favouring deletion - the article doesn't support any claim of notability. Really, his only significant claim to 'fame' was being Cagney's son and IMO there's no reason all or part of this material couldn't be incorporated back into the article on his father. It's really not sufficient to stand on its own. Cheers, Dunks (talk) 03:53, 30 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 03:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Practical Points[edit]

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

A list of principles of a non-notable organisation, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Quasihuman (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The principles are notable. They are noted in the refrences which I have supplied on the bottom of the page. --Avellinijr (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No evidence of notability. The "references" are links to publications of the organisation, and are not independent sources. I can find no evidence that "Ten Practical Points" is used in this particular sense anywhere by anyone except in these publications of this organisation. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No external sources. Internal publications of the organisation do not show notability. LK (talk) 02:55, 31 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 03:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Worst Britons[edit]

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

Non-notable list, no sources. Allegations of controversy are unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Expand and wikify. There is good primary and secondary sources for this article that need to be added in. Identify the historian for each specific bad Briton and it would improve the article. This [[4]] identifies the historians. They are some of the finest historians that the UK has to offer. Add the sources, and the article will be fine. scope_creep (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not about the people but the list itself. Is the list per se notable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete True each person on the list is notable, and has a proper article here, but the fact that BBC published the list in 2005 does not seem to be. These kind of lists are being promoted all of the time.Borock (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at best the list isn't notable enough for inclusion. At worst it's a POV piece, classifying people as the worst in British history due to the opinion of a single historian. ThemFromSpace 01:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm biting my tongue not to make a "Worst" joke. This list is utterly subjective and has no place in an encyclopedia. Pure POV. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A one time list by one (notable) news source doesn't make the list notable. If kept, the article title should be more descriptive, such as Worst Britons according to the BBC in 2005. First Light (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per First Light. No third party coverage, non-notable.Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a TV series based on this list would have been notable (which is why we have so many "Greatest Fooians" articles). In those cases it was the series, not the list, that was notable; a magazine article is probably no more notable than e.g. a scholarly paper, unless there is extensive follow-up elsewhere. I can't see evidence yet that this list has had that kind of impact. TheGrappler (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it is? [5] Active Banana ( bananaphone 20:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is, and we do have an article for it 100 Worst Britons.Active Banana ( bananaphone 21:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly :-) The list under discussion here is a different list, published in a BBC magazine, but apparently not turned into a broadcast. 100 Worst Britons was a list that got a TV series and the TV series got an article. TheGrappler (talk) 22:36, 26 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 keep. Wrong venue. Needs to be listed at WP:RFD. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plastoon crawling[edit]

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

The phrase "Plastoon crawling" is a translation of a Russian expression that does not exist when googled in English except for copies of this page or contained its redirect to Cossacks page Plastun. As such it is an invented term and there is little chance for reliable third-party sources to be found on the topic -- as a result this redirect cannot be expected to be expanded. Any discussion of forms of clandestine crawling that correspond with that described by the Russian term should be in the article in crawling. LittleHow (talk) 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close (if the six days that it took anyone to notice can be called speedy) because this is the wrong forum for discussion of redirects. Please start a discussion at WP:Redirects for discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:29, 30 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) 04:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Sirloin[edit]

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

I doubt that this article is notable enough, it appears that has no references and no citations. JJ98 (talk) 20:22, 24 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. The consensus is to delete, without prejudice towards DGG restoring and userfying this to his user space to work on it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New York – Chicago Toll Road system[edit]

New York – Chicago Toll Road system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I agree with the previously removed PROD reason: "Based on a Google search, no one (outside of this article) considers the individual toll roads to be part of a collective system, making this an WP:OR-laden topic." When the PROD was contested, the user placed an {{underconstruction}} template on the page and left it without any further changes for a week. Imzadi 1979 → 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a very interesting concept, but original research. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC) Keep per sources found by DGG et al. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR. --Rschen7754 20:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sourceable though I haven't gotten around to it yet. It was my underconstruction note; I think I have a reasonable record for doing what I take on, though not necessarily as soon as I wish to. DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –Fredddie™
  • references available, as I thought there would be: Hartford Courant [New York Times another one in the NY Times , all from the first half-dozen hits of a GNews search of "New York – Chicago" throughway. I wonder if the nom made any attempt to look. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Nobody is contesting the fact that there are uninterrupted tollways from Chicago to New York. Those are facts. This article seems to suggest that the toll systems in each state are one coordinated system. I implore you to find one source to prove that. The refs you provided just now offer me no help as I can only read the abstracts of each article. –Fredddie™ 21:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article implies that they function as one coordinated system, and the NYT refs show this, especially the third. Go to a library and read them. Wikipedia is not limited to the material available free on line. (incidentally, I remember the NYT magazine ref from childhood, which is way I knew it would be there.) DGG ( talk ) 21:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • & from GBooks: The road and the car in American life by John Bell Rae "The New Jersey Turnpike not only is part of the New York- Chicago route ... " and Freight and the metropolis: the impact of America's transport revolutions on the New York region by Benjamin Chinitz - 1960 "The New York-Philadelphia shipper gets more benefit from the New Jersey Turnpike than the New York- Chicago shipper gets from the system of turnpikes linking New York and Chicago." p.166 Note the word system' on that last one. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That there is a continuous path from New York to Chicago by way of freeways is unremarkable. There is a continuous path from Chicago to Los Angeles over the freeways that replaced US 66. That's because both continuous paths are part of the Interstate Highway System. Does that NYT article, which we can't access, state that this was created as a coordinated system other than as Interstates, or the precursors thereof? There are tolled Interstates in Oklahoma that were no more coordinated with other states' segments of Interstate than to make sure that the roads lined up at the state line. If the only coordination was to make sure that the Ohio Turnpike and the Pennsylvania Turnpike actually connected, then this is no more remarkable than any set of freeways. Imzadi 1979 → 21:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heck, in some cases Oklahoma couldn't even do that! ;) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That there is a continuous path from New York to Chicago by way of freeways is unremarkable. — A quick search for sources indicates that, quite to the contrary, this is very remarkable, as evident by the fact that so many people have remarked upon it. The reason that they've remarked upon it is that this didn't happen by accident. Up until the Eisenhower administration, this was the plan. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The existence of this article suggests the New York - Chicago Toll Road system was an intentional designation, when it fact it arose from the emergent activities of the states. The only collaboration between the states was to make sure each state's toll road properly connected with the bordering state's toll road. It makes no difference that there are sources from the late 1950s, shortly after all of the associated toll roads were completed, when it became apparent that several states had unintentionally and collectively built a freeway between New York and Chicago. — Viridiscalculus (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. This is a system of highways that just happen to link up because they were all planned and built in the period just before the Interstate system, when toll roads were about the only method of funding a rural freeway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG's findings to date. There's no reason to suppose that this system is non-notable, given its coverage. Jclemens (talk) 21:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is it a system, any more than, say, the Los Angeles - Chicago freeway system? Or the Vancouver - Mexico City freeway system? --Rschen7754 21:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. I give you four quotations:
        • Here is the pattern: […] When these roads are complete, a man will be able to drive from the George Washington Bridge in New York City, down the New Jersey Turnpike, […] to the Pennsyvania Turnpike […] ride a multilaned link to the new Ohio superhighway, soar on to Indiana, cross that state on a massive express pike, and pick up an elaborately ramped expressway, now under construction, that will carry him straight to the heart of Chicago's Loop without a stop.

          —Dick Frederic (July 1953). "Here We Go on Your Million-Dollars-a-Mile Toll Roads". Popular Mechanics. Vol. 100, no. 1. p. 83. ISSN 0032-4558.

        • Toll roads eliminate traffic bottlenecks. By the end of 1956 motorists will be able to cruise between the two largest cities in the United States, Chicago and New York, via toll road without encountering a single stop light, steep hill, sharp curve, railroad crossing, or grade-level intersection.

          — Albert J. Wedeking (March 1956). ""Master Plan" Must Recognize the Place of Provately Financied Highways". The Rotarian. Vol. 88, no. 3. p. 30. ISSN 0035-838X.

        • The state of Illinois officially opened the new tollway scheme in December 1958. […] The completion of the Illinois section finished off the "main line" — composed of the New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio Turnpikes, along with the Indiana Toll Road — which stretched 837 miles from Chicago to New York. This older system planned and built largely before the federal largess […]

          — Dominic A. Pacyga (2009). Chicago: a biography. University of Chicago Press. p. 336. ISBN 9780226644318.

        • Hence, in 1956, the dream of an 840-mile, unimpeded drive from New York to Chicago became reality.

          — Mark S. Foster (2003). Nation on wheels: the automobile culture in America since 1945. Thomson, Wadsworth. p. 102. ISBN 9780155075429.

      • At least in the public mind, and the U.S. national-level political arena, this was viewed, planned, and executed as this very thing. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • This just seems like random musings. You have yet to give a source that shows that these were explicitly designed as a toll road system - as a cohesive unit. Yes there may be toll roads connecting Chicago and New York, which were probably the furthest points on the continent at that time connected by toll roads. But were they explicitly a system? I could write an article about the Chicago - Erie Toll Road system, but is that explicitly defined as a system? No. Is the one between Chicago and New York? No. Your sources sound interesting to read, but do they answer the fundamental question of whether this particular "system" is actually a system? No. --Rschen7754 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're pretty much saying that you have not actually read them at all, and your argument is thus based upon that underinformed foundation and red herrings about entirely different subjects. I suggest reading the sources for this subject at hand, and then making an informed comment. Hint: The executive director of the Indiana Toll Road Commission writing about toll roads is not "random musings". Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • "You must read these sources, they prove my point!" "But the parts you've quoted don't support you!" "Oh, but you must read them!" ... You've proved that this was a milestone in the United States, yes, but is this really a System? That's the fundamental question that you have yet to prove. --Rschen7754 00:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Fredddie et al. There is undeniably a route (little r) between the two cities, as between Chicago and anywhere else in the lower 48. To be notable and not OR, the sources would have to indicate that this is a Route/System (capital R or S, if not as a true proper noun with a capital letter, as a single concept at least) and discuss it as such. Also, I think WP:NEOLOGISM applies by analogy. Novaseminary (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got it backwards. This is early to middle twentieth century history. It's far from being a neologism of any form.

      There is, ironically, an acknowledged neologism for this. In their book, Geography of transportation (ISBN 9780133685725), Edward James Taaffe, Howard L. Gauthier, and Morton E. O'Kelly explicitly invent the name "Megalopolis Trunkline" for this particular trunkline. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment That this was a blip 50 years ago is why I said it is analogous to NEOLOGISM, not actually NEOLOGISM. The point is, this way of classifying or categorizing these particular roads never caught on (to the extent the authors of the sources self-consciously meant to refer to the roads as a system anyway... I'm not convinced they did per Rschen7754 above). Analogous or not, this is not a notable subject as such. Novaseminary (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two decades of road construction is not a "blip", kiddo. I suggest that you put in the time and effort to read the sources cited, too. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Original research, have not heard the term used outside of this article. Dough4872 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I suggest more study of U.S. transportation history. What you've personally not heard of has no bearing on whether Wikipedia should have an article, of course. We aren't building an encyclopaedia based upon what a random selection of people happen to have heard of one week. Please put Wikipedia:deletion policy into practice. What's documented by the world at large is what counts. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know this article describes how two of America's largest cities were connected by toll roads. But the title "New York - Chicago Toll Road System" is a neologism that doesn't have official use anywhere. The fact that NYC and Chicago were given a toll road connection could simply be mentioned in the articles of the roads that comprise the "system". Dough4872 01:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's a whole article beyond the title. And there are sources beyond the article, too. Please go beyond just looking at the title and reasoning "I haven't heard of this, so it must be a neologism.". An idea from the 1950s is not a neologism. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I'm sorry to say that the title is in fact a neologism. Also, as seveal others have pointed out, the roads that link NYC and Chicago are not a system of toll roads that was coordinated together to link the two cities. It happens to consist of several separate toll roads that just happen to link together the two cities. If the roads were truly one system, than the toll ticket systems would be integrated together instead of having to pay when leaving one road and getting a ticket for the next one. If we want articles on all toll road systems, we mind as well create New York - Baltimore Toll Road system to describe the toll road connection between those two cities that is formed by the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway, Delaware Turnpike, and New Jersey Turnpike. Dough4872 00:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the references provided above show me that the individual toll roads were simultaneously designed as one system. Everything that I've seen thus far refers to the "system" in a general sense, more akin to a synonym for "connected roads" than for "related toll roads". The only common link between these roads is that they're tolled. And toll roads in the United States already covers that angle. – TMF 01:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your opinion that there's no connection here weighs little against the contemporary sources that make it. You've got several above. (Did you read them?) Here are two more:
      • Joined in one continuous route is the Indiana Toll Road, the Ohio Turnpike, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and the New Jersey Turnpike, offering the longest stretch of four-lane divided highway in the world — an 800-mile expressway between New York City and Chicago.

        —Frank Gerratana (1958-01-05). "Much-traveled Lensman Calls New Pike Terrific.‎". Sunday Herald. p. 57.

      • By the time Congress finally acted, there was in being a New York–Chicago toll network, stop-light-free, beautifully engineered, carrying a substantial volume of traffic. Indiana supplied the last link that year

        —"We Owe Debt to Toll Roads‎". The Spartanburg Herald. 1962-10-01. p. 1.

    • This is a part of history that is copiously documented in contemporary sources, plain and simple. The advent of the federal freeway system may have stopped it in its tracks (one source having projected extensions to the Twin Cities, and the 1962 source cited above even documenting that the federal programme stopped the toll road development) and made people nowadays not realize what was in place and in active development before the freeway system came along. But the contemporary sources are quite clear. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hmm, I'm torn. The Manchester Inner Ring Road consists of I think 8 separate roads, all modged together to create a orbital around Manchester and Salford. The difference I suppose is that the planners did have in mind creating an orbital out of the existing roads, so the work was done with this in mind, and when it was finished there was a grand opening by Harold Wilson. Is there any evidence that the various road planners had a road all the way between New York and Chicago in mind, so construction was simultaneous or handed over from one authority to another, or was it built in stages between logical stopping points? When it was finished, was there some sort of ceremony that noted that one could now get all the way from NY to Chicago. Even that might be enough to show that the road network was indeed viewed sysematically by the creators.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't get to read your comments above because I was creating mine below and edit-conflicted with you on saving. No one has suggested that there was any more planning and coordination than "hey, Pennsylvania's Turnpike could connect to our Turnpike here in Ohio if we start building here." or similar. The traffic needs of people and goods traveling by vehicles and not trains between the Chicago and New York drove highway expansion. They same way that any state was expanding capacity on congested highways. No one set out to specifically build a New York – Chicago Toll Road, each state just responded to the needs of the traffic that was there. The only level of coordination at the time would be to ensure roads lined up at state borders. All of the articles listed above suggest that as the roads were being completed, people noticed, "Hey, there's a system [little s] of toll roads here! Neato!" Imzadi 1979 → 15:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In addition to all of the magazine articles in the 1950s where people explicitly drove along the trunkroute and then wrote about that? The article already cites one article about one such car journey. Subsequent issues of the same magazine tried to outdo that in other vehicles. There's also another magazine article cited that documents the Greyhound bus service that took this very route. And then there's all of the coverage in the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune over the years as this trunkroute was built, noting at each stage of growth how many uninterrupted miles there were.

      It's a red herring to look for some form of government grand opening. It was opened stage by stage, and this was a route formed of state and private developments. The irony is that the government-sponsored scheme that came along stopped this in its tracks. Uncle G (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

      • None of which has answered the core question we've been posing as significant: "Was this a coordinated effort to specifically create a New York – Chicago Toll Road?" Everything you've shown has only pointed out that a bunch of toll roads joined end to end and people noted that fact. If you can't answer the question above, it is simply a group of conjoined roads and not a system. Michigan was already building the precursors to its freeways in the 1940s. That doesn't make it part of a system until Interstate numbers were laid over them and they were planned as integral parts of a larger system. In fact, Michigan saw a need for a freeway around the south side of the Grand Rapids Metro area as far back as the 1980s. M-6 (Michigan highway) was built without being part of the Interstate System. US 31 in the state was being expanded to a freeway without being a part of any system larger than the Michigan Highway System even before the Interstates. Why? There was a need there to handle larger volumes of traffic more efficiently, regardless of what other states did or did not do. The level of coordination as a complete system that this article implies was not present during the timeframe suggested. Larger comprehensive and coordinated freeway planning in the United States only came after the 1956 act that created the Intestate System. Any older pieces incorporated into that system were just fortunate happenstance, created to address a specific state's needs. Imzadi 1979 → 16:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a comment to help place a few things into historical prospective. There once was a Michigan Turnpike Authority. The authority was going to build a system of toll roads from the Ohio border north to at least the Mackinac Bridge, roughly serving the function of what is now I-75 in Michigan. The other piece of the system was going to connect Detroit with Chicago, roughly what is now I-94. The authority was created in 1953, and by 1956, had not yet built any roads or raised and bonding revenue. In the interim, the Mackinac Bridge Authority had raised the $99 Million in bonding revenue and started construction of the Mackinac Bridge. The Turnpike Authority was set to ask the state's voters to allow $300 Million in bonds to be let for toll road construction. As well in 1956, the Eisenhower Administration had started what became the Interstate Highway System. With that funding source, the Michigan State Highway Department not only started construction on those proposed freeways, but they were build without tolls. —Bagley, Les (January 17, 2008). "Autos Across Mackinac: Bridge Construction Continues; Tourism Down". St. Ignace Daily News.
    The reason I mention this is just as Scott said above. Before the Interstate Highway System was developed, the most practical funding method for the construction of rural freeways was by tolling them. Michigan was no exception to that concept at the time, but unlike Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Jersey, Michigan was delayed in construction and planning for two reasons. The article I paraphrased stated that the State Highway Commissioner was not in favor of toll roads, and worked against the plans. Second, as an informed opinion of mine, the state was busy with one of the largest, most expensive construction projects to date: the Mackinac Bridge. According to Bridging the Straits: The Story of Mighty Mac by former Mackinac Bridge Authority Executive Secretary Lawrence A. Rubin, there was a lot of uncertainty surrounding that project to build the then-longest suspension bridge in the world in such a remote location. That uncertainty most likely delayed any commitment to bonds for other Michigan transportation projects by the state. In 1956, the ferry traffic across the Straits was so congested to the point there were 5-hour waits for a car to catch a ferry at times. The Bridge was then assured to have the traffic to be a success. That would have eased the fears of those in state government to letting bonds for toll roads, on the eve of the creation of the Interstate Highway System, and its dedicated construction trust fund. That other states built toll roads ahead of Michigan and the Interstates is just a fact of the times. In fact, it's probably because of the former Michigan Turnpike Authority that Michigan was the first state to complete of one of its border-to-border segments of the new Interstate System, I-94. No one here has proven that transportation planners all got together and said, "let's build a system of toll roads between New York and Chicago." In fact, each state recognized a need in their own state to improve transportation, and only coordinated to the point that the roads lined up at the state lines with some other road. As VC said above, that's an emergent property, and not the coordinated plan that this article suggests. Imzadi 1979 → 14:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The above links are enough to show that its completion was a (sorry) milestone in US transport history. Couple that with the fact that what one can find in Google searches is always only a partial sampling. In addition to the NYT news archive mention noted above, other (snippets) in pay-to-view Gnews archive sources from the era: Christian Science Monitor ('...now to drive all the way from New York to Chicago on toll superhighways...'), Chicago Tribune ('So the toll route with normal road conditions should save 7 hours and 37 minutes from Chicago to New York..'), Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ('...uninterruptedly from New York to Chicago, via turnpikes in New Jersey. ...'), Hartford Courant ('...'final link in an 873-mile hookup between New York and Chicago...), Pittsburgh Press (1969) 'It was connected with toll roads of other states to give motorists a nonslop highway from Chicago to New York and on to New England. This toll-road system..', etc. [6].

    I don't know that it's necessary to show that it was planned in order to demonstrate its notability, the US states having a history of independent highway funding before Eisenhower's initiative, as explained above. I think it's enough to show that reliable sources anticipated it and noted its conclusion. More can be found at a GBook search of toll roads new york to chicago [7]. Altho some are just tantalizing bits like 'This group of toll roads provided a continuous 840-mile express highway between New York and Chicago. Its immediate effect on the movement of...' Novickas (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Two questions: is this a System of roads specifically designed to link two cities from the start? Or is this a system of roads that just happened to have interconnections? If it's the former, then some transportation planners at some point had to sit down together and say, "you know, it would be a really great idea to connect Chicago and New York by some toll roads." If it's the latter, then as each state's planners plotted toll road plans, they only coordinated with other states to make sure that they didn't go to the trouble of extending a road to the border only to have it end with no connection. That's exactly what happened with the Kansas Turnpike's southern end. It literally stopped at the state line, and on the Oklahoma side of the border was a farmer's oat field. The quotes you provided only specify that after the roads were being built or completed that was it apparent that one could drive between the two cities without stopping. They don't state that the original goal was the creation of a continuous set of toll roads. That Hartford Courant article actually came after several of the Interstate Highways were built, and could be attributed to the creation of that System, not this system being discussed here. What makes the Chicago to New York segment of pre-Interstate freeways any different than the planned Grand Rapids to Detroit freeway in Michigan? What about the early plans for a Detroit to Chicago turnpike in Michigan that wasn't built as a toll road? Imzadi 1979 → 15:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments made by those in favor of keeping the article seem to imply that this topic should be merged into the history section of toll roads in the United States. All of the claims of a so-called system are just comments that boil down to "a continuous tolled highway exists", and that's more appropriate for the aforementioned article. – TMF 19:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Despite the obvious lack of wisdom behind his/her being a Twins and Mets fan, I agree with TMF here. I have no problem incorporating anything useful and sourced from this article into toll roads in the United States, highlighting that one of the benefits to the various independent toll roads in the U.S. was their collective linking of Chicago and New York more efficiently then had been before toll roads came along. That would seem to be the proper level of abstraction-Each toll road probably deserves an article, as does the system as a whole within the country, but I still don't think the sources support an article for this particular routing within the greater U.S. road system. Novaseminary (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it because these roads are not designed to be linked together they just happen to be that way. Wikipedia will be full of bad articles about any two places linked by roads of a specific criteria. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 07:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Novickas above. It was the route's establishment, unplanned or otherwise, that was historically significant. It was an unprecedented development in terms of length and importance, recognized as a milestone at the time. There's too much information to merit a merge. Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as discussed above, if appropriate. While I feel the fact that these two cities were linked by a system of toll roads is an interesting consequence of the second half of the century, it seems that this article is attempting to take this connection deem it notable. On one hand, the sources suggest it to be an important facet of travel in the 1950s, but unless I'm missing something, these sources do not indicate a New York to Chicago toll road system. That part of the article seems to be synthesis. Outright deletion would seem wasteful, however, as there is definitely sourced information that could discuss how travel was affected in the 1950s by the connection of these separate systems. --Kinu t/c 03:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a system that was designed together. It is primarily a coincidence that this network exists as a series of toll roads. Definitely mention something about this fact in each of the relevant articles but this doesn't deserve a single article on its own. --Polaron | Talk 18:59, 30 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. The consensus would appear to be that Dodson meets MUSICBIO#2 as a chart-hitting individual (as the officially credited artist) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Dodson[edit]

