Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 8

< 7 February	9 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Singh[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability using reliable sources. Searching Google News, the BBC website and The Guardian archives I can find no relevant matches under this name. I do not doubt that she exists and has worked in journalism but non-availability of sources appears to make additions of sources that unequivocally demonstrate notability unlikely for the near future; particularly considering that the article has been tagged as not citing any sources for two and half years (close to being the longest currently tagged as such). —Ash (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 15:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- —Ash (talk) 15:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because lacks notability. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did find some sources, e.g. a BBC press release [1] noting a role in a radio drama and a previous role on Eastenders, but there's no coverage suggesting these were significant. There's also one of her own sites [2] promoting her work as a puppeteer, it has her radio/television work and books in links on the left but I can't find secondary coverage to back up her own claims of significance there. She has appeared on news channels as an outside commentator, but then so have thousands of others. She does have a blog at the Huffington Post, but the article on HP says there are 3,000 such contributors at that site. Holly25 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huffington Post is not the best source to pin notability on. Generally a blogger's notability would have to be demonstrated elsewhere before their opinions on the HP site would be useful as a source. See WP:RS/N for previous discussion on this site, one example thread is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post.—Ash (talk) 20:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~Yes, that's why I said "Delete". I was responding to the claim in the article lead that she "currently writes for the Huffington Post".~~ (edit: sorry, thought I'd been misread as a "keep") Holly25 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:ENT. the BBC press release [3] easily verifies that she had more than 1 significant role in notable productions. ie, Sufia Karim ("one of the first key Asian roles in Eastenders") and Surinder - Silver Street (described as a top talent to join the show). The article is now significantly more encyclopedic. Annette46 (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Press releases are not always reliable independent sources. As a "top talent" and considering the astonishing popularity of EastEnders there should be a wealth of independent reliable sources that can be added to the article. Perhaps someone could point some out?—Ash (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - All I can find is her IMDb entry[4], which credits her in four episodes (100 episodes have been produced each year since the mid-80s), suggesting it wasn't a recurring character, which I guess is a baseline for significance in a soap with that volume of episodes. Holly25 (talk) 16:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no reason to doubt these as facts, though IMDB is not a reliable source for notability on its own as it is maintained by user contributions (not necessarily verified). Previous discussions about IMDB are available in the WP:RS/N archive.—Ash (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - To clarify: I meant that being a recurring character would be a baseline for significance, not that those four episodes implied significance. Holly25 (talk) 18:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Weird, does User:Holly25 who voted here for a keep [5] now opine that a 5 episodes appearance in a clearly non-notable TV production of the The Loop (TV series) is somehow more notable than 4 (dubious) named appearences in EastEnders spread over 3 years and see this [6] ? Annette46 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sure, why not. He appeared in roughly a third of all episodes of that show. Eastenders, by comparison, is a soap that puts out 100 episodes a year. The source on the page you linked is handy for establishing the significance of her role: "Few but the most fanatical soap fans will remember Albert Square's Karim family". Not a great case for the "key Asian role" in her PR, and she doesn't even mention it on her website. Holly25 (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        
        That was an opinion expressed 15 years later (place it in context - don't cherry-pick) by a critic (from a regional tabloid rag) commenting on racial stereotyping in the show. The IMDB filmography only has some episodes from 1990 whereas the character ran from 1988-1990 (3 years in a hit soap is by no stretch insignificant), see this also [7] for "Rani Singh is best known for her role in Eastenders for 3 years as shopkeeper Sufia Karim" and this [8] for "Those of you guys who fancy sexy Asian TV star RANI SINGH, formerly of EASTENDERS and the longest serving Asian actress in soap". Annette46 (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't pick the "regional tabloid rag", if better quality sources existed then we'd be using them. Your first link is a web-only magazine of unknown significance, the second is an online free gossip column which, on scrolling down, looks like it's only being used to promote the author's "best selling video, Loo Time: Toilet Technique Without Tears". The problem here is that we don't have a single reliable source on which to base this article, the closest we have being the BBC press release. Holly25 (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gossip site is a Knight International publication who among other things (incl. property dev in Bulgaria) sponsor this [9] prestigious journalism award along with Bill Gates. The asianmedia website has these endorsements [10] and there's nothing to show as yet that they are not what they claim to be "UK's only British Asian media industry publication, which reaches out to over 4,000 media professionals currently, including the biggest mainstream and Asian media companies in the UK." Annette46 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two completely separate "Knight" organizations, I'm afraid. The reputable one you mention is the Knight Foundation, a US charitable foundation involved in education. The one associated with hotgossip.co.uk has a similar name but as you can see from their own site, [11], is an "international property sales, marketing and property development company" based in the UK. The online gossip column seems to be a means of directing people to their own adverts for Bulgarian property development, so it's not a reliable source by any stretch. As for the asianmedia website: the endorsements are self-published and if you read them carefully you'll notice they were written before this web-only trade magazine started; they are "good luck with this new venture" messages rather than any comment on the standards of the publication. Their editorial model, as shown here, is driven by people sending in press releases (standard for free trade publications) which means it would not usually be considered an independent, reliable source. We're still in the position of having no reliable secondary coverage for this person. Holly25 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 18:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This doesn't seem to be very clear cut which is presumably why it's been relisted repeatedly. Singh is mentioned in a number of news stories, often just offering a soundbite bit of "analysis" on some issue pertaining to Southeast Asia. She's clearly a working journalist with a number of projects to her credit (which strikes me as more important than a small part in a popular British soap opera), but I'm not convinced that the coverage of her in reliable sources is actually significant per the GNG. Given those doubts my slight preference is to delete. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not paper, so when in doubt, keep. - EdvardMunch (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? No... there is no doubt here... DELETE. JBsupreme (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not even close. Rani Singh has received no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk)

Delete does not meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage RadioFan (talk) 22:58, 13 February 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. For better or for worse, there is no consensus here to delete this article. There are some suggestions for merging scattered around here, and discussion related to those can take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burt Myers[edit]

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

Non-notable BLP of a low-level race car driver. Sourcing is VERY sketchy, with both sources being non-secondary and pretty trivial. Unit Anode 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as failing to make the grade for notability as a sportsman - see WP:ATH for guidelines which can be applied here. He has not contested at the highest national level in his sport. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a lot coverage of Burt Myers’ championship NASCAR racing [12], and he is also the subject of a current TV series on the History Channel [13]. The subject passes WP:ATHLETE and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Warrah, I think there is sufficient coverage available to retain this one. JBsupreme (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warrah's not being truthful about this. He says "NASCAR", implying it was the big show. It was not. Unit Anode 13:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding what appears to be significant coverage on Google News Archives. If you know me, you would know that I have a pretty conservative view on WP:BLP articles. Do you feel that the sources documenting this individual are insufficient? JBsupreme (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, and many of his Ghits are because of having a pretty common name, or simply his race results. That's just not enough. Unit Anode 14:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Google News Archive search that I cited was for "Burt Myers" and "NASCAR". Unless there are two Burt Myers racing in NASCAR, all of the ghits are for this person. Plus, he is the star of the History Channel series "MadHouse." The article passes WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 16:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"NASCAR" is generally accepted to refer only to the top level of racing. To be frank, the level Myers races at isn't even on the same plane as the Truck Series. It's the junior circuit of the junior circuit. As for being the "star" of the History Channel series, that's not true either. He's no more the "star" of it than Junior Miller, Bad Brad, Jason Myers, Tim Brown, or Chris Fleming. Unit Anode 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Warrah is being truthful and I think there is sufficient coverage available. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, he's not. He implied that Myers was a real NASCAR racer. He's not. He races at almost the lowest possible level. He's not even CLOSE to fulfilling WP:ATHLETE. Unit Anode 03:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are indeed scores of sources, mostly in the local sporting news that seems to regularly cover the races at the track where Myers races. There's plenty of reliably sourced material from which one could write a competent article. A number of these are substantial mentions because there are article sections specifically about the details of Myers' participation in a race. There is also considerable discussion of his relatives in the sport, and some kind of rivalry with another racing family. I'm not familiar with auto racing but this series of "short track" modified car races seems to be the equivalent of the minor leagues in many sports. They're professional, full-time, and there is considerable money in them, just at a smaller scale than the big leagues. Myers, along with his brother, seems to be one among four or five top contenders in this particular stadium series. The lot of them are apparently stars in MadHouse (TV Show) a History Channel reality series, with Myers' exploits featuring prominently in some episodes. The documentary shows are themselves sources. Being the star of a reality show is another path to notability, although I have no clue how significant a show Madhouse is. It's probably not The Real World. For what it's worth none of the other drivers in this particular series seem to have their own articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
1) Most drivers in this "series" don't do this full time; they have other jobs to support their racing.

2) So now sports stories in local papers are enough to establish notability? If so, then we're in for a slew of high school heroes writing their own biographies, sourced to the many stories about them in local papers.

I think that both of these points speak to the general lack of notability of the drivers who race in this lowest possible racing series. Unit Anode 18:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's the TV show that really puts it over the top for me, without that notability would be far more questionable. I don't think deletion is appropriate given that Myers is a main "character" on a reality television program, however I would think merging his article to MadHouse (TV Show) could be a good option, particularly if the show stays on the air for at least a little while. But that's not something we need to decide at AfD, and the very fact that a merge is a good possibility precludes deletion for me, in addition to the fact that Myers probably is at least somewhat notable per the general guideline. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "merge" would be a fine second option to "delete." However, if we're going to say that being a main character on a reality show "puts it over the top", then perhaps we should revisit the case of Alexis Grace, who was one of the "main characters" on the biggest reality show in America. (Note: this is not to say that I think that Grace should have an article -- though I once did think so -- but rather that if Myers has one, then Grace definitely have one.) Unit Anode 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boy I'm really out of my depth here! NASCAR (not even) which I haven't watched since childhood and American Idol, which I've never even really seen? (I know, I know, I'm not a real American). Never heard of Alexis Grace, but it does seem weird for her to not have an article while all of the other finalists do. One difference between her and Myers is that the latter at least did something which might be considered notable (being a top competitor in what sounds like a minor-league version of NASCAR) before ending up on a reality TV show. I don't know. I'm completely fine with merging/redirecting, but given current guidelines I don't think we can justify deleting the article on a successful athlete who ends up playing a major role in a TV show on the "History" Channel (does that thing have any programs about history anymore? Even the days of Hitler and the Wehrmacht 24/7 were better than shows about pawn shops and small-time racecar drivers.) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, though: it's not even really the "minor leagues" of NASCAR. That would be the Truck Series and Nationwide. This isn't even the level down from those. It's a local track, that hosts what could at best be called a "regional" series of 12-14 races. It's a step up from local dirt track racing. If you won every race of the season, you might make $100K or so. He's good for his level, which is just about as low as you can get, and still be marginally "professional." The only thing that makes this even a close case is Madhouse. Unit Anode 03:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take your word for your description of this particular "tour," and agree the TV show thing is what makes this questionable and a bit of an odd case to say the least. If this AfD closes as keep, I'd say start a discussion about merging/redirecting on the article talk page, or even just boldly do it and see if anyone objects. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem at this AFD is that WP:ARSEditors have stepped in and convoluted the discussion with very deceptive (I would contend, blatantly false) statements. Unless there's an administrator that actually wants to dig into the truth (and untruth) behind these statements, then this will be closed as a "keep", when it should not be. Unit Anode 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're stuck on the phrase "Burt Myers’ championship NASCAR racing" above which I don't think was at all intentionally false or misleading, but rather was someone using the term "NASCAR" loosely and/or without understanding different categories of "NASCAR" (which is certainly the case for me). I think everyone is participating in good faith here, and there is room for legitimate disagreement on the question of notability as you admitted a couple of comments above. As to closing, as of right now it would simply be an incorrect reading of consensus to close this as "delete" since the arguments for keeping are not invalid. Of course that does not preclude merging in any way, and further comments might alter consensus, obviously. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has reliable sources and is a professional NASCAR driver who finished second in a national touring series. The modified series predates the Sprint Cup Series as one of the original series by the sanctioning body. Top drivers are often fully professional as I expect him to be. So it is not one of the big 3 - it's #4. Before you poke me about my background, I am very knowledgeable in NASCAR. I wrote very many NASCAR articles on the history of the sport such as cowriting the Whelen Modified Tour article and writing the NASCAR Convertible Division. The lowest level of NASCAR is the four cylinder class at a local track. To get to this level, he probably succeed at that level, advanced to the highest level of local track, then joined this national touring series. He's far from the bottom level. Many of these races are nationally televised. Royal broil 03:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most Whelen drivers are not "fully professional." Most work an actual job because the series is so low-rent currently that there's very little chance to fully support yourself from racing alone. The only reason Myers doesn't have to work is because his wife supports him. These "keep" rationales are truly, well, odd. Scott aka UnitAnode 04:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Read the opening bit please.

In 1999, at the age of 23, he became the youngest Bowman Gray Stadium track champion in history. He has won more pole awards than any other driver in the Whelen Southern Modified Tour's history.[1][2][3] Myers has five career wins and finished second in the year-end point standings in 2005.[1]

So he is obviously notable. Dream Focus 22:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, he's not. "Bowman Gray Stadium" is a local quarter-mile track. If everyone who has ever been a "champion" of such a track is notable, we'd better get busy, because there are hundreds of such tracks, and thousands of such "champions." This AFD is so far afield of reality that it's almost embarrassing to watch people knee-jerk "keep" this article based on such flimsy credentials. Scott aka UnitAnode 16:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient sources exist to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:11, 14 February 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) Tim Song (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Šonka[edit]

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

Non-notable air fighter pilot. Red Bull Air Race article says that there is not yet 2010 season for it, so there is no reason for Martin Sonka to become the rookie for 2010. JL 09 ^_{q?_c} 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is not great at the moment, but Martin Sonka seems notable and limited references have been added to the article.--blue520 08:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His engagement in the race attracted the attention of the Czech media: Czech aeroclub, Czech Television, Sport.cz etc. He will compete in the Red Bull Air Race only in March of this year [14], but we should keep this article now, he is a representant of the Czech Republic in aerobatics. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Participation in two World Aerobatic Championships (which is now sourced to WP:RS) appears to meet the "Have participated in a major international amateur or professional competition" criteria from Wikipedia:Notability (sports)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Song[edit]

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

Clear-cut case of WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not the news. Badger Drink (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even the event is not notable. Lots of sources but unremarkable in its entirety. --Pgallert (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it's sourced, has NPOV, and isn't hurting anything. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 14:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are convincing arguments for inclusion. In fact, the last "argument" you offer is so poor that it's warranted an entire section of its own in "arguments to avoid in deletion debates". Did you even read WP:BLP1E? Badger Drink (talk) 06:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, even the "1" in BLP1E is pretty weak here. JBsupreme (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., I know this is not a vote, but I agree with JBsupreme. All the citations are to a college newspaper (The Digital Collegian). The title of one of them sums it all up "Song's name, case fading after 4 years". I hate to see things relisted when they are straight forward. --75.161.115.112 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 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. Notability for other than Wikipedia has been established. Consensus to keep, including late withdrawal (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar van Dillen[edit]

