Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 11 June 13 June >

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) 04:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Yee[edit]

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

I put this biography of a perennial political candidate up for PROD but it was (reasonably) declined as he founded a political party, Central Party (British Columbia). However, the electoral record of that party is very small, listed as 41 votes in one election and 101 in another. This candidate is known only for his political campaigning (his main job was apparently "security officer" and I wonder whether it is worth having a mostly uncited BLP for him, when an article for his political party exists and in which any electoral information could be added. (I acknowledge that his lengthy track record indicates he is not just a "one event" BLP, but notability doesn't look convincing to me; perhaps I am unfamiliar with the standards expected for perennial losing candidates though) TheGrappler (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The NFM Network[edit]

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

I can find absolutely no evidence that the NFM Network - or, indeed, its parent Tote Media - is notable. No refs are provided, and all I can find is a Facebook page for the parent; nothing for NFM. I42 (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that last part might not be true, I rechecked with her and I think she is confused... :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hard to even verify that the network exists. The only things found on Google are Wikipedia articles and facebook - not even a company website. A website link [1] is provided in the article, but its only content is "The new site launches August 30!" ... of what year it doesn't say. --MelanieN (talk) 01:18, 19 June 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 Brooklyn Rapid Transit Company. Shimeru 08:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethel Gibletts[edit]

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

This woman lost her eye in an unusual, but otherwise non-notable accident. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: The article describes more than a newsworthy item. Instead it describes how injuries, particularly eye wounds were dealt with in regard to punishment and indemnities in the early part of the 20th century. It is a significant parameter for law students who are looking for background with regard to the loss of eyesight in terms of compensation for plaintiff's injuries.Robert (talk) 19:40, 14 June 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. See talk page 山本一郎 (会話) 19:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional worms[edit]

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

List which fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Unreferenced, and no significant work has been done on it since the last AFD. I'm pretty sure that most of the introduction is pure original research. Claritas § 21:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please see WP:VAGUEWAVE. What is the original thesis here? The nomination claims to be "pretty sure" but provides not a scrap of detail nor evidence. When I start to check out the lead, I seem to have no difficulty finding sources for its claims. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
As a child, I lay awake in fear of the Lambton Worm. Compiling a list of our articles about such notable topics is not original research - it is a help and guide to our readership. If parts of the article need work, this is a reason to improve them in accordance with our editing policy. I shall make a little improvement now, drawing on sources such as The Greenwood encyclopedia of science fiction and fantasy. Bringing together works such as Dune and Tremors is not OR - it is a statement of the obvious for which there are many sources.
Note also that the reference in the nomination to WP:NOTCATALOG is quite spurious as that refers to sales catalogs such as Sears. What we have here is a list - a navigational concept which is well established on Wikipedia, performing the useful service of an encyclopedic index. This irrelevant rationale shows the feeble, over-reaching nature of this nomination for which WP:NOTAGAIN seems the most appropriate shortcut.
Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the notcatalog reference. I was unaware that it pointed to that part of the guideline - I thought it referred to catalogue as a synonym of directory. My mistake. Claritas § 12:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR and per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR.Other such lists should be deleted too. This is what categories are for. Verbal chat 15:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, WP:NOTDIR. Another unreferenced list which contains many non-notable entries. The lead of this article is terrible and does not follow WP:WAF. SnottyWong talk 01:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This, like most all "list of fictional animals" articles, is of a topic far too broad (per WP:SALAT) to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. The result is nothing but a directory listing of every fictional character our editors can think of. Another viable option would be to rename and revamp. A verifiable article on how worms have been used in fiction (but not such a neverending list) may be acceptable, but it would necessitate deleting at least the namedropping "worms in popular culture" section of this article. ThemFromSpace 09:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it doesn't. That example is in a completely different section of the guideline, which deals with the naming of lists and not the content of lists. WP:SALAT states Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into categories. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). Replace "brand names" with "fictional worms" and the argument loses none of its weight. ThemFromSpace 16:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline makes the sensible point that lists should be divided into segments of a reasonable size. This is what has been done with the list of fictional animals - it has been subdivided by type of animal so producing lists of size comparable with List of generic and genericized trademarks, say. The list before us therefore fully complaint with the guideline and the specific example provided by the guideline confirms this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This, like the other articles of this sort, are appropriate encyclopedic content. How are they too broad? if they need division by genre, the articles can be split. If they are significant figures in notable works, it's properly inclusive, not at all excessive. Lists in general are good navigational content, and we should not remove them if they might be helpful. DGG ( talk ) 04:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SALAT (as Themfromspace points out). Tavix |  Talk  16:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've said that on everyone's comment that references WP:SALAT. You have four people all referencing the same guideline, maybe we're not as crazy as you might think. Tavix |  Talk  05:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most of the articles mentioned in the list are referenced. Any un-referenced list entries could be removed. The Library of Congress has a subject heading 'Worms - fiction', (sorry no permalink, but it can be found thru the LOC search link [2]). That shows it's a recognized & notable topic, and the article has a decent, even if only partially referenced, intro. Novickas (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's almost entirely unreferenced, and has all of the SALAT issues Themfromspace points out. An infinite index precedent. Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of this example within the guideline is clear evidence of its acceptability. We have numerous lists of this kind - see Lists of fictional animals - and so the suggestion that this example is structurally defective or abnormal is blatantly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. It's just being used as an example of a naming convention. Acceptability is determined by consensus, not policy. The fact that this list does not only cover worms, but also types of mythological serpents is one of the main arguments for deletion. There's not a clear consensus whether any of these lists of fictional animals should exist, so I've been reviewing them and nominating the most defective for deletion. It's my belief that these lists fail WP:IINFO and other policies on content, but I think consensus should determine what happens to them. Claritas § 15:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is clearly our well-established consensus that list of fictional animals are ok. Your attempt to change this is just your personal opinion which in no way represents the numerous editors who have created, maintained and read these lists. You seem to be picking at the fringes of these articles rather than starting with the common and substantial cases such as horses, cats and dogs. The idea that we should not have lists which assist navigation to articles such as Black Beauty, Rin Tin Tin and Garfield seems quite absurd. The Lambton Worm is perhaps of narrower interest but there seems to be no reason why we should not cover such notable cases too. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that this list does not only cover worms, but also types of mythological serpents is one of the main arguments for deletion. - And it's a blatantly wrong argument for deletion, for the simple reason that it is something that can be dealt with simply editing out the non-reasonable entries. Our deletion policy says that if a problem can be fixed by editing, it doesn't need deletion. --Cyclopiatalk 23:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking one of these in dire need of deletion check out List of fictional penguins (along with the equally problematic Penguins in popular culture). ThemFromSpace 15:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not at all! That's a pretty good pop culture-related article. ThemFromSpace 16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tux is one of the articles in that list and WP:SALAT encourages to provides lists of this sort to assist reader navigation to fine articles of this sort. User:Claritas has now just nominated that list for deletion too. This seems rather intemperate when we have no clear consensus for deletion here and the guideline so clearly contradicts this crusade. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* How about accepting that I have a different point of view from you on this matter and get on with editing ? I don't complain about your zeal in rescuing articles when you !vote keep in discussions. This is obviously not a disruptive nomination - because there are plenty of editors who support deletion, and there are arguments based on policy for deletion. Claritas § 16:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The position is not symmetrical because it is far more work to improve an article than to make a drive-by nomination for deletion. Making multiple nominations in parallel rather than waiting for the outcome of some test cases such as this is vexatious because of the extra work which is generated. We already have a sensible guideline which is provided to forestall such activity. Failing to take heed of this is contrary to our orderly deletion process and so is disruptive. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a test case concerning fictional entities. You can find it at WP:Articles for deletion/List of fictional military organizations (3rd nomination). My continual participation in the debate demonstrates that this is not a "drive-by deletion nomination", and I remind you that WP:BURDEN applies for those who wish to keep content. I should make sure that this isn't a undisputedly suitable topic, which I have done so. It's clear from the discussion that there are arguments both ways. If you want to keep this list, rewrite the introduction and source every entry. Claritas § 16:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made some improvements already, as noted above, and now User:Novickas has picked up the torch and is doing fine work. I myself shall be turning my attention to the other lists in question, insofaras time permits. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Most seem to be referenced via their own articles, so it's not unreferenced. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. And strongly protest Colonel Warden's attempt to characterize this nomination as disruptive. Reyk YO! 22:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was the nomination of List of fictional penguins as a spinoff from this discussion that seemed disruptive. Starting an expanding wave of nominations without giving time for the outcomes of the first one(s) to be settled tends to generate more excitement and drama than is sensible. There should be no need for a rush in a case of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow continued improvements. What was first sent to AFD as an unsourced article is now receiving the attention it needs and the sourcing it requires.[3] Allowing it to remain and be further improved, improves the project. I will note that the article title is mis-leading. As the article offers far more than a mere list, and is not about eathworms, I suggest a namechange be discussed to better reflect the sourced content. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a Library of Congress subject heading for 'Worms - fiction'. (That's where I found some of the recent entries.) It's heavy on the children's books, maybe because it seems to use the word Worm in the title as a criterion. But most of the worms listed here play major enough roles in works of fiction to be mentioned in wikilinked articles, even when they're not directly referenced here. An LOC subject heading shows that a reliable source groups them. Novickas (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The LOC designation appears to function as a directory for readers. We are an encyclopedia, which is a step beyond a directory. If the LOC wrote up an analysis of the list of fictional worms that would be one thing, but just listing a rundown of fictional worms is entirely different. ThemFromSpace 14:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LC subject headings are based upon the existence of a literature on the subject. It's the principle by which they're prepared, not as a theoretical list of possible topics. DGG ( talk ) 05:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and, are you actually arguing that the criterion for having a list is that someone should have written about how to prepare a list on the subject? There are indeed a few such topics--for example, there are articles and even books on what plays should be in a list of those Shakespeare actually wrote. But that's an extremely restrictive criterion. Almost no list on WP or elsewhere in the world meets it. You're asking that , for example, for a list of cities in X someone has to write a book on how to determine what cities in X should be on a list? DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like the actual grouping of items in the list to have recieved commentary, to meet the GNG (which lists are not exempt from). It's easy for truly notable lists to meet this criterion, like the list of Shakespeare's plays and more recently AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies. Anything else, as gavin says, is original research. We can't create our own list of items out of thin air and then claim that it meets the notability guidelines just because someone once stated that the item is found in groups. That's silly, but sadly this is how most list entries were created; by users putting random items together and creating their own lists instead of finding truely notable lists to form the backbone of an encyclopedia article. ThemFromSpace 11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: fundamentally inappropriate for an encyclopedia because wikipedia is not a directory of cross-categorizations. Indiscriminate topic for a list. Shooterwalker (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arguments like a list of fictional worms is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional worms? It is clearly not indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly not as broad to fail WP:SALAT: in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such deletion policy asks us not to delete. --Cyclopiatalk 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This Afd, as are many in WP, is frustrating because there no fiction in the real chasm (I am inspired by the view of the Grand Canyon at this very moment below me from 36,000 feet) between the DGGs and Wardens who believe in lists and the Gavins and Theme's who don't. As is with the Grand Canyon and this endless chasm, there is neither bridge nor ferry across the chasm and rarely does anyone meet in the middle because its apparently too hard to get to the bottom. I am personally on the side with DGG and Colonel Warden et. al so therefore my keep, but frustrated still by the continuous intractability of these arguments.--Mike Cline (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I believe in the encyclopedic value of such lists, and I usually interpret WP:N much more stringently than DGG and Colonel Warden. These lists, if discriminating, are better than the alternatives, which are either no lists or many individual articles. I perceive more consensus on this than you seem to. Abductive (reasoning) 22:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. This sort of information can be better carried through categories. The list itself is problematic because it does not draw a strong enough distinction between worms and dragons, even mentioning computer worms in the intro, begging the question of whether or not to include fictional computer viruses as well. Gobonobo T C 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A wrong argument for deletion, for the simple reason that it is something that can be dealt with simply editing out the non-reasonable entries. Our deletion policy says that if a problem can be fixed by editing, it doesn't need deletion.--Cyclopiatalk 09:20, 21 June 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. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional pandas[edit]