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

An article about this subject was recently deleted through AfD and subsequently replaced with a redirect to a song. Now a couple of editors claim that they have created a new article, and that this fact invalidates the previous AfD. Since the premise for the original deletion doesn't seem to have changed, I renominate. Favonian (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep The guy is obviously notable, being covered by national news sources. And the stories are not merely about the original news event which catapulted him to fame. The stories are about HIM. Rapidosity (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd like to forewarn people about bringing up BLP1E. That's only talking about if someone is covered by the news for one event AND is not notable. The main page for BLP1E, "People notable only for one event," 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." Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable only for one event It's not even a question of the whether the event, the attack of his sister, should have an article. The event wasn't notable at all. So there has to be an article has to be about him. Rapidosity (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, the central article, to which this person is peripheral, is Bed Intruder Song. This is, simply, historical background to the song, and its presentation as if it were a biography of a person's life and works is a gross mispresentation of that person. The important point underlying BLP1E, that you are ignoring, is a fundamental principle stated when that policy element was first developed: Not everything in Wikipedia requires presentation in the form of a biography. You should ask yourself why you are so intent to present the history of a song in the form of a biography, and why you think that creating articles to "name check" people like this is a good approach to writing. Uncle G (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content: I don't care where it goes. The last AFD was 2-1 to keep in terms of !votes I believe, at least. But there's no need to fight a redirect war.--Milowent • talkblp-r 20:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Dodson is a chart-topping recording artist and Internet celebrity. WP:BLP1E does not apply due to Mr. Dodson's notability as a musician, even if he is a "one-hit wonder." Uncle Dick (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rapidosity. Mario777Zelda (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources.  --Lambiam 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rapidosity and Uncle Dick. —Bill Price (nyb) 05:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is absolute trivial rubbish. It was deleted at the last AFD, this should have been speedied. Off2riorob (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no different to any other internet meme, and we have plenty of those here already. Parrot of Doom 12:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it's different. The meme would be Interview with Antoine Dodson or some such. This, in contrast, isn't an article about a meme. It's an article about a person, a biography. And it's one where there's nothing other than 1 documented event in that person's life and works to fill the biography. Where's the rest of this person? Uncle G (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note in passing that there's very little different, in terms of the information presented, between the current version of this article, as I write this, and the 2010-08-10 19:25:17 deleted version by Rapidosity that was covered by the last AFD discussion. Uncle G (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This is nonsense. He got his 15 minutes of fame because some Internet moron decided to play around with his interview. I commend Dodson for protecting his sister from attack and don't like the racist comments the video has, but this guy is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Delete, delete, delete. 209.2.60.88 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to agree with the people who say this should be deleted. In a month or two, he'll lose his 15 minutes of fame. While we are at it, let's delete the so-called "song" called "Bed Intruder Song." It's not a real song. It's just a couple of clowns changing an interview into something crazy. B-Machine (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of your opinion on the musical quality of the Bed Intruder Song, it is charting hit, debuting at #89 on the Billboard Hot 100. This makes it (and Mr. Dodson) notable per WP:MUSIC. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me the song seems keepable but less so for Antoine Dodson; I think it's difficult to treat Dodson like a professional, charting musician; is it fairer to say that he's been sampled in a charting release? If that's the case, then the argument for keeping Dodson's article is considerably weaker. TheGrappler (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antoine Dodson is the officially credited artist for Bed Intruder Song even if the single was originally produced and released without his direct cooperation or knowledge. He's certainly not a "professional" musician in any sense of the word (yet), but that doesn't have any bearing on his notability under WP:MUSICBIO. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I wonder whether WP:MUSICBIO is up to speed with the likes of Auto-Tune the News? On that basis even if there was somebody who is genuinely "unknown" (with less media exposition and hence sources than has happened with Mr. Dodson), they may become notable if they are sampled and autotuned into a single that charts? It doesn't sound like an intended consequence! TheGrappler (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, no harm in subsequent recreation if his fame persists - two strong arguments and two weaker ones lead me to suspect this is a 1E case. [Incidentally the "event" as far as I'm concerned isn't the attack on his sister - horrendous though that is, it couldn't give him notability, merely set off a chain of events leading to the event: his "discovery" by the media and his consequent "viral" status. The "article on the event" is the article about the record. I can see not everybody here is defining the "1E" the same way.] (1) I can't see what should be covered at this article that should not be covered in the articles that concern the event (i.e. the record release). (2) The "Ten Year Test" - in ten years, is anybody going to have updated this article using valid sources? An article that concerns the event remains eternally true and doesn't date. But a biography will look frozen and dated - it will simply stop at 2010, with the subject of the biography vanishing into oblivion - unless this guy is so seared onto the public consciousness, that there will be ongoing coverage in the years ahead that keeps this article maintainable. Erica Roe is an instance of an individual only notable for a single event, but who has received ongoing long-term coverage that prevents the biography simply being about the event itself. If this guy gets either continual coverage related to his time as an web personality, or becomes notable in some other way (e.g. book or TV deal) so that 1E ceases to be applicable, then an article seems appropriate, but I currently can't see any evidence for either of these things being likely. Most "1E" people simply vanish into the ether after their five minutes of fame. (Weak 3) So far I can only see one clearly notable WP article that this guy is related to, so this page name can safely be redirected there. Were there multiple articles here about him, we'd need some form of entry at this title, and a short biography would be preferable to a plain disambiguation page. (Weak 4) It's stretching things somewhat to deem this guy a professional, charting musician; it may be more realistic to reckon that he has been sampled in a charting musical work, which I'm less convinced renders him notable. [The song is probably keepable in my opinion but that's a whole other debate.) TheGrappler (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is fairly famous, and I've seen people who are a lot less famous have articles on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.232.96 (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rapidosity and User:Uncle Dick. WereWolf (talk) 21:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Even if Antoine Dodson's 15 minutes of fame evaporate (which I sincerely hope does not happen, since many more people have become more famous for doing things that are entirely unscrupulous and this young man is quite NOBLE), the record of Dodson's bravery and his position on sexual violence against women is an important part of the history of summer 2010 in America. Antoine Dodson absolutely must be remembered, and people should be able to be educated about him and the importance of his actions AND statement to the cameras. Some may trivialize his actions, some may make racist comments, but there are many who are truly inspired by Dodson and see him as a folk hero. We must remember that this entire thing started because Dodson had the courage to confront his sister's attacker, something that is NOT unremarkable. I disagree that his biography will look "frozen and dated" - that is simply not true, as Antoine Dodson seems to be poised to become a fixture in both the celebrity activist and gay communities. Perhaps he will finance his successes in other ways, he may further his cosmetology career. Who knows? Let's keep this article! Let's wait and see! Even if Antoine Dodson's Bed Intruder Song does not continue to chart, the fact that it has charted and it features him as an artist (AND a political activist) he must be kept on Wikipedia if only to educate the world about the person behind the song and the reasons for his notoriety. Finally, Antoine Dodson's life is not "trivial rubbish" and the person who made that comment need only look at the endless Wikipedia articles detailing the lives of various "it girls" and people who are "famous for being famous" to see what "trivial rubbish" really looks like. Antoine is to be commended for his actions and everyone should have the chance to be educated about the man behind the phenomena, if they so choose. To say Antoine Dodson does not have a place on Wikipedia is dreadful, and perhaps even exemplary. Is this the type of "inclusive" free online encyclopedia we want to be? mikoism 22:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously non-notable, or at absolute best notable for only one event, which on Wikipedia is the same thing. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Notable for one event is still notable. There is no policy that says if someone is notable for only one event that they shouldn't have an article. Notable is notable. Rapidosity (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently you didn't read the link I provided. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. because enough people care to voice any opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.7.86 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • - A note to the closing Administrator to be aware of the new account or single purpose accounts that are vote commenting keep. Off2riorob (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update on media attention. Dodson was interviewed by NBC and that aired on the Today Show on television this morning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EPHOKm6qbk And note the thrust of the story is about HIM, not the song. You deleters need to stop denying the obvious. The guy is notable. Rapidosity (talk) 18:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI think this should definitely stay up. I want to know if they catch the jerk that tried to hurt her. And people aren't making fun of him, they're saluting him. This guy is a hero, he rescued his sister from that jerk that tried to hurt her. No harm in paying homage to someone who's commited to the protection and welfare of his family Belflaurn —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep. WP:BLP1E appears trumped because of WP:MUSICBIO and the duration and type of coverage Dodson has been granted in reliable sources. WP:MUSICBIO qualifies Dodson for possible notability. I just added a source to the article discussing the song: Philip Kennicott (August 29, 2010). "Auto-Tune turns the operatic ideal into a shoddy joke". The Washington Post. While Dodson is certainly not a traditional musician, his name is listed as an artist along with The Gregory Brothers. The song was recently a topic on the August 27th Today Show, as mentioned at Billboard.com. While Kennicott rips the artistic merit of the song, it is still referred to as a song. And Dodson is one of the artists whether or not we find his performance "artistic". (Arguments above seem to discount these facts.) WP:BLP1E states, "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." But interviews of Dodson have provided details on his personal life, such as his family, education, and personal history. And The Today Show called the YouTube video "one of the most online videos, ever". (The word is emphasized in the show, in my opinion.) Having one of the most popular online videos leads one to believe Dodson might not likely remain a low-profile individual. Shootbamboo (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. By themselves, preventing a crime, giving an interview about the event, or somebody editing the interview into a song aren't enough to make somebody notable. But because of the subsequent reaction he has now prevented a famous crime that has received significant media attention, and is further credited for his contribution toward a successful song. And like shootbamboo argued, it may be unusual for somebody to unintentionally become a lead vocalist in a single, but it happened. I don't believe there is a rule that makes him automatically less notable than those who contribute toward a song under more "conventional" circumstances. -Homeless prophet (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - AD is one of the most famous people on the internet, internet celebrities are REAL celebrities, this page probably gets hundreds of thousands of hits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.76.177.124 (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bed Intruder Song. The coverage on the individual is trivial and related only to the viral video. The internet meme is focused strictly on that video. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 23:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has brought attention to a couple of issues that affect all areas of societies in his interviews and doesn't seem to be going anywhere. What is the harm. *There are way more useless articles on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.23.102.243 (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Does WP:MUSICBIO criteria 2 apply here? I'm not entirely certain given the inadvertent nature of his artistic contribution. If it applies, then "Keep." If not," Delete" and redirect to Bed Intruder Song. --John Stephen Dwyer (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: it seems that his 15 minutes of fame quite long, as the number of remixes growing; I don't mind a merge with Bed Interuder song article, but then this whole article should go there, not just a summary. --Zslevi (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Significant meme coverage across a number of reliable sources combined with WP:MUSICBIO. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Famous for a news event, and a song, for more than a month now he's still hasn't been forgotten. He's famous for 2 things, not just 1. He's notable for more than one thing. Clerkenwell TALK PAGE!" Contribs 02:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep. The news event and the song are the same thing, they're both linked with each other. The concept of BLP requiring more than one thing as a claim to fame is looking for distinct, clearly separate demonstrations of notability. Anyway, the condition of my keep "vote" is that it be moved from Antoine Dodson to the meme. Famous meme, not famous person. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Trivial, gossipy, recent and irrelevant. A one off, a spark, a flash in the pan. Not academic. ValenShephard (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Please stop being such fuddy-duddies. Like it or not, this is how celebrity culture works now, and beyond that, AD is a Billboard Hot 100 recording artist now. The controversy and media attention he's garnered--controversy which is clearly on display here--show that he's relevant. That's precisely what the controversy is about--whether or not he's "actually" noteworthy. I can imagine Wikipedia in 1917 wanting to delete the article for Duchamp's "Fountain"--"it's not art, who will remember this juvenile stunt" etc., etc. In addition, I summon the "A Time to Kill" defense:

    Imagine a young man. His home is invaded by a rapist. His sister screams; he goes to her defense. The man escapes. The local news interviews him; the man is outraged. The video of his comments is viewed millions of times. Days later, a group of internet comedians remix his passionate words into a song. This song goes on iTunes; it charts higher than Lady GaGa. The man is listed as the co-author of the song and gets half the proceeds. The song cracks the Billboard Hot 100 Singles Chart. The man receives a ton of media coverage, and is interviewed on the Today Show. Wikipedia wants to delete his entry. Now imagine he's white.

    I'm not saying y'all are racist, I'm just saying, y'all sure as shootin' might be racist in assuming he's going to continue to be a non-entity 'cause he's a poor black dude. This will get referenced on Family Guy or dude will publish a book or otherwise become noteworthy, and it'll all be gravy. Besides which, the dude's interview *and* the song are famous; it'd be like if Bubb Rubb had a single that blew up. And frankly, isn't Rodney King only famous for 1E (one event)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.76.74.28 (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Antoine Dodson inspires the Hunstville riots of 2010, then I will consider him notable as a person. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He's a notable person, and though the article is obviously primarily about the interview he initially gave, there is sufficient information about him within the article and through various sources. londonsista Prod 10:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is just one of those times when common sense is the first indicator of notability. He may be a minor celebrity, but he's received much more notoriety than your average YouTuber. All of the arguments for keep above are likewise compelling. You certainly cannot have a song with an article without having its contributors have their own articles. The Autotune guys and other one-hit wonders have articles on here; why not Dobson? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Respectfully disagree with the characterization that The Gregory Brothers are "one-hit wonders". They've received sustained and consistent media attention since Spring 2009, and several of their YouTube videos have individually received over 5 million views, despite often being mirrored across multiple locations. They've been featured on several television programs and are in talks to create a pilot for their own program. I don't think that their notability is being questioned in the slightest. —Bill Price (nyb) 17:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - He has been interviewed on NPR and major news networks, he is also starting his own hair styling business based off this fame. He is definitely notable in the fact that he will be forever remembered. Even the "keep britney" guy wasn't interviewed on major networks. Although he may be a "youtube" sensation, he is gaining popularity in other aspects regarding him, and not the news story in which he is known for. This is a keep. Also notable is the fact that, and I quote from public sources, "The money, as well as money from sales of "Bed Intruder" on iTunes and merchandise such as T-shirts, will go to helping his family buy a new home and setting up a foundation for juvenile diabetes, a disease that has afflicted both his sister and his mother." He is starting a foundation. How is THAT NOT notable?JJGeneral1 (talk) 19:22, 31 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raphael Martinho[edit]

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

Raphael Martinho not yet made his debut on national league, as the state league "professional" level is uncertain (fully or just semi?), AND the deal with Catania seems failed (it solely announced by Paulista and the news later deleted from the web), He currently a non-notable player. Matthew_hk tc 19:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good enough.--ClubOranjeT 19:32, 30 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 (and kudos to the folks who helped save the article) j⚛e deckertalk 21:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KRMS[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 17. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep *sigh* All radio stations are notable, as long as they have or have had an FCC license per consensus and precedence set. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Needs to be marked as a stub. Carrite (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have updated the page with the basic information, stats, techincal information and such. I have asked one of our information gurus (dude can find anything) to add some sources to the page. Please standby. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good factual reference knowledge. scope_creep (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Comment - Our information guru User:Dravecky has added some sources to the page and updated the page further. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even Further Comment - Still more expansion and information/sources being added by our info guru. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and speedy close; the outcome was inevitable after the DRV discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as expanded article is now well-referenced and, per WP:BROADCAST, the station has both an established broadcast history and provides unique programming. - Dravecky (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four days and eight edits to User talk:RHaworth, followed by a further seven days and the time of 13 editors at Deletion Review, and now a further seven days and the time of even more editors at AFD, as well as the time and tools of three additional administrators (King of Hearts, DGG, and whoever closes this discussion). And all this over 1 sentence that Bsherr was provided with within 10 minutes, but was unwilling to take, run with, and write a decent sourced stub article. Instead we spend all of this time trying to make up specific rules out of some bogus sense of precedent, which is not how this works at all, instead of writing. Shame on Bsherr for wasting everyone's time for weeks like this, by focussing on process wonkery instead of writing a sourced stub. Uncle G (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Uncle G is right on one level - but on another, the article is now so good that it was probably worth the effort! Congratulations to the two guys who made this into a proper article. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems that G's point has entirely escaped you. Recreating the article needed no DRV. 160.39.212.104 (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Blast. My evil plot to distract editors from writing articles by insisting on "fairness" and "courtesy" has failed again. Oh well, at least I'm still getting some good public shaming out of it. The work of those contributing to this article is excellent; great job! --Bsherr (talk) 19:46, 25 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. This was always going to be a controversial one, following the DRV! However, the consensus appears to be just that the article should be kept. However, this is without prejudice against a renomination in a short while (I'm thinking a couple of weeks or so, rather than a couple of days!) if someone believes that the coverage during that period does not justify this being counted as notable as Wikipedia defines it. I would also recommend that this article be renamed to a more useful name: JetBlue are still using Flight 1052 (see tomorrow's flight details for JetBlue Flight 1052) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JetBlue Flight 1052[edit]