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

The first president of Wikimedia Nederland [15] should be there somewhere, but I failed to find him in all the standard searches either in this capacity or as a composer. WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO, WP:PROF, and WP:N all fail since WP:V fails. Sorry, Oscar! Jubilee♫clipman 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that though the Dutch article is sustantial, most of the links in it are either dead or fail to mention him at all. The only link that both lives and mentions him is a plug for a record. Of all the links provided by Oscar (talk · contribs) in the previous AfD (none of which were added after the discussion closed), only one might be useful: [16] The others fail to mention him by name, are lists of compositions, appear to be personal websites, make only passing mentions or are in Dutch. If any one can translate the Dutch stuff and verify that it ~~established~~ establishes notability, that would be fine. Otherwise I don't find much out there at all to prove all the assertions made about him in the WP articles in any language. Also Eigen website (in ELs in the Dutch WP) is a Wiki, not his official site [addendum - actually it does appear to be his official site: see below]. Furthermore, neither this nor this mention him as having any connection with Cybele nor does the About us linked in the previous AfD. [consolidated from previous comments: see edit history] --Jubilee♫clipman 00:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have tried really hard to source this article but have failed at every turn. The link I provided above from the previous AfD does not establish notability, his own website [17] is actually a wiki (same as "Eigen wesite" above), and the record labels are rather small and neither have WP entries Etcetera Records/Etcetera (label)/Cybele Records/Cybele (label)/etc. I can't see I can go any further in sourcing so I stand by my proposal. --Jubilee♫clipman 01:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Perfectly genuine both as a composer and a WP person. The question is whether he is notable. Online refs. are hardly substantial but that is true of most of these university-supported modern composers. I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt. --Klein zach 01:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Kleinzach, even you have failed to provide any actual sources! The Cybele records EL you added merely names him as composer/conductor and the label is not particularly notable (if at all, given the lack of a WP article on it). The review only comments that the work sounds like a Pink Floyd album and that the production quality of the disk is superb (not that the music is). That's a very weak keep! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very weak keep. But I'm not convinced he is really any less notable than the other half dozen modern Dutch composers we have. Perhaps we need new notability criteria for contemporary composers? If we are strict with the existing criteria we would probably delete most of them. --Klein zach 02:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point, actually. We'll have to look into that as a project. It looks as though this composer might just scrape through on the strength of evidence you and Deskford have provided but we'll have to see what non-CTM editors think, too. See my comment to Deskford below, however... --Jubilee♫clipman 02:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~Weak keep~~ as a composer — not sure as a Wikipedian! Recordings on Cybele and Etcetera suggest notability. Here's the full review that the Cybele website quotes from. --Deskford (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'll add that as an EL.~~ [you already added it] The review on the Cybele site actually links to more reviews in German which I have only just spotted. That link can be added, too. However, we still need actual sources to verify the information about van Dillen himself. Otherwise we have a very poorly sourced article (at best) about one of our own which really does not look good at all! --Jubilee♫clipman 02:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kleinzach and I were both adding the same reference at the same time, so it ended up in twice. I am struggling to find any decent third party coverage. He's not even listed on the Donemus website. He is listed on the Rotterdam Conservatoire website as teaching Western music theory in the Turkish music department, but there is no more than a mention. --Deskford (talk) 03:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! That link nearly went in three times in three different styles: I added it too until I noticed it was already there! Anyway, I am not convinced of any of this: if there are no secondaries or tertiaries to use we have no business retaining the article especially since it is a very poorly sourced article about a major Wikipedian. It's the last bit that's the worst part: if we retain poorly sourced articles about our own people that looks very bad to the outside world considering our strict policies and guidelines. The other difficult-to-source articles should go, too, in fairness, if they are sourced from primaries only or from not-very-reliable-sources, but they are not as critical. The article on van Dillen just isn't viable without proper RSs, period. We need to be setting an example with our own people's articles if we are to be respected for our editing of other people's article. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits to the article and newly added references convince me enough to convert my "weak keep" to a straight "keep". --Deskford (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Jubilee♫clipman 05:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: not every professional musician is notable enough to have an article. There're many musicians with careers like his, and he doesn't seem to have made any impact in the classical music world.--Karljoos (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the nom makes the relevant case here. Eusebeus (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kept before, lots of Google hits, nominated for a Golden Calf Award. – EdvardMunch (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because an article was kept before doesn't mean to say it should stay the next time. Lots of Ghits does not mean lots of notability. Also, after extensive research by numerous editors the Golden Calf nomination has not been cited. Added {{cn}} to claim. Any other reason to keep? --Jubilee♫clipman 05:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was established in the first AfD. I suggest you read it. Also note that it shouldn't be Wikipedia's problem that you can't read Dutch. WP:V is about what can be verified, not about what unskilled editors are personally able to verify. – EdvardMunch (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the previous AfD thoroughly and checked all the links Oscar provided. I have commented in full above on both the AfD and the sources. The Golden Calf website is defunct: here. This claim is still to be verified; if it cannot be verified, the line should be removed. The other award was for emerging talent and fails WP:MUSIC. I asked any one that can speake Dutch to verify that those sources were useful: I did not claim that they were not RSs nor that they did not establish notability. So far all we really have that is verified is the fact he worked with a filmmaker on a project commissioned by the Canada Council for the Arts, the resultant work being presented in Images Festival in Toronto. I know hothing about the Images Festival in Toronto—and its WP article does not help much: is it especially important and notable? More to the point, were the results part of a major event or part of a very minor side event? People do all sorts of stuff at the Edinburgh Festival but they don't all get viable WP articles. Lots of composers have had CDs released, but not all of these CDs are especially significant: these recording do not per se establish notability in my opinion. Nomination remains as is. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD established notability based on English and Dutch sources. Imagine I said that the Dutch sources didn't establish notability and that I felt that was sufficient grounds to delete the article no matter what the English sources said. Would you accept that argument? – EdvardMunch (talk) 19:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this statement from above: Of all the links provided by Oscar (talk · contribs) in the previous AfD (none of which were added after the discussion closed), only one might be useful: [18] The others fail to mention him by name, are lists of compositions, appear to be personal websites, make only passing mentions or are in Dutch. If any one can translate the Dutch stuff and verify that it established notability, that would be fine. I stand by that and every thing I have said since. (Yes there's a typo in "established" in the last sentence.) Obviously content that can only be verified in only one language is fine—even if that language isn't English, even if it is ancient Urdu or Icelandic; hence If anyone etc. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet the rather high notability standards of WP:CREATIVE or WP:ENT. Most of the references/sources quoted in the article, as well as in the last deletion debate, are neither independent or give van Dillen more than a passing mention. Like many entertainers/performers, there are many hits/"sources" that are little more than billboards or advertising. There is very, very little here in terms of genuine third part references that would support a position that van Dillen is considered important by his peers, that his work is of ongoing significance or that he has developed something new or notable. Van Dillen would need to meet at least one of these criterion to be considered notable as a creative professional. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. By the way I speak and read Dutch! Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the Dutch sources are of no use also? If so, we have even fewer sources to verify the article's claims with. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, User:Wikipeterproject, and... me. JBsupreme (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should explain that JBsupreme made the first nomination of this article. His comments over there are worth reviewing. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - has anyone tried to contact the subject to ask whether he wants it kept or deleted? - Alison ^❤ 02:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He commented in the last AFD. Although he said he made to stand one way or the other, he provided sources, which seems to be a clear desire for keep. Lara 03:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I messaged him. He emailed me to say that he prefers to keep out of it. He did provide one possible source however: the article "Komponisten im Sog des Globalen" in MusikTexte 117, by Ulrich Dibelius. If any one has this periodical and can verify that it establishes notabilty that would be great. --Jubilee♫clipman 03:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient to show notability as a composer. We should watch out for a tendency against articles on people connected with Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That last is a fair point. We need to be disinterested rather than partial whichever way our personal bias might tip... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG UltraMagnus^speak 06:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The last AFD closed on the 8th of November 2009. Sources were found during that AFD, and mentioned within it. Dream Focus 15:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...but they weren't actually added and the most important are only just being properly evaluated. There does seem to be some evidence of notability now that this work is actually being done by Deskford (talk · contribs), Vejvančický (talk · contribs), Kleinzach (talk · contribs) and me with help from Oscar behind the scenes. --Jubilee♫clipman 15:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep [1] Given the huge amount of references in Dutch national, regional, and ethnic press as well as in music magazines in the Netherlands and Germany, I believe that this nomination of a person, who is clearly notable by Wikipedia standards, is a no-brainer. [2] I am slightly disturbed that nominator sort of "argues" with every entry in this AfD after he had already made his case in the nomination. [3] I am somewhat insulted by the gentle suggestion that Wikipedians cannot be notable or that they should be held to more stringent standards then others. Are we a bunch of losers? [4] I believe that the process should be speedy, however, only because the page has been nominated just 3 months ago, resulting in a clear keep. gidonb (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response to above concerns - First, when the article was nominated this second time there were absolutely no references in it at all. I spent almost 4 hours trying to ref it and gave up believing this guy was entirely non-notable. I admit I missed the previous AfD before I PRODed by mistake. However, I felt that even the previous AfD did not actually establish notability. None of the sources, I felt were good enough, as explained above. Second, my comments after each entry here are either requests for more info or acknowledgement of error on my part. The only person I argued with (aside from a slight tete-a-tete with Kleinzach) was EdvardMunch and that because I felt his argument was very weak. Since then I have been in contact with Oscar and other editors and we have done the work that should have been done immeadiately following the previous AfD viz verifying and adding the sources and citing them inline to help contextualise them. If that work had been done, we would not be here again now. I did not say that Wikipedians cannot be notable or that they should be held to higher standards than non-Wikipedians, I pointed out the likely reaction of the public if we allowed a badly sourced BLP of a Wikipedian pass AfD while deleting other better sourced BLPs of non-Wikipedians. That is quite a different thing. Anyway speedy not necessary --------

Withdrawn - article now fully establishes notability of subject. --Jubilee♫clipman 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee, I really do not want to rub this in. Please be careful with AFDing. gidonb (talk) 00:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gidonb: Be fair. This one was a difficult call - and the end result is satisfactory. --Klein zach 11:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jubilee was careful. It's not his fault people love to vote keep in AFDs, but don't bother to do anything to improve the articles to any sort of standard the project should be proud of. You should be thanking him for taking the time to actually improve the content. Lara 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Gidonb has actually worked on this article himself adding yet more sources. Oscar has also provided me with a ream of other RSs today so the article could end up in GAN in the near future if expanded properly! Watch that space... --Jubilee♫clipman 20:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klein, there was a long series of failures in this AfD. The important thing is to learn from them. gidonb (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were far more failures in the previous AfD: we need to learn from those, first before nitpicking over minor blunders elsewhere.... --Jubilee♫clipman 14:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not nitpicking. You missed the recent AfD and failed to pick up that Van Dillen is clearly notable both as a composer and Wikipedian. A simple search on Google News would have been enough to establish that. A look at his discography as well. Please be more careful in the future with AfDs and do not argue so much with everyone. You do great work on Wikipedia, so it is really not to your advantage to leave bad impressions in AfDs. gidonb (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No further comment: I have explained in full both here and on your talk page. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining is not needed. Learning is. I have a very positive view of your activities on Wikipedia and only want to help you work better in the future. gidonb (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps I should have asked the WP:WikiProject Netherlands to have a look at this one in hindsight. Since I neither read Dutch nor trust the online translation services, I really did not know what to make of any of those sources. Coordinating efforts with other Wikiprojects is something I feel strongly about, actually, so I will endevour in future to seek out any that might be able to help with relatively obscure (outside of their country) musicians and composers. And, yes: reading the history more carefully would have helped! BTW, Google News didn't help me much, actually. Maybe you refined the search in some useful way? I still feel that we ought to be very careful with articles on our own people, however. At a minimum they need to be sourced... --Jubilee♫clipman 00:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a simple push on the Google news button above shows that Van Dillen is notable as a Wikipedian, with nontrivial coverage in the Dutch national press. Of course, such a search should be done by the nominator ahead of nominating. Nothing fancy or special, just type "Oscar van Dillen" in Google news and the other quality areas with quotation marks. You can look up what the news sources are on Wikipedia. Asking at the relevant project or other people around, but most of all doing basic research yourself will keep you away from future wrongheaded nominations. gidonb (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did the News search again and got nothing. Literally nothing, I mean. Your search - "Oscar van Dillen" - did not match any documents. Maybe it's because I'm in the UK? --Jubilee♫clipman 02:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the archives comes up with 4 journals/newspapers (I forgot about those) but I did ask people to help out with the Dutch stuff as I couldn't reasonably translate it. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the Books search comes up with works drawing from WP (note the "[WP]" after each entry) so that wasn't any use either as far as I could tell. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. The refined search (above) excludes these and comes up with a single book that isn't obviously useful as far as I can tell. BBV appear to be a TV production company. (I don't know why I'm bothering to defend this all but I will anyway. I did do the research expected of me during the attempt to source the article... I only missed spotting the previous AfD. Once I saw it, it still didn't help much, IMO.) --Jubilee♫clipman 02:39, 15 February 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) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Strømgren[edit]

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

One the fence for WP:BIO. Google doesn't look to return anything third party, and Google News only returns articles that just say "______" by the subject. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 06:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Googling "Jo Strømgren Kompani" easily shows that he is a leading Norwegian choreographer, like this NY Times review [19] ^walk victor falk^talk 14:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. —^walk victor falk^talk 14:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —^walk victor falk^talk 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the NY Times runs a feature story on someone, it proves notability . DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I knew deletionism was running rampant, but I had no idea people were nominating celebrities. EdvardMunch (talk) 03:49, 10 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furbolg[edit]

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

Delete: Precedent; Warcraft universe characters, organizations, races and locations are not notable (though the games themselves are). GSMR (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:GAMEGUIDE. Pcap ping 11:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT. No significant coverage found for this race, and it's a straight copy/paste from the WoW Wikia --Teancum (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd beg you to think of WoWWiki as WoWWiki and not WoW Wikia (even though it is on Wikia now). :( --Izno (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all those other reasons, NN among them. --Izno (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For all those reasons and the multiple issues with the article itself including, lack of sources, broken links, lack of images, etc. I'd say Template:Copy to gaming wiki, but that's precluded because it's a copy/paste from the wiki it should go to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doink9731 (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN. JBsupreme (talk) 08:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as a test. Sources don't exist, the only contributor states they created it as a test page for a project. . Sandahl (♀) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kryptonite Media Player[edit]

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

This was PRODded with the comment, "Unreleased player with no references. Without coverage in reliable, secondary sources, this isn't notable." I agree. The PROD was contested, but Google shows absolutely nothing that would indicate this exists. Looking for information about George Gibbon's involvement in "Project Kryptonite" also returns nothing. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was also unable to find any references to indicate that such a development is underway. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same here (I prod-ed), and given that even released software doesn't automatically qualify for notability, unreleased software seems even less qualified. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the time being, it may just be a rumoured leak from a worker at Sony and as there is no evidence, it is not notable at this time. 92.40.226.175 (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks like the author requested speedy deletion, so this can probably be closed. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, I created this as a test page which talks about a project I am planning. I created this page before I discovered the sandbox}} RoboHomo (talk) 21:23, 9 February 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) 18:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FluxBB[edit]

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

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

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

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

Seemingly non-notable software. No coverage in reliable independent sources that I can see. Pcap ping 17:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find in Google is the official site, download sites, forums, a question and answer site, blogs, and hacking information. All that I can find in Google News is a download site and trivial mentions. All that I can find in Google Books is three trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not sure if this is the correct way to register a "keep" vote, but the reason for the lack of coverage may be the fact it is a fork of a previous software package called PunBB that was sold to a commercial entity - FluxBB is the very actively supported open source fork of that commercialised project. I personally run two forums (www.ibmportal.com which has been around for years) and another newer forum on it. Ben G — Bgiddins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep:You only have to be present on the FluxBB Forums to realise this is an active community dedicated to the improvement of the bloat-free forum package... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.212.4 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I meant to comment on this earlier and must have slipped... in any case I cannot find significant / non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to meet our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly notable software, being one of the major "light weight" competitors to the omnipresent phpBB boards. The reason there is not much mention may well be that FluxBB only recently split out from PunBB, but it is my impression that by far the majority of PunBB community followed along with FluxBB in the split, leaving PunBB as a more or less abandoned project. FluxBB is certainly being very actively developed, and is being widely used. --Pinnerup (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If deleted, it will be revived. As a fork from one of the most-used forum web applications that has literally millions of uses every week, users will come here and describe the history of the creation and looking for background. Like most web software that is a utility, there are not going to be many articles on this; mainly blog reviews on how to use it, how it is being changed. The industry blogs and reviews are the reliable sources on this kind of topic. - Yellowdesk (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If all you can find are blogs, that makes it impossible to verify the claims of widespread use, etc. Articles about forum software (not necessarily this one) do exist outside blogs; see FUDforum and its AfD for instance. Instead of making mere assertions here, you'd help a lot more if you look for sources. Pcap ping 07:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is a black and white assertion inadequate to the qualifier "industry" above. At this point every news journal has something called a blog, and some blogs are actually online newspapers. Here are two "blogs" that are suitable for reference, though not on this topic. Talking Points Memo; http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/ "Dealbook - New York Times" -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, please provide some concrete independent source instead of arguing generalities, which I'm well aware of. Pcap ping 14:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The retraction of the assertion that industry blogs are inadequate is noted. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 08:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the site does rank on Alexa - currently 48,319th globally. Found a review at http://www.forum-software.org/fluxbb/review Ben G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.185.245.14 (talk) 23:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Self-published source that covers practically every forum software, insufficient on its own to establish notability. See the discussion in AfD for FUDforum: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FUDforum— that article was kept, but not because of this source. Pcap ping 10:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This software does have references. For example, the famous IT magazine CHIP has an article about it: Granted, it is not in English, however this still proves that it is actually covered by "reliable" sources: http://www.chip.de/downloads/FluxBB_32283800.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.112.17 (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the standard amount of text they have on any download page. It's not an article. Pcap ping 10:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Article. Text. Whatever. It's a mention and a reliable source, I'd say 188.97.112.17 (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable software by nontrivial references in the international press during the years 2008 and 2009. See this search in Google News Archives. These references should be used in the article. Article may be tagged with {{refimprove}}, but there is no case for deletion. gidonb (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Specifics? Here is my analysis of those 5 sources:
  - http://www.presse-citron.net/tag/google-chrome (dubious blog-like source, trivial mention)
  - http://www.pcwelt.de/downloads/browser_netz/online/172263/fluxbb/ (download page hosted on a reliable source, but no independent coverage, it has brief description form the manufacturer)
    - You are wrong. That is not a description by the manufacturer. 188.97.127.229 (talk)
  - http://www.heise.de/security/meldung/Analyse-MIME-Sniffing-Probleme-bei-PHP-Anwendungen-Update-220615.html (reliable source, trivial mention in a list)
  - http://tech.sina.com.cn/mobile/n/2009-11-08/05221124027.shtml (unknown reliability, trivial mention in an article about some mobile phones)
  - http://www.ultimateps3.fr/forums/sujet-18687-webmaster-mettre-forum-dans-le-body.html (unreliable source, a forum)
- As you can see google news hits to dot contain only reliable sources, and hits there do not imply significant coverage either. Pcap ping 17:01, 15 February 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 a merge discussion encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet Relay Chat bots[edit]

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

Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory service, and that includes non-notable scripts and bots. The bulk of the red links became red links as a result of separate AFD discussions, lists are not intended to be an end-run around our notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An awful lot of IRC-related articles have been proposed for deletion in the past few days: Comparison of IRC clients, Colloquy, various other articles on specific IRC clients (more examples of the "separate AfD discussions" JBsupreme mentions). I think it would benefit WP if there was some general discussion and consensus around how to cover the topic as a whole, rather than just randomly/non-systematically nominating specific articles for deletion. I'm concerned that the latter approach, focusing on individual articles without thinking about the larger context, could have the unintended effect of hollowing out WP's coverage of IRC. Jd4v15 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an Internet Relay Chat bot article, general coverage of the topic can take place there. JBsupreme (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then instead of deleting we should merge the article under discussion into that main article (although I also think Arsenikk makes a good case for keep below). After all, Internet Relay Chat bot notably lacks any mention of specific bots that are currently widely used, presumably because it has been relying on List of Internet Relay Chat bots to provide that information. If you're going to propose List of Internet Relay Chat bots for deletion because you think it's a directory, the least you could do is take the good bits and put them in Internet Relay Chat bot first; otherwise that information just gets lost, which benefits no one.