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

List which fails WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Completely unreferenced, some of the pandas listed aren't even linked to the work they appear in. The fact that no attempt to reference the list or otherwise substantially improve it since the last AFD (ended in no consensus) indicates that deletion would be appropriate. Claritas § 21:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP has many of the same type of lists. No reason to single this one out, it does no harm. If someone is not interested in fictional pandas then skip it. Wolfview (talk) 21:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ehh... If the list was partially sourced, I'd say keep it. It's entirely unsourced at this point, which suggests, along the lines of WP:CLN's advice, that we make this into a category instead. It's obviously not completable, so category is the preferred choice. No objection to keeping it if someone wants to trim all the entries without articles and source whatever's left, but that's a lot of work. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The work involved is trivial, as I have demonstrated by sourcing the first entry. The reason it doesn't get done is that it is largely pointless busy work. Citations are only required for information that is controversial or disputed. The reason that this list has been nominated seems to be the usual hatred of fictional topics. This is a systemic bias which we don't see applied to other lists such as List of asteroids/118101–118200. A fictional panda such as Andy Panda is far more notable than asteroid 118101 and so a navigational list is quite sensible. If there's some particular entry which seems incorrect then please point it out or remove it. Deletion of the whole is excessive - a lazy way of avoiding the chore of doing actual editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's nothing to do with a "hatred of fictional topics", it's to do with the fact that this list can never be adequately complete, has no genuine inclusion criteria, contains content which may well be unverifiable or original research. The asteroid list is an encyclopaedic list which has inclusion criteria, and has been completed. I would strongly suggest that you read WP:NOTDIR - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)" should be deleted. Can you find a policy which contradicts that ?
  • Keep Absurd nomination as the list is obviously neither indiscriminate nor a sales catalog. The nomination complains that no work has been done. This is the poor argument of WP:NOEFFORT. Perhaps the nominator can tell us what work he has done as we see no signs of his activity on the article's talk page or in its edit history. AFD is not cleanup nor a way of extorting work from other editors. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warden, thanks for informing me about the error in my nomination. I meant WP:NOTDIR - "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as (but not limited to) quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional)" should be deleted - I think this extends to lists of animals. Please be civil and assume good faith in AFDs, or I may have to take this issue to WP:AN. Thanks. Claritas § 12:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in question has been edited by numerous editors. In proposing this for deletion, you are challenging their competence and good sense. Per WP:SAUCE, we may likewise challenge the quality of the nomination and the due diligence which has preceded it, per the proper process. If you do not care to have your handiwork inspected and and criticised then please do not submit it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a central principal of Wikipedia to assume good faith. I'm trying to improve the wiki by the discussion of what I see as listcruft and if I consider a list to be fundamentally unsuitable, WP:AFD is a perfectly suitable place to discuss it. I'm not actually challenging anyone's "competence and good sense". Well respected and productive editors have produced articles which have been deleted. I'm simply questioning whether there's a consensus to keep this on Wikipedia. Let's be calm and discuss this sensibly. Claritas § 16:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Better sourcing would be valuable, but none-the-less a useful list Vartanza (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR.Other such lists should be deleted too. This is what categories are for. Verbal chat 15:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOTDIR. Only one element of this list has a reference. It seems odd to me that this article has existed for so long, and had such extensive work to it done by numerous editors, yet no one has been able to find sources. If you got rid of all the red-linked and non-linked elements in this list, you'd be left with a pretty sad looking article. Why is that important? Because red-linked and non-linked elements mean that they're likely not notable. So, can we jump to the conclusion that this list is a collection of mostly non-notable things? I think it would be safe to say yes. SnottyWong talk 01:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This, like most all "list of fictional animals" articles, is of a topic far too broad (per WP:SALAT) to have a discriminate, encyclopedic article built from it. The result is nothing but a directory listing of every fictional character our editors can think of. ThemFromSpace 09:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This, like the other articles of this sort, are appropriate encyclopedic content. How is it too broad? If the items in it are significant figures in notable works, it's properly inclusive, not at all excessive. Lists in general are good navigational content, and we should not remove them if they might be helpful. It's not a directory--if we started looking for minor or background characters, we could find a great many more--but that would be non-encyclopedic and a directory. DGG ( talk ) 04:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not completely unsourced - it links to a number of Wikipedia articles which have their own sources. I do agree it is poorly sourced, as there are many with no such article, but I'm sure finding sources for most of the entries wouldn't be hard - and better than deleting the whole list. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:IINFO. You don't make lists just because you like to make lists. If a list is unsourced, as this is, it should at least perform some sort of useful navigational function- and this doesn't. Useless clutter. Reyk YO! 22:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The list may be badly sourced, but is not unsourced - it contains a number of of links to other Wikipedia articles which provide their own sourcing. A lot of the entries are unsourced, yes, and the unsourced entries should either be sourced or removed - but that's not a reason to delete the whole article Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of the entries are either redlinks or no link at all, and I reject the idea that an unsourced Wikipedia page is fine as long as it links to ones that are. That just seems like a great way to pile the encyclopedia full of original research and useless clutter. Reyk YO! 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that unlinked or relinked entries should either be sourced or removed, but list entries that link to sourced articles are not WP:OR, and it does not make them useless clutter - it is the work of but a moment to copy a source from the article to the list if that's what's needed, and that's a lot more constructive than just labeling the whole list "unsourced" and calling for its deletion. (Oh, and I'm not making a general claim that "an unsourced Wikipedia page is fine as long as it links to ones that are" - I'm talking specifically of lists, and if you look around you'll find many many lists that are not fully independently sourced, but link to sourced articles) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Save the Pandas - sometime ago someone tried to delete this article. That Pandacidal Plot was foiled. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wikipedia is NOTDIRECTORY and you can't stitch together any random group of things you find interesting. Not an encyclopedic group because there are no secondary sources that talk about this grouping. Despite claims for potential, there are no sources because none exist. Fails WP:N and WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NOT as indiscriminate information because a list of fictional pandas is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value. (WP:SALAT) I've checked though the entries and found that only Andy Panda, Lord Noriyuki, Takemitsu SeiRyu, and Tarepanda that have stand-alone articles about the characters. And that's not assessing the notability of those characters. The rest are links to character lists, links to the works the characters are from, redirect to character lists or works the characters are from, or have no link at all. I would also have to agree that this is a list or repository of loosely associated topics, and thus fails the Wikipedia is not a directory of the WP:NOT policy. Just because there are other lists exist with similar issues doesn't mean that we give this list a pass as far a policy is concerned. —Farix (t | c) 16:20, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this list topic list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on using Wikipedia to publish original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation.--Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Arguments like a list of fictional pandas is far too general and too broad in scope to have any value speak for themselves: what is general and broad about a subject as specific as notable, fictional pandas? It is clearly not indiscriminate (very well defined inclusion criteria) and clearly not as broad to fail WP:SALAT: in any case I'd like to remind that WP:SALAT is never a reason for deletion, but for reorganization: the guideline says: Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value, unless they are split into sections. For example a list of brand names would be far too long to be of value. If you have an interest in listing brand names, try to limit the scope in some way (by product category, by country, by date, etc.). This is best done by sectioning the general page under categories. When entries in a category have grown enough to warrant a fresh list-article, they can be moved out to a new page, and be replaced by a See new list link. When all categories become links to lists, the page becomes a list repository or "List of lists" and the entries can be displayed as a bulleted list. For reference see Lists of people, which is made up of specific categorical lists. The nom argument deals with sourcing, which can easily be done by editing, and as such deletion policy asks us not to delete. --Cyclopiatalk 17:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments Here--Mike Cline (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The argument that the list is indiscriminate is invalid; fictional pandas are numerous but not too numerous, and are easy to define. If there are problems with non-notable and/or unsourced fictional pandas in the list, that can be fixed by editing them out. The claim that pandas are appealing to consumers of animation and other media is true, and doubtless sources exist to back up this claim. List of fictional musk oxen, List of fictional sassafras trees and List of fictional talking toasters would probably be worthy of deletion, but List of fictional tigers would worth keeping. See Charismatic megafauna. Abductive (reasoning) 23:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per same commentary at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional worms (3rd nomination). There is no consensus to delete, though improvement seems needed.--Milowent (talk) 15:51, 21 June 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. Shimeru 07:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads Music[edit]