JetBlue Flight 1052 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have closed the DRV on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Slater as "move to JetBlue Flight 1052 and relist on AfD." Please re-evaluate this article, now as a page about the event. I have not changed anything in the article, so if it is kept please rewrite it to reflect the event. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was in favor of deleting the Slater article, which came up for deletion just as the story was breaking. i think it's a bigger story than I thought it was then and I also think that listing the episode under this header rather than the name of the flight attendant makes inclusion less objectionable. This event has moved from a bizarre news event to become a part of popular culture, like it or not. Carrite (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When it all said and done, this article is about a non-notable flight in which someone decided to quit his job at the end of it. If articles were created every time a non-notable person quit his job for non-notable reasons just because the event gets some press, then that would create a difficult precedent to over-come. Some wikipedia guidelines that would rule against this are Wikipedia:Notability (events), WP:Recentism, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Massive coverage and commentary in the media = notability. WP:NOTNEWS does not mean that Wikipedia cannot have articles about topics that are reported in the news; it means we do not create articles about topics simply because they are reported in the news. Wherever the line is drawn, this story clearly crossed it. Propaniac (talk) 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My understand is that there is an appeal of the deletion of the original 'Steven Slater' page that is still going on. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was closed as a redirect to this page.--Jojhutton (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't there an archieved record of that discussion? Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See where it says at the top "I have closed the DRV"? Click "DRV." Propaniac (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is exactly the sort of thing that WP:NOT#NEWS has in mind. There is a lot of short-term coverage which then quickly disappears, both from coverage and from memory. If there are still instances of significant coverage 6-12 months from now, an article may become appropriate then. Nsk92 (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There needs to be something on an event that has received such massive coverage and was even the subject of a Republican National Committee commerical. While there would not have been an event without Slater, given the considerable afd brouhaha, it's best to let this article develop and evaluate later whether Slater gets his (he's hired a publicist and is following his lawyers advice to STFU about the event as long as he faces criminal charges). The original article was almost entirely about the event.Americasroof (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I think it's still too soon to see how large of an impact this has over time, but at the moment coverage remains strong and it seems much more likely than not this event will be long standing. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to pure keep. [8] makes it plain that A) this story has had an impact beyond the trivial and B) that a majority of Americans who fly have closely followed this story. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Massive amounts of coverage in reliable sources from all over the world, coverage still ongoing after two weeks, has some small claims to lasting impact. I think this meets WP:EVENT. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think this warrants its own article. Detail is still duplicated at the main article anyways JetBlue Airways so no reason to merge.Off2riorob (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is vastly more information here that is of interest to readers, and whose inclusion in the JetBlue Airways article would cause undue weight problems. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Global coverage, political impact, numerous angles and aspects. This is clearly not a routine event. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT#NEWS was written for this sort of thing. Flash-in-the-pan news event that will certainly have no lasting impact.RadarsFinger (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bit of a curio which got huge worldwide coverage, which I think would give it some impact and therefore notability. The article itself is well written and sourced. Worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable airline incident. If Steven Slater isn't notable enough for his own article, then the event related to his escapades certainly isn't. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That certainly isn't what WP:BLP1E has to say. In fact it's advice is quite the opposite. Hobit (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This remains an non-notable incident.—Chris!c/t 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People voting keep should have a look Can anyone siting "lasting impact" actually give even one notable and reliable example of lasting impact? Any legislation that has resulted or is being planned? Any effects on corporate bottom lines, or stock prices? Even any documented effects on the everyday lives of either travelers or flight attendants or service staff in general? This event is more appropriately covered, as it in fact already is, as a subsection of the JetBlue Airways article. As for duration of coverage, I'm already seeing fewer and fewer stories, and some of those are either mentioning him in passing, or some actually saying "Time to move on, folks." And this seems like it comes close to falling in the subsection WP:SENSATION. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Really? You think we should only cover things if it has an impact that significant? We cover the careers of fairly minor athletes, the relationship of Wikipedia and Scientology, and a massive number of things more trivial than this. If you hit "random article" I don't think you'd hit more than 3 in 20 that meet the guidelines you just specified. There is clearly sustained coverage and that coverage is so well documented a political party is using it in its ads. That's something pretty significant. And I'll bet no more than 1 in 20 articles you'd hit randomly have that kind of breadth of recognition among the general population. Hobit (talk) 11:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to JetBlue#Incidents and accidents. The incident is highly unusual, and the amusement element is what made the incident visible in the news media. However, it is not an incident which carries much impact beyond its interest as a news story. I cannot see any evidence that the incident has led to changes in the aviation industry, personnel policy, or safety procedures. I agree with the delete voters' citing of WP:NOTNEWS, but I am OK with having the incident mentioned on the JetBlue page, so a redirect seems reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is purely a vehicle to overcome BLP1E concerns on Steven Slater, a fifteen minuter. The individual is not notable enough to warrant their own article, inclusion in incidents on Jetblue is plenty and everything could be redirected to there. Despite the outcry, no one is trying to purge Slater from Wikipedia, just making sure the incident is represented correctly. The fact the article has had to be named JetBlue Flight 1052 is further evidence of how ridiculous this is becoming as no-one is going to search for Slater with that term. GainLine ♠ ♥ 08:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with the MOS, it's just a reflection of the fact that the article is a vehicle to avoid BLP1E for what could easily be covered in the JetBlue incidents section. GainLine ♠ ♥ 10:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on NOT#NEWS "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. " Is this enduring? At the moment it seems to be. Certainly more so that many many other things we cover. Is this routine coverage? I'd have to say there was nothing routine about either the event or the coverage. So I'm really not seeing how NOT#NEWS applies. It is more targeted to things like box scores and who is dating who kins of things ("routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"). Not things that see this level of sustained coverage. Hobit (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, well, more like a request. I read "recent coverage, lasting coverage" but I haven't heard a thing from MSM about this for almost a week. Does someone have a reliable source that is still discussing the event? I don't mean the Examiner gossiping about a reality show, or Forbes talking about how to keep your employees from blowing their cool. I'm asking for real, reliable coverage of the incident. I'm not even sure I would consider news of the court case relevant because that is guaranteed to go on for years simply because of our justice system. Where is all this recent coverage of the event? Padillah (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair question. At the moment I'm seeing news coverage as recently as 4 hours ago. [9]. Some examples in the last 24 are: [10], [11], and [12] each of which reference the event in one way or the other. An www.examiner.com article discusses the reality show offer and [13] references the GOP ad. All told I'm seeing 17 stories in the last 24 hours. Hobit (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, the first link was a google news search for "Steven Slater" not an article. The second story starts with the phrase "As flight attendant Steven Slater slips into a media lull between his dramatic exit and a rumoured reality show..." even the articles you are citing are talking about how there's no more media coverage. The third link is to a story about several people quitting there jobs in rather dramatic ways. I personally think this is evidence of how non-notable this incident is - Everyone is doing it. The fourth link is to a news article about something else. I.e. "In what might be a move more courageous than folk-hero Steven Slater, she took matters into her own hands..." Yet more examples of other people doing the same thing as, or in this case better than, Slater. And the fifth link actually calls Slater "Pop Culture". The title of the article is "6 campaign ads that spoof pop culture" How does being explicitly labeled as Pop Culture mean the incident has staying power? These links in no way "cover" the incident. And if these are the best you could find out of the 17 you purport to have encountered in the last 17 hours, then I'm less than impressed. The Smiley face murder theory is from early 2008 and you can still find articles and papers written directly on the investigation. That's notable. Padillah (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it means that we're well past "routine news coverage" as spelled out in WP:NOTNEWS. What is "sustained coverage" these days? To me it means that there is on-going coverage, even if just mentions, over a period of at least 4-6 weeks. Do we have that? Not yet, not enough time. But if there are 17 articles published in the last 24 hours I think we're likely to get there. And yeah, being in so strong in "Pop Culture" that a major party makes an ad based on you probably means that it's notable and worthy of an article. Hobit (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Still of evidance of any kind of lasting impact. News stories appear to have largley tried up. This can be coverd (and the material in the articel only repeats) whats in the jetblue artciel already.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • 17 stories in the last 24 hours is "dried up?". That's a pretty high bar and I doubt that even 5% of our articles ever had coverage like that. Hobit (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of which are trivil in the extream (a one line mention in an artciel about another persons heroism, who interestingly does not have a wik page) they are not about him, they are about other incidents (or persons) and just mention him. Or he is mentioned in things like college newpapers. What we would need in notable coverage to establish this is more then a silly season story.Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're saying that every event worthy of a Wikipedia article must be covered in the media, in detail, constantly and in perpetuity, whether or not anything new related to the event has actually happened, that's ridiculous and I doubt any event could possibly meet such a standard. Becoming an ongoing point of reference, on the other hand, is absolutely evidence of notability. Propaniac (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not in deatil but it hato be rather more then saying that A is not as heroic a B. It has top be more then a throw away referance. That the point its one event th had any impact. Its not changed anything. Its being discused soely in relatio to hte one incident. Thats the ppoint he is famous for one (minor) incident. Where is the anyliisis of the incident? In factg the majority of coverage is about hijm, not the incidetn. The incidetn seem secondry. So he is notable for being part of an event that he is more notable then.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article should refeclt the whole story, not just give Mr Slaters version nof the evetn (which has been widley challenged) any thijng else would be haigiograthy. We should not have tribute pages. Now all material (apart from Mr Slaters version) is unimportant fluff. What is the point of this artciel if its not about the event, and everthing surrounding it? All versions of the event, not just his.Slatersteven (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Propaniac and Hobit, the article needs to be about the subject, not just mention it. Heck one of the links above mentions the Old Spice Guy, does that mean he's notable? No. The [article on MSNBC] might but the off the cuff mention of his being spoofed does not qualify as coverage. Padillah (talk) 15:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need articles that are about the subject in order to establish notability. But, I repeat that it is ridiculous to assert that for an event to be notable enough to justify an article, you need continual detailed coverage until the end of time. The fact that new developments become less frequent after a period of time, and that the media does not continue writing new articles when there are no new developments, does not mean that the event wasn't notable. What you can expect from a notable event is that it is still referenced in the public consciousness. I doubt there have been any recent articles about anything in Category:2009 controversies, let alone events from years before that; that does not mean that the Henry Louis Gates arrest controversy, or any other item in that category, does not justify an article. Propaniac (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Old Spice Guy ads are certainly notable. Their coverage has been as broad and wide as one could hope and many folks in advertising have claimed that they are the first major ad campaign to be truly successful in utilizing "new media". But ignoring that, does prompting a study on air travel count as "significant impact"? If so [14] would certainly be one. I really don't get why people have a fear of documenting truly significant events just because they are "pop culture". We cover all sorts of things that have less of a reach than this. A majority of flying Americans have closely followed this story for goodness sake (see previous study). That's a lot of folks to "closely" follow anything. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum The Old Spice Ad stuff has its own article.... The Man Your Man Could Smell Like... Hobit (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SIgnificant, where is the in depth anaylysis? All we have are articels about the man. There is almost no initerviews with passengers (the other witnases) where is the anyalysis of the effects using the chute might have had (there is a bit, but no follow ups). Where is the analysis of Jetblues actions (and there has been some questions raised, and largley ignored). It is clear from the coverage that there is no notability about the event, its all about the person. Indead even the fact that allmost all (90%) of the witneses contradict all or part of his story has been largely ignored in the coverage. There has been no indepth coverage of the event, just a publicity machine kicking in to present his side of the story only.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of analysis about the reactions to this event. Lots and lots and lots including prompting a fairly large study. I think that's pretty solid. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endagering life, how where is the analysis of how his actions might have endagerd life? Apparently it put the airplane out of action, for how long, why, what impact did this have on the airline, on the aiurport, were any flights delayed, how did this affect the profits of already financialy weakend airlines? Why did Jetbue wait so lon g to inform teh authorities and why were not so unco-operative? You are right we have lots avbout the reaction to the event, nothing about the event. There are huge anansered questions, the reason, becasue this was an 'and finaly' human interest story that was never intended (except by those who alerted the press before the police) then 15 minutes of fame. Moreover your indepth sutdy is not indepth about the incident.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect I've tossed in my mind between delete and keep on this, but at the end of the day, coverage isn't enough - a point forgotten by quite a few of the keep !votes. WP:EVENT (and WP:NOTNEWS) require impact as well. In my view, this is high coverage but very low impact, per Sjakalle above. It has had some impact (see Hobit above) but that impact can be dealt with proportionately in the relevant JetBlue article. That the flight article now has an exhaustive timeline of "events" is indicative of how disproportionate a separate article is.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Enough time has passed to measure staying power, and it seems that Mr. Slater's antics have no encyclopedic value. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 23:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - It is clear, that from the analysis of the articles about flight attendant burnout referencing this case, that Slater's actions are of a high encyclopedic value and must be catalogued by Wikipedia. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP passes WP:NOTNEWS. This incident has had a lasting impact, with articles still being written about it. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE despite the solid arguments posted by Hobit and Propanic above, I don't feel the article adds anything to the encyclopedia that the blurb in the current JetBlue article doesn't. It's longer and uses more words (and the timeline, but that's just fluff) but ultimately doesn't say anything that isn't said in the blurb. So, after almost three weeks of coverage we can still very easily sum up the incident in a blurb, I don't think can support a stand-alone article. Padillah (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably true, but A) I feel the current coverage in the parent article is already full of undo weight and should be a LOT shorter (this is 10% of JetBlue?) and B) there is a strong expectation that with the legal issues and reality show there will be stuff that certainly doesn't belong there. Hobit (talk) 13:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A strong case for this event's inclusion can be made from WP:EVENT. It has already had a measurable impact, with a Republican party commercial based on the event and a reality tv-show being offered to Slater. The event has also served as a proverbial lightening-rod and reference-point, inspiring discussion of a wide range of contemporary social issues including the state of the economy (with wage stagnation, job insecurity, etc.), 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. Much in-depth analysis relating to these issues has already been published, for example [15], [16], and [17]. Per WP:PERSISTENCE, there's been significant "duration of coverage." The event happened two and a half weeks ago, and it's still being covered. With the trial set to start next month, there's no reason to believe there won't continue to be more coverage in the future. The event clearly meets WP:DIVERSE with very significant and in-depth coverage in many different parts of the world. A Taiwanese TV station even made an animation based on the event. And, as I've already stated, there has been very significant WP:EVENT#Depth_of_coverage. Finally, WP:EVENT states that: "It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." So even if this event's lasting effect has not yet been completely proven, there is still no reason the article should be deleted, in light of the overwhelming diversity, persistence, and depth of the coverage that this event has already received. -Helvetica (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and avoiding thinking that recency means things don't deserve coverage. We regularly cover single events of note, e.g., the 1981 Ketchup as a vegetable controversy. That was just as silly "flash in the pan" an event as this, but these things are remembered for their uniqueness forever.--Milowent • talkblp-r 14:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to JetBlue#Incidents and accidents and merge a thumbnail of the content, per Sjakkalle. Also, since this event was news predominantly because of what one person did, we're going to end up with an event page that's almost exclusively about a person who is otherwise not notable, which could present some WP:BLP problems. If it's kept, it really needs some trimming -- the timeline section is completely superfluous, IMO. — e. ripley\talk 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete or redirect. This isn't some enduring thing and the 15 minutes are nearly up. Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Why is that so many of these delete comments seem to sound like they have a WP:I don't like it rationale? The article is 17K at this point and it has 33 references (it could have been even longer with more references if it weren't for aggressive reverts). It addresses the complex issues of opinions of what happened. It also establishes worldwide notability from Taiwan coverage to a Republican National Committee ad to specifics on a job offer. The six sentence item on JetBlue is oversimplistic (and in my opinion bordering on libelous in its current wording). If it were fleshed out on JetBlue there would be WP:Undue weight issues.Americasroof (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dunno, maybe its because no-one will give two hoots about this in 5 years - if they even remember it- and that I thought I was contributing to an encyclopedia not an aggregation of tabloid trivia. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • LOL! I just took a look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and what did I find there? "Delete as trivia. – NoTriviaHere 01:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)" Also, it's pure crystal-ball to say that nobody will care about it or remember it in five years. Helvetica (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hobit. Ongoing, independent, RS coverage passes GNG. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikinews - Changing the article title to JetBlue Flight 1052 skirts past the BLP1E issues, but creates other problems. The flight number itself does not point singularly to this event. It's ok to use flight numbers for articles about crashes, because generally those flight numbers are retired and never used again after a crash. However, there is a new JetBlue Flight 1052 probably once every day. Which particular flight does this article describe? What if another notable event happens during a subsequent JetBlue 1052? Will we have to move this article to JetBlue Flight 1052 (August 9, 2010)? Anyway, problems with the article title aside, this article clearly runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. News sources are ok to use as sources for information, but they do not necessarily confer notability. Notability is not temporary. In a year's time, no one will remember this person or this event. An encyclopedia is not about documenting isolated news stories. Now, if Steven Slater goes on to host a notable reality show and gets his own talk show or something, then we can start a bio article on him and mention the details of his outburst. At this point, however, this is just a single non-notable event. Everyone needs to calm down and wait for this to become notable before starting an article. SnottyWong comment 17:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In a year's time, no one will remember this person or this event." - I am not convinced of that, because there are now analysis articles about how flight attendants snap, and there are articles analyzing the roles of flight attendants. This event is becoming a case study on the roles of flight attendants. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or transwiki to Wikinews as per Snottywong's rationale. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per international coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:EVENT v WP:I don't like it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:EVENT v WP:I don't like it ref WP:DONTBEAHATER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.2.0.115 (talk) 21:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I do not believe it is possible to transwiki to Wikinews. Wikinews' policy is that all reported news must be current, and besides there is no corresponding entry at Wikipedia:Transwiki log for Wikinews. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As we should be following WP:EVENT, as it is to that guideline that the appropriate section in WP:NOT#NEWS links to, i'll be focusing my argument on that. The part that states "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" is clearly indicative of this event, as it was publicized in almost all (if not all) major newspapers in the world. And it has certainly been analyzed afterwards. Another reason for notability would be the "Geographical Scope" of the coverage and there is certainly enough diversity in the available sources. And, though the subject is not breaking news anymore, that section does state "Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary."
As can clearly be seen by a Google search for the past day, there is still continuing coverage, so it was not really a "15 minutes of fame" scenario. I also believe that this news article sums things up appropriately. SilverserenC 03:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Fails WP:EVENT and more specifically its subsection WP:SENSATION. While this event gained coverage during its news cycle, it is hardly encyclopedic as an event that will have long-term memory or effect. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Delete per nom"??? Ay mi moreno!...Didn't you see the that nominator abstained? -Helvetica (talk) 08:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The diff is the article still is nominated for deletion. Procedurally, my iVote follows. ----moreno oso (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP and move to Steven Slater
    • Notability for sport and athletic individuals requires only one event WP:ATH, WP:ATHLETE, WP:NSPORT, WP:NSPORTS. The original deletion of Steven Slater was a misinterpretation of WP:BLP1E which applies the one event rule only if a "person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual". Steven Slater is not a low profile individual: in an Angus Reid Public Opinion poll of 773 American adults found 52% were following the Steven Slater story "very closely" or "moderately closely". 57% had an opinion as to whether he was justified (25%) or not (32%).[18] If sports notability allows Wikipedia articles upon unknown Ukrainian junior tennis players noteworthy for only winning one competition such as Kateryna Kozlova then Wikipedia brings itself into disrepute as a source of information if it does not cover an individual whose story was followed in August 2010 by over half the US population.
    • Steven Slater notability goes beyond the events on JetBlue Flight 1052 as he and his story has become a vignette. Change the airline name, and the flight number and destinations and interest would remain; remove from the story taking two beers and going down the evacuation slide and no one would care. Steven Slater is a notable Take this job and shove it story about human experience not a notable air incident.
    • The Steven Slater story has been raised in diverse contexts including customer relations[19] industrial relations[20] employment termination[21] and status of workers in a recession.[22] This media coverage is on going and given these issues are permanent important concerns are unlikely to stop. Given the dramaticness and notoriety of the Steven Slater story it can reasonably expected to be adopted as an instruction related talking point in education and training in these fields.
    • Steven Slater is a social phenomena with a dozen plus songs[23] political ad[24] folkhero status[25] and creation of a new word in the English language.[26] A common explanation of his notability is that it resonates with conditions faced by workers in a recession.[27][28][29][30]
    • Failure to include Steven Slater as an article is a judgment about these worker experiences --that they are insufficient grounds for noteworthiness in an encylopedia. This goes against WP:N.
    • Most of the above deletes seem to reflect -- and I apologize for making this observation and only make it because I think it is at the core of this debate-- a focus on the physical events on JetBlue Flight 1052, while being indifferent to the enormous, empathic, in depth and diverse social attention given to them as a noteworthy human story.--LittleHow (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The story is not followed by half the population of the US (for a start how many people in the US fly?) its is followed by 330 odd people (who fly, not unreasonable givine its a flying incident).
We cannot specualte on why might have been, but I would say that if this had not been on an airliner (but had say been in a call centre) no one would have given a hoot. Moreover as the press and internt were informed first there is also the issue of whether or not this would have been as notable if he had been arrested before his side of the story got out wouold he have been suchg a hero (there is also now the srong possiiblity that his whole story is a concoction).
The media coverage is just that, it does not establish any lasting impact (and in fact the incident itself and the questions it raises have been largley ignored, he is the story not what he did). Also much of your civerage is a week old, aroung the time of the incident. We also cannot say at this time what hte impact will be, but given the increasing evidacen that this was not a story about a worker pushed too far its doubtfull if this will be used as anything. The industry I ssupect will soon try to move on.
Songs and other pop culture referances do not establish ntability (and again this all looks like fairly old stuff), its a nwes story so it will have had some millage that does not mean its notable. Also we still have the fact that this refects peoples reaction to the first flurry of news (and still contains no real analysis of the actual incident but is mealry a personel interest story) not any iindepth analysis of the incodetn and its impact.
Sorry but non inclusion does not violate nuetraility. Especlaiy as mu8ch of the above is based on a biased and now almost certaionly dishonest version of events (inclusion of that would violate nuetraility).
To be notable a person must be part of a notable event, if the event is not notable (and it appears tp have been largley ignored) the he is not. If I stub my toe and it gets news coverage that does not make me t of a notable event.Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of WP:N is that coverage is notability. That is, it was noted. This clearly meets the requirements of WP:N in much the same way the sun meets the requirements of "a hot object". The question at hand is if the event is non-the-less something we shouldn't cover because it's "just news" (WP:NOTNEWS) or doesn't meet other inclusion guidelines (in this case WP:EVENT). General notability is really not in debate and your arguments would seem to be a version of WP:JNN. That can be a fine IAR argument, but such arguments are generally accorded less weight than a policy-based argument. Hobit (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And have I asked has the event (rather then the person) actualy has any analysis, no (and in fact jetblue have complained about the lack of coverage of the danger inherant in the chute incident for example, claiming the incident has not been taken seriously).The coverage has all been infact trivial (even at the time, and has become increasingly trivial as time has gone on) concentrating on the Humans intertest angle at the expense of actual coverage of his actions and thier implications. No the event has not been noticed its been largley ignored (to an extent that some of the coverage has been of the 'I did not see it but know Mr Slaters version is true' veriety).Slatersteven (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial coverage is making an aside in an article otherwise about another subject. There have been entire articles written about the Steven Slater incident and what it signifies. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Hobit (talk) 22:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also if a TV program aired in the US and 200,000 people whatched it would not be a notable program it would be a flop. Yes the inernet (and facebook) has a far bigger 'audiance' then US TV (in the US) yet less then this is considerd notalbe. This is just plain daft facebook has 500 million active users, this is less then 1% of the total.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"200,000 people whatched it would not be a notable program it would be a flop." Source? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We often have these silly debates over whether clearly notable events should get coverage or not. They should, even if they were primarily driven by the actions of one person. The intent behind BLP1E is to protect low profile individuals from being subjected to a full biographical treatment, including the otherwise private parts of their lives. It's not intended to censor all biographical coverage of people primarily (and widely) known for one event, and it never was meant that way. Gigs (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment also raises a good issue involving WP:WL, and this process seems full of wiki-lawyering. WP:WL says that the intent and principles behind policies have far more import than following the verbage of a policy literally. It seems to me that those articulating for delete are relying on literal interpretations of various policies without regard to the intent and principles behind any such policies. I wish all the brain power going on here was instead put into the article, and finding a good name for it, as the current name is not at all helpful. WP:WL out of control, WP:They just don't like it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To those who consider this is not worthy because of claims that there is no fresh news on the issue and it has dried up. Has there been any news on Jesus walking on water today? Shall we delete? AfD Jesus? WP:They just don't like it. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, lack of ongoing coverage for a significant period of time in terms of one event articles is actually a part of policy. But, regardless, coverage is still ongoing, so it doesn't really matter. SilverserenC 19:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on coverage ongoing (and voted Keep), but you helped make my real point which is the wikilawyering going on by the delete camp. Reliance on policy read literally. As there is no ongoing news coverage of some guy walking on the sea of Galilee, we should now start an AfD Jesus. WP:WL is designed to stop such nonsense propositions as AfD Jesus by stressing the import of principle and intent over the literally reading being touted here. It's like an evangelical army... WP Policies are not meant to be read verbatim (and selectively as is the case here). Anyway there is always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. This article is still here, has had two AfDs, and an appeal, and short of ArbCom enforcing it's godhood you can bet this article is just not going to go away. The People Speak. There will never be consensus to delete, so any admin deleting this article will be relying on policy, to which an editor will probablly respond with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and create it with another name even more inappropiate than Steven Slater > JetBlue Flight 1052. 24.23.198.90 (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is the attentional system of the human species. It the collective source of what will be noteworthy. But it is written by humans and we each live and organize our minds differently: some tightly with a lawyer-like set of rules about what is notable, some with "ignore all the rules" inspiration. One puts logic over chaos, the other diversity and potential richness over order. Wikipedia needs both, and both will always cause tensions.--LittleHow (talk) 01:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's just a news story that will be quickly forgotten, not an encyclopedia-worthy event. Peacock (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I !voted delete in the AfD for Slater's page; while he isn't notable enough for his own entry, this event seems to be. Continuing coverage, lasting effect. The thing as a whole is notable. —fetch·comms 03:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The view from Page view statistics Wikipedia viewers overwhelming seek Steven Slater see here and not JetBlue Flight 1052 see here. The ratio is usually around one in 400 in favor of Steven Slater. The numbers are so few, that less individuals searched for JetBlue Flight 1052 on August 17 (the last day for which figures exist) than commented on the JetBlue Flight 1052 deletion page for that day. Does Wikipedia exists as an encyclopedia service for people out there in the real world, or for editors lost in their wikilawyering? --LittleHow (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the up side, we'll end up with a redirect to this article from his name. Should get the job done. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point is that the interest that drives the noteworthiness of Steven Slater lies in him not the incident on JetBlue Flight 1052 which was merely the occasion for his notability.--LittleHow (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It is clear from editorials and news articles that this case is no longer news. It is now a notable scenario. All "delete" rationales above hinging on WP:NOTNEWS clearly have no merit. Steven Slater's name is now in the public record. I will find all of the analysis and build it up. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I missed it, did this plane crash? Was it involved in some sort of hijacking incident? Why in God's green Earth is this article titled after the flight number. This is usually reserved for notable flights in which people have died violently. The article is disrespectfully titled.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to the current consensus on titling style for aviation events, if the media doesn't give the event a specific name and it is wished for the article to be titled after the event, then the title must be the flight number and company. If you have an alternative title in mind, feel free to propose it. SilverserenC 22:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that was the consensus then, someone must have forgot to add it to the guideline, because that is not what it says.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep, changed from Delete at the last AFD (for Steven Slater). Now that the initial storm of heated argument that follows any article created on a current news story has blown over, I think we can judge the subject more clearly, and in this case the subject is unquestionably notable. Given the length, wide reach and depth of coverage, WP:NOTNEWS does not apply. Yes, I still think the amount of coverage this pretty trivial story got is ridiculous - and I think the length of our article on it is faintly ridiculous as well - but it clearly struck a chord with many people, and in any case, our job is not to judge the media. Our job is to judge notability, and by any objective standard, this article passes the test. Robofish (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the article name, it's not ideal, but WP:BLP1E discourages an article on the person unless he's clearly notable in his own right. Perhaps another alternative can be found - 2010 JetBlue air rage incident, maybe? Robofish (talk) 22:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:BLP1E only advises against an article on a person where a "person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" -- which is not the case for Steven Slater who has employed a publicity promoter. It is in my opinion inappropriate encyclopedically to link Steven Stater to JetBlue Flight 1052 since this was only the occasion not the reason for his notability which was not an aircraft incident but a story that happened on a particular flight. The incident was a "key" that became a story because it fitted, turned and opened a "lock" of previously undiscussed and unnoted employment stresses suffered by service workers (such as cabin staff) in a recession where they cannot Take this job and shove it. To focus on the key (the incident) and ignore its turning of the narrative lock (employment stresses in a recession) is be blind to why Steven Slater is so very notable.
    • If you doubt this, why does this piece ARE YOU BEING SERVED? in next week's The New Yorker contain no words mentioning the place of the incident "JetBlue Flight 1052" but details the noteworthiness of his "emergence as a “working-class hero,” after he threw his job away with a tirade against passengers and a slide down an exit chute. ... subject of numerous tribute songs and his Facebook fan page drew more than two hundred thousand people—suggested just how frustrated employees are with stagnant pay, stressful working conditions, and obnoxious customers."--LittleHow (talk) 06:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article also says that his 15 minutes of fame are almost over (essentially not the first source to say that this is in effect a flash in the pan story). Also the article is more about Dave Carrol then Steven Slater. In fact the Steven Slater mention is trivial. It also says that “Still, there was something a little surprising about the adulation. After all, the public comprises customers as well as workers,” Not the first source to question why he is so famous, indication that not everyone considerd the incident impoprtant. And I again say that 200,000 people is not a lot, its less then 1% of face book.
Also BLP1E says 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. He is only notable for the one event, the fact that the one evetn has caused a cord to be srruck with less then 1% of the interents population does not alter the fact he is still only notable for the one event (throwing a wobbly and leaving his job). There is no indication he is famous for anyhing else.Slatersteven (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fame does not equal notability nor does The New Yorker piece[31] stating his "fame may be winding down" equal "flash in the pan".
The notability of Steven Slater is the main topic in the leading first paragraph. The statement “Still, there was something a little surprising about the adulation" is statement that he has surprising notability not that he lacks it.
To state "Not the first source to question why he is so famous" is in fact to state he is famous (but to be puzzled about it) not that he lacks fame. The sources of his notability are diverse : it goes far beyond 200,000 people on facebook -- a measure that might be questioned -- as there are 12+ songs about him,[32] the use of his name as a word "to pull a Slater",[33] a political ad based around pulling a slater,[34] a New York Times piece about his status as a folk hero,[35] endless pieces about industrial relations, customer relations, civility, and the blight of workers in a recession that dare not do a take this job and shove it.
WP:BLP1E is misinterpreted. Single events can be proper grounds for notability such as with individuals in sport. BLP1E is to stop articles on low-profile people incidentally involved in events such George Holliday who videotaped Rodney King being beaten by LAPD officers (and whose acquittal lead to the 1992 Los Angeles riots). It is not a grounds to stop articles on people who have become noteworthy by diverse sources and in diverse ways.--LittleHow (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was beautiful. *applauds* SilverserenC 15:50, 31 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Cartoon[edit]

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 August 17. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete due to lack of substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient third-party coverage. Failing that, a merge to a seasonwide article might be appropriate, but there's absolutely no policy basis for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These can be improved enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I find the book to be a strong primary source (it includes a plot summary in addition to how it is used in the article) and I find the other sources to be on the weaker side, but still enough to meet WP:N by a fair bit. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources such as this. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per apparent consensus at DRV; no point in singling out one episode for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of the seminal shows of its time, part of popular culture, and there are WP users come here for articles such as this. Carrite (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Significant coverage in multiple sources: I've just added several new references. [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. The article can be further expanded even just from those sources. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I thought Hullaballoo Wolfowitz said it better in the DRV: There's "no reason to delete a single article from a comprehensive set unless there's cause shown to re-examine the global question". Also, the following is stated under WP:OSE -
"When applied to creation of articles, this concept must demonstrate that articles of a similar nature and construct are included throughout Wikipedia. For instance:
* Each Star Trek series has an episode list and individual articles for each episode: List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes, List of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes, List of Star Trek: Voyager episodes, etc. show that episodes all have their own articles. Thus it is reasonable to expect that, using these as precedent for content inclusion, that Star Trek: Enterprise can also have an episode list as well as articles on each individual episode, as there is no fundamental difference between the various Star Trek series."
More so for individual episodes of the same series, ie, Seinfeld Rainjar (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly satisfies WP:N. meshach (talk) 19:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article is sourced and is one of thousands of sitcom episode related articles all over wikipedia. A precident has already been established to create articles about sitcom episodes, regardless if there is a policy or guideline for them.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all non-notable episodes - There isn't enough coverage in reliable, third-party sources to build an article and satisfy WP:N. Most (of not all) coverage was trivia mentions in articles about other subjects. This episode along with the rest for this season can be covered better in Seinfeld (season 9). d'oh! talk 04:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As Ron Ritzman pointed out in the DRV "Wouldn't a better approach be to start a discussion at Talk:Seinfeld or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Seinfeld about expanding the episode list articles to include short summaries and then turning most episode articles into redirects?", rather than seeking to delete an individual article, leaving a gap in what would otherwise be a complete set? To seek a merger of articles on other individual episodes in a AfD relating to just one episode leaves articles on other episodes exposed without a broader discussion Rainjar (talk) 14:47, 30 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) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cotnam[edit]