But you haven't addressed my actual point, which is that a heck of a lot of IRC-related articles (not just the one under discussion) are being proposed for deletion in a non-obvious way that ignores the bigger picture. The current approach is going to damage Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are only two currently valid entries on the list. This isn't a loss to WP. Miami33139 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of software which performs a similar task, where the information can be verified and it is presented in a NPOV and encyclopedic way is acceptable. I notice that a all the red articles I checked were prod-deleted, which unfortunately involves a considerably less extensive process than through AfD. In the latter, normally several people will search to try to either establish or disestablish notability. This is rarely the case for prods; I am simply not convinced that there are so few notable IRC bots. All a bot needs is a few articles around the web in nerdy news outlets, and they will be fine. Even if most of the entries not notable, this list does not constitute a directory as long as it is discriminate in some way; there is not rule to say that a list on Wikipedia must consist of only items which are notable in themselves, as long as the whole is notable, and I hope no-one believes the concept of a IRC bot to be non-notable. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no activity on this AfD for 4-5 days and it seems to me there is no consensus: those who spoke up in favor of deletion have not responded to Arsenikk's points, which seem worthy of serious consideration. I'm not sure what the appropriate next step is (close the AfD? ask for an outside opinion?), so I'm commenting again to draw the attention of someone more knowledgeable. Jd4v15 (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe the argument above, that the list being composed mostly of red links leads to deletion, is wrong. The criteria for lists do not require that entries have individual articles, and the criteria for notability apply to individual articles not to every fact within an article.
It would be useful if there were a comparative "List of ..." for every class of software, and then the vast majority of deletion discussions for non-notable could be answered with "merge to list" rather like "merge to album/band" for a song. The solution to the red links is to de-link the names in the list article. Sussexonian (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Internet Relay Chat bot. Neither the article nor this list is long enough to require separate treatment. Once merged, the list can be edited, expanded, or removed, as appropriate, through the normal editing process. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merge with Internet Relay Chat bot to a section of Client-server and keep List of Internet Relay Chat bots. The IRC Client/Computing article (aka the list of IRC bots) does have significant potential to develop into an article that focus on the various features of IRC that makeup the culture of the net. (e.g. Chatroom, Hackers, LAN IRC Bots Culture, Botnet, HotSpots...etc.) --75.154.186.6 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Theserialcomma (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said is totally irrelevant to WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Wikipedia has a lot of articles that compare functionality e.g. Comparison of video player software section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or List of free massively multiplayer online games. The article merely present the article in a different structure to assist users in visualization and help introduce other knowledge aspect such as history of development, current challenges and other insightful sources that can be added. (Nice try in trying to fool other wikipedians for your discrimination bias and group synthesis conditioning, unfortunately the truth will remain the truth). - I seriously doubt you even check the article responsibly, likewise to every other users in wikipedia who constantly make unconstructive per claims while unable to provide any reference and evidence at all with a structural hierarchy of presentation in paragraph, short list form, tables...etc. --173.183.103.112 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a standard type of article. This is not a directory of every such one known, but a discussion of the important ones. That's selective & discriminating. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, not really. If we were to to be selective and reduce this list down to the only two which are important (in Wikipedia terms) we would be left with a whopping two bots left to compare. (!) JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with DGG. It's got a good criteria for inclusion, has a full table instead of some mere list, and has easy room for expansion. My concern would be that the list of notable bots is small, making the need for the list moot, but I'd rather give it some time to fill in rather than throw it out now. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 13 February 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. Some good editors have attempted to properly source this WP:COI vio, but have been unsuccessful. Asserting WP:N is not enough, WP:RS is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tanya Doskova[edit]

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

I set out to source this unsourced BLP and figured I would be able to upon reading the article, but I'm finding essentially zero coverage in reliable secondary sources. Doskova seems to be an accomplished artist and has won some awards, but I'm not sure they are particularly notable (for example a Google News archives search for "John Purcell Prize", comes up with no hits, and even a general Google search only has a few hundred, with about half on the first page mentioning Doskova). Searching Gnews archives for Doskova herself comes up with just one hit, an article that is not at all primarily about her. Google scholar and books yield nothing at all. One could argue that Doskova might meet criteria 4B of WP:ARTIST but even that is unclear. My argument is that she has not received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (indeed practically none from what I can tell), and as such I think Doskova fails the general notability guideline. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per the article talk page, I also took a stab at sourcing the article. There is a veneer of notability, but once you scratch the surface there really isn't much there at all. The verifiability issue is also worrisome. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also took a stab at sourcing. One incarnation of the "John Purcell Prize" appears to be closely associated with the Royal College of Art; of the handful of winners of the prize I could find on the web, 2 had been students at the college at or about the time they won. There also seems to be a version of the prize associated with a Welsh printmaking event; it may be a national student prize or something but doesn't appear to be notable in itself. She seems to be a serious artist, but the lack of sourcing is suggesting a lack of notability. Studerby (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that the sourcing appears to be a problem. However, the subject appears to have had a enduring career, with recognition of her work at certain times. There is an identifiable body of work that suggests notability. Stormbay (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree there's definitely "an identifiable body of work" and I had initially assumed that would probably allow us to source this, but that does not seem to be the case. If we can't find reliable sources that discuss her (arguably even at all, but certainly not "significantly" per WP:GNG), we really have no choice but to delete. If someone finds sources that would be a different matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To meet WP:BLP policy it is not enough to simply say you're notable, you must be able to verify it as well. Any single editor could claim that they have won a selection of boderline notable awards, but if it is not backed up by reliable independent sources it simply cannot stay. If all the unsourced claimes of prizes and awards are removed from this article there is nothing left to support inclusion. That's not to say that there can never be an article on this particular artist, but given the current paucity of independent coverage and unverifiability of the material, the article should be deleted.Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete me Johnbod. Are you blind. Look at my art. I am one of the best. I'm pleased to announce that:

Series of my latest Illustrations were selected to appear in Illustration Annual 51, the May/June 2010 issue of Communication Art. Wait for the issue to come out.....don't be such a bureaucrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.219.57 (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.canada-culture.tv/Studio1/arts-visuels-TanyaDoskova-EN.html
http://www.lqaf.com/artist-galleries/printmaking/tanya-doskova/
http://www.woodlandsartsfestival.com
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0234404/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.219.57 (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.... Just imagine that you are judging my body of work and write an article about it...... and you will be the missing link...the artist Tanya Doskova

Hi Ms. Doskova, I imagine this might be a bit frustrating, as it seems there's a good chance the article about you will be deleted. If that happens it does not at all mean we are saying you are not a "notable artist" in the traditional sense of the term, rather it means you, like most people, are perhaps not notable as the term is understood here on Wikipedia (the meaning is quite specific and may seem a bit bureaucratic and/or arbitrary, but there is some logic behind it). The main problem is that we really cannot do as you suggest, i.e. judge your body of work and write an article. To do so would be a form of original research which is verboten for Wikipedia articles (though sometimes it sneaks in and we don't catch it). Since Wikipedia is a "tertiary" source, all of our articles need to be based not on the personal analyses of the people who write the articles (or on the personal web sites of article subjects), but rather on reliable secondary sources (newspaper or journal articles, books, etc.) that discuss the significance of the person or topic in question. The problem we are having here is that, while you are clearly accomplished in your field(s), there do not seem to be many (if any) secondary sources that discuss you and your work. If we had some of these we could and would retain the article and simply source/improve it, but so far efforts to find such sources have not really yielded anything. If this article is deleted, and your work is later discussed more thoroughly in reliable secondary sources, we could certainly bring it back from deletion (any Wikipedia administrator has the ability to do this) and add the new information. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this Book source (not online- just a book):Creative Source 17, page C-38, my art image and name as a golden award winner in 1996 Wilcord Publications Inc ;ISBN 0-920986-33-1, ISSN 0709-7727, Printed in Canada

http://www.canada-culture.tv/Studio1/arts-visuels-TanyaDoskova-EN.html http://www.lqaf.com/artist-galleries/printmaking/tanya-doskova/ http://www.woodlandsartsfestival.com Not every reliable source or article is published on line. Publishing art articles are in many cases not a reflection of artist real value but a mere advertising spin. I have to paint .....I don't have time for this...... signed Tanya Doskova

Delete Unverified material doesn't have a place, and the sources don't meet WP:N. For how to reference, see WP:REFB. Ty 07:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is Tyrenius and what is he done in life. What makes him good enough to to have a say in the art world. How do I know the bureaucrats are doing good reference research about an article. For Example: I read the article on Digital Painting in Wikipedia. It is very shallow and questionable. It shows that is written by people that have never done digital painting (these people used "references"). I paint digitally full time for the last 12 years and I am one of the best in it. You can see my art and articles about me on the internet by just Google searching my name. Everything in Tanya Doskova article shows truth achievements. CAPIC doesn't publish 1996/1997 award winners on their page, but you can see my awards in the book Creative Saurce 17 ;ISBN 0-920986-33-1, ISSN 0709-7727, Printed in Canada. What is the purpose of Wikipedia. The internet is not the only source. There are libraries as well. Signed by the artist Tanya Doskova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.219.57 (talk) 22:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what Tyrenius has done "in life" but that editor has been contributing to Wikipedia for years, has gained trust of other editors by virtue of becoming an administrator, and has written a number of articles. Lashing out at the people commenting here really does not help your case—we're all just volunteers trying to help make Wikipedia a better reference source. There are certain guidelines for how we do that, including guidelines about what does and does not belong, and those commenting here are keeping those standards in mind and are certainly not trying to do you (or the art world) an injustice. As to the book you mention, I don't have access to it and probably others do not as well. However if you could post a note here explaining what exactly is said about you there (along with the page number where it is discussed) then that might help in terms of sourcing, though it's no guarantee that the article would be kept. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tanya - Tyrenius is one of the best art editors here, he has both knowledge and experience and the capacity to determine notability; and he is aware of all aspects of the visual arts. The problem with the article is there are basically no references. There are external links to internet sites, but we are asking for you to provide reviews, are you in any important art museum collections? Can you begin to try to understand the differences between referencing and linking? My suggestion here is for you to try to reference your article more thoroughly. Please quickly learn because the clock is ticking here...Modernist (talk) 00:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My art is in private collections all around North America. I took part in nearly 18 Art festivals last year and the year before that. I just won in Communication Arts Magazine competition. Series of my latest Illustrations will appear in Illustration Annual 51, the May/June 2010 issue of Communication Arts. One can buy it at any book store around the world. Please delete the article, I couldn't care less for being judged by people like you....... I do not think becoming a volunteer administrator or bureaucrat is a virtue. The clock is ticking for you my friend .... All that would be left from you is bureaucratic bla..bla..bla. How many books have you published on art? the artist Tanya Doskova —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.219.57 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The number of books he has published on art would not be a relevant issue because he is not trying to supply sources that might establish noteworthiness for the purpose of justifying an article on Wikipedia. I'm sure you understand that not every article is worth standing on Wikipedia. Some articles are good enough, and some simply have to be weeded out. I am not saying one way or the other concerning you. Your artwork seems great. But we are not empowered to make aesthetic choices. (And I am sure we would endlessly disagree with one another if we were allowed to make aesthetic decisions.) We are supposed to check to see that substantial sources confirm that the artist in question has been recognized by a sufficient degree of media sources. There are also other factors that can come into play. But the deciding factors concern sources to establish that the character is significant enough to warrant the article. You might consider trying to supply sources. Or you might consider resubmitting material at a future time (a year from now? a few months from now?) when more material is available. Best.

As Tyrenius suggested above, you might consider reading material on this process such as WP:N and especially WP:REFB. Believe it or not he is trying to be helpful. Bus stop (talk) 03:43, 14 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Biddle[edit]

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

Subject shows no notability outside of the subject area. I see no non-Objectivist sources which discuss this individual, and thusly does not have "significant coverage by independent sources." Angryapathy (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self published books and a self published journal. Not notable. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially an unsourced and unsourceable BLP; there are zero news Ghits and only two scholar Ghits. Bearian (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I liked his book, but I can't see how he meets any notability standard for a Wikipedia article. --RL0919 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless reliable coverage can be found, the article ought to be deleted. Skomorokh 01:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure if The Objective Standard is notable or not. If it is, Craig Biddle should redirect there. If it isn't, someone should start an AfD on it. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did some research, and have nominated The Objective Standard for deletion, also. Angryapathy (talk) 15:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. JBsupreme (talk) 08:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. Would also accept a redirect to Objectivist movement as a secondary option. TallNapoleon (talk) 16:35, 12 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hedge fund startup[edit]

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

All of the relevant information is already included in the hedge fund article, so this is somewhat redundant and not notable in and of itself. We don't list a separate article for startups in every industry because the information is usually present in other related articles (if it were necessary to do so, "technology startup" would surely be the first). DMCer™ 20:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was originally coatrack spam. The point of the article as written was to divert web traffic to a consulting group that would offer to set up hedge funds for you.[20] The spam link was removed, leaving a pointless content fork. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DMCer and Smerdis of Tlön. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:22, 12 February 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 withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Bisbee[edit]

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

Administrator: Nominator wishes to withdraw this WP:AFD.

Explanation: Whoever created the page neglected to mention that Bisbee had actually been elected to office, preferring apparently to dwell on his subsequent defeats and travel agency business. Anyway, article updated; reference links added, et al. [email protected] (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable would-be politician. [email protected] (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Former (?) member of Michigan House of representatives for the 64th district, therefore meets WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 06:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Valenciano, passes WP:POLITICIAN as member of a state legislature. Ray^Talk 06:32, 9 February 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 under A7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Cunningham[edit]

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

Evidence of notability not stated. Article seems to be copy-pasted somewhere based on the initial entry. No Google hits. E Wing (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I searched and found nothing (except maybe his facebook page). - Josette (talk) 21:26, 8 February 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. Clear consensus and reasons to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati)[edit]

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

unsourced fictional character bio that was appropriately redirected and has been inappropriately restored, twice. Jack Merridew 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major character in an ensemble cast on a major program that was summarily redirected without notice or discussion. The same considerations that resulted in a "Keep" [21] for the Bailey Quarters article applies with equal force here. Let some editors take the time to add references. Fladrif (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect to the WKRP in Cincinnati article where there is an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. - Josette (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? [22] If so, weighing in on these discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again.Fladrif (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete fictional character with no independent notability of its own. Then redirect to to WKRP.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems plausible to write a good article on Venus Flytrap. From what I can tell from the Amazon.com preview, this book seems to have a lot of information. An article like this could also be helpful; it provides some information on the character's development. This seems potentially useful, though I can only read that preview. I do think it's a little weird that we can have articles on Parks and Recreation characters, but not WKRP characters. If WKRP had debuted in the IGN/AV Club era, this would be a no-brainer keep. Zagalejo^^^ 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely unsourced attempt at literary criticism. While the topic might be notable, it's better to rewrite the article from secondary sources rather than keep some random Wikipedian's essay around forever in the hope it is "entirely rewritten". Pcap ping 09:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and just a WP:PLOT recount. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements. Article is no longer unreferenced or only plot, but rather contains sourced information on development and reception from newspapers as indicated above concerning this notable character from a memorable show watched by millions and I hope/expect anyone who said it was unsourced will update their comments accordingly. There are literally hundreds of other reliable sources that can be used to develop this article concerning a clearly notable character who has indeed significance due to the depiction of African-American in popular culture in a time when as the actor himself acknowledges few such depictions existed. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment —You're right, Tim Reid is African-American, as was the character he portrayed in this dumb show. You seem to have uncovered our racist agenda here. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Dumb show" is not a reason for deletion. I am familiar and have seen this notable show, but did not personally get into it. That does not mean I cannot nevertheless acknowledge that it was important for many others. As for as your other comment, we have seen what you think of non-Balinese. --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I'll stipulate to being white, or bulé (or bulai). The diff you offer is my first post to Bali ultimate (who I believe to also be white) where I offered him an image of an Ogoh-ogoh-girl — a caricature of the many white female tourists the local Bali boys, and others ;), meet. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 21:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What does any of that have to do with Venus Flytrap from WKRP in Cincinnati? --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in reference to your calling Bali ultimate a racist on the occult AfD, and alluding to that here by bringing up Tim Reid's race and implying that I'm a Balinese who is racist re bulé. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that Venus Flytrap is "character who has indeed significance due to the depiction of African-American in popular culture in a time when as the actor himself acknowledges few such depictions existed" says absolutely nothing about the intention of the nominator concerning the character's race. Rather, it indicates that because of the character's race, part of the available sources discussing the character's development and reception emphasize that aspect of the character, i.e. the character is notable due to its relevance in racial depictions in popular culture, which seems irrefutable. --A Nobody^{My talk} 21:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
…and you implied that I'm racist regarding non-Balinese. Are you standing by that personal attack? Curious, Jack Merridew 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it is time to be the bigger man and not take this WP:BAIT any further. I should not have relapsed today and should go back to following WP:DENY. I am here to improve articles and discuss articles, not play games. I encourage you to do the same. --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you standing by that personal attack? BAIT refers to disturbed editors, which is also a personal attack. Curious, Jack Merridew 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