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

Record label, who may have some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Codf1977 (talk) 21:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

for the reason that all but one of the Keeps in the first AfD were based on inherited notability, and the other was based on WP:GOOGLEHITS. Codf1977 (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep - This is going nowhere. I give up. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kürd Mahrızlı[edit]

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

Insufficient sources to establish notability. Explodicle (T/C) 17:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am not disputing that it is a village. Presuming that sources must exist is inadequate; the burden is on you to actually find sources if you want to keep this article. They do not need to be in English. --Explodicle (T/C) 11:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towns, villages and other settlements are considered inherently notable regardless of size. — Oakshade 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]
  • Would you please link to the guideline, policy, or clear consensus where this was established? WP:INHERENT does not appear to be widely supported. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually it is widely and strongly supported. See WP:OUTCOMES#Places. There has been a clear long-standing consensus that verified towns are notable regardless of size. Having to have debates over the "notability" of each and every of the tens of thousands of towns, villages in the world would be an extremely counter-productive activity to this project when time and resources would be better spent dedicated to the creation and improvement of articles. You'll see as other editors weigh in on this AfD. --Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...I've added "speedy" now that the nom has acknowledged it's a village. For one user who doesn't agree with that to be demanding sources about a village with multiple spellings in a country that uses a language not heavily used on the net is silly wikilawyering. Even the Azerbaijan Wikipedia article lists a source, but as expected it appears only in print, which is still valid.--Oakshade (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly does this source actually say? It might not be directly in detail and different Wikipedias sometimes have different standards. --Explodicle (T/C) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't know right now because it's only in print. The "If I can't see the source right now on the internet then it must be ignored" mentality is something I strongly disagree with. But it is a verified standalone village so it really doesn't matter anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 01:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with that mentality as well. If you (or any non-SPA) can verify that the source is detailed, I'll take your word for it and withdraw the nomination. --Explodicle (T/C) 02:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, an article of a standalone town of this size in the US or UK would never get deleted. Demanding deletion of an article just because Azerbaijani or Kurdish internet sources aren't readily available as they are in English is a textbook case of systemic bias, --Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the long-standing consensus at AfD that all populated settlements are suitable subjects for encyclopedia articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Real places are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real places are inherently notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The consistent consensus here is that all inhabited settlements are notable. Attempts to make a formal rule have foundered over the difficulty of defining a settlement, but there is no question but a village is such. (in contrast to a neighborhood or a housing tract) We make the rules here by what we do as well as by what we say. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep please read WP:GNG. Every place is inherently notable for its own right as long as it is verifiable. Could be expanded from the corresponding Azeri Wikipedia article, added a template. Maashatra11 (talk) 10:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just asked you to read it. It says in short that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". Maashatra11 (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you actually saying? Should we follow the GNG or this essay? --Explodicle (T/C) 14:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say both. Maashatra11 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So where's the significant coverage regarding this village? --Explodicle (T/C) 18:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the source in the Azeri language mentioned in the article. Maashatra11 (talk) 19:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's a good source? Have you read it? We should hold paper sources to the same standards as internet sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I cannot answer this question. If you REALLY want to know and inquire into the subject, you can ask the Azeri contributor who added the source and information about this village in the Azeri Wikipedia here :[5]. I can see he's a very active contributor; so I guess he'll be happy to tell you more about the village and about that source. Maashatra11 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my job to do this research. It's yours. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can say the same about every other offline source. I don't see the point of your argument. Were you serious when you said "It's not my job to do this research. It's yours."? I didn't quite understand what you meant. What are you pointing to? Maashatra11 (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're expected to actually read the sources you use to support your claims of notability. If you can't read Azeri, then Google can translate it. I'm not even asking anyone to scan it, transcribe it, translate it, or quote it; all I'm asking is for any one of you who supports keeping to verify that a substantive article can in theory be written. Heck, at this point I won't even ask that you do it immediately - we can redirect to Qubadli Rayon until you find something and then restore the article. I'll be satisfied if one keeper here, anyone, does any actual research to improve this article. Seriously. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not expect every article to be as perfect as you wish, there's no need to hurry. This specific article is IMO quite in a good state, compared to thousands of other village article which constitute merely of the name of the village, its country, and a single reference. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, why do we need to have an article right now? Can't it wait until someone finds that source? Wikipedia isn't a travel guide (not that I'm straying from WP:N) and I'd certainly say the same thing about all the other similar stuff that exists. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should we wait for? Sources exist already. If they don't satisfy you, that doesn't mean that they don't satisfy the whole Wikipedia community. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should wait for someone who is actually willing to do some research. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm truly sorry to say this, but from what I can see from your comments, you express a very bad faith and your comments are reminiscent of various disruptive editing patterns such as WP:WL, WP:GAME and WP:PS. Your challenging questions are by no means for the purpose of reaching a concensus, but rather to demonstrate a personal standpoint. Maashatra11 (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry again if you feel bad about what I said, but I don't want to address you personally on your talk page, I was just talking in the course of this discussion and your comments. What constitutes behaviours reminiscent of wikilawyering is what you said above in the whole discussion, not specifically "asking for you to not attack my character during a deletion discussion". I considered my words very carefully when I said that you seem to express bad faith, and I didn't mean to "attack" you Maashatra11 (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Water under the bridge. Now, I've been sticking to notability this whole time. What we've got here is a tiny little village with no significant coverage; do we even know the approximate population? No one has actually presented a source that actually refutes my non-notability claims. One source that might, but none of us have actually read it. So whose job is it to check? The guy who wants it deleted, or the guys who insist the source is good enough? --Explodicle (T/C) 22:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never insisted this source was "good enough". It might as well be a bad source, whose verifiability can be checked if you ask the Azeri contributor who added it. IMO, and I quote the other editors who voted here, "real places are inherently notable". I have nothing to add to that. "Significant coverage" isn't a clear term; If this village exists, it could be assumed that various sources about it in Azerbaijani exist too (such as the one out there already) but unfortunately no editor has yet taken the time to cite specific sources in Wikipedia. Maashatra11 (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So whose responsibility is it to check this source? Mine or yours? --Explodicle (T/C) 22:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the burden of checking a source lies on whoever doubts it. Thanks. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taarak Mehta Ka Ooltah Chashmah[edit]

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

Because

  1. Tags of lack of references and wikipedia clean up have been repeatedly deleted.
  2. It contains a lot of Original research like
...of late since end 2009,serial goes biased,for instance, the May 2010 episodes are more on Wealth overtaking Values. With bad pronunciations by the Hero's son Tapu, Tapu is being glorified all times, perhaps, he's linked to producers.
...He(Bhide) ensures that he saves every single paise whenever he can, which shows that he understands the importance of money, this habit of his is laughed by many. In one of the episodes it becomes a reason for quarrel between Daya Gada and Madhavi Bhide.
...she(sonu) is a very sweet child who is not only well mannered but cultured as well. She is an intelligent and systematic girl. She goes to school on time, attends all her classes, comes back home, plays for a little while, does her homework, prepares her bag for the next day, prays to God and goes to sleep.(too much detail,they never showed a 'busy' sonu.)
...He(sodhi) owns a transport business and also runs a Mandap Decorators service as an ancillary business to support his wife.[...]He hates 'Tapu' for breaking the glass of his window unlimited number of times.
She(Mrs. Roshan) is a sweetheart and very co-operative. She innocently commits a mistake but never realizes it which turns into a funny light moment. Both Sodhi and Roshan always have communication issues because of the language barrier.

Thereare alot more.I'll need an article List of Original researches in article of TMKUC.

  1. and how can you think that an article of 78 sections and sub-sections and approx. 35 thousand letters could have ONLY THREE references!