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

Completely fails all the notability guidlines for politicians (and farmers!). Also, possibly autobiographical. Chris (talk) 18:31, 24 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. A close one, but the consensus appears to just be in favour of deleting the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Stewart (American politician)[edit]

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

This mayor of Independence, Missouri (a suburb of Kansas City) recently passed away, but I am afraid he is not notable. Coverage of his actions in office is routine and local. The obituaries provided in the article are local. Independence has the Council–manager form of government, one in which the mayor is "largely ceremonial" head of the legislative branch, and the hired manager is the executive. Wikipedia tends not to have articles on mayors unless they pass the WP:GNG or are the mayors of very large cities. Counterexamples exist, but they too are of questionable notability. Blast Ulna (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree. My sympathies to the family of Mr. Stewart, but we also have a strict policy against memorials, and the page was created, apparently, from the obituary being in the news. The criteria under WP:MEMORIAL is that the persons who qualify are "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." Frankly, I think that it's too inclusive and inconsistent, and "major" is a matter of opinion. I don't think it would extend to all cities with populations of 100,000 and up, because there are thousands of cities worldwide that are at least that size. Anybody who has read a book about Harry S. Truman has heard of Independence, but it's not a major city. Mandsford 18:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - One can demonstrate multiple independent sources based on the obits; one can disregard the same based on the "incidental single event" of the mayor dying. It comes down to this somewhat philosophical question: is Wikipedia better off having this particular article up and accessible or better off wiping this article away? I can see no compelling reason for removal, information of potential interest to WP users is lost in the process and nothing of value is gained. Carrite (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These people are of purely local interest. Can you provide any sources on the subject from more than 100 miles away? Blast Ulna (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a (lack of) proximity requirement for "reliable independent sources." Carrite (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage of a restaurant--"decent food, friendly service"--is that enough for a Wkipedia article? Local coverage of a ceremonial mayor--"he promoted the city and was well liked". Blast Ulna (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am torn on this one. Mandsford has logic on his side. However, he was a mayor of a county seat and city of 121,000 people. What do others think? Bearian (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Two of his obituaries are rather short, and a third is from a redlinked newspaper. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Mayor for 12 years of a city with a population in excess of 100,000 should be worth an article, and there are reliable sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - There are countless articles on this site for fictional characters from literature, film, television and video games. There are also well written articles, as well as stubs, pertaining to famous dogs, cats and racehorses, all of which should be included. Yet articles about actual people who govern cities or towns are often deleted or nominated for deletion. From an academic standpoint, this doesn't make much sense. People who govern a city of town or 20K+, 50K+ or 100,000+, etc, such as Stewart are certainly deserving of an article. There should be no such artbitrary size limit or locality for this Mayor. Just today there was an interesting bio article on DYK about the Mayor who governed a town of just 13,000 people. These types of articles on Mayors, etc., add to the resources available to readers on this site. Stewart governed a large, regional city of more than 100,000 people for more than 12 years. He seems to have had an impact deserving of an article. Scanlan (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no, he did not govern the city. His position was largely ceremonial. There is no arbritrary number of people in a city for the mayor to be notable; notability is determined by analysis in multiple secondary sources. The locally written obituary on him shows that he did his job well, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The coverage is just too limited to qualify for the GNG (local and non-extensive). And the claims to "inherent notability" are weakened by the ceremonial nature of the position. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:28, 31 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Air Flight 101[edit]

Agni Air Flight 101 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's hard to see what makes this plane crash particularly historically notable, beyond routine news values. Nepal is a dangerous place for flying, this type of aircraft has been lost many times with many fatalities, it is not a particularly deadly crash for Nepal, and it is not particularly unusual crash based on the early reports. I've nothing against recreation in changed circumnstances, but right now, this article is the sort of thing that should be on wikinews. MickMacNee (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Do228 is an airliner, not a GA aircraft. Accident meets WP:AIRCRASH A3. Added to that is a hull loss with all on board being killed. This should equate to sufficient notability to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This only proves that the AIRCRASH essay is not doing a proper job of giving a scale-able yardstick of general aircrash notability. The airline had five planes and has been going for 4 years, so any kind of fatal crash at all is likely to meet A3. And there have been 23 hull losses of Do228's, so that seems an equally insignificant marker. So, no, it doesn't equate to anything except pointless essay-wonkery. It certainly goes no way to explaining how these facts for this crash equate to historical notability and significance. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mick, I'm not going to get into a massive debate over the article in question or the guideline essay I quoted. You've stated your reasons for deletion, I've stated my reasons for keeping. Other editors have a chance to give their opinion on the article. At the end of seven days, an uninvolved editor will make a decision. This is how the process works, there is no need to keep arguing each point with a counterpoint. Mjroots (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a Wikipedia Guideline, you can no more quote it as one than you can boil a chocoloate teapot. You can sit it out all you want, it doesn't bother me, just don't complain if your opinion is discounted in the final closure if you couldn't be bothered to defend it when challenged. Yes you've given a reason, well done. But Afd is about debate, not giving everyone a free-vote, and how you got to be an admin without getting this basic idea is beyond me. MickMacNee (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • MMN is correct, WP:AIRCRASH is an essay, per the notice at the top of that page.
  • Keep The common outcome has been that airline accidents (more to the point, non-military scheduled flights by an airline) that result in fatalities are notable. I don't agree with the rationale that this "is not a particularly deadly crash for Nepal". I can't see using a different standard for one nation than we would apply to another. Mandsford 18:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The idea of 'deadliest for Nepal' comes from AVIATION - L3. I happen to agree with that part, because the whole goal of that essay is, per WP:N, to only keep crash articles that prove to be historically significant, and that is one of the frequent markers. I've no objection to 'any fatal crash of any airline' being the rule if that is accepted by the wider community, but that's not even how the Avitation project's own essay is written currently, so I can't really believe it's the common outcome at all. MickMacNee (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - fourteen dead makes it notable. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That implies there is a magic number of dead to be notable, other than 1. Or is the number 1? Please explain how 14 deaths "makes it notable." MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:AIRCRASH is an essay not a guideline, so let's ignore that for now. Looking instead at WP:EVENT, I see the following text: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". Looking through the sources, this seems to meet that. Alzarian16 (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not exactly a nuanced interpretation even though you refer to a Guideline. That sentence is after all just a presumption, not a requirement, hence 'likely', not 'will be'. The international coverage likely exists because there were multiple nationalities on board, i.e. tourists - so in terms of that proving this was a notable crash, unless you are advancing the theory that if it were just 14 Nepalese dead it wouldn't be a notable crash, which would have serious policy complications, it doesn't prove much. And there is diversity of sources? News sources and aviation specific sources? For an aircrash, that's not diverse, that's to be expected. Diversity would be having this featured in news, in Time, and in National Geographic, for example. You will find every aviation incident imagineable is covered in things like the Aviation Herald, it doesn't count as variety here. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All hands lost, 14 in total is a very serious accident, and that makes it notable. A good article, well written. Keep it. scope_creep (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I put the same question to you as I did to Ser Amantio di Nicolao, where is your evidence that 14 is somehow a magic number? If 14 is a "very serious accident", then what is 100? What is 4? It's just a meaningless non-vote. And being well written is a total irrelevance too, this is Afd, not GAR. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience (no, this is not backed up by policy, only the result of reading Afd's) has been that generally crashes that result in upwards of ten deaths or a hull loss are both presumed unusual enough, and are the cause of much media coverage, which helps to satisfy notability guidelines, to merit an article. Crashes that kill only a few people, or that don't have some other distinguishing feature come a dime a dozen and are deleted, since those are generally general aviation crashes, which happen much more frequently and get less media coverage. C628 (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As said, I would dispute that is a common outcome, especially if AVIATION is routinely used, but if it is, then this insignificant crash will be a good time to challenge it's logic. There have been 23 hull losses of this aircraft, do we have 23 articles? Should we? Obviously not, imho. Creating an article on this crash, for the dubious grounds presented, is simply creating news articles because we can, and is creating a huge WP:RECENTISM issue for the pedia down the line. MickMacNee (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep scheduled flight goes down. If this happened in the US or Europe there would have been no doubt of its notability; alas, some feel that the 3rd world is of a different caliber. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What absolute rubbish. Scheduled flight crashes are not automatically notable, wherever they occur. MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your initial nomination, you indicated that one of the factors against notability was that "it is not a particularly deadly crash for Nepal". Forgetting, for the moment, the arguments over automatic notability for fatal airline crashes, do you believe that the "wherever they occur" part should be a factor in determining notability? I recognize, of course, that the nomination is based on WP:NOTNEWS, rather than where it occurred or how many people died, and that this recent event happened to occur in the Third World rather than in the U.S. or Europe. I think that it's fair to say that people are interested in reading the details about fatal airline accidents, and not always for admirable reasons; some want to learn more about the technical aspects; some, to be sure, have a ghoulish fascination with the subject. In general, however, the common outcome that has evolved is that articles about fatal airline crashes are going to be kept, regardless of when, where, or how many died; while incidents with no fatalities are far less likely to be kept. Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, it is what it is. Mandsford 00:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scheduled flight aircrashes are not automatically notable, wherever they occur. This concept is not incompatible with the idea that notability is down to significance, and crashes in countries where they are rare and have poor safety records, are 'likely' to be more significant that in countries where they are common and have good safety records. But crashes in the USA can still be 'routine' and thus should not be included here, even though they will get more copious news coverage at the time. I dispute this is a common outcome, but if it is, and is being based on just WP:INTERESTING / WP:TABLOID / WP:BIAS, then no, it isn't a Good Thing at all, and should be stopped. MickMacNee (talk) 12:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Merge to the airline article; at the moment it is mentioned basically as a link to the crash article, so there is plenty of scope to expand the accident's coverage there. Without getting into a debate over whether AIRCRASH is this, that or the other, this only meets one criterion, and AIRCRASH states that in those circumstances mention should generally be confined to the article about the airline. There is nothing in AIRCRASH to say that a hull-loss confers notability, or that number of deaths confers notability, or that a scheduled flight confers notability. The quote from WP:EVENT has that word and, and I can't see any "widespread impact" or "very wide" coverage anyway. Mandsford's comments are incorrect; a number of articles concerning airline accidents resulting in fatalities have been deleted. Apart from anything else, I think this also falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS and that there will be no lasting significant coverage. While I accept the premise that there is a Third-World bias, in that many people on WP think that events in the USA or Europe are intrinsically important; IMO that does not make this article a keeper, rather we have to work to overcome the "everything in the First World is important" mentality. YSSYguy (talk) 00:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:AIRCRASH. No brainer, really. Lugnuts (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far from being a 'no brainer', AIRCRASH is a reason not to keep it. YSSYguy (talk) 07:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Yet another airplane crash. Just because it occurred does not make it notable. Wire services routinely write these articles and drop any coverage the next day, granted, it's not exactly the next day. One week from today, will this still have lasting significance? —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Mikemoral. Diego Grez (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yet another article on a light aircraft that crashed with very few fatalities. Per WP:NOTNEWS, one sudden burst of media attention is not indicative of lasting notability. This will be completely forgotten about in a few weeks, along with all the other minor aviation accidents. The only way such a small incident can have any lasting notability is if there is something exceptional about it. A high death toll or significant ground casualties could be exceptional, but in the absence of that, there needs to be something more unusual than just another light aircraft falling from the sky. This incident lacks anything distinctive or unusual about it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it was an airliner, not a light aircraft. Mjroots (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep encyclopedic article on one of the biggest aircrashes in Nepal in recent times. would be of interest to readers researching air safety in that part of the world for years to come.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Define "encyclopedic", "one of" and "recent times". If this rationale got any vaguer the text would be blurry!. And I seriously doubt any researcher will be reading this article in years to come, but as ever, if you have a way of proving this is not just baseless speculation, I'm all ears. MickMacNee (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I highly doubt anybody can have a reasoned argument with you Mick. stop wasting every bodies time. no way in hell is this article going to get deleted.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't made a reasoned argument yet, so how would you even know? MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
exactly my point. multiple reasoned arguments exist from multiple editors yet you fail to see even one of them. even if I made one you will not be able to comprehend it. trust me on that one.i will be more than happy to come over and explain on your talk page why this article was kept after the AfD is closed.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we've yet to see if you can make one. But if you want to speak for other people, then give me a for example of a reasoned argument having been given, and then me 'not being able to comprehend it'. MickMacNee (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you cant see one reasoned argument in this whole AfD to "keep" the problem is with you, so stop your completely non sense rants and do something useful for the project, this is definitely where WP:SNOW applies you might want to read WP:POINT also--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is you and your lack of Wikipedia knowhow it seems. I said I haven't seen one from you. I've seen some from others, and I've properly countered them, and await the final reckoning of an admin who knows his good arguments from his bad arguments. That's how Afd works. Your knowledge of the process though is beyond clueless if you think this is anywhere near a SNOW case, and let's not even begin to take apart your idea of what POINT means, it would be just embarassing tbh. You really should just quit now if you have nothing to actually say about this debate from a factual, or policy clueful, standpoint. I am doing something usefull for the project, which is not a news repository, using fully mandated and totally normal means. Others are free to choose how they deal with that to best effect, but attacking me won't make shit all difference on that score. But I really don't expect you to comprehend that in the slightest on current evidence. That's more like advanced wiki-clueness tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This IP has made no other edits to the project except to copy and paste this same vote across three Afds of wildly different crashes
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 11:54, 26 August 2010
  • Keep. Clearly notable due to extensive international press coverage. Also first crash for the airline and one of the deadliest crashes of a Do228. --memset (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the difference between "extensive international press coverage" and just press coverage spread across the wires? Is there evidence that this coverage has gone beyond just wire repetition? Is there evidence that the coverage is infact "extensive", or is it just normal and expected for this type of accident? Are you saying this amount of coverage means it is automatically notable? If so, why, given that the GNG is just a presumption, and to be notable it still has to be proven that the article does not violate NOT#NEWS. As for "first crash for the airline" - is this significant, for an airline with only five planes? Has this been mentioned in any of the sources as a significant aspect of this crash? Also on "one of the deadliest crashes of a Do228". Can you be more specific, is it the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or other? Is this a significant aspect of this crash? Has it been mentioned in any of the sources as a significant aspect of this crash? MickMacNee (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be ridiculous.--memset (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake, I thought this was Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's notable. Scheduled airline service, crash resulting in deaths. William 12:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fatal scheduled flight aircrashes are not automatically notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe someone should ask the relatives of those killed whether it warrants its entry. Also this could prove useful for anyone investigating the air crash record for Nepal.Stchapman (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a convincing argument for keeping the article. We don't take relative's wishes into account when deciding if a fatal accident is notable enough for an article, and certainly not when deciding if something is historically significant. And the theory that it might someday be usefull is also not very compelling. There is no reason for keeping an entire article on this one crash, and every other one like it by implication, just to be able to research the crash record of Nepal. Due to their safety record, any such research material is better represented in list form frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just to annoy MickMacNee. (Gabinho>:) 00:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    Placing patently invalid votes doesn't annoy me, it's the ones that appear valid, but have no grounding in practice or policy that annoy me. That, and Wikireader41 fo just being himself generally. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
this is exactly how you are hurting the project. you are pissing off editors by your demeanor so instead of providing useful reasoned !votes they do this. the feeling is mutual MMN. no grounding in practice or policy?? who is the only one here who has been blocked > 20 times for failing to understand basic WP policy ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
who is the only one here who has been blocked > 20 times for failing to understand basic WP policy Can I take a wild stab at this one?! Lugnuts (talk) 08:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could give a monkeys if I piss you off Wikireader41, you've contributed nothing but irrelevance to this Afd and others, the project would be far better off if you retired frankly. You and lugnuts are the sort of lame-ass comedy duo that keeps on performing while not realising nobody in the audience finds them remotely funny, or even interesting. MickMacNee (talk) 12:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have enough self respect to retire if I were to be blocked 20 times. get the message MMN. nobody wants you and your ability to contribute is marginal at best.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have enough self-respect not to come out with schoolgirl lameness like this in an Afd, period. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this actually a vote? !Votes need proper reasoning behind them, which it lacks. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A plane crash killing 14 is significant in any country. The event got major international coverage by reliable sources (not just Nepalese coverage).--Lester 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it, don't just assert it, because it is a proveably false claim - Wikipedia has not, and unless some core policies change, likely never will not, declare a 14 death aircrash as automatically notable. And international coverage is irrelevant, it simply existing does not defeat NOT#NEWS concerns without further explanation/analysis, which you have failed to provide with this one line vote. MickMacNee (talk) 17:40, 27 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. When an acle expands six-fold during the course of an AFD, it is hard to give the early delete comments the same credence as the later ones, especally when they have not revisited the article. In light of this being a substantually different article than nominated, and no delete comments I feel are applicable to the current version of the article, I am closing this as no consensus, with leave to immediately renominate if anyone feels it necessary. Courcelles 03:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Brown (running back)[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH, never played professionally Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a valid argument. Per the lengthy debate leading to its adoption as a guidelines, WP:ATH is an inclusionary standard, not an exclusionary one. A college athlete who has received non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media meets WP:GNG even if he/she never plays at a professional level. Cbl62 (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable per WP:GNG. He held his college's rushing record for a while, but doesn't appear to have been proviled beyond Utah. As others have noted, he doesn't get the free pass of WP:ATHLETE. Mandsford 18:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Didn't even get drafted, hasn't taken a span in his entire career, not needed! DELET —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJISBEAST (talk • contribs) 19:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changed to KEEP could maybe be worth mentioning in an article on the team that year, but as a stand-alone: not quite there. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Change position Strikehold and Cbl62 make convincing arguments to me. Info needs to be added to the article, but I don't mind flip-flopping when it appears to be the right thing to do.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable.--Yankees10 01:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable college football player Secret account 02:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Though it looks like I'm weighing in late on this and outnumbered by votes already cast, this guy was the all-time leading rusher at BYU, a top division program, until last year. Over 3,000 career rushing yards at a top division school. An all-time great from a top division college program meets notability standards in my opinion. Unfortunately, I haven't the time to do the research today to try to find sources and improve the article. Cbl62 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I expanded the article using the above sources. Strikehold (talk) 04:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with Cbl62 and Strikehold. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin. Thanks to the efforts of Strikehold, the article in its current state is 1,000% better than the article as it existed when several users voted to delete. Strikehold expanded it from a bare stub to an 11,000 byte, fully sourced article of good quality. Since the expansion, there has not been a single delete vote. Cbl62 (talk) 16:45, 28 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. Tone 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warlords of Utopia[edit]

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

No coverage in reliable sources, either directory listings or fan pages. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - clean and wikify. Written by a well known and established British science author with good sources. The editor has taken time to create articles for the other books the author has written. scope_creep (talk) 23:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article has *no* sources and notability is not inherent. Please read an article properly before commenting in AFD otherwise it gives the impression you are voting rather than !voting. So sources - what RS can you provide to build this article on? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Listed by ISFDB and Locus, both RS so far as I'm aware, this is a novel written by a notable author as part of a series published by a notable publisher and edited by a notable editor (all notable as per Wikipedia entries). StuartDouglas (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those are both directory listings - this isn't a verification question - as for being done by a notable author - It's about notability, notability isn't inherented and simply saying "well it's notable" isn't particularly helpful. An article has to be able to stand on it's own on the basis of reliable sources. If they exist where are they? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I must say that this seems a very trivial attempted deletion. Notability is not inherent (inherented isn't actually a word - did you mean 'inherited'?) but it is inherited, in the sense that a new book by a notable author from a notable publisher in a notable series is, by definition and consequence of those antecedents, notable in itself. Or are you saying that a new Steven King book would not be a notable book until the TLS reviewed it? As for 'those are both directory listings', that is true but they are industry standard, independently collated and verified listings of the more notable releases in the field, and are (and I know this is not an argument in itself) fairly commonly cited as reliable sources in the genre on Wikipedia. StuartDouglas (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the previous user has demonstrated, the novel has been reliably verified as being a Doctor Who spin-off novel by an author who is well known in that field, thus making it suitable for coverage like any similar book. The article itself has an appropriate level of detail for the subject's status. Therefore, I consider that there are no real grounds for deletion in this case.

Wind Walker 13:22, 26 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. Tone 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardo Cesar[edit]

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

Autobio of a soccer player. Does it reach our notability threshold? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The player hasn't achieved any international or world cup caps. Can't see how he is notable. scope_creep (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he doesn't appear to have ever played professional football, and I don't see evidence of notability or passing the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All I see is a footballer who hasn't played at a notable level. No evidence of international appearances, highest claims for club football are non-professional leagues that do not confer notability. Appears to have done nothing of note.--ClubOranjeT 13:12, 29 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) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Lewis[edit]

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

This article is about a former American/Canadian football player without reliable sourcing to establish notability. The article makes the claim that Lewis played briefly for the San Diego Chargers of the NFL and the BC Lions of the CFL. Per WP:ATHLETE this would meet notability if he played in a game for either of these teams. However, I can find no indication that he meets the inclusion criteria for athletes. I checked the NFL historical players list searching for lewis and found no sean lewis listed at all. Unfortunately, the CFL does not keep detailed historical records. Searches through news archives turn up no record of him playing in a CFL game. The profile from his company seems to be rather cagey in its wording about his football career stating that "Sean had opportunities to play professionally with the San Diego Chargers (NFL) and the B.C. Lions (CFL)." (emphasis added) which would seem to imply that he had tryouts, and maybe made some sort of reserve squad or got placed on an injury list but never actually played. Whpq (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not-notable under WP:GNG and most definitely does not qualify under WP:ATHLETE. I found zero to show that this guy had even been cut from the Chargers or the B.C. Lions, let alone "playing" for them, contrary to his press releases [42]. That said, I have no reason to believe anything in the rest of the promotion, including the references to co-ownership with Von Hutchins (whose article makes no mention of it) or to Nook Logan-- the reference to CTG was added in by a URL an IP [43]. This fails the most basic test of inclusion in an encyclopedia, which is citation to reliable and verifiable sources. Mandsford 16:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Did you meant to say it was added in by an anonymous IP? -- Whpq (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I should have said. I see that I wrote that it was a URL that added it (and I'll bet if it was, his name is "Linc"). Thanks. Mandsford 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Didn't check the Chargers claim, but at least one source does not list him on the all-time CFL roster. I see no other strong assertions of notability. Strikehold (talk) 04:36, 27 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) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stracciaroli[edit]

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

No content in this article to establish notability, and has been live since 2009. VirtualRevolution (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Good catch I'd have been happy to DB-author this. Most of the films are legit and notable but there are a few duds; documentaries mainly. I'm slowly going through them and sorting them out. The best thing here would be to redirect , same as the others mentioned above. Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 25 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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124[edit]

Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Such events happen from time to time and are not notable. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Inclusion criteria fourth bullet. Derild4921☼ 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Derild4921. 2 says you, says two 14:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Glad only minor injuries to a few people. And guys how about starting a website which records every mishap in the airline industry, rather than using WP for that when this is supposed to be an encyclopedia to give basic information on notable topics to the general public? Borock (talk) 15:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There already is such a place, although not in wikiform. It's a great specialist reference tool. Note the key word, people: It is a specialist publication, not a list of missing encyclopedia topics. The problems are twofold: the language is too technical for many, and it is fairly low-profile. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a significant event. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Meets WP:AIRCRASH criteria A3 and P3. Also, the airliner was written off, which also adds to notability here. Mjroots (talk) 16:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This was created at a time when the language of WP:AIRCRASH was such that it included just about anything that happened on an airliner. More recently, common sense alternatives have been adopted so that incidents that don't merit their own article are mentioned elsewhere; in this case, it could go in the article about Kingfisher Airlines. We really should have an article about "runway overruns", but most such incidents never become notable enough, thank God, to merit their own article. Mandsford 16:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup, A3 now reads "If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline." This doesn't appear to qualify under P3 (Criminal prosecution - one or more of the aircrew, maintenance workers, or other professionals involved (including executives) are subject to criminal prosecution or military discharge.) Even at that, meeting more than one criterion is not an automatic notability . I have no objection to a bold redirect of the article to Kingfisher Airlines, given that Mjroots put a good deal of work into it under the policy that existed at that time, and there's no reason I see to erase the history, where details can be merged into the airline article. Mandsford 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Diego Grez (talk) 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, resulted in long-term repercussions, largely investigation into the incident, the release of which guarantees further coverage, but also, though it's somewhat less notable, the actions taken against several personnel involved in the incident by the government. C628 (talk) 14:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Have an article on the crash is not justified as it is not the crash that is what is historically notable. The significance and repurcussions are evidently related to several airlines, pilots, and/or the airport involved due to a series of failures and errors, and not just this particular crash, and therefore this can be adequately covered in other articles without violating NOT#NEWS. MickMacNee (talk) 14:25, 31 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. Tone 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ria van Dyke[edit]