…which amounts to you calling me a troll, as that's what DENY is referring to. Full disclosure: I consider you a troll, and you probably have a diff of me having done so. I've certainly used DENY that way, myself, so this is just more of your parroting statements by others about yourself back at them. See your RFC/U, where this was all covered. Glad to hear you're a "Bigger man", potential girlfriends will appreciate that. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major and sourcable character in a notable series, who has received coverage in reliable sources [23][24] . No need to redirect, when the article can be trimmed some and improved. Surmountable issues are not a cause for deletion just because someone ELSE has not yet done the required work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the major characters are already covered in depth in the WKRP in Cincinnati article and in the respective articles on the actors. How much more information do we need on these rather, let's face it, trivial characters from the past, and why would we need this information in more than one location? - Josette (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Josette… you may think the one brief paragraph at WKRP in Cincinnati about Venus is "in depth", but I and many others do not. While certainly the current Venus Flytrap (WKRP in Cincinnati) might benefit from some trimming, its total elimination is not the best answer, when it can so easily be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Michael… ;) I think she meant sufficient depth — my view, at least. All these fictional character articles are just plot-churn and obsessiveness. No depth is sufficient to satisfy that urge. Fans are, after all, fanatic. I'll not bother pasting this to the other three WKRP AfDs Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, I appreciate your taking the time to respond. In my comment above, I can only respond to what she wrote and not by what she might or might not have intended. One brief paragraph does not do justice to major characters in a major notable series, and I do not agree with her that the major characters in a major notable series are trivial. Her question as to why should these exist in more than one place is easily addressed by the fact that that the other locations where these characters are mentioned do so in a very trivial manner, and to expand those elsewhere trivial mentions would overburden and unbalance those other articles. These nicely meet WP:SPINOUT and improve the encyclopedia for those readers who might expect to find such information. Her personal opinion about them being trivial characters from the past, is just that... an opinion. Notability is not temporary, and relegating these to a redirect to an article where they would have only be a brief footnote, does not improve the project nor a reader's understanding of the topic. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Michael… we will have to agree to disagree ;) - Josette (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael… see Jo's initial post, where she referred to the coverage in the show's article as an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. This is not a major notable series, it is a notably dumb series and a rather minor series on the whole spectrum of TV shows ever produced. The level of coverage of all elements should follow from that. ;) - Jack Merridew 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments being made here and in the other related AFD's in support of deletion are based on faulty premises. Problems with adding sources and revising tone, content and organization can be fixed; the articles can certainly be improved, a couple of different editors have taken a shot at them. Those are not reasons for deletion, merger or redirection. Notability of these principal characters as elements of a work of fiction, is clearly established by the extensive secondary coverage of them in multiple reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction). Arguments directed to editors' personal opinion as to the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of the series or any of the characters are utterly irrelevant. The extensive availabilty of reliable secondary sourcing on what are objectively iconic characters in a long-running award-winning series evidence to the contrary.Fladrif (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This should not even be under consideration. This exercise is a waste of time. I'm biting my tongue to remain civil. Trackinfo (talk) 01:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you. wp:Civil is a policy. ;) Jack Merridew 17:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with today's youth is that they spend too much time on Wikipedia and not enough time watching classic 1970s sitcoms. We are literally losing our TV heritage. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Bailey Quarters AfD, regarding another character from this series, closed on Feb 2 as a very clear keep, the nomination having received only one !vote beyond the nominator. I see no explanation why this AfD of a similar character from the same series, by the same nominator, would be treated any differently. The nomination simply says "unsourced fictional character bio"; that doesn't claim the character isn't notable. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blackout! (Ugly Betty), I recently became aware just how extensively wikipedia covers TV series/episodes/and characters. Every single episode of Ugly Betty, for example, has a lengthy article, and every primary character has an article. Character pages are not uncommon for popular TV shows (e.g., Beverly Hills, 90210), though sometimes these are combined into long articles that address all the characters in a series. So, coverage of the "Venus Flytrap" character is definitely appropriate under long precedent, and where it gets covered is an organizational question that can be discussed elsewhere.--Milowent (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd point out that the RFA referenced in the Blackout (Ugly Betty) AFD resulted in sanctions against TTN, the editor who had summarily redirected all the WKRP character articles at issue here in Sept-Oct 2009 without notice or discussion (as well as hundreds of other articles).Fladrif (talk)

Keep - He's notable, so that's good enough. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:42, 12 February 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. Clear consensus and reasons to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Herb Tarlek[edit]

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

unsourced fictional character bio that was appropriately redirected and has been inappropriately restored, twice. Jack Merridew 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major character in an ensemble cast on a major program that was summarily redirected without notice or discussion. The same considerations that resulted in a "Keep" [25] for the Bailey Quarters article applies with equal force here. Let some editors take the time to add references. Fladrif (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect to the WKRP in Cincinnati article where there is an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. - Josette (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? [26] If so, weighing in on these discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again.Fladrif (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and just a WP:PLOT recount. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major and sourcable character in a notable series, who has received coverage in reliable sources [27][28] . No need to redirect, when the article can be trimmed some and improved. Surmountable issues are not a cause for deletion just because someone ELSE has not yet done the required work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the major characters are already covered in depth in the WKRP in Cincinnati article and in the respective articles on the actors. How much more information do we need on these rather, let's face it, trivial characters from the past, and why would we need this information in more than one location? - Josette (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Josette... you may think the one minimalist paragraph at WKRP in Cincinnati about Herb is "in depth", but I and many others do not. While certainly the current Herb Tarlek might benefit from some trimming, its total elimination is not the best answer, when it can so easily be improved Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The arguments being made here and in the other related AFD's in support of deletion are based on faulty premises. Problems with adding sources and revising tone, content and organization can be fixed; the articles can certainly be improved, a couple of different editors have taken a shot at them. Those are not reasons for deletion, merger or redirection. Notability of these principal characters as elements of a work of fiction, is clearly established by the extensive secondary coverage of them in multiple reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction). Arguments directed to editors' personal opinion as to the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of the series or any of the characters are utterly irrelevant. The extensive availabilty of reliable secondary sourcing on what are objectively iconic characters in a long-running award-winning series evidence to the contrary.Fladrif (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article. Would you delete Homer Simpson because The Simpsons article already exists? Oh, somebody will probably debase their standards just to have a deletion victory and say "yes". But the right answer is 'no." Each of these WKRP characters are icons within an iconic series. Label it "bad" as you wish, it survived for 5 years on a major network, longer in syndication then had revival efforts. In particular, this character, Herb Tarlek is iconic in his personification of the stereotypical Air-Time salesman.Trackinfo (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with today's youth is that they spend too much time on Wikipedia and not enough time watching classic 1970s sitcoms. We are literally losing our TV heritage. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - And don't redirect. Notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:43, 12 February 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. Clear consensus and reasons to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Les Nessman[edit]

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

unsourced fictional character bio that was appropriately redirected and has been inappropriately restored, twice. Jack Merridew 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major character in an ensemble cast on a major program that was summarily redirected without notice or discussion. The same considerations that resulted in a "Keep" [29] for the Bailey Quarters article applies with equal force here. Let some editors take the time to add references. Fladrif (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect to the WKRP in Cincinnati article where there is an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. - Josette (talk) 20:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? [30] If so, weighing in on these discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again.Fladrif (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable character on long-running sitcom. Jclemens (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or stubbify. Almost completely unsourced attempt at literary criticism; only one sentence is sourced from a secondary source. While the topic might be notable, it's better to rewrite the article from scratch, based on secondary sources, rather than keep some random Wikipedian's essay around forever in the hope it is brought up to standards. I'm not convinced the topic passes WP:GNG based on that single source. Pcap ping 09:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and just a WP:PLOT recount. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major and sourcable character in a notable series, who has received coverage in reliable sources [31][32] . No need to redirect, when the article can be trimmed some and improved. Surmountable issues are not a cause for deletion just because someone ELSE has not yet done the required work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the major characters are already covered in depth in the WKRP in Cincinnati article and in the respective articles on the actors. How much more information do we need on these rather, let's face it, trivial characters from the past, and why would we need this information in more than one location? - Josette (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Josette... you may think the one short paragraph at WKRP in Cincinnati about Les is "in depth", but I and many others do not. While certainly the current Les Nessman might benefit from some trimming, its total elimination is not the best answer when it can so easily be improved through normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The arguments being made here and in the other related AFD's in support of deletion are based on faulty premises. Problems with adding sources and revising tone, content and organization can be fixed; the articles can certainly be improved, a couple of different editors have taken a shot at them. Those are not reasons for deletion, merger or redirection. Notability of these principal characters as elements of a work of fiction, is clearly established by the extensive secondary coverage of them in multiple reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction). Arguments directed to editors' personal opinion as to the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of the series or any of the characters are utterly irrelevant. The extensive availabilty of reliable secondary sourcing on what are objectively iconic characters in a long-running award-winning series evidence to the contrary.Fladrif (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article. Each of these WKRP characters are icons within an iconic series. Label it "bad" as you wish, the series survived for 5 years on a major network, longer in syndication then had revival efforts. In particular, this character, Les Nessman is a radio standard--the newsman who has no clue what is going on. Chi Chi Rodriguez. It still gets a laugh.Trackinfo (talk) 01:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Quote: "There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article." (I am in agreement). Luigibob (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with today's youth is that they spend too much time on Wikipedia and not enough time watching classic 1970s sitcoms. We are literally losing our TV heritage. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - What, is this a joke nomination? Major character that's still a household name 30 years later, on the order of Cliff Huxtable or Andy Griffith. And references are sufficient to pass the notability guidelines. And please read WP:RECENTISM. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:18, 13 February 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. Clear consensus and reasons to keep (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Marlowe[edit]

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

unsourced fictional character bio that was appropriately redirected and has been inappropriately restored, twice. Jack Merridew 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A major character in an ensemble cast on a major program that was summarily redirected without notice or discussion. The same considerations that resulted in a "Keep" [33] for the Bailey Quarters article applies with equal force here. Let some editors take the time to add references. Fladrif (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then create a redirect to the WKRP in Cincinnati article where there is an appropriate level of encyclopedic coverage. - Josette (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that Josette and Jack are sockpuppets of one another? [34] If so, weighing in on these discussions in support of yourself strikes me as a great way to get banned again.Fladrif (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unreferenced and per PLOT. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major and sourcable character in a notable series, who has received coverage in reliable sources [35][36] . No need to redirect, when the article can be trimmed some and improved. Surmountable issues are not a cause for deletion just because someone ELSE has not yet done the work. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the major characters are already covered in depth in the WKRP in Cincinnati article and in the respective articles on the actors. How much more information do we need on these rather, let's face it, trivial characters from the past, and why would we need this information in more than one location? - Josette (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Josette... you may think the one very terse paragraph at WKRP in Cincinnati about Jennifer is "in depth", but I and many others do not. While certainly the current Jennifer Marlowe might benefit from some trimming, its total elimination is not the best answer, when it can so easily be improved through normal editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The arguments being made here and in the other related AFD's in support of deletion are based on faulty premises. Problems with adding sources and revising tone, content and organization can be fixed; the articles can certainly be improved, a couple of different editors have taken a shot at them. Those are not reasons for deletion, merger or redirection. Notability of these principal characters as elements of a work of fiction, is clearly established by the extensive secondary coverage of them in multiple reliable sources, per Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction). Arguments directed to editors' personal opinion as to the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of the series or any of the characters are utterly irrelevant. The extensive availabilty of reliable secondary sourcing on what are objectively iconic characters in a long-running award-winning series evidence to the contrary.Fladrif (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article. Each of these WKRP characters are icons within an iconic series. Label it "bad" as you wish, the series survived for 5 years on a major network, longer in syndication then had revival efforts. In particular, this character, Jennifer Marlowe, the hot secretary that takes everybody's breath away made Loni Anderson. It cannot be deleted. I will also agree that Bailey Quarters deserves her own article. This all seems so repetitive to have save each of these articles.Trackinfo (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC
Speedy Keep Quote: "There is an established trend that major characters in major series deserve their own article." (I am in agreement) Luigibob (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For all the reasons mentioned above, plus...Loni Anderson is a notable enough person to warrant a in-depth article on one of her most memorable characters. Sabiona (talk) 14:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The problem with today's youth is that they spend too much time on Wikipedia and not enough time watching classic 1970s sitcoms. We are literally losing our TV heritage. --DanielPenfield (talk) 18:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Is notable. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:44, 12 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret Songs EP[edit]

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

By all evidence that I can find, this EP was not actually released, at least under this name. The text of the article is speculative and the latest information provided is from March 2008. davewho2 19:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is right about one thing: "There is not much information available about it at this time". I can not find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this EP; does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 17:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as CSD G12 - Copyright Violation of this PDF. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of interior wood finishing[edit]

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

Based on the how-to guidleine, no refs. There ought to be a CSD for this. iBen^talk/_contribs 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is - but it's for the copyvio, not the format. Closing now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:29, 8 February 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) Tim Song (talk) 01:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Reeves[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable Liberian politician who was never elected to any office. Onthegogo (talk) 19:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not only did he run for President, but he is a bishop in a church with 5.5 million adherents. All information is sourced.--TM 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Liberian general election, 2005#Presidential candidates. Not notable, so redirect to the appropriate office. Information in article can be merged there. Ray^Talk 14:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable as religious leader and as the subject of several references from reliable sources. Controversially participated in a delegation to Washington to improve Liberia's image in 1986 when Doe was in power. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Notable as candidate for president in a national election. There was significant coverage of his campaign on allafrica.com, as well as here [37]. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, as a presidential candidate and a bishop. Our coverage of Africa is embarrassingly lacking, so why on earth should we delete an article on a subject whose equivalent in any Western country wouldn't for a second be considered for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:42, 10 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Zelinski[edit]

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

Non-notable artist as far as I can tell. He seems to fail WP:CREATIVE. -DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC) DJSasso (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not appear to be enough information available to satisfy WP:BLP. No sources to support notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — a good degree of notability is established by the Bayview Magazine article. Bus stop (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with that, is that its a local magazine about a local artist. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unable to come up with anything other than the Bayview magazine and the weekly showings. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As things stand, does not meet WP:N. Ty 20:05, 11 February 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) Tim Song (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G. A. den Hartogh[edit]

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

This BLP article has remained unsourced for three years and does not appear to meet WP:PROF as currently written. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sourced, in which case probably delete as non notable.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A minor but notable Dutch academic and a participant in numerous bioethics debates. Unfortunately, much of the media reportage is in Dutch, but that shouldn't disqualify him from notability. I added several references and additional material. MiRroar (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He has few citations in Google scholar but I think this is just one of those areas that GS covers badly: he's much better represented in Google books, from which he appears to be well respected both in the research philosophy community and in the popular (Dutch) press. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator, I am satisfied with the sources that have been added to the article and would now consider it a weak keep. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the above, in 2009 a festchrift in honor of his retirement was published[38]. I have added a ref to the article. Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. festschrift gives clear pass. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 11 February 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. Sources inadequate for establishing notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsay Ashford (activist)[edit]

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

This article was created by Zanthalon (talk · contribs) who was lated banned by arbcom for "Activities damaging to the reputation of Wikipedia". That's no a reason to delete, but it is a reason to examine.

It concerns a pro-pedophile activist.

Now, being an apologist for pedophilia isn't a reason to delete.

But, being an entirely unnotable apologist for pedophila certainly is.

So, lets look at the claims to notability here:

He's been interviewed on a very late-night TV show on BBC2. Big deal. Thousands of weirdos get interviewed on TV, and BBC2 latenight is the graveyard of British TV (no one watches it)
He ran a website which was investigated by the policy. Yup, I should hope they investiage all of these - but no charges.
He got a takedown from Barak Obama's lawyers during the US election campaign for making creepy remarks about his young daughters. Well, yes, I wonder how many hundreds of such notices the thousands of lawyers working for Presidential candidates issue.

Now, yes, (per WP:IDONTLIKE, and WP:NOTCENSORED) being a creepy pervert it isn't a reason to delete stuff, but it isn't a reason for us to keep giving this obscure nut publicity either.Scott Mac (Doc) 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable, plain and simple. Best case, it's WP:BLP1E and still needs to go. Just kill it with fire already - Alison ^❤ 19:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N, WP:V. A passing mention in a very small news story or late-nite TV interview is not sufficient for an article. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 22:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything notable or even particularly interesting.Legitimus (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't think it should be deleted. It has gone through the AfD and survived twice. This guy has had some media exposure and is known for not only interviews but other controversies. Whether we agree with his message is irrelevant, if he was notable before you stay notable. Even if he has had less media attention lately. If we delete this article then we might as well delete the NAMBLA article too since despite their media attention in the past, they don't get much attention now. And I'm sure lots of you would be against the deletion of that article. So yes very strong keep to this article. He probably is one of the most known pedophile activists as well. Zachorious (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not temporary. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above editor may be felt to be less than neutral here. Consider these pov-pushing edits to the article [39] [40] [41]. I hardly think describing his as a childliving human rights activist is neutral.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well consensus can change, of course, and our standards for BLP inclusion have moved on from where they were three years ago when the last AfD was held, no? - Alison ^❤ 02:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator's considerations. The creator of the article doesn't matter. The crimes for which the subject is known don't matter. (We have articles on traitors, murderers, pornographers, politicians, and all sorts of other disreputable people.) And it is not Wikipedia's job to have articles on dangerous people for the purpose of warning possible victims. All that really matters are the notability standards. I think this guy is of marginal notability. The fact that he seeks attention means that, in my opinion, we should discount his notability a notch, which reduces his notability well below the minimum. If he becomes more notorious in the future (god forbid) we can always write a new article. In the meantime, delete it. Will Beback talk 04:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contrary to the impression given by the nomination, the article actually includes a considerable number of news sources over the course of several years that indicate notability. Everyking (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Alison Jacina (talk) 10:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established for this apparently odious little person.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Marginal notability and perennial WP:BLP concerns. The article is not linked from anywhere useful on Wikipedia, so deleting it is not a real loss of context for any other article. Pcap ping 14:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The news articles linked in both the references and external links sections have a large amount of coverage of his website (which most commenters above haven't mentioned, surprisingly), but not of Ashford himself. Normally I'd say merge to an article on his website per BLP1E, but since they all handily avoid mentioning it by name that might be tough... Therefore, I'm inclined to go for ~~weak keep~~ (Changed, see below) since the material definitely seems notable enough to be included somewhere. Wouldn't object to a rename if the name of his site can be found. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right. You want us to keep a biography because there's sources about a website, but becasue we can't know the name of the website, we dump the material in a BLP? If the website is so unverifiable, sketchy and not-notable that we can't write an article on it, that's hardly reason to keep a BLP is it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I wrote the above I didn't think the website was unverifiable, sketchy or non-notable; just that we don't know it's name. That makes it hard to know what title to use for the article - Lindsay Ashford's website? Also to be clear I wouldn't advocate therefore dumping the material in a BLP of someone I thought was totally non-notable. I think Ashford is notable at about the BLP1E level which makes it "usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name" (emphasis added), but given the difficulty in this case leaving it in his article seemed a reasonable second-best.

However, since I wrote that it's occurred to me that several of the articles are sufficiently vague with details that we can't actually verify they're talking about the same website. I'll have to have another look and reassess my position. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As promised I've looked over the sources again. My reading comprehension must be a little rusty, because the name of the website is mentioned in the article and two of the sources! To my mind these four sources convey notability on the website per the GNG, so my new opinion is rename to Puellula and remove biographical sections on Ashford. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per other comments. Non notable self publicising paedophile who apparently doesn't even have the website any more that created his barely audible blip of non news for a brief instance on the world. Hasn't created anything, hasn't done anything, his only mark left on the world being a slight passing odour. Amentet (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article states, "Ashford has stated in an interview that he is attracted to girls aged between seven and eleven years old. He does not believe that sexual intercourse is a humane practice for girls of this age, and insists that intercourse should be abstained until a girl reaches puberty, though he supports physical intimacy with young girls."