CoercorashTalkContr. 18:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a show broadcast on national TV which has had substantial press coverage - see the Google News search results linked above. The issues raised by the nominator can be fixed by editing (which would probably involve removing most of the content) and, if tags continue to be removed wrongly, blocking or (semi-)protection. They don't require us to delete an article on a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have completed the deletion nomination by adding this to the daily log. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable TV show. I have now stubbed the article and sourced the sourcable parts. If you find it full of OR and lengthy descriptions, be bold and remove the unsourced parts. If the IP deletes tags appeal for semi protection. No need to delete the article when there are alternatives.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - RTS ratio of 0.66 is a red flag. RussianReversal (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nationally-broadcast television series which apparently won several awards, sourced to reliable sources independent of the subject. If IP disturbance continues, the article can be semi-protected. Thanks to whoever facilitated the clean-up. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Remove unsourced statements, no need to delete the article. Edgepedia (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable Hindi series whose coverage meets WP:GNG [6]. While sympathyzing with the nominator's concerns about tags being removed, that calls for protection, not deletion. Same for his concerns with article style and tone. These can be addressed with actual editing. While tags make the concerns someone else's problem, surmountable issues are never cause for deletion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:10, 15 June 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.
  • KEEP I've done almost 90% typing of the original article, and suddenly some people decided to vandalise it with vulgar text and now you've also deleted the authentic things wrote in that article by me. this is not right. how am i supposed to 'show references'? its a tv show, the only reference is watch it on TV and see what happens. how can i quote some book or website for it? when I write "xyz thing happened in episode number 212" then i'm writing it after watching the show the previous day. how can i quote or show reference for such thing? going by the same analogy you've should also delete every movie plot description in every movie page, because people tell in detail the entire plot including the climax and end. how do they know it? ofcourse after watching the movie itself. now look at the article, its only one paragraph left and everything else is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrunaltPatel (talk • contribs) 10:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Even if you discard the usual "It's notable" !votes there are still some good arguments for keeping. No prejudice to renomination, of course, especially as it's a BLP. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Uchitel[edit]

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

Article appears to be about a person notable for one event only, namely her possible involvement with Tiger Woods. I can't see any indication this person is notable outside of that. TNXMan 17:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: This article already appears to have been deleted once, with the same concerns. TNXMan 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable celebrity with massive continuing media coverage. Classic inclusionist vs. exclusionist debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 17:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument doesn't address the initial concern: this person has only received coverage for one event and doesn't seem notable outside of that event. TNXMan 17:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may disagree as to importance, but Uchitel was also in the news a lot after 9/11 as her fiance died there. So its not a clear one event case.--Milowent (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the last AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:1ERussianReversal (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and the previous AFD, which ended in delete, since she hasn't become more notable since. Edison (talk) 01:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Salt She's only known for one event, and all of her other jobs are in the eyes of a normal person incredibly menial. Nate • (chatter) 03:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yesterday's flash-in-the-pan news. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect? She is a likely search term. What are the arguments against redirecting to Tiger Woods section on scandal? Vartanza (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt If there was proof of an affair with Woods, a redirect might be in order, but it's denied - so there might be BLP problems there. Otherwise, her relationships are not noteworthy, and she's doing a job - like so many of us. Peridon (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per significant coverage in reliable sources. I wrote previously about the last deletion here, where you can see more of my thoughts on this article if you are interested. (Note the 1st AfD should have closed no consensus, default to keep. But it was closed as "default to delete" which caused major drama, so the rationale was edited then upheld after more drama on deletion review. Cheers.--Milowent (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the DRV is here if anyone would like to peruse it. TNXMan 13:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She was notable over a nine year period when she was deleted last time. Still not a flash in the pan. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment No, she was not notable, per the consensus of the previous AFD. The Wikipedia community did not determine that she had been "notable for 9 years" as you claim. Quite the opposite. Edison (talk)
  • Delete When you take the "affair" out of the article you are left with a thoroughly unnotable person. It is therefore very much a WP:BLP1E despite this article's attempts to play up other parts of the subject's biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you take "affair" out though? That's not this article. We have scads of articles on alleged affair persons, e.g., Gennifer Flowers.--Milowent (talk) 00:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that should be taken out of the article, just that without it there's nothing of note left. Therefore, she's only notable for one (alleged) event. The likes of Gennifer Flowers are a little different in my view: there was ongoing significant coverage in respect of ongoing events. Now you might be of the view that Uchitel is in the same category, which is fine - I don't. BLP1E is a policy but it's a policy that can be difficult to apply. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Edison and MKativerata. There has been about 10 years of coverage on the woman. You could take out the affair, and she would still pass the WP:GNG. In fact, because I knew that knee jerk jotes were coming in the last AfD, I specifically wrote an article about her that passed the WP:GNG, and didn't mention the affair at all. It doesn't really matter though. I've voted to keep many an article that didn't pass the GNG, and it was kept. It's only fair that we can delete notable articles based on our gut as well. Just be happy you have the numbers, instead of repeating that she isn't notable when she does happen to pass the guideline. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck your !vote, but only because you've already !voted once. TNXMan 11:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i supplemented jtbobwaysf's cite, as that recent press coverage went far beyond the huff post. Confirmation of the affair did follow; i added cites to the story as reported in the Times of India, Daily Mail, and Toronto Sun.--Milowent (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing has changed since the last AFD. Nancy talk 12:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Surprised we even have to go through this as she is much less in the news now than the last time it was decided to delete the article.Jeppiz (talk) 12:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles like this get re-created all the time, oftentimes people don't notice it.--Milowent (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't blame the re-creator, whoever that is. I'm merely pointed out that the person's notability has already been discussed, the decision was to delete, and since then her notability has, if anything, decreased.Jeppiz (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)\[reply]
To be a bit more accurate (though it got very convoluted last time), the original close of the last AfD was "no consensus" but then the closer "defaulted" to delete". This caused tons of drama (trout slaps to closer, etc.), but the "no consensus" finding was appropriate. Later, the closer amended the rationale and the DRV ultimately upheld the deletion.--Milowent (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just like last time, and salt it this time. Absolutely nothing has changed- she's still a textbook case of BLP1E, and a not particularly notable 1E at that. Being one of a celebrity's mistresses doesn't equal encyclopaedic notability. Courcelles (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She's more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debrahlee Lorenzana, at least in terms of ongoing coverage!--Milowent (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic seems to be notable for multiple matters - 9/11, Tiger Woods, her nightclub role, Playboy, etc. The BLP1E claim is therefore false. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the fact that her role in 9/11 is completely non-notable, not to mention her nightclub role. So BLP1E remains very much the case here.Jeppiz (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is her 9/11 role "non-notable"? Its been noted innumerable times in press stories from 2001 to the present. The only place that Uchitel's small role in 9/11 is deemed non-notable is in AfD dicussions on wikipedia. Meanwhile german newspapers republish her 9/11 pictures.--Milowent (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that close of the DRV explicitly gacve leave to recreate and try again but I'm still only seeing one really significant event here and having an affair with tiger woods does not make you independantly notable even if there are other minor roles. my opinion is that this doesn't add up to notability so I vote Delete Spartaz Humbug! 20:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's now got acres of news coverage over many years, so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply at all. Count the events: She was known for the coverage of her fiance dying in 9/11, she was known for getting remarried, she is known as a nightclub hostess (and was known for this before the Woods scandal), she is known for the Tiger Woods scandal (obviously), she is known for another affair, and it now appears that she's appearing in Playboy. 6=1? Even O'Brien only tried 2 + 2 = 5. Deletionists here are just trying to censor this bio now, there is no valid justification under policy for deletion and any admin who closes as delete will have a tough time on their hands picking out a valid reason other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Remember that it's not a vote! She's not hiding from her notoriety, so I have no idea who they think they're protecting. Deletion voters are the new puritans, trying to keep 'unseemly' subjects from readers' eyes, despite her appearing all over the rest of the internet - we could provide a balanced summary of her life to counter all the gossip, but no, the deletionists prefer to 'purify' Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the content instead of speculating about other editors' motives. Saying that all who favour deletion want to "censor" Wikipedia and are "puritans" is about as unintelligent and as irrelevant to the discussion as saying that your motives to favour keeping the article is to wank off to her picture. It's irrelevant to the discussion, it's impossible to know, it's commenting on editors instead of content and it is most likely to be completely wrong.Jeppiz (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The way things seem to be going, people will be notable for not having had an affair with Woods.... As it is, having an affair with him might merit a place in List of Tiger Woods's Mistresses but I can't see it as a basis for a separate article. How many other fiances or fiancees died in 9/11? And wives/husbands/partners? Are they all individually notable? Puritan? Wikipedia is not censored. I, for one, am not trying to 'protect' her. I just don't think she's worth an article. Peridon (talk) 16:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Having a relative who died in 911 doesn't matter. Receiving lots of coverage because of it is what matters. Same with affairs, and really anything. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So when was the article about her first written? If she's notable for other things than being Wood's mistress, how come nobody thought to write about her before that?Jeppiz (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article was written as least as far back as November 2009, I don't know before that.--Milowent (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point I'm making. The article was written because of Woods (the story broke in November 2009), nobody thought her 9/11-role, her marriage or her night club to be notable before her affair with Woods was published in November 2009.Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When she first became notable, we were adding missing articles on Entire countries. And there was no notability guideline. She wasn't a priority, but an article could have been written. I can't remember if I created, or just expanded the first article on her. But, before I did so, I did a google news search and saw articles going back 8 years. That's when I went to work on that version. I specifically left out the affair to show that it wasn't even needed to pass notability. A controversial admin came along and used the article to push his view that BLP AFDs should be closed as delete, and it was deleted. An odd DRV ensued which upheld it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She has had sustained coverage over multiple years for multiple reasons. Prior to the alleged Tiger Woods affair, she might have scraped by on the notability bar, but adding the coverage from the alleged affair places notability beyond just scraping by. -- Whpq (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable for the alleged Tiger Woods affair, but weirdly this barely rates a mention in the article. Still worth saving because of the media coverage she gained, however. BlackCab (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Recommend closure of WP:OLD. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I ran trough the sources, and i would point out that most of them just mention her name in the passing. I would conclude that the 9/11 and nightclub waitress parts in the biography are little more then a filler; The article's themselves detail the nightclub and the 9/1 aftermath, not Rachel Uchitel. That leaves us with the Tiger Woods issue. I would argue that the issue itself is absolutely notable, but i would equally point out that it is only notable because of the involvement of tiger woods. Therefor i would say that a mention in tiger woods article is more then sufficient to explain the situation. To conclude: I would cite WP:BLP1E on this article, and i would point out that this article resembled a WP:COATRACK where all non notable coverage attempts to cover up the 1E issue. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This individual has been the verifiable subject of significant news coverage to include discussions on Oprah, the View and even an SNL parody. Funny or sad thing thing is I don't watch the women's programs but am aware of them.----moreno oso (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article has just been sourced with a reliable from the NY Times which detailed a cancelled news conference about the alleged affair as reported by CBS News - both reputable news sources with editorial oversight. Additionally, the The Independent, a United Kingdom newspaper, has reported that Uchitel is the reason the "alleged affairs" became news. Please see: Sport on TV: Tiger was so deeply embedded he couldn't see Woods for trees www.independent.co.uk. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then those sources would be an improvement to the section about the affair on the Tiger Woods page, but being the reason for an affair becoming known is hardly enough to warrant an article.Jeppiz (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a value judgment about the subject, but the proper inquiry is whether there is significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, which there undoubtedly is. Unfortunately, when an article subject is a female and sex is involved even in part, some editors ignore policies and guidelines in order to favor deletion. No doubt that may be part of the reason why this AfD is still open after 9 days. But retaining it will do no harm to the project. I do not see a consensus to delete the article, I see a good faith debate about the extent of coverage of the individual.--Milowent (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I may correct you, the proper inquire is whether there is significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources for more than one event. And once again, I don't know why you and others favouring "keep" feel this urge to come with completely redundant, irrelevant and unintelligent speculations about the motives of those who do not share your views. Apart from being contrary to Wikipedia policies, it only reveals your lack of factual arguments.Jeppiz (talk) 13:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as many editors in this review have stated, she is notable for more than one event. Post 9/11 coverage, for whatever reason includes stuff like [7], and [8], in addition to an assortment of profiles. It may be because of her looks. But for whatever reason, that coverage exists. It predates any of the Tiger Woods stuff. -- Whpq (talk) 13:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeppiz, I hate to step out, but I can only discern that you have a lack of knowledge of the coverage of the subject. The 9/11 photos she was in were published worldwide, and get referenced years later.[9],[10],[11] (Toronto Sun 2002, "Woman's grief captured for world to see"), [12] (The Mirror, UK, 2004) ("THE photograph of Rachel Uchitel crying as she handed out posters of her missing fiance Andy O'Grady is one of the most poignant images of September 11."), [13](calling her "the face of loss" from an "iconic photo" from 9/11), [14] Bild (big german paper, 2009)("Everyone remembers the pictures of Rachel Uchitel, who ran crying through the streets of New York looking for her fiancée – today she is a prominent It-Girl") Iconic photos like this have supported articles by themselves about their subjects, e.g., Afghan Girl. The best we can say for this AfD is that there is a debate over whether BLP1E applies, and no consensus that it does.--Milowent (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right about a lot of things. I'm not American, and I'm the first to admit that I may be less up to date with American news coverage. Needless to say it's as relevant as any other news coverage, I am in no way applying that coverage mainly in American media wouldn' be enough. I, for one, has never heard about this picture and since I haven't seen a link to it posted anywhere, I wonder how well-known it is. Don't get me wrong, this is not an attempt to say that it is not well-know, it might well be and mine is an honest question about it. I'm sure you can easily find a few links to it, so perhaps you could one? And I agree that this is a borderline case. She seems to be the kind of person who is never really famous but have been on the fringe of some very notable events. Perhaps that's enough to warrant an article about her, although I'm still not sure.Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the photo is all over the internet, but here's a reliable source that has it. It's the one where she's crying. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you google image search "9/11 uchitel" you'll find more copies, put Peregrine Fisher has noted it correctly. A bit more sad than Tourist guy, another notable 9/11 "image".--Milowent (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant keep. I argued to delete at the last AFD, and am tempted to do so again, but looking at the references objectively it seems that she has now received sufficient attention from independent sources over a long period of time to demonstrate that she is notable, and not merely part of a flash-in-the-pan news story. (Much as I wish it were otherwise.) I'm dubious about the reliability of TMZ and Huffington Post as sources, but even ignoring those ones, I think there is now enough here to justify a Wikipedia biography. Robofish (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Assuming the 9-11 coverage is de minimus, she is still receiving coverage for this one event, so we don't know yet if there will not be long-lasting notablity. If this is not closed as a keep, I would urge revisiting this in a year or so to see whether she truly is a WP:BLP1E.--PinkBull 19:45, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The consensus is that the sources TenPoundHammer has found are sufficient. NAC—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Midas Records Nashville[edit]