Ria van Dyke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludmila Mesropian[edit]

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

Ludmila Mesropian does not meet notability criteria: non-notable performer and teacher and no independent sources. One of the sources does not exist [44], another a bio is from a summer course [45] (non-independent)and the last one is just an internet forum.Karljoos (talk) 13:29, 24 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 Deleted - CSD G5 - Created by a banned user. Codf1977 (talk) 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabeth Hagen[edit]

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

While Cabinet-level appointees are always notable given the position, IMO this does not extend to minor/subordinate positions. All this woman is in the news for at the moment is that she's in position via recess appointment, which isn't even controversial or notable itself. Of the predecessors listed at Under Secretary of Agriculture for Food Safety that have wiki atricles, Richard Allen Raymond is a bit iffy and may need an AfD, but Elsa Murano was also the president of Texas A&M, so her notability is independent of this position. So, delete this for simple WP:BLP1E; her name appears in reliable sources, yes, but only for being a recess appointment. Tarc (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep and stop violating wp:before and stalking my contributions to harass me. Most of your edits relate to me in some way. All you have to do is conduct a google news search to see that there are lots and lots of articles covering this person very substantially. Feel free to add an {{expand}} tag to the article if it makes you feel better. Freakshownerd (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lots and lots" mention her being a recess appointment, yes. I'm sure you're familiar with WP:BLP1E given your long editing history. Unless you are contesting this on grounds that her new position itself confers notability? It'd help to make your response more clear, and indicate on what policy/guideline grounds you feel this person is notable. Tarc (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This [46] is one of the MANY reliable sources discussing her work and the appointment in great detail. Please cease stalking me and harassing me and find other areas of the encyclopedia to work in. Freakshownerd (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will be my last attempt, as it's about time to sit back and let others weigh in. You have pointed to an article discussing her being appointed to this position. Great. Are you asserting that the position is notable? If so, I have my doubts on that, per WP:POLITICIAN. If you are asserting she's notable simply for being a recess appointee, then I don't buy that at all, per WP:BLP1E. As to the other accusations, can we leave them out of an AfD, please? Take it up in the appropriate venue if you really feel strongly about it. Tarc (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not sure where I draw the line in the chain of command, but an Under Secretary seems notable enough. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GNews indicates sustained coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evidence? The subject's name is not unique, and when I look in GNews I see coverage of this Elizabeth Hagen only in relation to the appointment itself. Rd232 talk 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear BLP1E. Rd232 talk 17:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think there's a very good case for adding the WP:BLP1E of her appointment with the possible notability of the position. If the position is notable enough for the President to expend a recess appointment on it, maybe in context, it is an important enough position so that its holder deserves an article. I'd be comfortable with saying that most oofices that the president is willing to make recess appoitnments to suggest that they have greater contextual importance than other, similarly ranked office in the executive branch. and needless to say, considering the appointment, she will be a likely search term. Vartanza (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree - recess appointments are not that special. Either the position is enough to confer notability, or it isn't. Rd232 talk 17:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should be eligible for a speedy G5 now (creation by a blocked user in violation of block), as Freakshownerd has been blocked as a sock of ChildofMidnight. Tarc (talk) 18:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as such. Codf1977 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. It's eligible for G5 and I see no reason to save it. Rd232 talk 19:04, 27 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. overall consensus is for deletion, with valid arguments being made citing NOT, indiscriminate info, WP:NOR, etc. -- Cirt (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens[edit]

Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, looks a lot like a hoax. I can't find any sources for this information at all and it seems quite factually implausible.

An ANI/I thread discusses this article. Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as I'm going to fix this article now. --Saki talk 12:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked 4 or 5, all of them are wrong so far (some are denied, some require a full visa etc.) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and semiprotect if by the time the discussion is closed every country has been referenced, delete otherwise. The article suffers chronically from Koov (talk · contribs)'s sockpuppets (PakRom64, Rohil1x, PBS RENTALS and many others to come), semiprotection is absolutely necessary anyway, and the article would benefit from being watchlisted by more people. Colchicum (talk) 13:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of random information. This topic is not encyclopedic in the least. Basket of Puppies 20:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just trivia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Peacock (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a banner example of what WP is NOT: not trivia, not random information, and not a guide. MSJapan (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Almanacky list of dubious reliability. Carrite (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs sourcing and reliability is awful - but plausibly keepable - it's not random information, and Wikipedia does include features of specialist encyclopedias, almanacs or gazetteers. Travel and immigration requirements between countries are actually a perfectly worthwhile topic - and also help explain things like illegal immigration patterns or international marriages. The number of countries in the world is sufficiently low that a set of articles on their mutual travel and immigration restrictions is maintainable. But since this article is so full of unverified and apparently false claims, I wouldn't object strongly to its deletion, so long as it was without prejudice to recreation. It'd be possible to do a far better job than this! TheGrappler (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not the U.S. State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because we can fix this article as we do have article on visa requirements by almost every nationality but if you are talking about deleting every article listed in the Category of Visa requirements by nationality than I will go with consensus.--Saki talk 07:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please don't vote twice. Can you change the vote to comment? Spartaz Humbug! 08:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I struck your second keep vote, but the argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't usually accepted as one for saving an article. It means that the other articles may have never been checked for AfDed themselves and would likely end up also being deleted. Basket of Puppies 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I'm sitting here with August's copy of IATA's Travel Information Manual (TIM) that lists the published visa regulations of pretty much every country in the world. Firstly, the current list is completely incomprehensible. What does listing a country mean? Does the holder need a visa? Also I checked around 30 of the visa on arrival claims. Only two were correct and that was probably fluke as the countries concerned (Uganda & Georgia) issue visas on arrival to everyone. Otherwise, its not correct and nonsense. The problem with this article and articles like this are numerous. Firstly, TIM is reprinted every month because visa regulations frequently change and a static list quickly becomes unreliable. Therefore the content of the article is always going to be too complicated to keep accurate. Secondly, its breeches WP:NOT as an indiscriminate list. Thirdly, there is no central reference that details visa regulations for palestinians, rather the industry standard is to maintain lists by country entering so the list is effectively original research and even if there were sources it would be a WP:SYNTH violation as the data would have to be taken out of context. Fourthly, there is no sources for this and none have been provided so it fails N. Finally, there is an additional issue concerning the validity of palestinian authority documents as the authority is not a country so these documents are non-national travel documents issued by an authority that is not recognised as a country by everyone. Even before you can look at visa requires there needs to be an understanding of whether the country accepts the document as valid for travel. The UK does but Schengen countries issue visas to holders of Palestine Authority travel documents on separate papers as they do not accept the document as a valid travel document. This example shows that before you can parse a visa requirement you need to be able to understand if the country concerned will even accept the holder of one of these documents in the first place. In short, this is a worthless page and should be purged and salted. Spartaz Humbug! 09:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some way to propose deletion of all the articles in under one AFD? (based on the above rationale) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 09:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other what? you are welcome to lift stuff off for a prod nomination or you can look at a mass afd. depends on the content you are looking at. Spartaz Humbug! 12:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, sorry, I meant to link to Category:Visa_requirements_by_nationality, I may try a mass AFD..depends how this closes --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 14:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This will most likely end up as a delete. From there we can do a mass AfD, but I would try a mass prod first, or maybe even a mass speedy. Basket of Puppies 14:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is an exceptionally poor article for its type and the incorrect information, lack of sourcing and the issue with non-recognition of the document make this a poor precedent for other articles. Some of the other articles in the category are well referenced to web-timatic which contains the same information as TIM and as clear and well organised. If you are looking for a precedent it would be better to look at one of those first. Personally, I don't think the subject is suitable for wikipedia and there are the issues listed in my vote to support that but not everyone would agree. Further discission to establish a clearer overall consensus would be better. Maybe an RFC at a village pump would be a better way then just adding all of this to a deletion catagory?? Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is absolutely full of factual errors, and nobody's got the time to sort it out for now, then sure, delete it. But it shouldn't be salted, it seems to me that there is a valid article in here. Immigration and travel requirements are certainly "notable" in the sense that plenty of coverage is available, including in specialist publications. And personally I think the original research/synthesis argument is overblown; it's not an attempt at an original synthesis to push an argument or position, and it's no more original research than making sortable tables is. (Sortable tables feature in many of our articles and allow readers to rearrange the data in the table in a trivial but well-defined way that may not have been present in the original source listing. Theoretically we could produce a table in which Column 1 is the country visited, Column 2 is the nationality of the visitor, and other columns contain various details on travel restrictions. From the source texts, this table would appear grouped by Column 1 as original data will be by country visited. But there's no reason not to put a "sort" button on Column 2, whereupon it would be grouped by the nationality of the visitor. Of course, such a table would be unfeasibly large (of the order of magnitude of 40,000 entries if the whole world was included) but that would simply require it to be broken down, and all the information in the sortable table could be conveyed by using around 200 articles listing by country visited, and around 200 articles by nationality to show exactly the same research but resorted. I think this would be perfectly reasonable set of articles. It is information that wouldn't belong in WikiSource or WikiBooks and deserves a Wikimedia home somewhere; since Wikipedia does contain information normally present in almanacs and gazetteers, this seems the best place. TheGrappler (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Grappler, just curious- what kind of valid article is there? This sort of article, even if absolutely correct and well sourced, seems to me to be a random collection of information and non-encyclopedic. Basket of Puppies 17:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, a comprehensive list of visa requirements for citizens of a given nation is by definition not a random collection of information. Second, for just about everyone other than the stereotypical American (for whom "traveling abroad" means going to Mexico or Canada), visa regulations matter a great deal. Visa-free travel is the difference between simply buying a plane ticket, and having to assemble all sorts of forms, paying a hefty fee (relative to your income), traveling half the way across your native country for an in-person interview at your destination country's consular office, waiting in line for half a day, and finding out a month later that no, you won't be getting your visa after all, because after the most recent diplomatic spat between the two countries, the consulate has decided to limit the number of visas it issues (something that all relevant officials naturally neglect to tell you about in advance)… I can tell you that in Russia, changes to visa requirements (and even diplomatic negotiations about potential future changes to visa requirements) frequently make the national news. For citizens of a place like Palestine, whose freedom to travel internationally is quite limited, an article about visa requirements would be even more important. Therefore, if the information is sourced and accurate, the article (as well as all other articles in the category) should be kept. — Tetromino (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory, not a catalog and not a guide, which is exactly what this article is. Basket of Puppies 03:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the guideline that you are linking to? "Not a directory" means "contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic". The article is clearly not a list of contact information. "Not a catalog" means that "product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention." Do you see products and their prices mentioned anywhere in the article? "Not a guide" means that an article should not read like a how-to manual and should not read like a travel guide that mentions "the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel". Clearly, neither of those apply in this case. If the information were properly sourced and accurate, the article would be no less encyclopedic than any other geographic list-type article such as List of countries by GDP (PPP) or Use of capital punishment by nation. — Tetromino (talk) 03:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This information is certainly not "random", as Tetromino explains: it's clearly organized information (wrong, probably, but sourceable and repairable). Perhaps your objection is that the topic is "random" in the sense of it being odd or unusual or niche? There is lots of stuff of niche interest on Wikipedia, and always argument about which of those niche topics are valid. Different people have widely divergent opinions about what counts as "valid"; I'm not entirely certainly than "encyclopedic" is a useful term of debate, since Wikipedia is the first and largest encyclopedia in its class. I think the best definition of "encyclopedic" might be "this is the kind of entry that one might reasonably expect to find in a general purpose encyclopedia, specialist encyclopedia or reference handbook with topical entries, almanac or gazetteer". Alternative homes for material vary by type: pedagogical/instructional writing (e.g. from a textbook or manual, which more properly belongs at Wikiversity or Wikibooks), original source material (→ Wikisource), a media item devoid of critical commentary (e.g. a page from a catalogue of plates for an artist or gallery, → Commons), a dictionary definition or thesaurus entry for a word or phrase (→ Wiktionary), an assembly of quotations (→ Wikiquote), coverage of a current event (possibly with context, background and analysis of future implications, but not more than what a newspaper or news magazine will include, → Wikinews), directory-style information about a species (little more than genealogy and current status, → Wikispecies) and so on. Rough guide is: if it written as original material (not just original text/media like at Wikisource/Commons), containing more than a dictionary definition (else Wiktionary it) or newspaper-style coverage of a current event (else WikiNews), and is written (or rewritable!) in such a way that seems more fitting for a reference handbook than a textbook or manual (Wikiversity/Wikibooks), then it seems that the material is of a "valid type" i.e. it's not in the wrong place. Once it's established that the type of material is valid, the question is how that material should be integrated into Wikipedia (e.g. does it deserve its own article, does it belong as a subsection of a larger article?) and whether that material can be written in a way that complies with content guidelines (Sufficient quality references available? Is it "due weight" to incorporate that material in an existing article, or notable if it is placed in its own article?). Information about visa requirements is the kind of thing found in specialist handbooks and indeed some gazetteers, so this is the right place for it. Quality sources are available so I think that notability and verifiability concerns are adequately addressed (the current contents of this article are wrong, but it could be salvaged). My personal opinions on "validity" are somewhat off-topic, but since you were curious, I've left a message over on your talk page. TheGrappler (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Palestinian citizen" is a meaningless term. Regardless of whether "Palestinian citizen" should be meaningful, the current legal situation is that it is not meaningful. Wikipedia is descriptivist, not prescriptivist. DS (talk) 18:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Palestinian Authority passport, which contains some actual cited information. This page could be an article in the future if someone starts from scratch with verifable data. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if the information is sourced and accurate. See my reply to Basket of Puppies above for argumentation. — Tetromino (talk) 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but move to Visa requirements for holders of a Palestinian Authority passport – the resulting redirect can remain. Just as for all the other Visa requirements for ... pages, notability is not an issue. Of course the information should be sourced and ought to be correct, but deletion is not the way to handle such repairable issues.  --Lambiam 09:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but references are urgently needed, as well as an evaluation of the political reasons for this list! I would also endorse the move suggestion of Lambian... L.tak (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrue my support... I agree with the merit of this type of articles in principle. However, this wiki is so incorrect (see some of my attempts to provide refs at Talk:Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens) that only removing everything, and recreating afterwards (if someone wants to) will help . The present version is probably not worth saving. L.tak (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse move - yes, a move is necessary to deal with the title issues. A bad title in its own right isn't a reason to delete (it's what the "move" button is for, after all) but I do appreciate the concerns of the editor who spotted the flaw and they should be dealt with. TheGrappler (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This list would be nothing more than a reverse collection of everything that would be included in other countries "Visa policies of Country x". send the relevant info to those articles. There is no need to have basically 2 series of articles containing the same info.--Crossmr (talk) 08:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strangely enough I think this is a keep. I think the main reason people vote to delete this is because those voters come from countries (i.e. USA, UK, Australia, Canada, etc) which do not need their citizens to travel anywhere on the globe (except for Cuba). So they do not appreciate this type of information. Yet having a list like this is more useful to many people than say having an article on some semi-obscure TV show in the US. Lots of people would use these lists on wikipedia if they were well referenced, while very few people would care about the seasons of those obscure shows. Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visa requirements pages, a short history[edit]

Allow me to give a short history of this type of pages. They used to be part of the corresponding passport pages (e.g. the Mexican passport would have a section on visa requirements for Mexicans. A general discussion was held at Talk:passport (Talk:Passport/Archive_2 and Talk:Passport/Archive_3) and whether there was a valid reason to have this info on the corresponding passport page. 1st concensus: no, they should go

This resulted in a fierce revert war an several passport pages and people very much dedicated to well-sourced info were attracted to the discussion on passport

2nd consensus: no, they should not be at the corresponding passport page, but they merit their own article. That why they were all created (beginning 2010). This consensus was quite sensitive and I suppose that most who discussed still have passport on their watchlist.

  • I am not giving my opinion on this wiki, but should you wish to discuss the general topic of this type of pages, I suggest having this discussion on Talk:passport or having a link there. L.tak (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The correct venue for discussion for deletion is this very deletion discussion. Basket of Puppies 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For this wiki (Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens), I agree completely. For a proposal relating to all articles related to this subject, I think a wider forum is needed. As this discussion is closely linked to the discussions on Talk:passport to which I was not involved, I think the main actors there should be notified via a message on Talk:passport, or have the integral discussion there; or make a specific massAfD discussion (with notification to Talk:passport. Choice is up to those involved in this discussion which feel it should be placed in a wider context... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What is being discussed is a page, more specifically an article. The wiki is the entire thing, for which deletion discussions don't occur on the wiki itself but on Meta. Uncle G (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are more than free to drop a note on a talk page informing editors of a deletion discussion, but make sure not to WP:CANVASS. Deletion discussions occur on deletion pages, such as this one. Basket of Puppies 21:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was just reading WP:CANVASS ;-) to find out when you posted this... I will carefully place the note... L.tak (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 1 September 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) 04:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Borenstein Group, The[edit]

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

No indication of meeting notability guidelines. References to a btob online report which appears to be a directory listing with no indication of qualification. Google searches not finding anything of significance. Most hits are to pages with adverts for the group. Apparent WP:COI as the article creator appears to be the company founder. noq (talk) 12:23, 24 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) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz West[edit]

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

Nominating for AfD on behalf of 69.181.249.92 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (I declined his/her speedy deletion request for the article). See Talk:Liz West#Deletion. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The entire article is accurate, except, the correct external website for Ms. West is: http://www.lizwest.ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.19.24 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete - she fails both WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:POLITICIAN - not had significant roles, no evidence of a cult following, no unique contributions, and a local city council candidate doesn't meet notability. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per instigator. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - note that the first AFD resulted in delete. The article was recreated within days, but if there was a DRV I can't find it. This could actually have been handled as a speedy under G4 if it had been noticed at the time. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, no. The article as it stands right now is different enough from the original deleted version that a new discussion is necessary. An AFD is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article, if they attain greater notability at a later date — it's merely a judgement on the specific version of the article that exists at the time of discussion. The new claim of notability may not be particularly strong, but given that it's different from the earlier version, it can't be speedied as a G4 anymore. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know; that's why I wrote "if it had been noticed at the time." The candidacy is obviously a recent addition, hence the new AFD. (The speedy tag I had added was a DB-BIO, which I obviously think still applies.) 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I misunderstood and thought you just meant it could have been speedied if that had been noticed before the new nomination was submitted to AFD. Bearcat (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Municipal election candidates are not notable for their candidacies alone, per WP:POLITICIAN, and being a local television journalist doesn't constitute a particularly strong claim of notability, either — at least not in the absence of really solid sources. The only sources being brought to bear here are her campaign website, her profile on the website of a TV channel she's worked for, and one entry in The Globe and Mail's Toronto municipal politics blog — which means the only source here that passes the "independent of the topic" test fails the "substantial coverage" one. Delete, albeit without prejudice against recreation if she wins in the fall. And I'm a Torontonian, to boot. Bearcat (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete The article has significant additions since first ask for deletion that prove she meets the notability standard. She is referenced as being awarded by the readers of the Toronto Sun as 2007's Best TV Entertainment Reporter - clear evidence of both a large fan base and wide spread popularity. Apparently she won this award in 2006, but I have yet to find the reference and post it. She is also on air right now hosting a TV show broadcast on Comopolitain TV - as per reference. That is notable. As far as her political notability, - the context of the political article is important - The City of Toronto is Canada's 5th largest government - in a blog about Toronto city politics by the Toronto City Hall Beat Reporter for a major Canadian Daily newspaper - the Globe and Mail, she is being compared to Adam Vaughan, a high profile city councillor - essentially, the post is saying she is notable and that she is not just being described as just another city council candidate. The article is also accurate and fair in its treatment description of her. Riverdalejoe (talk) 20:09, 27 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) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel J. Hill[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be notable. Outside of the one source listed, can find no other mention of him. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced BLP. Carrite (talk) 15:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm on the fence with this one. If these dubious claims can be verified, then he surely is notable; but I smell something fishy here with this. A quick Google search shows that there are some mentions of his name, but few are exactly reliable sources, many of them seem to be related to beehives of 9/11 conspiracies, and the ones that seem to be OK sources don't really mention much more than his association with Rick Rescorla (I also have to note that the dating on most of them makes it viable that they were referencing this article). Has anyone been able to verify this referenced book? If anyone can find some solid refernces for his military career and demonstrate that he really did have a hand in some of the historical events mentioned, I will support keeping it. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: world cat has details for the book listed here: [47]. I don't know whether it actually discusses Hill in detail, though. This google books description seems to mention Hill in relation to the book: [48]. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is filled with astonishing assertions, which if true would make Hill (and his claimed alter ego Rescorla) some kind of prophetic genius. But the only source is a single book, whose credibility is impossible to determine. A search for additional sources finds nothing reliable. Don't we require MULTIPLE independent sources? --MelanieN (talk) 04:01, 31 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. Tone 20:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Nguyen[edit]

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

Vanity page of non-notable wannabe somehow claiming inherited notability - fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP. None of the sources listed even mention her let alone assert any notability here. Article was initially WP:PRODed and then contested. History shows a campaign by a dozen or so sockpuppets/SPAs. –Moondyne 12:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article was previously created and speedy deleted in June 2007 on notability issues. –Moondyne 01:07, 26 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) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Tyler[edit]

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

NN minor character from Doctor Who. Cameron Scott (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he is a minor character what is the matter ! He was a very important charcter for 4 episode and he may be considered as a companion ! Mehdioa (talk) 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Importance for wikipedia articles are determined by reliable sources not by what a character does within the fictional universe. moreover while companions may be notable can you provide any reliable sources that indicate that he was such? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources, either from the time that the serial was made or in any of the literature since, that has claimed that this character was a Doctor Who companion. The creator of this article is using WP:SYNTH to connect this character to the revived series. This theory also has no reliable source. The article has been redirected but the editor keeps adding a link to the character which creates a circular link, thus, it would be better to delete the article entirely to avoid this. MarnetteD | Talk 11:58, 24 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) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manoj Jha[edit]

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

Does not satisfy WP:PEOPLE; while mentioned in secondary sources, Jha has not been the subject of reliable and independent published secondary sources. me_and (talk) 11:44, 24 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) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Houston[edit]

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

Doesn't meet standards for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treefrog55501 (talk • contribs)

  • I couldn't disagree more. Marijuana reformation laws is a very hot topic and Mr. Houston is a very important figure in this initiative. As legislation progresses, Mr. Houston will become a very relevant figure in the process and deserves space on Wikipedia. I venture to guess that his name will become more relevant and historic as time goes by. A relatively minor lobbyist at this point, he and his agenda will become a hot topic on both sides. Please do not remove his entry. Dr. DSR —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dremmert (talk • contribs) 04:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When and if that future comes to pass and he becomes anything more than "a relatively minor lobbyist," he would be appropriate for a Wikipedia article. See "Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball -- WP:NOTCRYSTAL --Crunch (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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 Mandsford 02:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ark (Transformers)[edit]

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

Article with no reliable sources about a fictional spacecraft which fails WP:FICT and WP:GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Great and detailed article that could use some sources. Don't throw away the baby with the bathwater, clean it up! Mathewignash (talk) 20:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As with pretty much all Transformers-related articles, fails to make an assertion of independent notability. No well-cited content to merge elsewhere. Part of a massive walled garden of poor articles that should at best be heavily listified. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - Has some non-primary references and seems to be active. No need to rush to deletion, just tag for needing additional references. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)See [50] for reason for striking this comment[reply]

  • Merge to the spacecrafts list. 92.17.22.20 (talk) 09:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough valid information to fill its own article. It is a notable aspect of a notable series, seen in almost every episode of the first Transformers animated series, as well as being in other series as well. Dream Focus 09:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can see nothing to establish its notability.Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 29 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. Tone 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ban Sen Juku school[edit]

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

This article has no reliable third person information and the article does not assert its notability so should therefore be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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 nomination whitdrawn and no !votes for delete. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 14:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Dugan[edit]

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

El Mayimbe (talk) 18:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake Sorry I don't want to delete the page. I created a redirect page with the page that I previously wanted deleted.--El Mayimbe (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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. Tone 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Trew[edit]