If this guy is truly a pedophile, one who has significant trouble fighting his sexual urges, I sincerely doubt that he would wait until a girl has reached puberty before engaging her in sexual intercourse. As a pedophile, he should be significantly "turned off" by the idea of sexually engaging a girl whose body resembles an adult woman's either somewhat or completely. But by his comments, I am confused about whether he is a pedophile or a hebephile (or a combination of both). Sounds like he is as well, and all he knows is that he has a sexual preference for girls who very much look child-like. Either way, he does not seem that notable. I admit that my "delete vote" on this matter would be biased, because I do not like pedophile activists having Wikipedia articles, or any articles on the Internet claiming that children as young as 7 are able to have a mature romantic or sexual relationship with an adult and that the children are not harmed by it. But this guy may be notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Yes, Wikipedia has gotten stricter with their policies, but this article did survive two previous AfDs. I leave this decision up to others. Flyer22 (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient sources for notability and for the facts. Some of the comments above are wholly irrelevant. Anyway, NOT CENSORED, which is a concept that some people here keep trying to limit. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every single contributor here has addressed the notability question, and while they have taken a different view from you, I see no votes based on a desire to censor. I specifically disavowed such in my nomination. Please don't attribute motives to people in an attempt to undermine their votes. Indeed one might as easily say that people have voted to keep this article because he's an advocate of an unpopular stance and they wish to demonstrate their commitment to WP:NOTCENSORED by keeping him, regardless of notability. So let's stop poisoning the well and discuss notability. That you and I take different stances on what's notable isn't surprising, so let's see who convinced the consensus and not make this about motives, wiki-liberalism and other irrelevances. "a concept that some people here keep trying to limit" is an assumption of bad faith and plainly ad hominem arguement.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that if DGG (someone whose work I greatly appreciate around here) was referring to part of my comments as "wholly irrelevant," I was simply stating what was on my mind at that exact moment. Correct terminology regarding what is and what is not pedophilia is relevant. I was trying to figure out just who this guy is -- why he has conflicting definitions of pedophilia. He is a pedophile, but prefers to wait until a girl has reached puberty before engaging in sexual intercourse with her? What???? Either he is lying about that part in order to seem "more respectable," he is a bit of a hebephile as well, or he is confused about what pedophilia actually is. I was trying to assess just why this article should exist. That included not only the sources in this article, but how this guy is defined as a pedophile activist. I did not let my bias take over and "vote" delete simply because I do not like this article existing. On Wikipedia, I never "vote" solely on bias. I was simply noting that if I were to "vote" delete on this matter, my "vote" would be partially biased. We are all often partially biased in AfD debates, and I admitted my bias. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

just my feeling that an AfD is not the place for general discussion of the subject field the person works in. I do not think you are biased, & I apologize if it sounded that way. But Scott, yes I do tend to be more willing to accept borderline sources for subjects in taboo fields, to counteract the systematic bias that arises because conventional reputable sources usually do censor themselves and avoid discussing them if they can. I recognize the great danger of classifying someone as being primarily notable in a taboo field they are not really active in based on marginal sources, but for self-acknowledged people like him, I see no BLP problem of that sort. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've already entered a "delete" recommendation based on non-notability. An additional problem with this article is that the title is original research. None of the (few) references in the article describe him as an activist. Following the links shows that he is referred to as "self-proclaimed pedophile", "self-described pedophile", "self-admitted pedophile", and other similar terms. Google searches do not find any verifiable sources using the term "activist" to describe Ashford. If the article is kept, it has to be disambiguated, because there is an author by the same name, but "activist" can't be used, so what would we use instead? Lindsay Ashford (pedophile website owner)? He's not notable for anything other than that, and even that's not notable. That's the problem. If there were reliable sources discussing this person as an activist based on notable actions or events, that would be different. But there aren't any of those. That's the reason to delete. -- Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More problems found. I've been checking the sources in the article and found multiple dead-links and some that do not verify to the text. If anyone wants to see the specific links, check the article history and look at the ones I've removed. Here is one example of a sources that do not support the text:

Ashford dubbed the new page "LGWatch" and acknowledged that he got the idea from another pro-pedophile activist,footnote 3 Jack McClellan, who ran a similar site in Washington and later in California.footnote 4

Neither of those news articles mentions Lindsay Ashford. One of them is about the website, but does not identify it as being owned by Ashford, his name is not in the article. The other article is about Jack McClellan, not Ashford. The Wikipedia article on McClellan has been previously deleted for similar reasons of non-notability. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, with fire, brimstone, and a healthy dose of SALT any remnant of this article from Wikipedia. And as there is significant risk that the article will simply be recreated, any article that could potentially be a carrier of this non-notable nonsense should be protected as well. Scott aka UnitAnode 05:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pr nom. Please!Guestworker (talk) 07:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is not likeable, but for sure it is notable. There are lots of news sources and a book with reasonable coverage. --Cyclopia^talk 14:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Book coverage may indeed indicate some level of WP:NTEMP. But I still think that not a lot encyclopedic material is lost here. Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Kayatta, who also got plenty of press, and similar (negative) coverage in one book. Pcap ping 15:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - An unfortunate deletion it was the one you cite, if there were plenty of press and book coverage. You say "not a lot encyclopedic material is lost here". Well, given the size of Wikipedia, I'd say that for every article we delete, we do not lose "a lot". However we're not here to throw stuff in the trashbin just because "it's not a lot". Oceans are made of drops of water. Remove it drop by drop, and all you remain with is desert. That's why we have WP:PRESERVE. Nominator claimed the subject is not notable. Now, the subject has been covered by multiple WP:RS, and as such it meets WP:GNG, so nom motivation is refuted. What reasons are there remaining to delete the article, therefore? --Cyclopia ^talk 16:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is news sources lot's of news sources? It's a couple of minor story's about him in relation to a no longer existent website and the rest of the timeline is just trivial web indexing services pointing to the same thing over and over again, using the same paragraph ad infinitum. As far as book with reasonable coverage goes, in a book that is 3,133,294 rated in books on Amazon he's mentioned three times across four pages of the book, in context of the same no longer existent website. I think those citations actualy make the case for him not being notable.Amentet (talk) 16:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep An unpleasant man, yes. But there is plenty of media coverage for this person to meet WP:RS needs [42], but the article is overlong and the claims without verification should either be sourced or cut. Warrah (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- sorry, pointing at google numbers does not show there are reliable sources. Verious people above have examined them and found them to be useless. Now, you are entitled to disagree, but you need to be more precise. Your link proves nothing.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does your attempt to belittle it (or, for that matter, almost everyone who disagrees with you). No one is pointing at "numbers" - the link points out that the subject was the center of specific coverage in major media including FOX News, the Deseret News, Macleans and ABC News. However, it appears that you are on a crusade to have this article removed, and your repeated badgering of those who support the article's inclusion is noted. Warrah (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is just trying to prove a point. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I'm testing to see if wikipedia is up for deleting a non-notable article, or whether it's delight in ideological libertarianism will mean it ignores its own notability standards and keeps it regardless.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources given show that he is a notable, if not likeable, character. The article could be stubbified to remove contentious claims about pedophilia, but who he says he is and the attention he has recieved has been well-documented. Remember we are not a censored encyclopedia and IDONTLIKEIT isn't a reason for deletion. I also strongly protest these secret ArbCom bannings that tend to appear whenever a sexually-sensitive POV pusher comes to light. Let dispute resolution be taken care of through normal means open for all to see instead of these smoke-filled-room decisions taken without any community input, lest it not be seen that ArbCom is pushing its own (counter) point of view in the matter. This all smells like whitewashing to me. On the other hand, if the subject ever states that he wishes this article to be deleted, I would be all for it due to its extremely contentious nature, but until that happens I don't think the information present is causing any BLP issues due to the material available for citations. Them From Space 00:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh for pete's sake, what an irrelevant argument. No one has cited BLP concerns here and no one is trying to censor anything. The debate is a) is he notable? b) are there sufficient reliable sources?. Can you say why he's notable, and what sources you consider to be reliable here. Frankly, this smacks of censorship in reverse - "we'll keep this non-notable article to show we're liberal". Let's address the sources and notability issues and ignore the rest. No vote to delete here has been based on censorship or on IDONTLIKEIT.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, there were BLP concerns in the article. It said he himself was abused when he was 4 with a pretty ^{[citation needed]} tag for WP:PRESERVE purposes, I guess. It's general knowledge that people abused in their youth are more likely to have troubles like this guy, but the details surely need a solid source. Pcap ping 00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes there are BLP concerns, but no one has argued that's a reason to delete this, so they are largely irrelevant.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete per what alison said above. Viridae ^Talk 00:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just to correct a mistake in the intro of this AfD re BBC2's Am I Normal? (Monday, 9.00pm). I watch BBC2 for these kind of programmes (BBC2 is more cultured than BBC1) and around 9pm on BBc2 consistently contains the highest quality of British TV (and by definition, all television) - not the "graveyard shift that no one watches"! Having said that, I'm not sure it makes the guy notable (I didn't see any of this 4 part series, but it looked like a good one). I don't personally want to go further, as I don't really have the constitution to research him right now. It's a fine line, but it's distasteful images and 'Good' articles that are deliberately watered down so not to cause edit wars that piss me off, more than the actual article existence of borderline BLP's. There are a million POV-based lists, forks and event articles on Wkipedia that do more damage than things like this imo. If he properly featured on Am I normal (rather than just mentioned), and has other notable sources, then it may as well be a keep. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, if people can produce "notable sources" then it might well be a keep. So far, not so much. "Dangerous" was not a reason for nomination.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, how is being interviewed by BBC2 different than being interviewed by a newspaper? They're both secondary sources coverage. --Cyclopia^talk 01:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not. But being interviewed by a newspaper does not confer notability. It may simply show that you're interesting as one of a class of odd people. That's human interest stories for you. There's a naked bungee jumper interviewed in my newspaper this morning...--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Being interviewed and otherwise covered by sources several times does confer notability. If the naked bungee jumper is interviewed by several sources, he/she becomes notable by definition. Notable does not mean unique. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree, but there we have it. In any case he was NOT interviewed several times.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from orbit I'm stunned this survived three prior AFD's, in fact, I believe by today's standards related to BLP's the first one would have been closed as delete, though the latter two were clearer. The stuff relating to Obama would go for the notability of his website, not himself; even counting the BBC I'm not seeing the significant coverage of the person to keep this (at-best) marginal BLP. (And, I don't like it. No one that doesn't agree with him would like this fellow. (Just acknowledging my biases)). Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:58, 15 February 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Birth, part 2 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Birth (The Office)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 18:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-communist mass killings[edit]

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

There are no scolar references that treat "anti-communist mass killings" as a separate concept. There is not even a pretence of discussion of such a general concept in the article. The whole article is just enumreation of various killings of communists. What is more, in most cases not only communists were killled in the corresponding events, but the whole left wing. Timurite (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly references found at Google scholar:

A Century of Genocide: Critical Essays and Eyewitness Accounts, about the Indonesia slaughters, which the author calls a genocide.[43]
Describing the Indonesia slaughters.The United States and genocide in East Timor. Journal of Contemporary Asia, Volume 11, Issue 1 1981 , pages 44 - 61

Please strike this statement, "There are no scolar (sic) references that treat "anti-communist mass killings" as a separate concept." I can provide more if necessary. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:SYNTH until and unless reliable sources can be found that discuss this specific concept, not just things that some editor thinks might be examples of it. *** Crotalus *** 21:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are 52 references in this article! The article explains historical facts, what sections are WP:SYNTH? Broadly labeling 52 references synth is absurd. If there is synth in the article, it can be removed to the talk page. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly rename. Needs work, for sure... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Crotalus. Can anyone who thinks this should be kept please show how there are reliable sources on this concept? That's the criteria for keep/delete. Don't just say "keep" and not explain that point. The source doesn't have to say exactly "Anti-communist mass killings," but of course it needs to be about the concept. The first line of this article is currently unsourced. In truth, the article seems to have been made to prove a point. For better or worse, it doesn't seem to accord with wikipedia content policy and should be zapped for that reason.--Asdfg12345 08:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the problem is in the title, the page can easily be renamed. I haven't had time to study the article for original research, synthesis, etcetera, but I can already see that at least some of the mentioned events actually resulted in numerous murders of alleged communists or communist sympathizers. Google Books returns 48 results for "mass killings of communists"—clearly, the concept itself is fairly notable. — Rankiri (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many books call it that. The article seems to list actual cases, with references, and links to other articles. There seem to be people listed as being killed off that aren't communist. Was it primary communist that were killed off? Were all the leaders of trade unions and student groups killed, all communist, or did some support something else, or were just against a certain government official? I saw a documentary once on the rubber tree harvesters forming a union, not communist at all, and the government murdered, kidnapped, and tortured plenty of them. Can we perhaps list only those targeted specifically for being communist, separate from those targeted for just being against a government? Or change the name to Politically motivated mass murders, or mass murders against those against the government. Perhaps Government sanctioned mass murders for political or financial gain. Dream Focus 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - Synthesis, POV propaganda article, the purpose of which is soapboxing. Defender of torch (talk) 11:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep well referenced article, usually when editors argue POV, they mean the article doesn't reflect their own POV. Several editors have been cleaning this up. I would support a vaguer name change. Using a blanket statment "synth" for an article with 52 references is absurd. Okip (formerly Ikip) 13:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Caravan of Death and Operation Colombo page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Strong Keep If mass killings under communist regimes is allowed so is this. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:POINT. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can see there is a clear systematic pro-communist bias in wikipedia from my experience in this site. This article has a ridiculous claim that Holocaust is a form of anti-communism. Playing the Nazi card is a classic Marxist strategy, AFAIK. This article is a hodge-podge of different isolated and separate incidents stitched together under the unsubstatiated title "anti-communist mass killing" to build a kind of propaganda piece. It reminds me of the propaganda poster Freedom, American style which uses some isolated and separate incidents gathered together for the purpose of propaganda. --Defender of torch (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Systematic pro-communist bias"?? Ridiculous. This article is no more propagandistic than mass killings under communist regimes; in fact, it is less so, given that it is about a cohesive group of mass killings done for a similar reason (anticommunism), while the latter article is held together only by a superficial characteristic that different regimes have in common. csloat (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK = As Far As I Know. Defender of the torch, what facts are you disputing in the holocaust section? Nazi's were in fact extremely anti communist, and all of those facts listed here, did happen. Okip (formerly Ikip) 12:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Simonm. If both these articles come up together I would consider a delete vote. I think there are SYN problems here but cherry picking one article and not the other for deletion appears as an attempt to use Wikipedia to soapbox. csloat (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am in full agreement with csloat. If the two articles were being brought up for AfD together I would be likely to support deletion but AfDing one and not the other is nothing more than soapboxing by the conservative fringe still fighting the cold war. Claims that Wikipedia has a pro-communist bias are so laughable that they don't warrant discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 13:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - I think the case for this article is weaker than that for Mass killings under communist regimes; there's more concern over WP:SYN with this one. Nonetheless, this is indeed a list of mass killings partly or entirely targeted at communists and other left-wingers, so I can't really argue with the title; it would just be good to have some sources which address the subject in general rather than for the particular instances. Robofish (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Title "Massacres of Communists" seems more popular in Books google search than confusing "Anti-Communist Mass killings." And looks like a lead could be generated from one or more of those sources. Or maybe "Mass killings of Communists" to mirror Mass killings under Communist regimes. (Though didn't find that exact phrase in google.books.) Text and refs show such massacres has been a real phenomena and do deserve and article detailing them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are good suggestions for a name change. Okip (formerly Ikip) 12:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this last suggestion seems reasonable. A reason for keeping the article should not be related to the fact that there's one about the killings communist regimes have done. But if there's a body of literature exploring how communists have been massacred, then obviously it stops being a synthesis. However, the examples I saw in google books there seemed to be cursory mentions in some journals. Can someone list a few books which deal with this concept specifically, or in detail? If it's really an independent field of study, there should be a clearly identifiable number of books or notable essays, journal articles, or at least book chapters on the topic. --Asdfg12345 17:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also found more examples searching "killing of communists" and "anti-communist pogrom" - the latter especially related to Indonesia. "Massacre of Communists" also came up alot on scholar google. Haven't even tried News or Web. The fact that there is not a book or a "discipline" regarding this topic, does not mean it can't have a wikipedia article, given there are lots of WP:RS for most incident. We should be broadening types of massacres articles, if have WP:RS, not limiting them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Right now, Anti-communist mass killings and Mass killings under communist regimes serve as Yin and yang articles. After going through both the articles, checking their edit history and talk pages, I came to the conclusion that this article was created as a counterbalance to the Mass killings under communist regimes article. The probelm with this article is that in some cases, it documents the killing of non-communists and anti-Marxist left (eg. left anarchists) under the banner "Anti-communist mass killings" (i.e. in the Nazi section). To reply to Okip, yes Nazis were anti-Marxist, but anti-communism was not the only characteristic of the Nazi regime. The Nazis killed anyone they viewed as their enemy, Marxists, left anarchists (Anarcho-capitalism was not developed at that time), classical liberals, Jews, homosexuals etc., they did not single out communists. Out of those, left anarchists and classical liberals were anticommunists. Thus labeling Holocaust as a form of anticommunism is misrepresentation of history. --Defender of torch (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep I am changing my vote per the argument provided by Carolmooredc. It meets the notability threshold, but the article needs editing to fix certain POV issues. --Defender of torch (talk) 15:47, 13 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamran Parsaye[edit]

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

Appears to be WP:SPIP as primary editor is a WP:SPA, fails WP:PEOPLE. DanielPenfield (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —DanielPenfield (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS cites give h index = 10. Too early yet. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Most of the claims that might qualify the subject as notable are entirely unsourced, e.g. "was one of the originators of the concept of data mining", "developed some of the first commercial systems for automatically finding patterns in large databases", "was one of the first researchers to apply artificial intelligence techniques to large scale database systems". Liberal search of WoS ("Author=(Parsaye K*) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI") turns up 1 paper: Parsaye K, and Chignell MH "The 8th, 9th, and 10th Tools of Quality" (1993) Quality Progress 26(9), 109-113, which has never been cited in its 17 years in print (i.e. subject's WoS-based h-index = 0). Also unsourced is "He is listed in the Database Hall of Fame" – I'm not familiar with this institution and some cursory searching turned up nothing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment. The concept and phrase "data mining" seems to have been commonplace in statistical circles already by 1970, ten years before he got his Ph.D.; see e.g. Jorgensen et al, Econometrica 1970: "By "data mining" or consideration of a wide range of alternatives and selection of the one that fits best, goodness of fit may be overstated." —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone, too soon. JBsupreme (talk) 08:36, 12 February 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 internet slang. Feel free to discuss the target further on the appropriate talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet words[edit]