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

Record label, who may have some notable clients, is not it's self notable. (see WP:Inherited) - Fails WP:GNG and WP:ORG as it has not had significant coverage of it's own. Codf1977 (talk) 17:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they are mentions - but don't think that they are WP:GNG or WP:CORP's significant coverage - I still say that it falls well short of being Notable as for notable acts assoicated with the company, is not that a claim of inherited notability ? That all said would not argue with a redirect to E1 Music ( Koch Records redirects there) as per Chubbles as it is a possible search term. Codf1977 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, the Billboard one seems pretty authoritative in particular. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per Chubbles. The label was notable for a while and had three artists who produced to top 40 Billboard hits, most notably Emerson Drive, who are no longer with the label as of last year. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TPH. Eric444 (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - and merge perhaps a single comment to Koch Records. Its uncited after three years, there appears to be no independent coverage. Off2riorob (talk) 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Recommend closure of WP:OLD. ----moreno oso (talk) 13:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TenPoundHammer's thoughts, he's a knowledgeable source on these type of AFDs.--Milowent (talk) 15:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burn Locally, Crash Globally[edit]

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

Unremarkable....scenario? notability issues. Dengero (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete a scenario outlined in a talk and a book that does not seem to have attracted much notice. -- Whpq (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a chapter title in one, non notable book. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:01, 18 June 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. I was mindful that WP:BROADCAST is merely an essay, however it is cited frequently in similar AfDs. I also considered AfD Common outcomes (which is also neither policy nor guideline). On balance I feel there is an existing and long-standing consensus to follow WP:BROADCAST. TFOWR 10:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WMEJ[edit]

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

This article cites two sources: the radio equivalent of a WHOIS record and a press release. Neither is a non-trivial reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Huh? WP:BROADCAST and consensus has long presumed notability for full-power-license stations that are not merely rebroadcasters, and "unique programming" is explicitly mentioned in the guideline. I don't think the sources were there to establish notability — I certainly didn't think about it when I updated the article, because it's always been presumed by WP:BROADCAST unless shown to be a rebroadcaster. (And it is admittedly a stub.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is well established here through long held consensus around licensed radio stations. Interesting story too about its recovery after the hurricane though that could stand some references from more reliable sources.--RadioFan (talk) 21:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus can change, though.RussianReversal (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is always true that consensus can change but that doesn't appear to be the case here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioFan (talk • contribs)
  • Keep - The station appears to meet WP:BROADCAST. P. D. Cook Talk to me! 23:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A 5000 watt federally licensed broadcast station which originates a portion of its own programming is clearly notable per the precedent of past AFDs. Edison (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BROADCAST and probably WSNO Wikipedia. Most people would consider the Federal Communications Commission database to be a non-trivial reliable, independent source. Mandsford 17:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Station meets all the requirements for a radio station page, which consensus has shown have notability. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People, WP:BROADCAST and "consensus" (i.e. agreement among a few interested parties) do not trump policy, which is that Wikipedia is not a directory and all articles must have reliable independent sources. This article lacks any sources for anything beyond its existence. I can provide similar sources for the existence of my house. Feel free to add non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources, because everything above amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't WP:ILIKEIT require the editor to like it? For example, I updated the article only because I was making sure the link to WMEJ didn't misdirect now that this station had this callsign; I don't have any vested interest in it at all. That the station has an established broadcast history (a minimum of 27 years for this station, and likely longer) is established by FCC FMQ; and that it has unique programming is established by the sources (website establishes a request line and its own studio, and Orban citation established that the station carried its own music selections at some point). Is there any question that the station has a 27+ year history and has broadcast its own programming? Your house is not an independent source of public attention on a daily basis, such as a radio station or daily newspaper is. That said, I suppose it's fair to point out that WP:BROADCAST is still considered an "essay" on Wikipedia and has not been raised to guidelines status. Nevertheless, the presumed notability of a full-power license with independently-controlled programming has been followed to the point of being taken for granted in 99% of cases the past few years. Consensus can change, of course; but if one is going to put forth that receiving a full-power broadcast license and having independent program origination is not grounds for presuming notability on English Wikipedia, then that is a change in guideline interpretation that may affect hundreds (or thousands) of articles; if that is the intent, then I would say it requires, at the least, that someone say that they believe a high percentage of broadcast station articles are on Wikipedia in error and that the (well-known) consensus should be re-evaluated explicitly and in general. --Closeapple (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
''Comment "WMEJ is the best station around" is an example of WP:ILIKEIT, I'm not seeing any arguments that thin in this discussion. Contributors to this discussion are pointing to the FCC as a reliable, non-trivial source (along with other sources in the article) and a long held consensus that this is enough to establish notability. However, the nomination is beginning to look like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not necessarily with the article in question but with the concensus on notability of licensed broadcast stations. --RadioFan (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how an article about a single entity is a "directory" anyway. If someone wants to change the consensus that's described in WP:BROADCAST, it requires that people agree that the consensus should change. In three years, however, I can't remember that we deleted an article about a government licensed radio or television station. Mandsford 15:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AFD was closed by User:Ktr101 at 22:03 yesterday. However, WP:NAC explicitly states that non-admin closure is not appropriate for WP:SNOW cases. Therefore, in accordance with WP:DPR#NAC, I, an administrator, am reopening this discussion.
    I would note that WP:BROADCAST is an essay, does not have consensus, and while it is citeable as a possible reason for keeping the article, does not have the force of guideline or policy. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, let me see if I understand this correctly....everyone above is "ILIKEIT" and Guy (who is clearly "IDONTLIKEIT") can go against the consensus and notability established with other AfDs and discussions by other admins elsewhere because he essentially doesn't like something. Is that what we are doing? We are deciding what is and isn't consensus now? Hell, wipe the site clean cause half of the stuff on here would fall under Guy's IDONTLIKEIT logic. Radio stations, be them AM, FM or LP (Low-Power, per the FCC) and Television stations, be them full or low-power are notable and have been since the start of this very project. To now say that aren't, would completely ignore years of consensus that they are. As I have said previously, this is a waste of the community's time and the close was a good one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and the article now cites four sources. Two of which are the Federal Communications Commission, a United States Government department, so a big time reliable source and the other two are local newspapers. So, I think this more than passes the WP:N test. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would point out that I reopened this AFD strictly on procedural grounds, because non-admin closures on SNOW grounds are not permissible. I have no opinion on the merits of this article (although I do think there are perhaps too many articles about random American TV/radio stations), but I do not think that leaving this discussion open for its full duration will cause any harm to Wikipedia and will not therefore be snow-closing it myself. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can't help there are too many articles, there are too many of them cause there are too many stations. The few that remain in WP:WPRS and WP:TVS have done a great job getting radio and TV station articles up, keeping them updated and notable, keeping them sourced. But please don't think that this is just an "American thing". There are articles for radio and TV stations in the UK, Australia, France, many places. Where there is radio and television, there are articles for them. So this isn't just an "American thing". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of camera phones[edit]