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

Reason I am nominating this page because the player is a non-notable, non-professional. According to the Australian Ice Hockey League website "Players are not paid but do get assistance from their teams" thus making him an amateur. He also does not pass notability standards. Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The AIHL is the top-level form of hockey in Australia. -Pparazorback (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is the top level ice hockey league in Australia, but there is absolutely no reliable sources with which to write a biography. Impossible to pass WP:V. Resolute 21:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could start a league in Dubai and it would be the top level. This would be a case where top-level carries no weight. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 20:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unrefed BLP created after March 2010. I am unconvinced that the league is a top level. Nor has any indication been presented that he satisfies GNG and verifiability. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is top level in Australia, but ice hockey community is very small and popularity is minimal. Generally player articles are reserved for NHL players, top NHL draft picks, veteran and/or highly awarded top minor league players in the AHL and ECHL, Olympic players., and for players in some of the European leagues that have a high level of play comparable to the AHL and some cases close to NHL caliber. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud Leverage[edit]

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

Promotion for non-notable startup company. I have not found any coverage of this company. Haakon (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Control Room – Live EP[edit]

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

Non-notable EP, no reliable independent sources, never charted, bad references, cannot be expanded beyond a stub - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was no information other than a track list to be merged. With that information already moved to another article, this article can now be deleted. ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 12:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. Should any info be thrown into the AL article, or just stay in discog? Remove AfD and tag for merging? Just delete. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 04:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep:This is a official album relase by Sony BMG. Vitor Mazuco Msg 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article itself says that RCA released the album. But just because it's an official release does not mean it holds any notability. What information is gained from this article that isn't already found within the discography? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ] ~ [ Talk ]:[ Contribs ] ~ 00:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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 Wayne Crawford. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crime Lords[edit]

Crime Lords (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Forteana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Non-notable film. One-sentence article is unsourced. Could not find evidence of meeting WP:NFILM. No reviews from nationally known critics, no awards etc. SPA creator and possible COI issue. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to assert without foundation that a new editor, one who is apparently attempting to contribute to the project through contributions to many articles,[51] even with the occasional (and predictable) newcomer boo-boo... is a "SPA" or "Vandal" or "COI" feels just a tad on the bitey side. We were all new once, so I might hope that the nominator could perhaps avoid casting unfounded aspersions in the future. How about we assume the best and not the worst, and show a little good faith, huh? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Italian title)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Portugese title)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Polish TV title)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Finish title
(Additional news archive searches: "Crime Lords"+"Wayne Crawford" "Crime Lords"+"Rand Ravich"
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The "Vandal" template is not me calling people vandals but to give easy access to the creator's contributions and such. I could use a different template but this shows all the important bits without being too long, unlike this one:

Forteana (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) Before listing on AfD, I generally have a look at the person's edits. In this case, the article creator has created a large number of articles, all to do with films and producers, many of them interlinked, many of questionable notability. There's also little attempts at discussion, but simple pig-headed mass-production of borderline notable topics. From experience, this strikes me as suspicious. It makes me believe that they have no intention of participating here, but just to unleash their creations. However, maybe I'll be more conservative in future. And I do try to help somewhat if they ask. Now, do you think the film is notable? Christopher Connor (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an "assume good faith" principle. Might wanna look it up. I've no interest in ruining this site, only improving it.Forteana (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Unless it is the work of a very obvious vandal, or the work of a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user, the implying of some underhanded motive on the part of a new editor often tends to negatively color a discussion before it even gets started. And, as new users are usually trying to feel their way blindly, I'd far prefer to err on the side of caution, as nothing they do is irrepairable. In this instance, and since Crime Lords was not listed at the film delsort (which I subsequently added), I came across it only when this particular new user asked a question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Strangers: Part II (2nd nomination). That he is asking questions and trying to understand WP processes, I think AGF toward his efforts is indeed the far preferred option... and that he is willing to engage in discussion is a decent reason for friendly guidance. As for this particular article... I believe I have til the 19th to find out... and article improvement will continue as I am able. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to director Wayne Crawford, as the director has the sourcable notability this film lacks, and as one of his works, it can be mentioned in his article. I just spent a few hours expanding and sourcing the stub... and while the article is now encyclopedic, the film itself lacks the required notability per WP:NF. If its author wishes a userfication, fine... but I would urge his concentrating on improving the director's article rather that trying to turn this particular sow's ear into a silk purse. I gave it my best effort... but can admit defeat. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as above as film likes notability but the director does not. Forteana's !vote (or is it a comment) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massacre at Ywahoo Falls simply saying 'Prove it', and the copyvio issues I see on this talk page, are a concern and suggest we might need to take a closer look at other articles he's created or edited. He doesn't appear to understand our policies/guidelines yet, although hopefully with guidance he will. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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. Tone 20:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Projectile[edit]

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

Non-notable DJ. Ridernyc (talk) 13:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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. Tone 20:46, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubtitled Entertainment[edit]

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

fails WP:CORP, coverage is only trivial. Cameron Scott (talk) 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- while Kung Faux may be notable, the company that created it does not inherit its notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sourcing. - MrOllie (talk) 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sarek. I had tagged the article as A7 originally after reviewing sources and finding a lack of notability. The article underwent some changes and A7 did not apply as it asserted notability, but I feel the references still do not prove notability. If this company develops more than one property that is notable I may feel differently. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom Majorclanger (talk) 14:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:40, 24 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) 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haken (Band)[edit]

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

Non notable band already speedy deleted fails WP:BAND Mo ainm~Talk 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This band isn't some London garage band that just plays local bars. They have an album out (Aquarius (Haken album)), which has gotten a lot of good reviews from some good sources, such as Allmusic, Classic Rock Magazine, and more. No, they're not Metallica with millions of fans and they aren't signed to some huge record company, but they do have fans (I'm one of them), they do have a record deal, they do have an album, etc. etc. etc. My opinion, is (obviously) KEEP--Andy (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to mention it passes multiple WP:MUSIC criteria (1,4,6 and maybe a few others). The bassist and guitarist in Haken are also guitarists in the band To-Mera. The other guitarist in Haken is also a guitarist in two other smaller bands, of which I'm not sure if they have albums out.--Andy (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The Allmusic coverage is substantial, and at least some coverage from Classic Rock is available online. It's pretty minimal re. notability, but nudges over the bar I think.--Michig (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep add this short piece to the coverage "PROG ROCK: Taking the scene forward", Music Week, 31 July 2010. Includes the quote "Their 80-minute concept album was released in spring and received glowing reviews." duffbeerforme (talk) 11:32, 29 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) 04:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of Social Media on Business[edit]

Impact of Social Media on Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This entry seems to be not encyclopedic and is written out like a school essay. Yousou (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 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 03:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inner Guru[edit]

Inner_Guru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

The concept First of all, the article looks like an advertisement for the Amit Ray Banani's book "Awakening Inner Guru". Secondly, the article contains (only) extracts from the book, a clear case of WP:CSD. Thirdly, "Awakening Inner Guru" is a metaphor for looking into oneself. This is not an unheard concept in Hinduism or any other religion. Rockoprem (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 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 Religion in Cuba. content already merged JForget 01:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses in Cuba[edit]

Jehovah's Witnesses in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

JW activities in Cuba are not particularly notable in regard to either JW activities worldwide or religions in Cuba. Article is based mainly on JW statistics rather than notable third-party sources.

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'JW' is simply informal shorthand, not a standard abbreviation. Naturally, it would be spelled in full in the article namespace.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I only have consulted few Spanish websites on the subject yet, I suggest Keep. Sarcelles (talk) 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I promise soon enhancement, as I have consulted only few websites in Spanish on the topic. Sarcelles (talk) 13:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be willing to delay a merger to Christianity in Cuba, which I think would be the more relevant article, for maybe a week or two to give Sarcelles a chance to expand it sufficiently. However, it would need to be a fairly lengthy and detailed article to not be merged into another at that time. John Carter (talk) 00:07, 31 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) 04:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

karmic juggernaut[edit]

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

Non-notable band. No source outside of their own websites, or hosts of sites where it appears they would have entered information. Only claim for notability (without RS) is as an opening act and winning a local talent show. This was up for CSD before, and I'm curious why it was removed. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 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) 04:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kidist Bayelegne[edit]

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

I can find no sources to verify the content of this BLP. Google hits are wikimirrors and the corresponding article in fr.wikipedia is also an unreferenced stub. Although Bayelegne sounds notable, the information is unverifiable. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 20:47, 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, 12 August 2010 (UTC)2010 August 24[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 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. Tone 20:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Marathe[edit]

Kishore_Marathe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

This is the home page of the Prof. Marathe. I see no extraordinary contribution of the person in the field of differential geometry and mathematical physics (no offence!). A list of published papers doesn't entitle one to have a wiki page. In fact, I was wrong in the first place to have placed a deletion nomination under WP:BLP1E.. I just cannot find the 1E!! I would still stand by WP:NPF. Rockoprem (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 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. Tone 20:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of oceanographic institutions and programs[edit]

List of oceanographic institutions and programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant per Category:Oceanographic institutions. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This list is a useful navigational tool. There is something to be said for functionality... Many or most users don't know how to use categories, I'd venture. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Already having a category is not a reason to delete a list. Lists can organize information in a way that categories cannot. Edward321 (talk) 02:02, 27 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Bedi Esmel[edit]

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

his 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) 23:55, 10 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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)2010 August 24[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, 17 August 2010 (UTC)2010 August 24[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick look found no evidence he played in a CAF Champions league match, only was a non-playing reserve. Article still contains much false or misleading information; Unless Wikipedia is a very poor resource, Côte_d'Ivoire did not participate in the 2003 FIFA U-17_World_Championship and he is not listed in the 2003_FIFA_U-17_World_Championship_squads. A number of the refs appear to be foreign language wiki mirrors.--ClubOranjeT 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur. I tried to find evidence that he played in a CAF Champions League match with no success. Of course, it's not easy to find information about the pre-group stage matches. Jogurney (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Sorry, but I can find no verification he played in the CAF champions league games and no verification he played any other notable matches. Verification is a core principle for Wikipedia articles. None of the articles about him appear to cover the subject in depth. There are a number of noise articles that mention him, but all I find are of minor nature, half of which appear to suggest that Chelsea wanted to sign him but he failed work permit criteria. Did not play at U-17 tournament as Côte_d'Ivoire failed to qualify. May have played qualifiers, and also for under-20, but youth caps do not confer notability under NSPORTS. References in article are poor and largely do not back up content and show that the internet is quickly becoming a cluttered advertising ground with no useful content (but that's another story)--ClubOranjeT 04:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:V must be met by any article, especially BLPs. This one fails. We can't keep it on the basis of possibly-being-notable-if-we-could-find-some-sources. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Weak keep. Assuming Esmel Bedi is the same person, we now have evidence that he meets WP:NSPORT thanks to Nfitz's source. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:51, 29 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) 04:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhnovskyy Serhiy[edit]

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

nothing to prove he meets WP:NOTABILITY Markiewp (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 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. Tone 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nafma[edit]

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

This article has no reliable third person information and the article does not assert its notability so should therefore be deleted. Dwanyewest (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 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) 04:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pantea Rahmani[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. The article has some sources but not sufficient to provide notability. And most of Gweb hits are online galleries or wikimirrors. In Persian, I couldn't find any reliable source. Farhikht (talk) 11:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable, in-depth third-party sources about the subject in any language. cab (call) 11:43, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parle Tilak Vidyalaya English Medium School[edit]

Parle Tilak Vidyalaya English Medium School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been subject to constant vandalism and personal additions to various sections over the years. It is suggested that this article be deleted and a new article on Parle Tilak Vidyalaya English Medium School be created so as to avoid the possibility of further controversial edits to the above article. Batram (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "medium" here is the "medium of instruction" (English in this case). It appears to be a Higher Secondary school (10+2 years of classes)--Sodabottle (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - contains a high school; see WP:NHS for keep reasons. Indian schools always have a poor Internet presence so we need to avoid systemic bias by seeking local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 16:34, 30 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) 04:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard B. Ball[edit]

Richard_B._Ball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Article was previously discussed and deleted under Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rich_Ball. BizMgr (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article shows improvement with improved ref's over deleted version. Not honoring speedy at this time. Dlohcierekim 15:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and have declined the speedy. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:30, 24 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) 04:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

River Grove School[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability. It's just some elementary school in Illinois. Jrcla2 (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable per the general consensus for K-8 schools. Furthermore, the article is copied verbatim from the school's website. --MelanieN (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a copyright violation. Edward321 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: grade school with no evidence of notability. Might be able to show notability with sources if it's been around since 1869 with the same building since 1929; but there isn't any evidence in the article. --Closeapple (talk) 06:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to River Grove, Illinois. This is also a school district so it would be bizarre not to gave a proper reference in the locality article. I would add that this is the consensus action with elementary schools, not deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 17:06, 30 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 deleted as G12. All the content was a straight lift from here. TerriersFan (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saidpur Government Technical School and College[edit]

Saidpur Government Technical School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, "About Us" page on link "Under construction." Gerardw (talk) 00:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 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) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sprykill[edit]

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

Previously prodded by RadioFan, brought here for discussion. Original concern: "No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources." Hekerui (talk) 18:47, 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fifth Sun[edit]

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

Procedurally removed prod and listing here because an article at this title was previously deleted at AfD. That article was about a musical album; this article is about a play; prod rationale was "one casting call does not provide sufficient evidence of notability."

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 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) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Phora[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB. Non-notable forum. Reconsider! 11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Is there an objective criteria for determining forum notability? At the Talk page for the Internet forums article, it was stated that a forum only need 1,000 members to be potentially notable (The Phora has over 2,400). We also have over 870,000 posts, which is a substantial number (not to mention a greater posts-per-member ratio that any other forum deemed notable at Wikipedia). And while we only have one notable citation from a reliable source, I'm not at all sure any subject necessarily needs more than one in order to have some claim to notability. The Phora is very well-known and quite high-profile among both far-right and far-left communities of online posters (due to the "free speech" orientation of the board, it is one of the very few places where one can witness free, uncensored debates between Communists, Nazis & fascists, anarchists, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, monarchists, Islamists, etc). "ThePhora" brings up 50,800 hits at Google KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response:
1. Yes, there are objective criteria for determining forum notability; see these guidelines:
This article fails to meet these criteria in my opinion.
2. The Talk page for our Internet forum article is just an article talk page with various opinions; it is not a community-approved guideline; to understand this distinction, see:
3. ThePhora has only 231 unique Google general web search hits, a more meaningful Google measure and the one cited as more useful at deletion discussions than total hits (50,800 in this case).
4. Having said that, general Google web search results are of limited use in deletion discussions; see this essay
5. Google News Archive searches, on the other hand, are very relevant to deletion discussions since they frequently give links to reliable sources; tellingly, a Google News Archive search turns up zero hits.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete On the one hand the article was evidently nominated for deletion the same day as it was created. This seems a bit unfair. I also like the ADL cite. On the other hand, WP:WEB requires multiple reliable sources. This requirement needs to be addressed. I tried searching Google News (including the archive) and Google Books, but I didn't find anything. If the editors can find just one more reliable source, I'll be happy to change my vote. TheLastNinja (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. The Phora is only briefly mentioned in the ADL article, when describing a host of online responses to Virginia Tech massacre.-Reconsider! 06:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with this. WP:WEB defines "trivial" in a way that doesn't fit with the coverage in the ADL article. TheLastNinja (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the points I made above. Also, while I respect the Anti-Defamation League, I am undecided as to whether the page on their web site that's cited in our article counts as a reliable source (per our narrow definition for notability purposes) or should be considered an opinion piece/press release. I think that ADL page falls into a gray area and we need other, independent news coverage to meet our notability requirements. I'm open to revisiting my delete comment if someone finds good news coverage. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An earlier version of this article has been deleted before; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phora.
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that the previously deleted article from 2005 was for an earlier incarnation of the site (a different URL, with different ownership), and that article (which I did not write, unlike this one), was very amateurish, and contained no citations that were even arguably from reliable sources. I would have supported the deletion of THAT article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trojan horse POV push/advertising. Cites no sources indicating this 2400 member message board has any significance whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Self-promotional garbage that fails notability guidelines. Out of 3 sources, 2 are to the website itself, and 1 to the ADL just name-drops it when quoting users. This is a joke. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 27 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) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Super Gators[edit]

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

Vanity article. Questionable notability, lack of citation, and "please improve" banners were added back in January and no changes have been made. Still has no sources. Zeng8r (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Speaking as an editor who is intimately familiar with the Florida Gators sports program, I concur with Zeng8r without reservation. This one of those vanity articles that is an embarrassment to Wikipedia that should have never survived new article patrol, and is a clear violation of the project's notability standards. Nuke it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 24 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. Tone 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.s. travel magazine[edit]

U.s. travel magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable magazine, no claims of notability, no sources, bad capitalization. There doesn't appear to be a speedy deletion category for magazines. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. It's not WP:SPAM (CSD G11), but it's not a notable magazine, and there are no sources cited. —C.Fred (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it probably is spam and it has the stink of copyvio but I can't find the exact text elsewhere. Regardless it's not a notable magazine. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being of a nasty turn of mind (if I didn't say it, someone else would...), I tend to suspect people's motives. And I can't see anyone putting up an article on this company without good reason. (The magazine itself is not the subject of discussion, but I once nearly got a job writing this sort of thing.) It is a difficult name to research. Very common wording that makes separating the magazine in question not an easy task. (Potential advertisers might be impressed with the number of ghits, though.) The online version gets a few, but nothing worth noting (so far as I can see). Peridon (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Sounds interesting, but notability is by no means established.   — C M B J   22:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems totally un-notable. Turgan Talk 13:31, 24 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. essentially per rationale espoused partially by PhilKnight - there appears to be lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie (Transformers)[edit]

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

Non-notable fictional character. Article is a list of appearances padded with in-universe/plot details. No real sources cited. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Okay, now you are just making jokes. Wheelie isn't notable? Mathewignash (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, where are the reliable sources? I'm sure these characters are of great importance within the universe, but I'm not seeing why they're important in the real world. J Milburn (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Fictional character appears in multiple notable fictional works, such that there's no one good place to merge the content. Jclemens (talk) 01:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, though, there are absolutely no reliable sources. We don't have to merge the content anywhere. The fact there's nowhere to merge it is a pretty terrible keep argument. J Milburn (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So if the problem is lack of references, add a tag that the article needs more references, not that it should be deleted. I have added some references, and have a couple books on order to add more references to this and several other articles. Mathewignash (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem is not the lack of references, the problem is that it is not clear that a decent, encyclopedic article could be written on the subject. If you genuinely think the article should be kept, cut out the in-universe trivia snd show that there is genuinely an encyclopedic topic to write about here. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might mention this page was nominated for deletion 6 years ago, and was kept, although moved from Wheelie to Wheelie (Transformers). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Wheelie Mathewignash (talk) 08:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, again, no reliable sources were found, and a lot of people thought it should be merged somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are reliable sources now, you just seem intent on ignoring them (including movie guides who talk about Wheelie and newspaper reviews talking about him in the film specifically!). The last deletion survey had FOUR people who wanted to keep or rename the article, 2 who wanted to merge it with other articles, and one delete vote. This article is CLEARLY worthy of keeping. If you want to help IMPROVE it, please do so - you seem to be very experienced in what makes a good Wikipedia article. Helpful suggestions are appreciated. Mathewignash (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cutting out the trivia would be the place to start. "Bumblebee was once mistake for Wheelie when he visited Axiom Nexus."- who cares? That's worthy of a subsection?! Brief cameos and passing mentions do not need to be discussed, unless they have been picked up on by reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, assertions that references exist are not sufficient. Where's the beef? Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After six years still no independent sources that can WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. "Transformers World" is a self-published website and can't really tell us much about the notability of this character. Article cannot be fixed to meet WP:V and WP:N which state "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Shooterwalker (talk) 18:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but no independent sources? The animated movie guide By Jerry Beck? Dallas Christian Living Examiner, article "Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen" by Chris Esparza? Both published sources from completely outside the Transformers community. Mathewignash (talk) 09:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • An animated movie is not a source, and the newspaper article, while a decent source (probably the only one in there...) isn't about this character, it's about the film. Even then, it is used to reference the idea that "Some film reviewers commented on the negative racial sterotype of Wheelie's character.". Hardly evidence that we need a whole entire article to discuss the character... J Milburn (talk) 10:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's an animated movie guide,a BOOK that was published. No one source ALONE enough, but people are collecting them to improve this article. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 13:58, 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, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)2010 August 24[reply]

*Keep - Wheelie say save the page today! Who could forget the ryhming kid Transformer? 198.51.174.5 (talk) 15:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)See [52] for striking reasons[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Absolutely no significant coverage about the character in multiple reliable sources. Merging to a minor character list would be the normal sequence of events here, but none appears to exist, which is probably telling. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably telling what? That for years all the characters had their own articles, so no one ever bothered making a list to combine them. Dream Focus 13:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretending Youtube is a reliable source?! I think not. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Centralize discussion and merge and redirect as accordingly decided by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers centralized discussion. There are so many articles, surely some of them can be lumped. —CodeHydro 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable character in a notable series, found first in their original animated film, then featured in different animated series, comic books, and toy lines. Dream Focus 13:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A character does not become notable merely by appearing in a lot of places... J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say Keep on this one. This one has has been on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen proving a little bit of signifigance. I am going to see if I can find some sources. Jhenderson 777 15:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am just curious and please be specific. What are you wanting for an reliable source. Jhenderson 777 15:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Take a read of the policy page to see what determines whether a source can be reliable. In this case, I don't think the subject satisfies the primary notability criterion. Yes, the character appeared in the film, but that certainly does not necessarily mean it's notable. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to significant coverage about the notable character in multiple reliable sources. To suggest otherwise is akin to the same kind of anti-academic laziness and ignorance behind the suggestions that President Obama is not really an American and is a Muslim. God forbid deletionists ever comment on topics for which they have actual knowledge or better yet do even cursory research for sources... So many sources can be found it is a mockery of our time to even have to present them here for those who truth be told just WP:IDONTLIKEIT or apparently cannot handle typing a phrase in Google even. Seriously, if you cannot find these readily available sources from Google that you would say to delete here, you are either totally blind, flat out lying, or whatever type of ineptitude that should deny ability to contribute to such discussions as this. Enough playing games trying to pretend like those saying to delete stuff that is clearly notable are acting in good faith or what have you. The bottom line is sources exist. If you truthfully can't find them yourself, God help you then... --192.150.115.150 (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Go on then, show us some good sources, and, if it's so easy, hack the article down to size and throw the sources in for good measure... J Milburn (talk) 16:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good sources is WP:RELIABLE I presume things like IGN, Comic Book Resources, Newsarama, Mania.com things like that would have interviews with writers etc which would discuss solo characters and storylines. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:53, 31 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 express 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Plenty of sources, except none of them are reliable, and none of them establish the notability of this fictional character. Not notable enough for its own article. All of these transformers articles need to be merged into a list article. SnottyWong express 17:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidacen of real world nnotability.Slatersteven (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources. Dream Focus invents his own criterion of "notable character" refer to WP:ITSNOTABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.13.248 (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
58.8.13.248 has made no edits other than this one, attacking me specifically, just as other IP addresses keep doing in other AFDs I have been in. Dream Focus 07:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This page has over 100 links to it, and seemed to be incredible active from the history. Mathewignash (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are hundreds of Transformers pages that need to go. Neither of these facts make up for the fact the character simply isn't notable. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This major character clearly meets the standards for inclusion pursuant to the guidelines for elements within a notable fictional work listed at Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). I do not know why all of these Transformers articles have suddenly been targeted for deletion, even if he were only a minor character the proper procedure, pursuant to the guidelines, would be to merge and/or redirect the character to the appropriate article. No need to destroy the articles' history, as the characters may become more significant with future Transformer projects. Inniverse (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie (Transformers)

  • Keep as a notable character with sufficient references. Article meets WP:V and WP:N due to plenty of reliable sources and evidence of real world notability.--63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article under discussion here has been nominated for deletion, with no evidence of the nominator or anyone else voting for deletion having tried to improve the article or look for sources prior to nomination (per AFD instructions). --63.3.1.1 (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. If there are reliable sources, which provide significant coverage, that are independent of the subject, why haven't they been added to the article? PhilKnight (talk) 18:03, 1 September 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. no arguments for deletion aside from nominator JForget 01:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitecaps FC Prospects[edit]

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

Information out of date, program restructured Bribble (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is a team which has competed at the same level as teams in the USL Premier Development League and National Premier Soccer League, and to delete it would cause a discrepancy with the histories of other teams in the league. The info being out of date is no reason to delete the page - recommend instead updating the information as much as possible, and retaining the article. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I noticed that the nominator has only made six WP edits, all related to deleting information from Vancouver Whitecaps development team pages. Not sure what's going on here, seems to have an agenda. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 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. Tone 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yuma Arena[edit]

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

Reason The Arena was only in the planing stage and never materialized, the article was probably originally crated using Crystal Ball and just adjusted when the project was scraped. This in not notable and could not be improved much beyond its current state.Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 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) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Betamax (VoIP company)[edit]

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

Article does not contain any articles to show notability, and a simple web search fails to find anything either. ErnestVoice (User) (Talk) 11:34, 24 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racial attacks on Michelle Obama[edit]

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

This article is hopelessly unencyclopedic and highly problematic. Take, for instance, the criticism section (I'm not even sure why it is named that). Governor Huckabee is (huge surprise) not a very big fan of the First Lady and stated that her blog postings are vile and hateful. Does that constitute a "racial attack"?