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

Duplicate of other articles such as internet slang Mokele (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and redirect it to the latter, as a plausable search term. Lugnuts (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Would a redirect to Glossary of Internet-related terminology be preferable? Or maybe even a disambiguation page? EALacey (talk) 18:34, 8 February 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 Flunitrazepam#Drug-facilitated robbery. To redirect to Flunitrazepam#Drug-facilitated robbery (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:55, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Hakki[edit]

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

There's nothing false in this article, far as I can tell. However, it does appear to be a WP:BLP1E, and this woman is not notable outside of her crime. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Textbook case of one event. There's a sentence about this in the Flunitrazepam article. That seems to be what's appropriate here.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to merge/redirect as discussed below.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:BLP1E, she is not notable for anything else. I have never heard of her before today (or completely forgotten about her), and so don't think this crime makes her notable. Redirect per Polargeo below. Martin451 (talk) 16:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Flunitrazepam#Drug-facilitated robbery. There is no gain in deleting this one outright as it is a referenced potential search term for a notable event of the use of this drug. Polargeo (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's to merge? There's one line on her in that article, which is gracious plenty in my opinion, if she should even be mentioned at all. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends how technical we are. After this I first commented I took the reference from this article and used this to source the statement on the other article. Does that count as merging, I don't know.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New to all this and only contributed because a link from another wiki page was dead. - Worth noting that these were a series of crimes, the conviction was only for two sample crimes. - The crimes and criminal are noteworthy because they contravene the public understanding of the use of these drugs while they more accurately reflect the historic and verifiable use of the drugs.--Ladonamobile (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a BLP1E issue, since it is not one crime but a series, kinda like a serial killer. However, she does not generally meet WP:BIO/WP:PERP to my mind. I'm not sure that being the only woman convicted not even of using drugs but a specific one is sufficient. I'm open to a second opinion from someone more familiar with this sort of thing, though. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect) -- I have just altered the section in Flunitrazepam#Drug-facilitated robbery slightly and consider that the text there adequately merges this article, which has no merit of its own. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 10 February 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) Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirt cake[edit]

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

A 2 sentence stub about a dessert that doesn't even attempt to assert notability. One sentence is directions on making it. I can't find a lot of significant coverage in reliable sources. Most things I found were basically a recipe and some talk about making it. Since the majority of the article and the coverage is about making it, I think we're in WP:NOTAMANUAL territory. Article has no sources, tagged as such for 6 months. Tagged as an orphan for a year. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 513 for "Dirt cake" from Google News.--Caspian blue 18:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we know that WP:GHITS is an argument to avoid. Did you look at the returns? Second return was an 11 year old saying she liked the dish, then gave the recipe. I'm not too convinced that is significant coverage. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note further that searches using Google's specialty tools, such as Google Book Search, Google Scholar, and Google News are more likely to return reliable sources that can be useful in improving articles than the default Google web search. I presented Google News, not just Ghits. (46,200 for "Dirt cake" from Google web) --Caspian blue 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've read it. Your reason is still "look at the number of hits from Google". Whether it is GNews, GBooks or whatever else, it's still counting hits and asserting it as an indication of notability. Quality of returns is more important than the number of them. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added one book ref and a 'References' section and am looking through the other possibilities for additional references appropriate to add. This dessert has enough references to be found sufficiently notable for inclusion. Yes, the article does need improvement/expansion, but it should be kept so that those changes can occur. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 19:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All 4 references (actually only 3 because one is listed twice) are mainly instructions on how to make it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources offer more than just instructions on how to make it. Polargeo (talk) 09:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources 1 and 3 are the same one, and doesn't even give a full recipe. It only gives a one sentence description. Source 2 is solely a recipe. Source 4 is the recipe and a woman talking about her personal experience with it. You said sources plural, so please tell me which ones are more than just instructions? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per those references. The Avakian book shows it in social context. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements and references. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 11 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in DragonFable[edit]

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

List of characters for a non-notable video game itself deleted at AfD. Deprodded without any edit summary. Pcap ping 15:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as the parent topic was found to be not notable. I think this would be fairly uncontroversial... --Izno (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete - parent article has no notability, lack of reliable sources for this article as well. Please snow delete so we can focus on articles that have a chance of surviving. --Teancum (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: List of characters of a video game that was deleted in in AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 01:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if the game itself is not notable, clearly its characters are not either. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support a snow delete - I don't see how anyone can make a valid rationale for keeping this. Marasmusine (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the parent article was non-notable, then logically so is this. Edward321 (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have transikied this page with all history to StrategyWiki:DragonFable/Characters. -- Prod (Talk) 23:02, 13 February 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. As refs have been found and added to the article, many of the delete !votes' foundation has been undermined. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baldev Raj Gupta[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. Lacks clear notability. A search for sources found nothing. Previous AFD in 2008 closed as no consensus, and it hasn't been improved since then, so I think it's due another look. Michig (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources can be found and added to the article to verify that the individual meets the notability guidelines as established at WP:PROF. --Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient publication to show he;s an expert in the field. His English language books are held in as many WorldCat libraries as would be expected for the topi, the US being very backwards in Indology. "Research in Indian linguistics" in 48, Indian linguistics : Punjabi Tamil phonology in 34, Multilingual issues in J & K's Punjabi literature in 23 (J&K=Jammu and Kashmir). DGG ( talk ) 23:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (to DGG) Fair play, it can be difficult to address notability issues with some scholarly articles as the coverage is not presented in traditional manners such as news hits and profiles; however, how do we reflect the information you've presented above within the article itself so that notability is apparent to those who read the article? It would be nice to avoid a fourth AfD in a few months over the same issue. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 15:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:PROVEIT, the burden to add sources is on those wishing to maintain article content. No references = fails WP:V & WP:BIO. Jeepday (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to researches of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. This is an unsourced WP:BLP article. If it remains so then it shall be removed. JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not sufficient to simply assert notability in the AFD discussion if actual sources aren't added to the article; notability is about the presence of sources, not whether the person met a generic checklist of accomplishments. If there isn't at least one genuine reliable source in the article by close, delete. Bearcat (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DGG has shown that there are sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see any, just a statement that his publications exist in several libraries.--Michig (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not enough to "show that there are sources" in the AFD discussion, either, if those sources aren't added to the article itself. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues here: whether sources exist and whether those sources confer notability. DGG has shown that the sources exist. About notability I am less sure and defer to those with more knowledge of Indian philology than myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep His entry in the Who's who of Indian Writers, 1999: A-M published by Sahitya Akademi is sufficient to source the article and establish notability per WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. Abecedare (talk) 02:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 03:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Abecedare. An entry in Sahitya Akademi's who's who is enough to establish notability.--Sodabottle (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. The source found convinces me that he is sufficiently notable. Thanks for your efforts Abecedare.--Michig (talk) 07:30, 13 February 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. Enough of a rough consensus exists towards keeping (with the rationale that the song satisfies the subsequent notability criteria). Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je ne sais quoi (song)[edit]

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

There are numerous articles like this referencing the Eurovision song contest, so here goes a test case. This song hasn't charted, hasn't been covered by multiple artists, and hasn't won any awards, making it fail WP:NSONGS. I don't think that solely being entered in the Eurovision Song Contest makes a song sufficiently notable to justify a standalone article. —Kww(talk) 14:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - If we cound winning the Icelandic selection as an award (which could reasonably be, and also has an article on itself), the song would be meeting weakly WP:NSONGS perhaps. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hadn't thought of it that way, but that seems to be a pretty low standard: winning the contest to be allowed to enter a contest doesn't seem particularly different from winning any preliminary in any competition.—Kww(talk) 15:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep This, I think, is something of a special case. The bottom line is we can't adequately assess notability until the actual event happens in a couple of months. Probably the ideal situation here would be to have one big article covering all the entries, with the option to split out the winner and the others that become hits into individual articles. As it is now, notability in the immediate future is likely but uncertain, and verifiability/sourcing is no problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSONGS and keeping it as a possibly notable song later is getting into WP:CRYSTAL territory Not sure I'd call it being Iceland's entry an award, especially without knowing how many entries there were. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable enough for it's own article, will never be more then the really short stub it is now Alan - talk 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Most articles of this type become much larger. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As above. It is the same user creating these pages.--iBen^talk/_contribs 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would expect that any winning entry would garner some pretty significant coverage in the relevant nations press. I'm not about to try and search online editions of Icelandic newspapers, but if this was the case then the article would pass the general notability guideline, which trumps WP:MUSIC. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's far from a universal mindset. Personally, I think music oriented articles have to pass WP:N and WP:MUSIC. I'm far from alone, there. Most of the music guidelines operate as exclusion guidelines in common practice.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced by that really. If a subject passes the general notability guideline then it follows that that subject is notable, and therefore worthy of inclusion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As is what happens each year, the song pages for each country are created and if given time and when an interested editor comes along, can turn into well developed articles chronicling the song's background and performance. Take Secret Combination (song) for example, there is no reason why any Eurovision song article could not get close to being similar to it. It may be a little crystal, but the song will be presented at an international song contest and will certainly gain loads of media attention as the contest approaches. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Grk1011/Stephen. The article needs time to develop after just been selected to compete in the contest, and the media attention received at the contest in May will help in its development. Sims2aholic8 (Michael) (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NSONGS. The Eurovision Song Contest is unique in that its ‘preliminaries’ tend to be major song contests in their own right. – EdvardMunch (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the goals of WikiProject Eurovision is "Creating a page for each contestant and song involved in the contest." Deleting this page would impede the project's goal and would undo the effort of those that contributed to it. --DannyBoy20802 (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your goals run counter to notability requirements, then the goal takes second place. Saying to keep strictly because it is your goal is little more than WP:ILIKEIT. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is worth noting the concentration of Eurovision Project members among the keep votes when evaluating consensus. DannyBoy20802, Sim2aholic8, and Grk1011 are all members.—Kww(talk) 18:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how our experience in working with them gives us a better idea on the abundance of information that is around for them to develop into great articles. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that a "concentration of Eurovision Project members" is something to be worried about. Such members are editors of wikipedia, and we're here to find consensus among editors. I'm not part of the Eurovision Project, but I think you're out of line there. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People are reading me as having said something that I did not. I didn't ask for their opinions to be discarded, I just think it is a legitimate thing to keep in mind while evaluating community consensus. Any time a subset of the community is heavily weighted in a discussion, that weighting needs to be considered.—Kww(talk) 20:30, 14 February 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 Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Berte-Evelyne Agbo[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this author on Google. I found zero sources on Google News and Google Books. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The failure to find sources is due to a misspelling - she is Berthe-Evelyne Agbo. She is cited in academic websites [44] and in academic books and she also got an interview. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - zero sources?
- The name is improperly spelled, seem to be Berthe-Evelyne Agbo.
- There was a recent in-depth interview in Léontine Bilombo Tsibinda. "Berthe-Evelyne Agbo, écrivain : La musique a une très grande influence sur ma vie." Amina 471, (juillet 2009), p. Europe p.36. Interview." [45],
- she has some mention on the web page of The University of Western Australia, [46] (in English),
- she has a page on "Culturessud.com, portail des littératures du Sud est réalisé par Culturesfrance opérateur du Ministère des Affaires étrangères et européennes et du ministère de la Culture en partenariat avec le Réseau culturel français à l'étrange", [47], I would say RS,
- she's on a list in the French Wikipédia fr:Liste d'écrivains sénégalais, current a redlink, but could be expanded by somebody someday
- she sure is in WorldCat "Emois de femme : poèmes, 1980-1982" [48], the book is at 14 libraries
- some texts of hers has recently been published in an antology "Irène d'Almeida et Janis Mayes des USA, "A Rain of Words/Une pluie de mots"." (from the Amina interview)
Is she important enough to an article on Wikipedia, saying: "Berte-Evelyne Agbo is a writer from Benin."? - I would say yes. Power.corrupts (talk) 15:39, 8 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidoquiz[edit]

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

Phone in competition hosted by a local radio station, apart from being old there doesn't appear to be anything notable about it, the only references I could find are a couple of posts on the Iowa State student newspaper website Jac16888 ^Talk 12:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to KURE, where it's already mentioned. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. No coverage in external sources. An old version of the article (it was copyrighted material that's been removed) mentioned there was an NPR article about the competition from the 1970s, but there was no citation or other information about the article to verify it. Although even if the NPR article is real, one news mention in 30 years is still not enough to demonstrate notability. Kalervo (talk) 12:18, 9 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson Monhon[edit]

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

Has never bin capped in a fully prffesional league. Fails WP:Athlete. Rettetast (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:ATHLETE (plays for a club which competes in a league which is not fully professional, and has to date only played for them in matches in a mickey mouse tournament in which they generally field lots of reserve team players) and nothing found to help him pass WP:GNG either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original PRODer, he has not played at a fully-professional level failing WP:ATH. No significant media coverage to pass WP:GNG either. --Jimbo^[online] 11:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per previous comments. He clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. It looks to me like a simple case of someone trying to save a pet article from deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 17:23, 8 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Cowan[edit]

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

I just cannot find any notable references to him at all, aside from his book on something he hypothesises called "Spiral Dynamics", and on which he wrote a book. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, that's his life's work. — goethean ॐ 02:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that it's his life's work, but does it make him notable? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GS search produces cites of 276 (for a co-authored book) and 2 for a single authored. Fails WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete and redirect to Spiral Dynamics. The system is notable, Cowan is not. MiRroar (talk) 16:08, 12 February 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. List seems to lack any content suitable for merging. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Shinto shrines in Canada[edit]

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

Only one item, cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Shinto shrines in the Netherlands. The problem is that almost all of these shrines are in Japan (with several in Taiwan.) Formerly, List of Shinto shrines was explicitly about Japanese shrines; I moved it to List of Shinto shrines in Japan, making the former a dab. When I looked at the other articles, though, there were this, List of Shinto shrines in Brazil, List of Shinto shrines in the United States, and List of Shinto shrines in Taiwan. Could the Brazil, Canada, Netherlands (deleted), and U.S. data be merged into List of Shinto shrines outside of East Asia or somesuch? Maybe List of Shinto shrines in the Americas and List of Shinto shrines in Europe? Does that make any sense? Either way, this article is not sustainable without some more items added to it and there are not likely to be many other Shinto shrines in Canada. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum See also: List of Shinto shrines in France. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all of them in List of Shinto shrines. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somewhere. I'd think that List of Shinto shrines in the United States could just as easily be called "List of Shinto shrines in North America", or that one could make a List of Shinto shrines with the section for Japan saying "Main article: List of Shinto shrines in Japan" Mandsford (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I would say merge if there was an article about the shrine. A lot of these shrines in those various lists have neither an article nor a source. There's no way to tell real from fake from spam that way.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete single-item list, and that single item we don't actually have an article on. I disagree with the anon that spam has anything to do with this, I really can't imagine shrines spamming themselves on Wikipedia the way, say, a webcomic or garage band would. Still, this one-item list needs to go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not saying this particular case is spam (I don't think it is either), just that in list articles with nothing but red links or direct external links (not cite from independent reliable sources), one cannot distinguish between genuine entries and fake or spam ones. It's all about WP:V and WP:N.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is basically empty. If someone wants to create an article on Shinto Shrine is N.America, fine, but there's nothing to merge here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:14, 15 February 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. Or "nomination withdrawn". Note that this does not preclude a merger discussion on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arroyo Seco bicycle path[edit]

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

This article exists since 2005, and has only seen minor changes since. It is about a bicycle path that probably exists, but is in my opinion not notable at all. It has no references, and only one external link, but the relevance to the article is marginal. Google finds 12 results, all of them copies of wikipedia or meaningless lists of words. (There are many articles like that on bicycle paths, and I would like to know what the AfD-process thinks of them, and I chose this as an example. Still, this is not a group nomination, and whatever happens to this article will not affect the other articles directly, only my view on what should happen to them.) EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An article not having many edits in a long time is not proper grounds to delete it. This does have significant coverage [49]. Its historic incarnation even has significant coverage in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.[50] In fact, coverage of an Arryoyo Seco bicycle path dates back to the 1800s as one of the worlds first bicycle paths. [51][52] That bicycle path was the foundation of the Pasadena Freeway [53], one of the first freeways in the world. Much more multi-paged coverage of that historic bike path from that source here.
As for the nom's considering of putting up many bicycle articles up for AfD, there actually have been several Los Angeles area bicycle path articles AfDs, most by one user, and all have ended in "KEEP." - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Hondo bicycle path,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Ana River bicycle path,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Santa Clara River Trail --Oakshade (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know about the other AfD's, thank you for showing them!--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC) I see that I even commented in one of them, so I should have been aware of them...--EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is possible, I would like to add the option "combine into List of Los Angeles bike paths, and rename to Bike paths in Los Angeles". Your sources show that the path received coverage, so deletion is perhaps not needed, but perhaps the information is presented better together with the other bike paths in one article.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The results of all the bicycle path article AfDs were "KEEP," not "Merge". If merging is what the editors would've wanted, they would've indicated so.--Oakshade (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I second EdgeNavidad's suggestion to merge all the bike paths into a single article called Bike paths in Los Angeles. I have a big problem with this article because it is written like a travel guide. WP:NOTTRAVEL The same is true or most or all of the other bike path articles, which were written using the same template. I'd like to strip out the how-to stuff, add the historical information provided by Oakshade, transfer what's left to a combined article, and redirect from Arroyo Seco bicycle path. --MelanieN (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is far too much topic-specific content in all these articles to be merged into on (look at the info in Santa Ana River bicycle path and The Strand (bicycle path) alone). WP:NOTTRAVEL is meant to eliminate frivolous travel related content, ie Southwest Airlines Phoenix to Las Vegas flight timetable on Sundays, not valid content like route descriptions on road and bicycle path articles.--Oakshade (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, Oakshade gave enough reasons to keep the article. The article is notable (I found only 12 references by searching for "Arroyo Seco bicycle path", but now I know that plenty can be found by searching for "Arroyo Seco"+"bicycle path"). If I find the time, I will strip out the how-to stuff and other stuff that should not be in the article, so the article becomes a "decent stub". I doubt if anybody will ever turn the article into something better, but I know that this is irrelevant for this discussion.