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

Has become non-notable, because as of 2010 nearly all new phones have a camera. Andries (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedily deleted (G1, nonsense) by JzG. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple to cherry comparison[edit]

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

No sources cited, no hits on Google, appears to be a phrase a non-notable person has made up, and therefore is a violation of WP:MADEUP. WackyWace talk to me, people 14:24, 12 June 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 and redirect. Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Gangelhoff[edit]

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

Only real notability comes from her involvement in the Golden Gopher academic fraud scandal. Classic BLP1E in my mind--information is better suited for an article on the scandal itself. Blueboy96 14:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Nevison[edit]

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

A young swimmer who appears to have reached the level of the British national Army Cadet Force championships, where he has been quite successful. However, he does not meet the inclusion criteria for an article in the encyclopedia per WP:Athlete as he has not competed at the highest amateur level of the sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships. I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources to meet the primary inclusion criterion WP:GNG. A prod was removed by an IP without explanation or improvement. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. As an athlete, there is no evidence of competing at the highest level of his sport. I checked fina.org (swimming governing body) and coudl not find him in the current or 2009 rankings for butterfly or backstroke. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 17 June 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 Alaska Central Express. Redirect target isn't entirely clear so its fine to fix it if I guessed wrong Spartaz Humbug! 11:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Central Express Flight 22[edit]

Alaska Central Express Flight 22 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable-enough accident to support its own article. This article duplicates a previously-created article that I merged to the airline article and this article does not add to the subject; it is not much more than a copy-and-paste of the edit I made to the airline article, even the access date of the reference. YSSYguy (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect Content already exists in obvious merge target, no merge is necessary, and no separate article warranted per my above thoughts. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did try to redirect the article but my edits were twice undone by the article creator. I still favour a redirect rather than deletion; as pointed out by Beeblebrox it is a plausible name (actually more plausible than the name of the original accident article that I merged). YSSYguy (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I (obviously) agree with the redirect, you should leave it as-is until this AfD is concluded, insofar as a redirect essentially blanks the article being discussed. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have made clear that my attempts to redirect were prior to my initiating this discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 02:14, 15 June 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 [[[edit]List of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation characters]]. actual merge target is open to editorial decision Spartaz Humbug! 11:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Haskell[edit]

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

Is this character notable enough for his own article? It's also unsourced. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 12:17, 12 June 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 Brain–computer_interface#Synthetic_telepathy. Spartaz Humbug! 11:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DARPA Silent Talk[edit]

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

Although I believe there is such a proposal and put a reference at DARPA on this, there seems to be no evidence of notability for this and no evidence that any work is being done. I had turned Silent Talk and this article into a redirect to DARPA but the redirect on this article has been removed, thus this AfD. Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • turn back into a section redirect. As long as there is no reference and no evidence of notability, nobody had a call to revert your edit, it would just have been rollbackable. I don't quite see a point of turning an unjustified revert into an AfD. --dab (𒁳) 13:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to previous redirect seems like a reasonable compromise as it is a valid redirect. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert to previous redirect sounds like the best idea to me. This is supposedly a DARPA project (even if no work is being done on it) after all, and so I recommend a redirect to the DARPA page. - 128.198.188.39 (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Miller (US Army)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MILPEOPLE. Military duties not notable; written works are either not published or unnotable (unpublished dissertation; article on internet journal, deadlink); academic life fails WP:PROF. NO RS for "brightest and best" claims. Gwinva (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:BIO and insufficient coverage to pass WP:N -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and RP459. The article even states his "low-profile" has "kept him out of the spotlight". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This officer's duties are extremely notable. The small circle around General Petraeus has effectively steered U.S. Army doctrine on counterinsurgency onto a new course - while the US lost in Vietnam, they might 'win' in Iraq - and evidence of that should not be deleted. Note the back-to-back service as an aide to generals - this officer is probably headed for the stars. Vanity words etc should probably be deleted, but we may have to recreate this bio when he becomes a flag officer if we delete it now. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "probably headed for the stars" = "crystal ball gazing," not a valid keep argument. The article screams out for pruning of peacock language: "fabled, impressive, legendary, distinguished, consigliere." No reliable and independent secondary sources are cited for this gushing praise, so I will remove it. [User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be doing a good job and advancing in his chosen profession, Does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: unless he skips full colonel (which certainly happens in my army, so may happen in his) he probably won't receive star rank for a little while. If and when that happens we may need to recreate the article, however, currently its lack of sourcing is a WP:BLP issue. This aside, currently this article does not satisfy WP:BIO due to lack of sources. The subject also probably doesn't pass WP:MILPEOPLE, IMO. Nor do I believe that the published works would qualify him as an author as they do not seem to be major works. If better esourcing could be found, I might consider changing my opinion. — AustralianRupert (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Being a staff officer under Petraeus doesn't equate to notability. He may have been there, he may have even had a hand in, but nothing really attributes anything to him other than his billet. No other notability is proven, and I'm not at all swayed by the "may need this article later" argument, especially since the jump from colonel (which he hasn't been promoted to yet) to brigadier general is the most precarious in all of the ranks; who knows if he will ever make it, and it surely won't be soon. Honestly, the whole thing sounds like a resume for someone trying to get noticed. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 22:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom TomStar81 (Talk) 01:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bahamut0013 - staff officers, unlike flag officers, are not considered per se notable. We'll revisit it when he actually gets promoted to general, but this is premature. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 15 June 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 List_of_numbers#Gillion_system. Shimeru 08:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrillion[edit]

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

I think this article is over-trivially created. Yes, tetrillion does exist as a number under the Gillion system, but it is almost unused in the world. Nearly all large-number terms after quadrillion have no article of their own, why this one? Dengero (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it deserves to be used. 1012 is a commonly used number, whereas 1015 and so on are not. How are people going to start using it if we hide its existence? There is an entry (a redirect) for "gillion" already. (Now don't go and start deleting that one too!) Anyway, what difference does it make to you? Are you worried about disk space on Wikipedia's computers? Just this discussion is taking up more disk space than my two-sentence article! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that rather than deleting the article, it could do with being tagged as a stub or be tagged as needing "wikifying" to make it more suitable for wikipedia because at the moment, it doesn't seem very useful as a two line article, but if it was to have more information put into it, I think it would be a useful article for wikipedia users looking for mathematics information. I have tagged it as a maths stub for now. Tomdresser27 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to List_of_numbers#Gillion_system is a useful redirect but does not pass WP:N to allow it's own article. -- RP459 Talk/Contributions 16:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per tomdresser. of course the integer is notable, but this word as a name for it is definitely not notable, yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The section about the Gillion system is not reliably sourced and should probably be removed. (In fact, much of the article has verifiability issues.) The article Long and short scales explains the issue the Gillion system is trying to solve.--RDBury (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect - Clearly not notable. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laurent Nivalle[edit]

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

Fails WP:ARTIST. I cannot find anything that supports notability. Most links in the article are self promotion. Movementarian (Talk) 09:44, 12 June 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. Tikiwont (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevo Maido[edit]

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

This band's Facebook page says "After a long battle with some guy at wikipedia I managed to convince him we are a real band so for now the... page is staying haha", but actually all he did was convince me to undo my A7 deletion and ask him for sources. None have been provided, and my searches have found nothing at all, so that I think this is probably a hoax. The "findsources" links above show only the group's Facebook page and some Twitter. I haven't found back records of the AIR charts, but searches for their supposed hit single give nothing:

There is nothing in Allmusic. Their Facebook page doesn't read like that of a real band with an album just out - nothing about music, gigs or records, it's mainly about their attempt to get into Wikipedia. Fails WP:N and WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 09:31, 12 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses reference works[edit]

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

Insufficient third-party sources. Individual publications fail notability guideline for books. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#JW_publications Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – There seems to be only book-related sources, but the sources seem to be pretty reliable. It is also a pretty well-written article. It would be very much a pity if the authors wouldn't be allowed to have this article left in the article space, because of the authors times of writing it. For example: If the authors of this article have spent a total of 2 hours on the article, it is the same thing as that the authors have lost a total of 2 hours of their lifes, just because the article got deleted. Also, this article is more than 1 year old, so I think and believe that it is too late to nominate this article. Heymid (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are published by the Watch Tower Society, the publisher of the publications in question. Of the nine non-Watchtower sources, one is an irrelevant link to Wiktionary about usage of the word 'indices', five are passing references to the Watchtower Index, and the remaining three (which contain the only notable statements) each refer to one single source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was the primary author, as a concession for separate articles that existed for each of the books previously, and having given a warning that they may not be retained. I don't mind.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Jeffro77: If you were the primary author of the article, and because you nominated this article for deletion by yourself, I would suggest you to put the {{Db-g7}} template in the article, which basically marks the article for speedy deletion in a category on English Wikipedia. Heymid (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was the primary editor on this article, however it was adapted from previous articles about each of the individual books, and figured there may still be some contention.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an evangelical resource for any religion. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - could not find significant coverage by independent reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly, Wikipedia does NOT discriminate against any religion, and we aren't going to start with the Jehovah's Witnesses. There is nothing "evangelical" about the tone of this article, and the subject is not "unencyclopedic" simply because it refers to religion, anymore so than on articles about the literature issued by other religious authorities. The "Proclaimers book" is probably notable enough [15] for its own article [16], and the same could be said about other publications [17] [18] [19] [20]. Although I'd prefer this lone article to lots of individual articles about different texts, I'd prefer lots of individual articles to no information at all. Mandsford 18:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this to be discriminatory, can you please indicate similar articles for publications of other religious groups? The reason for deleting isn't because of being "unencyclopedic", but because the subject doesn't have sources indicating it to be "notable".
Other publications citing a JW publication to indicate a JW belief isn't the same as discussion of a notable publication. It is sufficient to briefly indicate any notable publications at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This again? A similar 2009 AfD by the same nominator was rejected by an administrator, and this one should be rejected also.