Was it a "racial attack" when Juan Williams (a black news corresponent) compared the First Lady to Stokely Carmichael? Stokely was not a very nice man and I would not like to be compared to him but I cannot see how such a comparison is racist.

This article is existentially flawed and could bring embarrassing media coverage upon wikipedia, it should be deleted. - Schrandit (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe the nominator has misinterpreted the reference to Mike Huckabee. Huckabee is being cited as someone who has criticized racial attacks on Michelle Obama, because he said that the attacks that other blogs were making on her were "vile and hateful". He's not being cited as someone who himself made a racial attack on her. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is true - Huckabee's comments were critical of the racist attacks. But that says more about Huckabee than Obama, so maybe it goes on his bio, not hers (see my comment below). This doesn't speak to whether this article should exist or not. Tvoz/talk 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pare down, change wording to "Attacks on Mic helle Obama" and Merge to Michelle Obama as a new subsection. Carrite (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not merge - if merged, this would have to be pared down to nearly nothing - at most a sentence that said that Michelle Obama had been subject to racist commentary - but that's hardly notable, and only would fly if we have third party independent sourcing characterizing the comments in some way and have some analysis to suggest they are notable. This article is OR and POV - what one editor thinks is an attack another might think is merely an observation, but we aren't supposed to edit according to what we think, but what outside sources say. As it is now this is a loose conglomeration of non-notable comments like "radio host Tammy Bruce referred to Michelle Obama as "trash" while filling in for Laura Ingraham on the radio". This article is a prime example of what should not be in an encyclopedia, and merging it to Michelle Obama does not help. As I said elsewhere, maybe a bit of this could go on the pages of the people who made the comments, if there were any long-term implications for their lives (like losing a job, say) -- otherwise the encyclopedia would be better off without any of it. Delete. Tvoz/talk 18:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete have people told racist jokes about her, made racist attacks about her, or otherwise made criticisms that are "racial" in nature? Yes. Is there any sane reason to have a separate article of this nature? No. Any truly "notable" attacks on Obama, whatever their nature, will find a home in the article about her. Had my eye on this since it was created. It's of neccessity a piece of original research (who sez such and such a comment is a "racist attack") that gives undue weight to various idiotic statements of no particular relevance to her life and career. Basically, none of these kinds of titles should ever be allowed to persist -- they narrow the focus of alleged "encyclopedic" topics in such a way as prevent balance (aka "npov.") Just imagine Attacks on Bush's economic policy, Attacks on attacks of Obama's economic policy, Religious attacks on JFK, on and on it could go. Bali ultimate (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lionel (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopaedic. Even the title of this article is problematic since many of the incidents related in the article do not have a racial connection. At best this information should be summarized and merged to Michelle Obama. Note that no other First Lady, even the highly controversial and lampooned Hillary Clinton, have an article like this. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bad idea, imho. Just becasue there aren't examples of other similarly bad articles out there, doesn't mean we should start such ones. --Threeafterthree (talk) 13:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep subject has received substantial media coverage, was deemed notable enough to make it to DYK, and is unprecedented in history (I don't think any Democrat ever talked this way about Laura Bush, for example). Also, I was not notified about this AFD nomination; isn't that usual protocol? Stonemason89 (talk) 03:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Some of the material are not "attacks" per say. Add the material to the individual's bios if truly notable and well covered. Is there a parody type sub article, ect that could cover this?--Threeafterthree (talk) 03:39, 28 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. Tone 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tobias Bruns[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet the basic criteria for notability. Google discloses no reliable secondary sources for this artist - info available is his own website + Facebook/MySpace/Twitter. In the alternative, fails WP:ARTIST: no apparent recognition within his field. Shirt58 (talk) 10:58, 24 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. Tone 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jere Brower[edit]

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

This BLP does not appear to meet the basic criteria for notability. I could find no reliable secondary sources for Gen. Brower's military or political career. Only info available is from Wikipedia mirrors and directories. As always, more than happy to be shown to be wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 10:46, 24 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. Tone 20:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show-Me Institute[edit]

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

Unfinished AFD; once again I seem to be the ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE PROJECT CAPABLE OF FINISHING REDLINKED AFDs. Seems adlike. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Actually, TPH, in the process of Twinkle messing up this AfD, I found that the article had been through AfD before, with the nominator withdrawing it. I read through the discussion and agreed that that article should stay, so I didn't try to resurrect the second AfD. The article does need work to reduce the ad-like stuff, but I think there's enough to meet the notability standards. Thanks anyway, TenPound. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the organization's activities seem to get regular coverage in Missouri media since it started. I removed the potentially ad-like sections of the article and added some references. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable organization that is frequently cited in local media. A need for wikification =/= cause to delete. DickClarkMises (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notworthly thinktank thats mentioned regularly. scope_creep (talk) 21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a notable organization as established through press coverage.--Chaser (talk) 15:17, 25 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vedic Cosmology[edit]

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

Unsourced essay. I think the Vedas article covers much of this in a more appropriate way. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 04:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Note - Article creator has been blocked for POV pushing and disruptive editing. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 05:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a legitimate subject that might deserve a separate article but this is far too confused and incoherent to be a useful starting point. It may well represent a personal interpretation rather than a mainstream view. Either stub it, in the hope that somebody else will work on it, or delete it. I favour stubbing it. If we add it to the appropriate projects there is a good chance somebody will pick it up and make a decent job of it. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Redirect to Hindu cosmology. It is essentially the same subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting the deletion of List of numbers in Vedas, sub-article too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trojan horse POV push. If there is an authentic article on this topic this needs to blown up to make way for it. Unsalvageable. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to speedy delete as POV-pushing by a blocked editor who has made little to no attempt at contributing to the encyclopedia ever since he got here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does G5 apply here? I thought the person had to be blocked at the time of the article's creation (ie created by a sock). P. D. Cook Talk to me! 21:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant "by an editor who has been blocked" for continued POV-pushing. G5 only applies to articles created by a sock of a blocked/banned user (since the original user cannot logically create an article underneath a block/ban) and those can be speedy deleted as articles created by the same editor, even with a different account. I'm saying here that the article is what contributed to the block of the editor due to its POV-pushing appearance and should be deleted because of its nature. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:38, 24 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Mudri[edit]

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

Previously contested prod. No real indication of notability that I can find. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Markiewp (talk) 07:39, 24 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 03:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna consciousness philosophy[edit]

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

Unreferenced essay. It seems like anything of encyclopedic value is already covered elsewhere. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 04:43, 24 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents[edit]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The main article covering the case is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. To the extent any of these documents are worth discussing, they are properly discussed in the main article. But none of the documents individually, nor the documents grouped together (outside a discussion of the case), pass WP:N. Back in 2008, there seemed to be a rough consensus reached on the talk page that the article did not belong on Wikipedia, but rather Wikisource instead. That consensus was never acted upon, though, so far as I can tell. Novaseminary (talk) 03:37, 24 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) 00:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Corridor[edit]

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

This article does not seem to meet the notability criteria and has few sources. Am sure MIT is notable but a corridor at MIT? Shoud we have an article about every educational institutes' longest corridor? Stupidstudent (talk) 03:27, 24 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) 02:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Forbes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Andrew Forbes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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 establish notability for this unreferenced WP:BLP. He has had numerous bit parts over the years (and unable to verify most of them) but WP:ENTERTAINER specifies significant roles. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 00:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment His film and television roles can be verified to the projects themselves.... and this actor's body of work over 30 years does seem to meet the requirements of WP:ENT, as named roles as characters are usually significant to the plot and storyline of these various projects. More toward the point, 3 episodes of Doctor Who and 11 episodes of Strike It Rich!, 2 episodes of The Hello Girls, and 2 episodes of Hollyoaks show significance of his characters for at least those series. "Significant roles in notable productions" is not intended to limit to only series' leads, but rather to eliminate those actors who have minor throw-away roles that only merit a descriptive, such as "deliveryman #2" or "man in restaurant". So let's consider if recurring named characters are significant to plot and storyline... And then we have his work in theater to consider, and the stage reviews which give critical acclaim to his work. Significant roles in notable productions? He appears to qualify. But yes, digging through the many false positives caused by this man's common name will be difficult... but does that mean it should or cannot not be done? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment I do not know how relevent the AFD discussion from 2005 is... as this particular article was created in 2007, and the earlier one by this name might well have been about someone else entirely. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question Why was the first nomination from 2005 never closed? Or are AFD "closings" a more recent innovation? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another Z-grade nobody. I'm a more notable actor than this flunky, and yet you don't see me trying to create an article for myself just because one doesn't already exist! These people are creating pages for themselves, which is nothing short of using and abusing WP for self-promotion. Laval (talk) 08:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you share how it is you decided that the 2007 article author John Shaw[54] is actually Andrew Forbes? Or if unable to show that, then perhaps you might share how John Shaw writing an article about someone else is self-promotion? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering how Jon Shaw only has one edit (aside from a sandbox edit) and that was to create the bulk of this article, it is an excellent indication that this created by the actor himself. Laval (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, Schmidt's arguments are more based upon a rigid inclusiveness that is often at odds with Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy is what is at issue here, not Schmidt's talent for rallying support to his cause. Laval (talk) 09:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 03:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is still a WP:BLP without a source other than IMDb. J04n(talk page) 03:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Without significant coverage in reliable sources, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Without significant acting roles (if IMDB is accurate, his longest stint appears to be 11 episodes in 1986-87 on Strike it Rich, a show which itself does not have a wikipedia page), subject does not meet WP:ENT. As such, delete. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references. The very little work he's done over the past few decades doesn't merit an article in my opinion. (I realise the [unreferenced] filmography lists 20 different TV series this man has starred in but each of them is 1-3 episodes. Not worth keeping. Also, I quickly glanced over the google search results and didn't see anything which tied all of the listed tv appearances to Forbes. --tb240904 Talk Contribs 00:17, 25 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. Tone 20:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Sestero[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable aside from a starring role in Z-grade cult film The Room (film). Like Juliette Danielle, I have found no established secondary sources that would justify a separate article for these two actors, since whatever has been written about them was in reference to The Room. Laval (talk) 02:26, 24 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.  Sandstein  05:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Milchard[edit]

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

Contested BLP Prod. British movie actress. The references added are of the primary or unreliable kind, and the only references I could find on Google News were about a stage actress with the same name, and who doesn't seem notable either. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer will note that this is not a second !vote. I appreciate that sometimes a nominator wishes re-assert their nomination by making a distinct emboldened delete vote beyond the nomination itself. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, this was done by the second !voter. I had nothing to do with this odd format. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops. In looking at the history, I understand how it happened.[58]. With respects, I have returned it to the way it was originally intended. Sorry. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very new character actress.Nothing notable, no sources. scope_creep (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect... though "new to television, she has sourcable acclaim for years on stage.[59] Expanding on her stage background, and adding such sources to an article, is an addressable concern and not cause for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve through regular editing. The Charlotte Milchard known for her stage work IS this same Charlotte Milchard.[60][61] It is learned that AS a stage actress she has received critical acclaim for work career in theater,even if not for television. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so we're indeed talking about the same person. My bad. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No harm, no foul. At the very least some possible sources will not be overlooked because they were for her as a theater actress and not television. Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charlotte Milchard was the celebrity guest at a charity fundraiser for Healthcare Partnership Nepal at the Hurlingham Club London on the 30th July 2010 I was attending that function and her biography is in the charity evenings glossy programme under our celebrity guests. I'm sure if you contact the charity Healthcare Partnership Nepal - charity # 1134185 they will confirm this. But with a little more research there appears to be over 26 pages of articles, blogs, message boards and information on Charlotte Milchard the Actress (stage and screen) on google. But digging a little more, IMDB Pro are classing her as the 13th most popular Actress in the World (with under 5 registered credits) as of 15th August 2010. Her overall ranking out of millions of IMDB entries of popularity is 1700, putting her above Billy Crystal and Ted Dansoon. Now I know that IMDB isn't the only source for Wickipedia entrance applications but it must stand her in good stead. Also it reports that she was snapped in last weeks OK magazine, Now I'm [pretty sure they would not have printed her picture unless they deemed her noteable) and taking into consideration the overwhelming evidence available of her growing stardom, I put it forward that Charlotte Milchard is a notable person worthy of her Wickipedia slot. etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmpresents (talk • contribs)
    • The thing is, Wikipedia contacts no one for verification of the information present in an article. If the information cannot be verified by looking into reliable sources that are available at arm's length, it is removed. This means that blogs and message boards cannot be used as a source for a Wikipedia article, since anyone can post them without any editorial oversight. Google News (which is more likely to return stuff we can actually use) returns only 9 hits about her. As for her popularity on IMDB, this might be the result of googlebombing by a single fan, so it is not a criterion. As a rule of thumb, anything from IMDB is insufficient. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I totally agree that Wickipedia must challenge applications and apply as strict a screening policy as possible, otherwise the site becomes flawed. However in the case of Charlotte Milchard (Actress) are we not highlighting an even bigger flaw in Wickipedia?
        The overiding question should be, Is she of sufficient worth and noteability to warrant a place on Wickipedia?
        Your answer (as I understand) is either yes or no, and based solely on what you deem to be a reliable source and how long your arm is. If Google news is your choice of example for reliability, then I ask you at least to consider the possibility that not everything you view through Google news is completely reliable and acurate, and that this source doesn't necsessary make a person noteworthy. I accept that IMDB is not without its detractors but if you were to take a measured approach (your source isn't 100% reliable and my sources are not 100% reliable, you have to take a balanced approach) If you view reliable sources that are at my arms length, then she is indeed a noteable person worthy of her Wickipedia place. So the question you should be asking is. How many entries in Google news satisfies notebility? Is Google news too limiting to truely meassure a persons notebility? Does this blinkered screening process then make Wickipedia an unreliable source providing diservice to those it claims to provide for? Is Wickipedia then just a glossary for Google news which in itself is flawed? and finally How long is arms length, who's arms are they and under what regulation were these arms lengths determined?. I put forward once more that there is overwheming evidence, easily attainable by Joe public of the noteability of Charlotte Milchard (Actress)[1]
        no amount of google bombing can detract from the fact that if Gold Circle and Universal have deemed her noteable as The Real DR Abigail Tyler in the movie The Fourth Kind, dated again 19 August 2010 then surely this in itself is suffucient evidence for noteability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmpresents (talk • contribs)
        • If you would, could you add your comments at the end of this discussion, Sjmpresents? I've had to move them twice now, mostly because you are breaking some code at the top of the page every time you add your comments. Thanks! Syrthiss (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the notability guidelines for entertainers and the general notability guideline that Blanchardb recommended to me to do, I have now edited Milchard's page with references from what I believe are reliable sources to support her notability and entry into Wikipedia. I really hope this meets the criteria Blanchardb and MichaelQSchmidt and that you allow Milchard's page to remain. Battlestar Man (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Battlestar Man (talk • contribs)
    • Actually, the references you've added to support her critical acclaim as a stage actress only count as trivial, except for one which is her own website. Please note that a passing mention of Milchard only serves to establish her existence. The notability these references do establish is that of the plays she took part in, not her own. What we're looking for is not necessarily something available online, but it does have to be primarily about Milchard and written by someone reliable with whom she has no connection. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I give up Blanchardb, I spent hours researching and putting together this entry. I looked at other actors and actresses on wikipedia to help me with this and some have less then Milchard and their entry remains in wikipedia. Concerning the references that I have used, they are from critics and each of them have given Milchard a specific mention in the theater reviews that I have found which I believe makes her notable. The Stage Newspaper is the main theater newspaper in the UK which I understand is published as print as standard but is available online so all these references that I have found have actually been published, therefore are reliable as they are independent critics and has no connection with Milchard. I am sure that there are more but they must be solely available in archived print and not available online so unlesss I contact Milchard herself or her talent agent, I don't know how to get hold of these or if I should waste any more time if you are not going to allow this article to remain anyway no matter what I do or how much time is spent. I do have two print articles with her, which I ordered - The Dark Side Magazine, issue 130, Jan 2008 and SCARS Magazine, May 2009 issue. These are still available to order so you can verify. So if this doe not finally verify Milchard then I do not know what else to do. MichaelQSchmidt thought that the article should be kept and improved with regular editing so can you not help with that? Battlestar Man talk • contribs 19:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 01:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Actress is notable for appearing in at least two major movies and this page sure can be improved with thime. References hvae been added and the page is quite good. It would be a waste to delete it. Terveetkadet (talk) 15:18, 24 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 No reasonable assertion of significance A7. Polargeo (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Bélanger[edit]

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

This french language article is about a man who is on a primary school committee. It reads more like a resume than an encyclopedia article. Clearly fails notability and verifiability tests. Furthermore, the author - User:BELANGERSB appears to be a single purpose account aimed at self promotion. 23 Benson (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The text has been posted numerous times in both French and English, but at all times it has essentially been a copy of text available at http://sylvainbelanger.ca. I have deleted it speedily as copyright violation a number of times, but it has been persistently re-posted verbatim. I have stopped this speedy deletion because I have realised that the author is probably the person who owns the rights to the text on the website, so there is probably a valid claim that the owner of the copyright on the website is the one posting the WP material. In any case, the person does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7 (as tagged), there is no indication of notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 13:54, 24 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keaten Menstarn[edit]

Keaten Menstarn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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 establish notability, in fact found nothing but wiki-mirrors searching under his current name, Keaten Menstarn, and his birth name, Victor Izanova. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 01:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment: Surprised to see a suggestion to redirect the artist's page to the album's. If there were anything of value on the album's page I would agree to merge the two into one article but the album page is just a track list and I can't find any reviews of it. The infobox lists a Rolling Stone review but no link and I searched the site with no luck (although Rolling Stone has made life difficult for us when they redid their site).J04n(talk page) 17:13, 28 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chrisse Feros[edit]

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

There are not sources to establish notability Jrod2 (talk) 01:06, 24 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. There is a clear consensus to keep. Since the article was expanded during the course of the discussion, there haven't been any compelling reasons raised to delete or merge the article, certainly not any that have attained any substantial level of support. On the other hand, the strength of the keep side, however you choose to measure it (arguments or numbers), is overwhelming. Mkativerata (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia[edit]

Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I noticed this article was created as a parallel to Zionist editing on Wikipedia (which is also up for AfD). It suffers from the same issues: WP:NOTNEWS and navel gazing. This information is already included in the articles Scientology controversies and Scientology versus the Internet; it's not notable enough to justify a separate article. Robofish (talk) 00:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How did Cirt do that? I was sure I would be the only one to buck the trend... keep. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He must be an involved administrator with a WP:COI. We must immediately report him to WP:AN and WP:AE. Bawwww;! Bawwww;! -- Petri Krohn (talk)
  • Delete Keep due to reliable sources that say it's notable. But still... But it's much better to be bashed on WP than in person, less painful. :-)Borock (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The article is only a few days old. I doubt it will become a decent article but am sure there is a rule about giving a week before nominationg new articles for deletion. Perhaps consider making it an essay? Stupidstudent (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The point being made above is that this is, basically, one paragraph of content, and that we already have an existing article that covers this topic overall, including already having a paragraph of its own on this very facet of it, that can be expanded as needed. Furthermore, we don't need a project-space essay like this when we actually have the arbitration case itself to refer to directly, as well as the Signpost. Uncle G (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No the point I was making was to give a new article a chance before deleting it. Thanks to Cirt's hard work look now. You can't expect every article to become a featured article in less than a week. Stupidstudent (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regardless, that remains the point that was made above, and the answer to the question that you asked. I'm amused that you are trying to tell me how article rescue and article development work, kiddo. Uncle G (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is clearly a non notable article and looks like it was created as a "reply" to another article called Zionist editing on Wikipedia. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps explain the discrepancy between your vote here, above, and your "Keep" vote on the Zionist editing on Wikipedia article? Both articles are sourced to similar media stories. HupHollandHup (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Zionist editing on Wikipedia" is a notorious phenomenon stretching from CAMERAs campaign, Jewish Internet Defense League campaigns, to the Yesha councils and My Israels campaigns and most likely many other organizations. There is a lot of information about this. This article: "Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia" is literally a couple of sentences that can be merged with the Scientology main article. This article was also most likely only created as a "reply" to "Zionist editing on Wikipedia". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we strip away your personal opinion in what is "notorious" or your speculation about what is "most likely", it seems the only policy-based arguments for the differing votes is that you seem to think there is not enough material or sources for this article (vs. the other) - so if this article is expanded with more material an sources, you'd change our vote to keep? HupHollandHup (talk) 14:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its only connected to the Church of Scientology, so it can be merged to that. Its not notable enough to have a separate article. There are at least 4 pro-Israeli groups who have orchestrated campaigns at Wikipedia, all these should be merged to one article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirts expansion. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did a lot of editing to support Obama during the campaign, or at least to correct misinformation by the other side. I wasn't organized with anyone else though. Borock (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You're gooooooooood, Cirt. Carrite (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have started an initial framework, and added additional information from 10 different WP:RS sources. The article now has a chronological model, with subsections for years from 2006 through 2009. There is still quite a bit more to add, from an additional 100 sources or perhaps more. -- Cirt (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - With Cirt's recent work, I don't think anyone can claim this is not notable, or has not received significant coverage in mainstream, reliable sources. At least not with a straight face. I encourage those who voted early on to review the article on its current state. HupHollandHup (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, HupHollandHup, very much, for your kind comments about my work on this article. -- Cirt (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I double HupHollandHup's remarks. Cirt has performed nothing short of a miracle with the stub I created. Phenomenal. There is obviously a lot more information about this than I had thought. Well done! Chesdovi (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much! Much appreciated! ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: par Cirt's work. The reliable sources used in the article show that the subject is notable. --Europe22 (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whoa, Cirt put in some serious keyboard time on that, very nice. Sol Goldstone (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Good well written article with good sources. News and other information that becomes noteworthy is always recorded in Wikipedia, and news thats directly related to WP or an WP article is as well and should be recorded in WP, as long as it's not self referential. The article isn't WP:OR and is clearly notable. scope_creep (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important topic. Reliable sources. --Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well written and properly cited. 99.153.162.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - It's an exemplary article, in terms of style and sourcing. Cirt deserves congratulations for this work. If it were not sourced to reliable sources independent of WP, the charge of navel-gazing would stick, but it is, so it doesn't. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources establish the article as viable. This episode shows why it's important nowadays to have an article draft fairly complete before its posted or else somebody will nominate it for deletion far too quickly instead of trying to improve it themselves. Robofish, why didn't you do what Cirt just did instead of nominating it for deletion so quickly? Cla68 (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of coverage in many independent sources, indicating notability. —fetch·comms 23:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per article meeting notability requirements. John Carter (talk) 14:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets GNG perfectly. Kudos to Cirt. --Cyclopiatalk 16:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like this article needs to be nominated for GA status... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - due to Cirt's significant contributions to this article, it meets the notability guideline. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Unnecessary Content fork, We have Scientology Vs the Internet where it would be a better fit. EPIC CFORK as I fail to see why it needs its own article. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - This is not encyclopedic in any way and imo this type writing is not what we are here for, awful naval gazing article close to outing. Perhaps there should be another article from the opposite point of view. Wikipedia editor writes, multiple anti Scientology articles under pseudonym Off2riorob (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As flattered as I am to be mentioned in this article, this is really something that belongs on Wikinews. We should not be this self-referential. I don't see the encyclopedic content here. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That said, I think this would be excellent on Wikinews, and it is a very well written article. I just think that the subject itself is fatally flawed for inclusion on Wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 17:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is one of the most notable websites, so sometimes it definitely happens that notable stuff related to WP is covered in RS, and thus we have to be self-referential. While we shouldn't actively navel-gaze, we shouldn't either ignore when our navel is gazed by external sources. --Cyclopiatalk 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment re Wikinews - Wikinews only accepts articles about recent (last 2-3 days) news. Without a recent news event to hang it on, there is no way this would be published at Wikinews, regardless of quality. BencherliteTalk 23:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems to be notable and well sourced. Heiro 17:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cirt has done a fantastic job with this article; it is sourced adequately to demonstrate compliance with our policies and guidelines. See User:The Wordsmith/COI to put my vote in context, though. The WordsmithCommunicate 20:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the disclaimer that I'm named in it (not that I care). But this was huge in the media and is likely to be something readers would want to look up - David Gerard (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is plenty of reliable sources to establish notability. Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with many external references, but the introduction should better get more "ref" tags.Jusjih (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have added some citations to the lede/intro itself, for ease of verification for direct attributed statements. -- Cirt (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, should be kept with the title it was initially created with. The vast majority of a preponderance of independent and reliable secondary sources deal directly with this specific topic. -- Cirt (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was thinking of a new article, not renaming this one. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. Borock (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for the clarification. -- Cirt (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - if only all withered little stubs could be nurtured like this pretty sprout. ;) 70 refs? And all good? My word. —La Pianista ♫ ♪ 22:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - due to such policies as WP:N....Claritas § 21:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Like all controversial articles relating to the editing of Wikipedia, this article is going to be pulled off the line again and again. Sometimes I don't get deletionists. It's a well written, relavent, notable article. Smashing the delete button is going to get Wikipedia nowhere...ResMar 17:00, 30 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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mangroomer[edit]