As the initial proposer, I will not try to see if I can close this AfD. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the result is "keep" I will take that as a decision that bikeways are entitled to have an article after all. My inclination has been that they mostly don't deserve one. There are several bikeways in San Diego that I have a problem with (too much travelogue, too much how-to), and the discussion page was leaning toward delete. But if the consensus here is to keep such articles, rather than propose them for deletion I will try to improve them, weed out the inappropriate stuff and maybe find a reference or two. --MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been successful deletion processes of bikeways in the past, Culver City Median bicycle path, Hermosa Valley Green Belt path and Watts Towers Crescent Greenway, all created by the same author as this article.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 06:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that information. So I guess it has to be done on a case-by-case basis - after a reasonably thorough search for outside sources. Some are notable, some are not - and the ones that are notable need to be brought into line with Wikipedia standards. --MelanieN (talk) 15:05, 12 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Peters[edit]

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

Contested PROD - this person's only claim of notability is unsuccessfully standing in two elections. WP:V isn't a problem, but I'm not convinced we have enough coverage for a biography here. Michig (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The first reference currently cited says This one-or-the-other approach fits into the theory of Darren Peters, a financial consultant who ran unsuccessfully for the Progressive Conservative Party in Hillsborough in 2000, and for the Conservatives in the successor riding of Charlottetown in 2004, before quoting him on the politics of the region. One sentence isn't significant coverage. The second one merely says Tory Darren Peters, a financial consultant, took 31 percent, which isn't significant coverage either. Other potential references, such as [54], don't go further than saying that he contested the election and lost. Doesn't meet the additional criteria of WP:POLITICIAN either because he lost the election. Hut 8.5 10:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lost two local elections, and... and... well, that's it, really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 8 February 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 under A9 by User:Tbsdy lives (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drunk or Dead... (Alkoholizer album)[edit]

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

Album with no indication of notability by a band whose Wikipedia page does not exist. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Momentary lapse of judgement. Feel free to WP:TROUT. This should be speedy delete under WP:CSD#A9 --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 06:44, 8 February 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) Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Eve[edit]

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

This person is allegedly the world's tallest model, presumably defined as somebody willing to have her photo taken for money. I doubt if this can be shown to be demonstrated in reputable sources. Grahame (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not she is actually the world's tallest model, she does appear to pass WP:GNG via significant coverage in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does not state that she is the world's tallest model, although other sources make that claim. What the article does say is that she appeared on the cover of the Australian edition of Zoo Weekly, and that fact (together with photos) has been widely reported. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate keep. Sadly, this kind of thing is considered "notable" under the current criteria. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since several sources state that she is the "worlds tallest model" I added this to the article, in the form that such claims have been published, not that they are accurate. Most models have published height stats, one could I suppose review those to check, but could never prove complete coverage. But it is an undeniable fact that this person has been so described in multiple published news stories. The matter may not be of great importance, but it has had significant coverage. DES ^(talk) 15:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many models have Wikipedia pages and this particular one appears to be notable now as being the world's tallest, or at least one of the tallest. Interest may wane in her and her modeling career in the future and certainly deletion might be reasonable then, especially if the article is still not expanded with additional information such as her real name. AlanSiegrist (talk) 02:08, 14 February 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) 02:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Beach Community Kollel[edit]

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

The notability of this depends on whether this is an institute of higher education analogous to a college, or an adult study program . As I understand it, a kollel can be either. I am not sure. It would of course help to have some actually substantial references, but we have consistently held that all colleges are notable. I see that it consists of only 2 professors and 9 students, or I would have not have questioned whether it was correct to call it a formal college-level institution. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. A kollel as described here is not a formalized college-level, educational institute. From reading the article and from my OR on kollels of this type, it is a group of Lakewood graduates who are looking to positively influence the Jewish community in Miami.

"These classes are open to the community and are well attended. The Kollel occasionally offers larger lectures, and special events especially during holiday times. The Kollel is also a community synagogue offering services three times a day and on the Sabbath and Jewish holidays."

While this is great, it is more along the lines of a community non-profit than a higher education institute. Joe407 (talk) 07:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Joe407 (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The notability of this depends on whether this is an institute of higher education analogous to a college, or an adult study program." No, it doesn't. Even you recognize that this kollel does not neatly fit into any familiar category of kept or deleted pages at wp:outcomes. The solution in this unfamiliar case, surely, is to apply wp:n straightforwardly. Yet you would rather engage in a pointless and metaphysical discussion of whether this is a "formal college-level institution." Come down from the clouds and think about the concrete idea of looking for independent sources with which an encyclopedia article can be written. And--what a coincidence--this is what wp:n counsels. 160.39.213.222 (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a formal institution of higher education and issued degrees, it would classify as a College, and we have always kept any such that have real existence. If I had thought it clearly was one, I would not have brought it here. But if it were, a search in appropriate print haredi publications would find sources. Even this might have such sources, but I can not effectively work with this material. if you can, perhaps you might look? DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable. Chesdovi (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Yes, a community kollel is not a school per se, but an outreach tool which offers both free classes and one-on-one learning sessions for the public, while satisfying the Torah study requirements of its student members with its own rabbi and shiurim (classes). There are many such community kollels across the U.S. and in Jewish communities abroad. If this AfD goes through, I suggest starting a page called List of community kollels — similar to List of yeshivas — to include all these small kollels that aren't notable enough for their own page. Yoninah (talk) 19:13, 10 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant (album)[edit]

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

Future album; the only source supporting this is a Twitter update saying the album is in the works. Accordingly, this is not verifiable and is not generally notable. —C.Fred (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 08:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding significant coverage for this upcoming album in reliable sources. No confirmed tracklisting or release date; violates WP:CRYSTAL. Gongshow ^Talk 08:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, WP:CRYSTAL. can be recreated if released and becomes notable Alan - talk 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL Rlendog (talk) 19:50, 9 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipornopedia[edit]

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

Excellent idea. Found not a single reliable sources (contemporary or in archives) to support notability (though of course, many web links exist). Request AfD delete. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a good idea to check this one out from the office. However, it apparently has not made news of any sort [55] which indicates that it's not notable. Mandsford (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only aren't there reliable sources, but the web presence and Alexa rank (2,322,780) are pitiful by porn standards. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By their own main page, it's a brand new site with only 82 pages. Pcap ping 18:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage, but I do love that name! If only hilarity was enough. JBsupreme (talk) 08:37, 12 February 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. No rationale provided for deletion. NPASR (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Alligator's Toothache[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Alligator's Toothache

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

Western Pines (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Nominator has provided no reason for deletion. The book appears to be a real book, written in 1962 by Marguerite Dorian. I'm unable to immediately find reviews or other discussion to establish it as "notable" per WP:N, but given its age and intended audience I have good grounds to suspect such material does exist but it not easily accessed through the web. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:40, 8 February 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Simpsons couch gags[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ILIKEIT, but Non-notable trivia; notability is not inherited. No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; to the extent that it is mentioned, there are questions of WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE. Time to move this one to The Simpsons wiki. Although Wikipedia was top-heavy on articles about The Simpsons in its early days, even to the point that serious articles would be tainted with moronic references to the classic television show, it isn't 2005 anymore. This is, essentially, a list of jokes. Way time Simpsons stuff came in line with actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of constantly skating around with content that would be unacceptable for any other series. Cf. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags. THF (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An encyclopedia should be for facts about a topic, not for lists like this. Borock 04:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The amount of Simpsons trivia on here is ridiculous, so delete per nom. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic part of the show and mentioned in several books CTJF83 chat 04:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iconic part of a notable long running show, mentioned in many newspapers and books. Dream Focus 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (a) Nothing has changed since the last AfD resulted in "keep". (b) These are an iconic and individually notable institution, recognisable by people who have never watched an episode of the Simpsons. The massive and longstanding cultural impact of The Simpsons makes separate articles for its more well-known subfacets justified. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the proposition that people who have never watched an episode of the Simpsons recognize the concept of a couch gag? THF (talk) 05:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first barrier is finding people who've never watched an episode of the Simpsons, I guess. The level of cultural saturation and the intense familiarity that such a wide demographic has with the show is one of the reasons I'm arguing that sub-aspects like this deserve coverage. A Google search for "Couch Gag" returns about 156,000 hits, more than any Simpsons episode title I could think of. A search for "Couch Gag -Simpsons" returns a wide and broad usage of the phrase, including using it as slang for "a running joke", its use as a title for blogs and colums related to television, and news coverage of particular couch gags indepdent of their episodes (particularly the one featuring an iPhone). - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% that couch gags are an iconic part of the show. This fact should be given in the main Simpsons article. No need to list them, in fact it is better to not list them and let people see them firsthand as they watch the shows. Borock (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point isn't just that they're notable, it's that they're independently notable, in much the same way as Bart Simpson has a life and presence beyond the show. You can know of and be interested in these gags without necessarily being interested in the show. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Secondary sourcing indicates the schtick is notable. List criteria are explicit and nothing is amiss per WP:CLN. As noted above, nothing has changed since the first AfD, although the nominator's honesty in attempting to "balance" Wikipedia coverage through deletion is appreciated. Jclemens (talk) 04:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep secondary sources show this is notable. Articles like this is what makes wikipedia wonderful. Okip (formerly Ikip) 05:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merging this into some other article is not feasible due to the large size already. I would lean towards keep, but I strongly suggest finding a review reference for the "Gag" column, as now, any random user can come and change an entry and there is no sensible way to verify it other than watch the episode. Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- see the talk page for references (I can't edit the main List of The Simpsons couch gags page) the last book I added as a reference has dozens of the gags, maybe all of them. Okip (formerly Ikip) 07:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes the show is notable, yes the couch gag is a popular element of the show. I doubt the sources that everyone claims there are for this element of the show really cover it in detail. That is the problem this intricate amount of detail to one element of the show is non-encyclopedic. A brief overview of thew couch gag in the main Simpsons article is all that is required. I'm sure we also have articles for every single episode and these could easily be listed there. This is an encyclopedia not a fan site. Ridernyc (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. The amount of Simpsons fancruft on here is amazingly large. The whole body of work on The Simpsons on here needs a serious look and needs to be cleaned up and reorganized. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:SOFIXIT! Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is a good start. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you provide a clear list of stuff you feel needs to "be cleaned up and reorganized" so that we at WP:DOH can go and do that? Gran² 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable part of the show that has secondary sources. I bet a lifetime supply of Duff that this will close with no-consensus (default to keep). Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how deleting this will improve Wikipedia. Net benefit to keep IMO. -- œ ^™ 09:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would certainly agree that the notion of the Simpsons couch gag itself is a notable part of American pop culture - but a list of individual Simpsons couch gags is unbelievably pedantic and trivial. Sources can confirm that the gags exist, but very little more, and mere existance does not warrant inclusion. "List of The Simpsons couch gags" is no more fit for inclusion than List of Puns Made by Groucho Marx in the Marx Brothers' Movies (or, to extend it a bit: List of Jumpsuit Colors Worn By Mystery Science Theater 3000 Hosts, or List of Grateful Dead Concerts With Dark Star In the Setlist). This is something that would be a much better fit on a Simpsons wiki. Badger Drink (talk) 10:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first makes a lot of sense and I'd be all for keeping it, if it existed. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not the second or the third? Badger Drink (talk) 18:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Mystery Science Theater 3000 is, nor I am a Grateful Dead listener, so I am not able to judge. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only there were some sort of encyclopedia where you could look things up :( Anyway, I guess I can't speak for everyone, but I can still judge whether or not List of micro-organisms found in Fernando's feces is suitable for inclusion without eating a barn full of bull shit. Badger Drink (talk) 07:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I fail to see how removing the article would make Wikipedia a better place. While keeping it, under due reserves, adds (IMHO) real value to the web. Talgalili (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Okip and DustFormWords. Notablity aside, this is an excellent, even if amusing, example of how Wikipedia is great in organizing and collecting content that would be otherwise extremly difficult and taedious to collect individually. --Cyclopia ^talk 13:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article was recently kept a few months back, so I don't see how consensus changed so rapidly. The theory that Wikipedia is too big for its britches now to have this article is silly. Unless we want to run off even more editors? That's the tenor of the nomination. Its a notable component of a highly popular TV show, organized in a fashion to allow ease of access to readers, so I propose it be kept.--Milowent (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Superfluous Keep Are we going to nominate this one every three months? As others have pointed out, the show's ever-changing opening sequence is a part of pop culture; I can't think of any programs where people look forward to watching the first minute (or, for that matter, watch only the first minute before changing the channel). Granted, the nominator's comments are eerily similar to some that I have made myself, but I think we've come a long way in reducing the Simpsons' presence in Wikipedia. Nevertheless, there is a difference between removing Simpsons references from serious-articles, and removing all Simpsons' articles entirely, and I see no reason to delete this one. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're of the opinion that notability is inherited? Badger Drink (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems THF nominated this article for deletion because of the result in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags (his nomination is almost entirely made up of comments taken from that AfD). The main difference between these two lists is that the couch gags have actually received significant coverage in reliable sources: [56], [57] (ignore TV.com), [58], [59], [60], etc. This is something the billboard gags lack. The leftorium 15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see significant coverage of The Simpsons, not coverage of the couch gag. Ridernyc (talk) 15:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating my opinion as to why I think the couch gags are more notable than the billboard gags. It's not necessarily enough coverage for the couch gags to have their own article though. I'm a member of WP:DOH and like Scorpion said below, I wouldn't exactly miss the page. The leftorium 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Honestly, I wouldn't miss this page. However, this is clearly a bad faith WP:POINT nomination from THF because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons billboard gags (which, by the way, he was vehemently opposed to deleting). In fact, he copied a quote directly from the billboard afd "Way time Simpsons stuff came in line with actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of constantly skating around with content that would be unacceptable for any other series" made by a different user [61], which I find humorous because he didn't seem to care about that when the afd was for an article he created. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 15:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My position hasn't changed. My position in both AFDs is that List of The Simpsons billboard gags and List of The Simpsons couch gags should be treated identically. A one-paragraph note in a Wired blog or an article on an AOL blog doesn't make the couch gag cross the line; the billboard gags article had equivalent sourcing. THF (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should they be treated exactly the same? Couch gags been around for 20 years and take up a much greater amount of time than the billboards, which have been around a season and appear for a few seconds. That's like saying Ned Flanders doesn't deserve a page because the Crazy Cat Lady doesn't have one. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The jokes have established notability in their own right. Martin451 (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Martin451 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. The previous reasons still hold.SPNic (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ILIKEIT, ITSUSEFUL, and ITEXISTS? Badger Drink (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's covered in reliable sources. Did you not see the first discussion?SPNic (talk) 20:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reliable sources amount to "it exists", with no meaningful commentary. Did you not read my !vote? Badger Drink (talk) 21:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this discussion hitting my watchlist a few times today with your responses. So, doing a google news search for simpsons couch gags, I was shocked at the number of references to it. The world may be going the down the toilet, but this is a damn notable toilet.--Milowent (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. This article is why Wikipedia exists. Wikipedia should not be a mirror image of Encyclopædia Britannica, Wikipedia is SO much better than EB !!!!!. Seth Whales (talk) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unlike the chalkboard gags and the billboard gags, the couch gags are not only an iconic part of the show but have been covered extensively in reliable secondary sources. They meet the notability requirements and as such the article can be kept. Arguing that it's "not 2005 anymore" is faulty since the last "keep" closure was only three months ago. Consensus has changed in parts since 2005 but we still don't delete notable, reliable sourced material just because it was created 5 years ago. Reasons like "trivia", "fancruft" etc. might sound like good reasons to those favoring deletion but they are not policy based. Regards So Why 20:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very notable element of pop culture as evidence by the 400+ reliable source mentions on just the first of many possible search phrases. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as article fulfilles WP:V, WP:RS and per WP:NOTAGAIN. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an iconic part of a notable show, per WP:RS. Verbal chat 08:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question For whom are Simpsons related articles written, fans or non-fans who want to learn about the show? If fans then this article is fine. If non-fans then this article tells them almost nothing and potentially spoils their fun in seeing the gags for the first time. Borock (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see that at least one editor has compared the couch gags to the billboard gags - in all honesty, I have no idea what the billboard gags are, and thought the term might refer to the chalkboard gags (a little research showed me that it did not, but for me at least, the two gags are not equally well known). --Badger151 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2nd Comment my recollection is that, in reruns, the chalkboard gags are cut, while the couch gags are retained, perhaps indicating that the shows' producers believe that the couch gags are more important than the chalkboard gags.--Badger151 (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep we shouldn't be arguing this, but I must defend this list lest some (expletive deleted) wants to seriously get rid of this. How did the new "Billboard Gags" get deleted? Do you get your jollies deleting information that other people find useful? This stuff deserves to be available and there is no better place for people to look for it than wikipedia. Maybe its not intellectual, but removing popular information like this devalues the entire site.Trackinfo (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% that the Simpsons is an important show, perhaps one of the most of all time, and an important cultural influence. However a better place for this list would be a fan site for the show. The glory of the Simpsons would be better served if Wikipedia was reserved for articles on it that would be of interest to non-fans. That way they could find out about the show and perhaps watch it and become fans.Borock (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I had noted at the last AFD, there are several books and academic papers discussing couch gags:
- Turner, Chris (2005). Planet Simpson: How a Cartoon Masterpiece Defined a Generation. New York: Da Capo Press
- Popular culture and critical pedagogy: reading, constructing, connecting by Toby Daspit, John A. Weaver
- ‘‘Are We There Yet?’’: Searching for Springfield and The Simpsons’ Rhetoric of Omnitopia, by Andrew Wood & Anne Marie Todd, Critical Studies in Media Communication Vol. 22, No. 3, August 2005
- The small screen: how television equips us to live in the information age by Brian L. Ott
- Simpsonology: There's a Little Bit of Springfield in All of Us by Tim Delaney

While it is disappointing that no one has taken the initiative yet to include these to expand the article lede and make the article more encyclopedic, I realize that we are all volunteers here, and the sources establish the notability of the subject. Abecedare (talk) 06:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In no way do these sources justify the article up for deletion. They justify mention of the couch gag itself, but to claim that this justifies a pedantic list of every couch gag is ridiculous. Does The Deadhead's Taping Compendium (Amazon.com link) justify including List of Grateful Dead setlists? Badger Drink (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To argue that specific example (Grateful Dead setlists); no, not by itself. The requirement at WP:N is significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Assuming that the book you list gives significant coverage to the topic of setlists, then yes, pair it up with another similar reliable, independent source, and you've established notability for your setlists article. A quick glance over WP:NOTPAPER and WP:Article size might be educational. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:57, 12 February 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 Von Iva . (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Munchausen by Proxy (Band)[edit]