The result of the 'similar' AfD was a redirection, not a rejected deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witnesses should keep in mind that JWs release at least three or four new publications every year, and nearly every title has an initial run of several million. While those titles are not necessarily notable for Wikipedia's purposes, this article doesn't seek to discuss all those titles (the majority of those titles can properly be relegated to a mere list or a general discussion). These few titles (which are each discussed in a section of this article) are significantly more notable; each of these books is a bona fide reference work coincidentally (or not) published by Jehovah's Witnesses. These few titles are significantly more notable even than most evangelical materials with runs of several million.

Previous to the creation of this particular article, several notable publications of Jehovah's Witnesses each had an individual article. Among them:

Ironically, Jeffro77, the editor who here nominates this article for deletion, actually CREATED this article Jehovah's Witnesses reference works.

After AuthorityTam requested[21] help with creating the article, I created it as a favour[22] because there had been recent tension in editing. I now know that it is not worth doing AuthorityTam any favours.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Insight on the Scriptures" was an article since February 2005 about a notable print encyclopedia with millions in circulation; that is, until Jeffro77 (who here nominates this article for deletion) consolidated that article's material with other notable titles in May 2009. Similarly, "Reasoning from the Scriptures" was an article since June 2005 about what is perhaps the best-known JW reference work; that is, until Jeffro77 consolidated that second article's material also in May 2009. Even more interesting is "Aid to Bible Understanding", an article since February 2005 about an earlier notable print encyclopedia with millions in circulation. That title had survived an earlier AfD; interestingly, one of those 2005 AfD commenters suggested created an article for Jehovah's Witnesses reference works. Did Jeffro77 know that a previous nomination to delete detailed discussion of Aid to Bible Understanding. had been rejected by an administrator? In any event, Jeffro77 is the editor who moved the "Aid..." material from its own article to the new article Jeffro himself had created, also in May 2009.

Of the original articles prior to consolidation, only one, Aid to Bible Understanding, had any third party references. I have no concerns about adding any notable information about that publication to Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Jeffro77 has bided his time for a year, at first merely diluting notable titles alongside others, but now relaunching his effort to delete detailed discussion of notable JW book titles, in this case a handful of books which are official reference works of a major religion. Doesn't it seem remarkably odd to shoot directly for deletion without giving {{Template:Refimprove}} or a similar template even a moment to work? Editors should be assured that it would be time-consuming but boringly straightforward to collect the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of additional references showing the notability of these titles. Again, odd that an AfD is the first choice of an experienced editor such as Jeffro77. Odd for an editor to try and delete an article he himself had created a year earlier.

I created the article at AuthorityTam's suggestion[23][24][25][26] as a concession, but remained concerned about notability[27][28][29]. In response to my acknowledgment of creating the articles at his suggestion, he deleted my comment which he considered to be "obsolete", though he retains most Talk comments back to 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 is himself a former Jehovah's Witnesses, having discussed his "firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion, as well as his "close contact" and his claimed personal observations, such as how "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored". Regarding JW publications and JWs themselves, Jeffro77 has claimed that they evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic", and "morally bereft". Before being rejected by an administrator, Jeffro's 2009 AfD was only seconded by one other editor, BlackCab aka LTSally, a self-described "ex-JW" editor who had previously declared himself "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous" Jehovah's Witnesses.

AuthorityTam here makes various false or misleading claims about my edits:
  • A false statement implying ""firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion", in reference to a diff in which I referred to the existence of firsthand experiences, which I did not claim as my own. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
  • A reference to my "close contact" with JWs, wherein I indicate that I happen to know JWs (through relatives, though it's no one's business), which AuthorityTam seeks to use in association with the imagined admission of 'expulsion'. (edit was 4 years ago)
  • A misused reference to 'evading taxes' in reference to the Watch Tower Society's change from the sale of literature by the organisation to avoid sales tax imposed on literature following a US Supreme Court case (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1374/argument, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=493&invol=378) involving Jimmy Swaggart, which is not at all a statement that individual JW members 'evade taxes' at all. (edit was nearly 3.5 years ago)
  • A statement about inflating statistics of 'preaching', based on observation and reports from others. (edit was 4 years ago)
  • An opinion about how JWs must acquiesce to doctrines they don't necessarily agree with. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
  • Various opinions about JW policies based on observation and reports from others (edits from 4 and 4.5 years ago)
  • An expression of disdain about a JW article that suggested it was unfortunate that "apostate" JWs could not be killed by their family members (edit was 4.5 years ago) (Actual quote from JW source "We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy ... The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.")
Put simply, AuthorityTam is quick to indicate (quite irrelevantly) that I don't agree with everything JWs say and do in order to sidestep the issue of whether this article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. AuthorityTam is very quiet here about many occasions on which I argued strenuously against claims that JWs are not Christian, and many other issues - unlike AuthorityTam, I don't have time at the moment to leisurely trawl through edit histories - see JW Talk history pages and history pages of related articles if desired.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and administrators who are less directly affected by Jehovah's Witnesses should reject the efforts of a former JW (such as Jeffro77) to delete this article, as administrators have rejected similar AfD's in the past for titles such as "Shining as Illuminators in the World". and "Aid to Bible Understanding". The fact is that Wikipedia is well-served by a detailed discussion of a handful of individually-notable but related publications. This discussion in this article should be in addition to a mere list or general discussion of the hundreds of other JW titles of lesser notability.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what AuthorityTam claims above, I did not 'discuss my expulsion from JWs' in the ambiguous statement AuthorityTam misuses above at all; I simply indicated that firsthand experiences exist. Additionally, AuthorityTam's assertion is irrelevant to whether the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
Aside from that, when these articles were first created as a concession for existing individual articles for non-notable JW publications, AuthorityTam (the main proponent for keeping the original articles) was warned that there were still notability concerns.
As already stated, any notable details about these publications can be indicated at the existing article, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorityTam also claims that I have taken quick action to move for the article's deletion rather than add a {{refimprove}} template. In reality the article has had a ({{Primary sources}}) template seeking third-party references since May 2009.Templates weren't added to this article as was done for the 'evangelizing' article. However, it is clear that the same concerns existed for the family of three similar articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is both disturbing and amusing that AuthorityTam has decided to trawl through my Talk page edits from the last 5 years to find 'evidence' that I disagree with certain JW beliefs and policies, and of course AuthorityTam hasn't bothered to dredge up other edits where I have defended the religion where other editors have made false claims. Of course, none of this has any bearing at all on whether this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. As previously stated, anything notable about the JW publications cited should be at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability. And AuthorityTam's defence of this worthless piece of crap deserves to be struck out on the basis of his extraordinarily venomous personal attack on another editor. This is clearly an editor who is bleeding over the possible deletion of material that does nothing more than hijack Wikipedia for the purposes of promoting publications used by his own religion to make money. Appalling behavior. BlackCab (talk) 13:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Are there any articles similar to this one? The short answer is yes. Catholic Encyclopedia for example. Jehovah's Witnesses are the number two religion in several developing countries and a top ten religion (depending on definition) in some developed countries. They are undoubtedly a high profile religion which people want to investigate. WP as a research resource has an obligation to provide as much relevant information on such a well known religion as can be provided.George (talk)
Comparing JW publications with the Catholic Encyclopedia in terms of notability is a bit of a stretch. Even in countries where JWs "are the number two religion", we're still talking about 1% of the population, and less in most countries. By population, they're hardly a "high profile religion", and their high profile relates more to issues of controversy. Though the religion itself is certainly notable, there is little evidence that specific JW publications are so notable that it is necessary to have more than the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications where any notable details can be located. Most third-party sources citing JW literature are either critical or cite factoids rather than overall discussion of the specific publications themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of notability in books[edit]

Before Jeffro77 interspersed, my comment looked like this.
The threat to delete these notable titles has always seemed awfully close to WP:SNOWBALL, but this AfD hasn't yet been dismissed, so... for a related AfD by this same nominator, I took five minutes and checked just one website: books.google.com for the individual titles. The result was an avalanche of books which demonstrated the notability of those titles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents#Examples of notability in books.
If editors still seriously question the notability of these titles, I can do the same for the titles in this article, and also cite some periodicals next week. This misguided mission of deletion just seems remarkable for its long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As those Google results show, they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability about books, and a simple count of Google search results does not establish notability. Acknowledging that a book exists is not the criteria. Most of the results are references to those works on JW-related web forums, with some Wikipedia mirrors and book stores thrown in. AuthorityTam has previously tried to misuse the Google method[30] (after confusing nouns as modifiers with standard adjectives).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim of "long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions"... I expressed concern at the outset about notability, but have allowed a year for citations to be added, for which I am criticized by AuthorityTam. If I had allowed less time, is it likely that AuthorityTam would be less critical?? There are certainly "strong emotions" at play here, but they're not mine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JW publications article[edit]