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

Non-notable brand product. Has been prodded and declined. Per WP:PRODUCT this should either be merged into the nearest parent article (doesn't appear to be one) or deleted. SilkTork *YES! 00:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Seems to have sufficient independent sources on the product itself showing. Carrite (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was done before he was socking. as such it is sourced and should be kept. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What does "Non-notable brand product." mean? This is an article on a product, and the NYT at least has given it coverage. It's not the wheel or the mousetrap perhaps, but it's a real product and it has real 3rd party coverage to our usual WP:N standards.
As a very small article, I wouldn't object to it being merged with electric razors.
The sins of its original creator are simply an irrelevance. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not every product that shows up on a tv infomercial needs an article and when it appears in a few human interest news stories and the business section like andy warhol says everything is famous for fifteen minutes. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 05:11, 27 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circulism[edit]

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

A very loosely put together article describing 3 entirely different art "movements" or "techniques"- the first of these is the invention of a single artist (Khalifa Alqattan) with almost no influence (all that the cited sources about the movement tell us is that it is "based on philosophy") and so is only relevant to his biography. The second is an invention of another single artist who isn't even notable enough to have his own article, and the same is true of the third one. There is not indication that this meets any notability guidelines. A search for Khalifa Alqattan himself only brings up WP mirrors. Lithoderm 00:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Lithoderm 00:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The hits on Google books are evidence of the nominator's correct assessment of the situation. We have an odd synthesis of things that have very little in common except for the name. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Would someone please start an article about my personal art movement, which I call Lavalism? Laval (talk) 02:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Circulism" as a common shading or texturing technique, perhaps. Not as a "movement" or technique attributable to one person.RadarsFinger (talk) 06:43, 24 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic Park: Prime Survival[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article seems to be about a non-notable film which is yet to be released. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Using WP as an advertising platform. scope_creep (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fan films need to have been covered in mainstream RS'es before inclusion. Jclemens (talk) 20:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fan film without reliable sources to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:38, 24 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) 02:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kassi Akesse Mathias[edit]

Kassi Akesse Mathias (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(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) 00:02, 11 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, 17 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) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pretty much the thoughts of the above comment.--Dripping oil (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability established. Jay-Sebastos (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Minor and young footballer (soccer player for the American posse) who has never been capped. No notabily. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above. Nothing much to say there. みんな空の下 (トーク) 20:46, 24 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. There is a reasonably clear consensus that the subject is also notable. The article has also been improved during the course of this discussion, alleviating the paid editing concerns (which are not, without anything more, a reason to delete in any event). Mkativerata (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Portmann[edit]

Mark Portmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a paid editing job created as a result of the bid on elance.com which states the following

I am a composer & musician in Los Angeles, California. I need a wikipedia profile similar to something like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Foster). I can provide the basic text and credits. Looking to have the wikipedia page organized, edited, referenced and put into the proper format for wikipedia.

Please let me know what the approximate cost would be and what time frame the job could be completed in.

Thank you, Mark Portmann

www.markportmannmusic.com

As such, this is a violation of our policy that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. The subject hasn't been the focus of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, to meet the general notability guideline. There are some claims to notability, but despite the assertions, most of these appear to be dubious or minor. His "grammy nominations" are usually not accredited to him, I can't find a mention of him anywhere within grammy.com and I can't back up these claims in reliable sources. In short, this is nothing more than a promo piece which brings on the hype in order to promote it's subject. ThemFromSpace 03:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: because wikipedia is not my space.--Karljoos (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello, Again, like i earlier said, i agree with your decisions to have the article deleted. I also agree that the emergence of the Wikipedia article so soon after the referenced Elance post does appear to far a stretch. I must however stress that the my reasons for creating the article were not from a financial view point. Still, since i profit little from the creation or deletion of the article, i am willing to allow permit its deletion as requested by you. Future contributions by me will be made in accordance to the rules within which wikipedia is bound.

Kind Regards Carlang (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are "willing to allow permit its deletion"??? Please read WP:OWN--Karljoos (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. I did not create this article; I only updated it with specific credits which are verifiable both on the albums themselves and on allmusic.com (search for Mark Portmann's credits). I do not see how this is written as promotional or advertising and for the record, this is not a project from elance.com - I was unaware of the listing. Mark Portmann is a well-known songwriter/arranger in the music business. You can look up his album credits like anyone else's. You can search for him on Google.com and see pictures of him at the ASCAP awards, etc. I don't understand why you would want this article to be deleted? Thank you, Meg Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meghansen (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Subject appears notable (see content of Allmusic bio and their reviews of his albums), but the page could use a total rewrite. Hekerui (talk) 22:08, 23 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) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hekerui, I'll see you and raise you: keep. The list of credits is pretty impressive, and there's enough hits on Google News (and a few on [Google Books) for notability. However, that article is indeed a mess. If money changed hands, it should be returned, and someone should give Portmann a trout to smack the creator with. I nominate Hekerui for clean-up; your check will be in the mail. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject seems notable enough. The article needs serious cleanup and the fact that the subject presumably paid someone to create it is a sad commentary, but that should not factor in. And to think, all these years, I've been creating really good articles for free ... --Crunch (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT VirtualRevolution (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTWEBSPACE for starters. This is a CV (resumé if you prefer). Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place for showing the world what you've done. He does seem to be a clever fellow, by the way: "Portmann has composed and produced music in English, Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Japanese." I've only ever composed in Music - tadpoles on little lines. I write words in English (and French). If someone can do a better job - with better referencing to show that this impressive(?) list is real and actually means anything, I might change my mind. Peridon (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said... Based on the current revision of the article by some rather more neutral hands (that's meant as a compliment...), changing to Keep. Peridon (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - In the interest of WP:BEBOLD I went ahead and stubbified the article. The main claims to notability are now in there and substantiated by reliable sources. He has been mentioned in Billboard magazine, although I can't see how well his album did. And he did do a lot of record production for a lot of very notable people, so right now I'd say he counts as notable. Given the nature of this article's creation; if someone wishes to change my mind I am more than happy to listen. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 19:41, 25 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quynh Nguyen[edit]

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

This pianist does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Although she has a nice CV and has studied abroad with a prestigious scholarship, she's not been subject of independent coverage, she's not known for her recordings, she does not perform regularly in major concer venues perform and she hasn't won a major music competition. Of the sources provided in the article one is not accesible (Fulbright program), one is in vietnamese, one does mention her as in two paragraphs but she's not the subject of the article and in the last one she mentioned along with several other performers as young potential solists.Karljoos (talk) 05:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question How come WP:MUSICBIO is a dead link? Please explain JeremyMcClean (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just now I've added a couple of citations to The Boston Globe and one to The New York Times. It is not necessary that articles be exclusively about her, as long as the coverage is non-trivial. Here, with the sources already there and the ones I added, there is enough coverage to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:MUSICBIO. Keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are criteria for inclusion/notability, but there are levels of notability. Yes, she is subject of a concert review of the Boston Globe, but she hasn't been the subject of an article! There're millions of performers like her, should they all be included here?--Karljoos (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep WP:BIO standards have risen somewhat since the original nomination in 2007, but the article is adequately sourced to newspapers featuring coverage of her which is "more than a trivial mention" even if not "the main topic of the source material" (WP:N; in fact, she is the main topic of [64]), and I find the nominator's "this will open the floodgates to millions of articles"/WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST style of argumentation unconvincing. cab (call) 06:31, 20 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) 00:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete only passing mention in sources not comprehensive coverage that is independent of the subject. VirtualRevolution (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article about a pianist who was a child prodigy. The articles sources are fairly decent sources. Certainly doesn't fail WP:BIO. scope_creep (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per "non-trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 27 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.  Sandstein  05:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Footworkin[edit]

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

Orphaned since its creation in 2007, no reliable sources, I can find no reliable sources which use this term. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:V and WP:N. Existing (not inline) references very vague, one is a dead link (I just checked it). 10:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC) -- preceding comment added by SimonTrew (talk · contribs)
  • Weak Keep Seems to be fairly large number of ghits which would be used to establish notability and sources. scope_creep (talk) 21:19, 17 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) 00:05, 24 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) 02:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macquarie Beaches[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ORG. There are no results in Google News for this under-14/15s rugby club or evidence of significant impact in a general Google search. Fæ (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Macquarie+Beaches Dethlock99 (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update In consideration of the fact that the original creator of the article has blanked it, I would like to recommend a speedy delete. Fæ (talk) 09:16, 19 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't find anything about it, although the Newcastle and Hunter Rugby Union mentions it at the wikipedia article Newcastle and Hunter Rugby Union, I can't find any details about on the their website. scope_creep (talk) 19:58, 24 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) 02:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Ponroy[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria having never played at a higher level than the French 'National' division (not fully pro). 90.200.240.178 (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note: AFD was created by IP user on 9th August but not completed - am doing that by copying IP users rationale from talk page --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:00, 17 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Young footballer who has never been capped, or done anything really. scope_creep (talk) 19:31, 24 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) 08:18, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's All Good (Greenie & KRS-One album)[edit]

It's All Good (Greenie & KRS-One album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

User has continually created articles to promote an artist known as Greenie but has never been able to provide a single reliable and independent reference to verify the information presented. The article has no references. The only reason I didn't tag it for speedy is because a notable artist (KRS-One) is allegedly involved. OlYellerTalktome 13:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I found these that show this isn't a complete hoax: [65], [66], and [67]. The first two should be enough to meet WP:NALBUM, while the third corroborates the track listing. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I feel about those references, personally. None of them seem to cite any sources and are of questionable reliability, in my opinion. I feel like I'm on the verge of being too harsh when it comes to sources but the fact that KRS-One's website doesn't even mention the album, artist, or contest and that the author has repeatedly futilely tried to push this album and artist on WP in a seemingly less than honest fashion, makes me very skeptical. I can't say I disagree with your logic but in this case, I feel that more is needed to satisfy inclusion guidelines. OlYellerTalktome 16:47, 17 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it like the nominator says 207.81.170.99 (talk) 05:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - This should be easily verifiable; Krs either did or didn't make an album with Greenie. When I go to Itunes and play previews of the tracks, I hear Krs-One's voice with Greenie; performing together. At various locations around the Internet, I see videos of Krs-One talking about the album with Greenie. When I google Krs-One and Greenie, I find DOZENS of cited, professional sources discussing the album, the collaboration, etc; There is a line somewhere--between ensuring reliable content and over-the-top censorship--- I think the question of whether or not Krs-One is on album with Greenie --and it can be verified--is a no brainer-- It's documented BY Krs-One in writing, print, etc; —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.52.195 (talk) 14:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've supplied no proof for any of your claims. Care to help us and provide some information that we can also verify (like the "writing, print, etc.). In regards to the iTunes tracks, voices can be easily mimicked; people can make a career out of it doing voice-overs. These videos you claim are all over the internet may not be published by reliable sources; I've seen plenty of videos that involve things that aren't actually happen although I'm not suggesting some sort of conspiracy theory to put the two artists together. I'm just saying that a video posted by a source that's not reliable can't be used as a reference, just like any other information an unreliable source publishes. In these Google searches where you find dozens of professional sources discussing the album, please provide them! Just paste a link anywhere and I'll add it to the article and change my !vote. To other editors, please note the similarity between the edits of the IPs 69.69.14.176 and 208.65.52.195 (here and here). This stinks of socking which doesn't particularly surprise me at this point. It simply furthers my belief that this editor will go to any lengths to push this article without actually providing verifiable sources. Obviously though, draw your own conclusions. OlYellerTalktome 15:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it is a non-important album of a relatively unknown artist. Nergaal (talk) 05:26, 1 September 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. Chaser (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Moriarty[edit]

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

This article is about a TV technical director that does not meet notability. He won a regional emmy as part of a team for the weekend news as confirmed by the one source I added to the article. But there is no coverage about him, and aa regional emmy is not a major award. Whpq (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although I beg to differ on the importance of a regional Emmy (they do get reliable coverage in some places), he won his as part of a team and not independently. In fact, Moriarty himself is not mentioned in the reference found by nom. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 16:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - he is credited as "Chris Moriarty" in the reference I cited in the article. It's easy to miss as he is just named as part of a list if people and his name is split across two lines as formatted in my browaer. Replicated here for the convenience of other editors reviewing this nomination. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 19 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Non-notable local broadcaster with very little reliable source coverage. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:41, 31 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hero Factory[edit]

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

I came across this article while browsing my AfD participation summary. The first AfD was closed as delete on WP:CRYSTAL grounds. The product has been released since then, but its notability has yet to be established. The only sources used in the article are press releases, and my own research only turned up more of the same. Delete with no prejudice against merging to Lego.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you are being extremist,I suggest merging to bionicle until the topic has reached notability because the creation of the theme was an answer to the cancellation of the other one or keeping it because the theme is relatively new to reach a high notability levelPitepower (talk) 23:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found this review (toybuzz.co.uk) but im not sure if it can be considered reliable. Salavat (talk) 11:15, 22 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Has been the subjects of articles in newspaper and toys magazines and is very important as it was launched after the demise of bionicle Terveetkadet (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would really help if you were to add some of those references to the article instead of just saying that they exist. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't see the argument here for deletion.68.61.69.229 (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I had forgot to login, just wanted to point out I'm not some random passerby. I actually edit here and stuff. But the above Strong Keep vote was mine.18-Till-I-Die (talk) 18:15, 26 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 Deleted G12 as a copyvio of company webpage and venturebeatprofiles.com/company/profile/isuppli. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISuppli[edit]

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

No apparent notability; article is nothing but an advertisement in violation of SOAP. —Scheinwerfermann T·C16:30, 17 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, 24 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) 02:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Robert Ulysses Lockmore[edit]

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

Non-notable "inventor" of a non-notable, and rather vague, invention. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 16:51, 17 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This article doesn't feel right... The invention is not described and the article creator is a SPA who edited only this and made small changes to the "Locator" disambiguation page without adding information on the device in question. Google is an echo-chamber for the name "Alexander Robert Ulysses Lockmore," with all hits for that specific name seemingly generated by the page's existence on WP. The hoax duck is quacking, and apologies to the creator if that's a wrong take... Carrite (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even if not a hoax his notability is not asserted. There is no article on his invention, the locator, nor have I ever heard of it.Borock (talk) 03:46, 24 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) 04:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Town Centre[edit]

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

Non-notable big-box shopping center Dough4872 17:07, 17 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it like the nominator says. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to distinguish this medium-sized shopping center as notable. Google provides no significant outside coverage. Google News provides only passing mentions in local media. --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 27 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) 02:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The European Society for History of Law[edit]

The European Society for History of Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All versions of the page are copyvios of http://www.historyoflaw.eu/english/home.html, which indicates that all rights are reserved, and as far as I know, no specific permissions to reuse the text have been granted; thus, the inclusion of the text on Wikipedia is a copyright violation. This was tagged for speedy deletion under G12 but was declined by User:Graeme Bartlett RJaguar3 | u | t 21:46, 17 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. Try again if this topic is really significant. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 24 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Johnny Cash Songbook[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Allmusic entry is blank. This appears to have been a budget line compilation without any individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is a non-notable album. Armbrust Talk Contribs 23:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerns - This AfD is for an album that charted in 1972 (as a compilation album no less!). I have a hard time believing that there are no reviews of this album, but the problem we encounter is that there is very little information on the internet with an item that predates it by about 20 years. I believe there is a great deal of information on this album in hard copy, but the question is, where do we find it? Personally, I don't have the time to go to the library and scan microfilm for hours on end. So, let's take a review of policy. Wikipedia:Notability (music) states "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.". I believe we are all in agreement that Johnny Cash is notable. However, it also states that Wikipedia:Notability must also be considered. This also doesn't address the problem of dated items, except that "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage.". However, I believe I have found a possible portion of the policy that can address my concerns, specifically in Wikipedia:Notability (books), specifically point 5, "The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable." (If you equate a book to an album, which I believe is a fair comparison.) Thoughts? Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it charted, almost a Top 40 album. It's a pity there is no more info on this readily available, but some articles are difficult to expand without big efforts even though they are notable. Hekerui (talk) 22:28, 23 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, 24 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Minutes in Heaven (play)[edit]

Seven Minutes in Heaven (play) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines and unsuitable refs. Whenaxis (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I created the article mostly to split the material out of the article on the kissing game, from which most of the material was copied verbatim. I have no objection to deletion if there genuinely is a lack of notability, but I wouldn't necessarily use the current article state as a definitive statement of it's notability. oknazevad (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like someone was trying to promote this non-notable play within an article about a party game, although that could have simply been edited out. Mandsford 13:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The play appears to have garnered critical attention in the form of theatre reviews from Show Business Weekly, Time Out New York, New York Post, and New York Times. -- Whpq (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 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, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets WP:N at this point. Hobit (talk) 02:57, 26 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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam (ship)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until the ship does something, I don't believe it rates an article. It 'intends to deliver aid to Gaza'. I intend to climb Olympus Mons on Mars someday.-- Syrthiss (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Shouldn't this be a paragraph on Free Gaza Movement?AMuseo (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not a bad suggestion. I'm somewhat on the fence for now--the existence and importance of the ship is (or can be) pretty well established by reliable sources, though I'm not entirely sure yet whether it's enough for a stand-alone article. I hope that future comments here and possible additions to the article will clear up whether there's more than what we have now--a ship with a goal. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation and NN. In the news for what it might be though nothing notable has happened yet. --Shuki (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the mere fact that the BBC, the Jerusalem Post, and the New York Times report on it (not to mention all the other media outlets easily found here) suggests that you are incorrect. If it is in the news for what it might be doing, then the thing it might be doing is notable; it's as simple as that. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to a more appropriate article, be that 2007–present blockade of the Gaza Strip or Free Gaza Movement. The news reports are really about the effort to break the blockade. The ship itself is rather incidental, and, to my knowledge, it has no goals in and of itself (with apologies to Drmies and Syrthiss). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • IP 69 seems not to realize that ships are always female, and that they should be treated with respect. (That I see your point is incidental.) Drmies (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect intended - perhaps I should have said the ship's name is incidental to this story. Of course she's important in her own right, but probably not notable enough from a WP perspective based on the available references. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None taken! Drmies (talk) 04:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry 69 and Syrthiss, but I gave it some thought and I'm not entirely with you on this one. I think the plethora of media coverage counts for something, even taking into account 69's very valid argument, just above this remark. I also think, and a (small) expansion to the article might cover this, that there is something about the name of the ship: this is, after all, a "female" expedition and so I believe the name is not accidental. I hope quietly that someone interested in women activism will come along and add that material. If this vote does not go towards keep, I would ask for a merge and a redirect--as a search term it seems pretty notable, and the now well-sourced (if I may say so myself) content could go into the article suggested by 69. And if even that won't fly, please stick it in my user space among the bacon articles and I'll put it in somewhere. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per long-estalished WP:SHIPS convention that ships are notable enough to sustain individual articles. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Free Gaza Movement. There is essentially nothing about the ship itself in this article, and never mind the fact that essentially nothing has happened yet. Mangoe (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Mjroots notes: per long-established WP:SHIPS convention that ships are notable enough to sustain individual articles. A separate article makes it possible to disambiguate the ship, which has changed name, and add other information regarding the ship's history besides this one proposed voyage. Djembayz (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of reliable and verifiable sources here establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per long standing practice at afds on the notability of ships, independent of their involvement in current events. Benea (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can somebody point me to the page that outlines this long standing convention? I've looked through the project page and don't see anything like that. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
69, there has not yet been a ship article that was deleted at AfD to the best of my knowledge. This is why we say that ships are inherently notable. Examples of ship articles being kept at AfD are many, they include SS John Stagg, and also SS Timothy Bloodworth, which is now an A-class article.User:Mjroots
MergeThat is a remarkable argument. There have been millions of ships in the history of the world, but few small cargo vessels have Wikipedia pages. If we are keeping this because we keep all ships, then let's have some information like, how many tons, where built, what kind of hull, engine, equipment. What routes it worked, who has owned it, previous names, and all the rest of the information that WP notable ships have on their pages. If, on the other hand, we are keeping this because this otherwise insignificant, small, ordinary, cargo vessel was involved in a notable incident, the incident has to occur. So far we have an announcement of intention that caused a press flurry in the context of the Free Gaza Movement. At present, it is doubtful that the ship will ever sail. Therefore, it should be merged, probably into [[Free Gaza Movement. And it can be made into an article if and when a notable incident occurs.AMuseo (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the two examples given, it is quite helpful to the inclusionists that that someone has published a book cataloging every Liberty ship in detail. What we have in this case is more the nautical equivalent of WP:ONEEVENT. And as AMuseo says, the article doesn't say anything significant about the ship, other than the most basic dimensional data. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships is certainly a wonderful page, and there is no bdoubt that the members have written some fascinating articles. However, I can find nothing on the page in the nature of a "long-established WP:SHIPS convention that ships are notable enough to sustain individual articles:. Certainly many ships are. But it cannot be true that every ship is. I wirte many articles on individual buildings. But by no means would I maintain that every building is notable by definition.AMuseo (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the ship's infobox has been fleshed out somewhat and a history section added. HausTalk 08:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment a section on design/construction has been added. HausTalk 19:42, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability already established. Re arguments until the ship does something: why such needed? Every second random page I get is a village, a politician, an insect, or a car type we will never ever hear of again. Glaslyn, Pleuropogon refractus, IFA F9 anyone? -DePiep (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article meets ship project requirements for a B-class rating. Brad (talk) 00:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Computer memory is virtually costless. As a matter of principle, one should not throw away information once it has been assembled. Someone at some time may want to look her up. As an analogy, I have on occasion checked out library books at my university's research library where I have been the first person to check out the books since the library's acquisition of them over 50 or more years ago. I have them been grateful that the library had not thrown them away as "Not notable".Acad Ronin (talk) 02:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim of costlessness is dubious, but in any case it does not seem to me that any useful information (unless you intend to engage the vessel for actual shipping, and at the moment she appears to be otherwise occupied) would not appear in the paragraph that would result were this to be mereged back to the article on the conflict in question. Mangoe (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reacting to the current version, which is too long and has too much background info to be merged into the Gaza sailings article. That one can establish the history of the vessel as comprehensively as the article does suggests that several different sources thought the details worth recording. That one person cannot think of any use for the information presented other than chartering does not mean that others may not find some of the the information useful, or simply interesting. (Part of the pleasure of using Wikipedia is finding all sorts of useless info, such as most of the stuff in the DYK hooks.) Furthermore, I, for one, can image a reporter ornamenting the story of the relief voyage, should it take place, with details from the article. I cannot even guess what some researcher 50 years from now might find useful. Again, the Wikipedia default should be, "Don't throw away info". Cheers, Acad Ronin (talk) 12:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is clearly established. Gillyweed (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I invite the editors who have worked so hard to improve this article to help edit an article for the Avrazya, the ship that was hijacked by Islamist militants in the Black sea in 1996 Black Sea hostage crisis.AMuseo (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than ample reliable and verifiable sources about the subject are provided to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:11, 31 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.
  1. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1220198/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_August_24&oldid=1142642470"