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

The band itself is fictional (see here), and I don't see any way it could be remotely considered notable. →ROUX ₪ 03:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- ETA: Certainly wouldn't object to a redirect/merge. → ROUX ₪ 05:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N; no evidence or assertion of notability. Merge to Yes Man (film) would also be appropriate. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect to Von Iva per Glenfarclas below. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Von Iva, which is the actual identity of this band. See here. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 08:22, 8 February 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) 02:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Alberti[edit]

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

Deprodded and moved here; I am unsure whether she is notable--it might depend on whether the many publications listed as books are published books, or just administrative reports. It also needs better sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @131 · 02:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Disclosure: I was the prodder here. Gnews didn't turn up much in the way of significant coverage, Gscholar hits give an h-index of 3 or so, once you factor out a biologist of the same name. I conclude fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG - this seems to be an experienced but not particularly noted UN functionary-scholar. Ray^Talk 02:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I have to go with RayAYang here. The bacterial biologist has more hits, and the one that seem to be Adriana Alberti top out at 3 citations, and just a few of those. There is one book that she contributed a chapter to with 20 citations, but those seem to be to the book as a whole, not to her chapter. This feels like just below threshold, unless some of her UN reports were themselves subject to broader public discussion, which might nudge it to the keep side. LotLE×talk 08:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but Lulu is right, the UN reports could make her notable. The problem is, they are mentioned in just a few foreign-language news articles, so I do not think she is quite notable. MiRroar (talk) 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:32, 10 February 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) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Garcia[edit]

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

Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. ttonyb (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:ENT asks for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions," and a couple of low-billed voiceovers and bit parts in minor productions do not satisfy that standard. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @110 · 01:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @131 · 02:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 9 February 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) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Renard[edit]

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

This peacock article turns out to be even fluffier than I thought--a Google search reveals that "Jean Renaud is a fashion photographer" could be verified, but nothing about his notability can be said. In the interest of full disclosure, I'll report that I've searched his name (a very common French name) combined with almost every name in the article, and that produced this and this. Then I started searching for him as a photographer, and found this. That's not enough. The most notable note is found here, and that's really nothing. In short, the guy is not notable enough--and there certainly is no reason to keep that enormous amount of unverified information in the article, probably a BLP violation. Drmies (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient (as in "I can't find any at all") substantive treatment in reliable independent sources. Deor (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your review is erroneous, his name is Renard not Renaud, he is listed here for Robert Wells [62] under contact us management also here for kidneythieves [63] also as management here as contact [64] on IMDB his company is listed here [65] and [66] he is also listed as manager of Jillian Ann here [67] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediajunky104 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I was able to find this [68] as far as photography ([(user:mediajunky104)]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediajunky104 (talk • contribs) 11:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @109 · 01:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- (X! · talk) · @132 · 02:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet even the basic criteria of WP:BIO; much less those of WP:CREATIVE, which covers photographers. This is borderline speedy A7 material. Wikipedia is not a business directory. Wine Guy~Talk 06:53, 8 February 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) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goro Nagase[edit]

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

A few publications and not having scholarly publications for many years 01:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Goro Nagase (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete, as not notable. Paul August ☎ 03:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @105 · 01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "not having scholarly publications for many years" is not a reason for deletion. Once notable, always notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I do agree with you - There is no consistency in wiki notability especially for professors. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While I agree with Eastmain on the poorly justified nom (Alfred Einstein hasn't published anything for years either, shall we delete his article?), this professor has approximately one publication which has been cited 43 times. Not very influential. Fails WP:PROF, and every other notability guideline as far as I can tell. Wine Guy~Talk 02:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As much as I prefer to keep things where possible, I lean slightly towards Win Guy on overall notability of this professor. LotLE×talk 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He doesn't have a lot of publications, but I think Nagase is notable as a teaching professor. Barely, maybe, but notable. He is a university professor, he has won awards, and he has started an endowment. MiRroar (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' in such situations it would be good to see Some % of teaching @university added to wiki notability for professors --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what we usually want to establish notability as a teacher is an award from outside the university. His awards are all from within the university except for "(National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education) research achievement award in 1991", and why he received it when he has done so little research is not clear to me. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 9 February 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) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pragma tims[edit]

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

All that I can find on Google is the official site, press releases, social networking sites like wikis and forums, and software profiles. All that I can find on Google News is two press releases. I found zero sources on Google Books. Fails WP:N Joe Chill (talk) 00:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Joe Chill. Nothing seems to even hint encyclopedic worthiness of inclusion on Wikipedia. The article currently has no inline citations only two affiliated external links, which as we know, is not enough to establish the required third-party coverage from reliable sources.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I really fought to find good coverage of this one, but like Jujutacular, I cannot find it either.--Prodigy96 (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (another sock of the same banned user. Pcap ping 00:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @104 · 01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Like the two valid votes above me, I'm just not able to find any indication that this is notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:55, 8 February 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) 05:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disablement Association of Hillingdon[edit]

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

fails WP:ORG. very little third party coverage [69]. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essentially per the nominator. Articles need good coverage in reliable third-party sources. This one fails.--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Prodigy96. This article's only sources are "DASH" sources. Third-party coverage from reliable sources is needed for any article worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Because of this, (or lack thereof for this article) it does not satisfy the criteria for inclusion and therefore brings me to !vote delete.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 00:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Throw and Prodigy96 confirmed socks of AtlanticDeep see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/AtlanticDeep. Codf1977 (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Codf1977 (talk) 11:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @099 · 01:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete organisation of purely local scope. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 20:58, 8 February 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) Tim Song (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shank (film)[edit]

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

Unreleased film lacking references to support its notability. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article expansion and sourcing has begun. Film is completed, is receiving coverage, and will be released in 5 weeks. Keeping and continuing to improve the article benefits Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film is close to release and stars notable actors. Granted, it needs expansion, and that will happen as it is released and reviews are added etc... magnius (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to have significant coverage and passes WP:NFF. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This future film unambiguously fails WP:NFF" "films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines". There does not appear to be anything notable about the film's production. The article can be recreated later if/when it meets WP:NOTFILM. Yilloslime ^T_C 02:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unambiguously? Hardly. Way past "begun shooting", the film has already completed principle filming AND is slated for release in a very few weeks, deletion rather than patience does not serve the encyclopedia. WP:NF is not intended to be an exclusionary guideline when WP:GNG is being approached and WP:COMMONSENSE would indicate that the film upon release in a few weeks will receive even more coverage and not less. Not wanting to wait those few weeks is no reason to recreate what already properly serves this encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It has enough media coverage now, so why wait to make an article? Dream Focus 22:33, 13 February 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) 02:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Kels[edit]

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

no indication of notability. No references and no obvious google hits. fails WP:ARTIST noq (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and notability for subject is never asserted. Wikipedia is not a place to copypaste promotional biographies. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. There are several Google hits, but only for social networking or primary sources. Cnilep (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unless the creator or someone can find sources, I'd lean delete.--Milowent (talk) 16:03, 12 February 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 List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random On Purpose (NCIS: LA)[edit]

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

The independent episode, on its own, does not have enough reliable, third party sources to meet notability standards. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you are coming from. However, I was going to make a page for all the episode where I could note a brief account of the episode and important storyline points that took place in it. I have always wanted there to be articles for these episode where all the information was stored for reference. When no one made one, I took the step. I think I will just make one of those scrap pages and post it up when its completely done since I'm still struggling with some of the tools here. Amna

Typically, every television series has a list of all the episodes with a very brief recap of each of them, along with other details such as special guests, which in this case is located at list of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes (which I believe you have noticed, considering that you linked to it in the article). While these lists may not provide all the information that a full article could, these lists usually provide adequate coverage for single episodes in the series, and typically single episodes aren't notable enough for their own article. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I have seen separate pages for each episode for many television series, which is why I took this step. Here you can not only add a little more detailed account of the episode but also add trivia and other stuff. ~ Amna —Preceding undated comment added 01:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, the admin can just go ahead and delete it because I'm not even gonna waste my time putting together info for something that you are gonna delete anyway. Apparently the notability rules only apply to some shows. Whatever. ~ Gr8amna (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notability rules apply to all shows, and all articles; it's just that those particular shows that have their own article are somehow notable, may it be having plenty of coverage, being a landmark episode, or something special such as having Michael Jackson star in it or something like that. Either way, the article's not on a sure path to get deleted just because I nominated so; others may very well disagree with deletion. Regards, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to List of NCIS: Los Angeles episodes. Reinstate when or if episode gains enough notability. Mattg82 (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect pear above. Bag it and tag it. The days of making new Wikipedia articles about a TV show you just watched are drawing to a close. Hetty says that this would be more appropriate at the NCIS Database at ncis.wikia.com Mandsford (talk) 15:20, 8 February 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) 02:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of works for the theatre portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors[edit]

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

Blatant original research. Mainly unreferenced fails WP:DIRECTORY and clearly fails WP:LISTCRUFT. Scott Mac (Doc) 00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors (3rd nomination).--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom sums it up rather well, especially WP:LISTCRUFT - Alison ^❤ 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete original research/synthesis, fails WP:V, and additional reasons per nom. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom . OR much.—Sandahl (♀) 00:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant OR, as Scott says. Kevin (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Concur, this seems to be clear OR. There might be an overarching encyclopedic topic covering this and related articles, but that's a separate issue; this has too much OR to be salvageable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely OR. Aiken ♫ 19:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsalvageable original research. Joe Chill (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because presumably criticism can be found that discusses this. I'm a little curious: why the negative reaction to this and the more positive reaction to "Songs...." ? They would appear exactly analogous. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be quite happy with an article which discusses this, using reliable sources. However, a list is binary and tends to have to say "yes or no" rather than discuss. In general, I don't think we ought to lists on such if we have no article.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the usual desirability of having articles as well. In this case, we need an article on the subject. I have insufficient familiarity with the theater to write one, though. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Scott and Alison. PeterSymonds (talk) 08:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced WP:OR. I'm not opposed to someone adding well-referenced, culturally relevant plays two the articles on pedophilia and child sexual abuse. These are not necessarily the same theme, and conflating them is a bad idea. The editor doing that might as well start from scratch. Pcap ping 12:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr nom. Guestworker (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure how this article is original research when it is linking to the works "portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors." It is not as though we cannot simply click on the works and see if they do portray pedophilia or the sexual abuse of minors. Although...if those articles do not have sources in them backing up these claims, that could be considered one of the problems. Flyer22 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, inappropriate and unsourced original research. It really saddens me that DGG thinks this garbage should be kept. JBsupreme (talk) 08:38, 12 February 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Torture Comedy Hour[edit]

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

This band has never charted, never won a major award, and lacks coverage in reliable sources that could establish its notability. WP:PROD was declined ("new links and references verfiying this band have been posted"); only an affiliated band's MySpace page and a Billboard page that confirms the lack of charting releases are cited as sources. Fails WP:NBAND, WP:GNG. Yappy2bhere (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BAND. No notability besides weak by-association-only claims. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete: I have posted up multiple sites within the past week containing information verifying the existence of the band. Fromnumb2nothing 00:17, 10 February 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 all to List of Sit Down, Shut Up episodes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SpEd[edit]

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

As per this discussion which took place in November, the majority, if not all, of the episodes of Sit Down, Shut Up are not individually notable. I am only nominating the episodes which clearly fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines in this discussion; while the other three may also be non-notable, they deserve their own deletion discussions. Neelix (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources for everything except the episode title. Creator of these articles was indeffed for at least 20 copyvio pictures around Fox and Mike Judge animated series and swiping article content directly from TV.com and IMDB. No doubt these articles also have copyvio content. Nate • (chatter) 07:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Sit Down, Shut Up (season 1) and Sit Down, Shut Up (season 2) There seems to be an additional, but unnecessary article at List of Sit Down, Shut Up episodes DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just merged the individual season articles into the list of episodes because the season articles consisted entirely of lists already included on the main list. If the episode titles become redirects, they should become redirects to the main list of episodes. Neelix (talk) 14:42, 9 February 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) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs portraying paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Blatant original research, it has languished unreferenced and unmonitored for years now. It's been through two prior AfDs which returned 'no consensus' plus promises of improvement which never came to fruition. Also fails WP:DIRECTORY and clearly fails WP:LISTCRUFT per points 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8 Alison ^❤ 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Alison ^❤ 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original research and highly subjective.--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has references. If the references support the claim that a particular song deals with paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors, then it isn't original research. In some cases, the topic of a song may be sufficiently obvious that a reference is unnecessary. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research/synthesis - plus multiple additional grounds for deletion per nom. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is obviously not unreferenced and adding more references seems easy - I just added another one. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but it still clearly fails WP:LISTCRUFT amongst others. Refs are not the only issue here - Alison ^❤ 00:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay and so is just a matter of opinion and taste. WP:CENSOR is a policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Garbage is garbage, far as I'm concerned. People will decide accordingly. And WP:DIRECTORY is certainly policy, BTW - Alison ^❤ 01:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.

-- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably there are enough academic sources to create a general Pedophilia in popular culture overview, but we have WP:Categories which are a perfectly good substitute for such lists. Song meanings in particular though bring us into the realm of WP:OR as it's simply Lit Crit. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless listcruft. Completely ridiculous group of otherwise unrelated songs. Viridae ^Talk 03:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insignificant cross of random categorizations. Per WP:NOTDIR, #6: "Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon". Random lists of topics of songs isn't really a "sufficient basis to create an article". --Jayron32 03:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just what Wikipedia needs, San Quentin Quayle's Greatest Hits. And it's missing the most obvious one, "Hot Child in the City". Apparently the author became distracted when he got to F. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely original research.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or incubate. It requires a lot of work, trimming, sourcing etc. but it is not worthless -and deletion policy tell us that we shouldn't delete when things can be fixed by editing. Many editors here cite the essay WP:LISTCRUFT the list, clearly, doesn't fall under that. We have articles on the subject of paedophilia, we can have RS that cite the song as depicting the subject, it is not a trivial or non-notable intersection (it is an highly controversial subject of popular culture). --Cyclopia ^talk 14:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jayron32, above, has already clearly expressed the rationale that I believe applies here. Deor (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DIR and WP:OR. I'll throw in this: who defines "minor"? That does depend on jurisdiction such that some songs might fit this definition in some places, and not in others. Far too open to interpretation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin, so his entire catalog might need to be on the list. And don't forgot the big country hit, "Coal Minor's Daughter". Or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(sits back, places feet on back of seat in front and munches loudly on popcorn) - tricky this one - I am very generous/inclusive when it comes to notability and encyclopedic-ness, but believe strongly in the deletion of misinformation and the criteria for this list can be applied quite nebulously. I can't get off the fence...Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source that someone responsible has actually said that. If necessary , semi-protect permanently. If really necessary, make an exception to protection policy by IAR and protect permanently, requiring discussion of new additions on the talk p. My first thoughts were the same as Casliber's , but I think we can handle even this. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, DGG. How on earth is this list even remotely encyclopedic? I'm truly struggling to find some sort of rationale to warrant keeping it, or even to warrant watchlisting the thing. Seriously, whyy??? We've enough real articles to warrant fretting over. Ugh!! - Alison ^❤ 04:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am thinking it could be feasible if (a) semiprotected, and (b) policed with some groundrules that there had to be a reference where the songwriter had stated the song was specifically about paedophilia or sexual abuse of minors. Funnily enough, this would be better sourced by a primary rather than secondary source. Material unsourced would be removed otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are literally millions of songs with unintelligible mush-mouthed lyrics stating that someone wants someone to be his baby, have his baby, have sex with him, or whatever, with rarely a clear indication of the ages of the persons involved. There could be a referenced list or article about songs depicting sexual abuse of minors (HE:"She's only seventeen!" SHE: "He's only thirty-five!("17" by Bill Summers and Summer Heat (1982)) with books stating that the songs depict sexual abuse of a minor, but this is not it. Maybe "Sweet little sixteen " is a song which qualifies, as the reactions of jazz musicians at the Newport 1958 Jazz Festival hearing it indicated . Maybe not. Original research could make "Young girl, get outta my mind, my love for you is way outta line" from 1968 qualify. In many cases, qualification for this list is in the mind of the listener. Edison (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And don't forget "Go Away Little Girl", by that well-known purveyor of lasciviousness, Donnie Osmond. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sixteen Going on Seventeen from The Sound of Music could possibly fit the bill, again, depending on which jurisdiction you are talking about. LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What about "My Heart Belongs to Daddy"? And that was mainstream, in the 40s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, that just had something to do with serving smoked fish. Edison (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split and merge to paedophilia and child sexual abuse. The article as it is now has been cut down to verfiable material. There may be some culturally relevant songs here, but this list is conflating paedophilia ideation with memories of child sexual abuse. A few singers that have been subjected to sexual abuse as children have used their art as means to express those memories and associated feelings. There may also be some culturally relevant depictions of paedophilia ideation (per WP:NOTCENSORED these should be allowed on the wiki). But, I think that mixing the two themes in the same list is a bad idea. Also, there's not enough material here for a stand-alone list, let alone for two of them. Pcap ping 11:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 12:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some bits, Delete the rest. Pcap makes a fair point; the confluence between pedophilia and child sexual abuse is a bit tenuous, at least as far as the music goes. Merging some notable examples over to other articles has value, but I don't think we can keep the list. The issues noted by Alison, Jayron32, and others are valid, as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jayron32 and Alison. 16x9 (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pr nom. Guestworker (talk) 21:40, 9 February 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 redirect to Patas Monkey. Nominator and all participants in agreement for redirect. (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wadi monkey[edit]

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

Page is for a nickname of a species of monkey that already has a page. Material contained is unsourced and duplicated information from the formal species page. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Patas Monkey. Nothing to merge.Mattg82 (talk) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it just dawned on me to convert to a redirect. Sorry, brain got fuzzy from re-categorizing several hundred articles. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as a valid search term, and let's call this one a day. Nothing there that shouldn't be in the main article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:18, 8 February 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.