I have edited Jehovah's Witnesses publications to include all information referenced in third-party sources from this family of articles (I haven't included the Watchtower Index, because... it's an index—it 'Does exactly what it says on the tin'), with provision to add sections for any information about specific JW publications if they are discussed (rather than merely briefly cited) by notable third-party sources. The article also includes brief mention of other primary JW publications, even though they are not mentioned in third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - bias, religious bigotry, and ex-JWs aside, this simple search gives many precedents"the book of...",
    also serious publications made specifically as references and specifically as encyclopedias should (if they aren't) always be considered notable. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to List of Jehovah's Witnesses reference works. This is essentially a list (a bibliography of sorts) that augments the Jehovah's Witnesses publications article. As such, a bit of rewording in the lead would establish clear inclusion criteria. Then any descriptive information for each entry would just need proper sourcing to verify what is being said. Each entry would not necessarily have to be notable enough in its own right for to be included as long as it met inclusion criteria. A bit of cleanup and renaming will bring this list up to WP:list quickly.--Mike Cline (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any notable information could be included at Jehovah's Witnesses publications. List of Jehovah's Witnesses publications also already exists. As far as reference works are concerned, there might be slightly more justification for retaining a separate article in comparison to the others of this family of articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete Merge - the article clearly misses notability guidelines as per WP:NBOOK. It even says in the introduction to the article that the books listed have only been distributed to members. None of these books alone are notable, and putting them together doesn't really do much other than make it seem like a WP:SOAP. In fact, now that I am looking even more closely, each book would barely have an entry if not for the sentences describing whether it was paperback or hardcover. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've already merged information from the family of articles that is cited in third-party publications. In principle, I therefore agree with Merge, but since it's already done, my position remains Delete.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The titles may be worth mentioning, and their existence is certainly notable enough, but as part of a single list. JW literature garners public attention in general, but this breakdown lacks the third-party coverage sufficient to support separate, categorized, articles. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:59, 20 June 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for youths[edit]

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

Insufficient third-party sources. Individual publications fail notability guideline for books. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#JW_publications Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of these articles was first proposed at the JW WikiProject Talk page two weeks ago. Any well-sourced information should be (and largely, is) at Jehovah's Witnesses publications (though this particular article has 0 third-party sources) and there doesn't seem to be sufficient notability for these special-focus articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not for wikipedia. Bhaktivinode (talk) 04:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On the other three AfDs for this series of articles User:AuthorityTam has made irrelevant ad hominem attacks on me (about which no more needs to be said than what I have already added to the other AfDs) rather than addressing the issues of notability with these articles. The relevant part of the editor's attack is the editor's contention (echoed by Mandsford above) that I have nominated the article for deletion even though I created it. So to clarify, I originally created the article at AuthorityTam's suggestion[32][33][34][35] as a favor, and indicated that I was still concerned about notability[36][37][38]. In response to my acknowledgment of creating the articles at his suggestion, he deleted my comment which he considered to be "obsolete", though he retains most Talk comments back to 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable, article is used solely as a platform to promote JW publications that attract no external attention. BlackCab (talk) 13:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JW publications article[edit]

I have edited Jehovah's Witnesses publications to include all information referenced in third-party sources from this family of articles (there were none in this article), with provision to add sections for any information about specific JW publications if they are discussed (rather than merely briefly cited) by notable third-party sources. The article also includes brief mention of other primary JW publications, even though they are not mentioned in third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:49, 19 June 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 Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents[edit]

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

Insufficient third-party sources. Individual publications fail notability guideline for books. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#JW_publications Jeffro77 (talk) 08:12, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The publications that have third-party references in this article are already mentioned at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This again? A similar 2009 AfD by the same nominator was closed by an administrator with the conclusion:
"The result was redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents...".

Editors unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witnesses should keep in mind that JWs release at least three or four new publications every year, and nearly every title has an initial run of several million. While those titles are not necessarily notable for Wikipedia's purposes, this article doesn't seek to discuss all those titles (the majority of those titles can properly be relegated to a mere list or a general discussion). These few titles (which are each discussed in a section of this article) are significantly more notable; each of these books has is one of a handful of key publications used as manuals, tools, and references by Jehovah's Witnesses and those who study them. These publications are used globally, detailing information specific to new baptizands, fulltime pioneer ministers, and elders. These few titles are significantly more notable even than most evangelical materials with runs of several million.

Previous to the creation of this particular article, several notable publications of Jehovah's Witnesses each had an individual article. Among them:

Ironically, Jeffro77, the editor who here nominates this article for deletion, actually suggested this article's creation, stating, "suggest maybe a [new article] Jehovah's Witnesses organizational manuals for this book as well as Pay Attention book, as they're not really 'reference works'. Pay Attention is certainly more notable" (italics and wikilinks added).

AuthorityTam skillfully(?) omits the beginning of my sentence, which was "if the book is actually notable enough for inclusion".--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, "Organized to Do Jehovah's Will" (the article since 2006 about JW's global organizational manual, a notable publication) was moved to anchor the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents. Jeffro77, the above AfD nominator, himself moved "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" (the article since 2007 on the JW elders manual, a notable publication) to this same article. In 2009, Jeffro77 nominated for deletion the article "Shining as Illuminators in the World" (an article since 2007 about JW's full-time minister training manual, a notable publication); an administrator chose instead to redirect that article title to this article section; see May 16, 2009.

Of the original articles prior to consolidation, none had any third party references.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Jeffro77 has bided his time for a year, at first merely diluting notable titles alongside others, but now relaunching his effort to delete detailed discussion of notable JW book titles, in this case a handful of books which are integral to the organization and meetings of a major religion. Doesn't it seem remarkably odd to shoot directly for deletion without giving {{Template:Refimprove}} or a similar template even a moment to work? Editors should be assured that it would be time-consuming but boringly straightforward to collect the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of additional references showing the notability of these titles. Again, odd that an AfD is the first choice of an experienced editor such as Jeffro77. Odd for an editor to try and delete an article he himself had suggested a year earlier.

AutorityTam was advised on concerns of notability by me in May 2009.[40][41][42]--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was AuthorityTam, not I, who originally suggested the series of articles.[43][44][45][46].--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 is himself a former Jehovah's Witnesses, having discussed his "firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion, as well as his "close contact" and his claimed personal observations, such as how "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored". Regarding JW publications and JWs themselves, Jeffro77 has claimed that they evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic", and "morally bereft". Before being rejected by an administrator, Jeffro's 2009 AfD was only seconded by one other editor, BlackCab aka LTSally, a self-described "ex-JW" editor who had previously declared himself "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous" Jehovah's Witnesses.

AuthorityTam here makes various false or misleading claims about my edits:
  • A false statement implying ""firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion", in reference to a diff in which I referred to the existence of firsthand experiences, which I did not claim as my own. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
  • A reference to my "close contact" with JWs, wherein I indicated that I happened to know JWs (through relatives though it's no one's business), which AuthorityTam seeks to use in association with the imagined admission of 'expulsion'. (edit was 4 years ago)
  • A misused reference to 'evading taxes' in reference to the Watch Tower Society's change from the sale of literature by the organisation to avoid sales tax imposed on literature following a US Supreme Court case (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1374/argument, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=493&invol=378) involving Jimmy Swaggart, which is not at all a statement that individual JW members 'evade taxes' at all. (edit was nearly 3.5 years ago)
  • A statement about inflating statistics of 'preaching', based on observation and reports from others. (edit was 4 years ago)
  • An opinion about how JWs must acquiesce to doctrines they don't necessarily agree with. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
  • Various opinions about JW policies based on observation and reports from others (edits from 4 and 4.5 years ago)
  • An expression of disdain about a JW article that suggested it was unfortunate that "apostate" JWs could not be killed by their family members (edit was 4.5 years ago) (Actual quote from JW source "We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy ... The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.")
Put simply, AuthorityTam is quick to indicate (quite irrelevantly) that I don't agree with everything JWs say and do in order to sidestep the issue of whether this article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. AuthorityTam is very quiet here about many occasions on which I argued strenuously against claims that JWs are not Christian, and many other issues - unlike AuthorityTam, I don't have time at the moment to leisurely trawl through edit histories - see JW Talk history pages and history pages of related articles if desired.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and administrators who are less directly affected by Jehovah's Witnesses should reject the efforts of a former JW (such as Jeffro77) to delete this article, as administrators have rejected similar AfD's in the past for titles such as "Shining as Illuminators in the World". and "Aid to Bible Understanding". The fact is that Wikipedia is well-served by a detailed discussion of a handful of individually-notable but related publications. This discussion in this article should be in addition to a mere list or general discussion of the hundreds of other JW titles of lesser notability.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what AuthorityTam claims above, I did not 'discuss my expulsion from JWs' in the ambiguous statement AuthorityTam misuses above at all; I simply indicated that firsthand experiences exist. Additionally, AuthorityTam's assertion is irrelevant to whether the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
Aside from that, when these articles were first created as a concession for existing individual articles for non-notable JW publications, AuthorityTam (the main proponent for keeping the original articles) was warned that there were still notability concerns.
As already stated, any notable details about these publications can be indicated at the existing article, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorityTam also claims that I have taken quick action to move for the article's deletion rather than add a {{refimprove}} template. In reality the article has had a ({{Primary sources}}) template seeking third-party references since May 2009.Templates weren't added to this article as was done for the 'evangelizing' article. However, it is clear that the same concerns existed for the family of three similar articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is both disturbing and amusing that AuthorityTam has decided to trawl through my Talk page edits from the last 5 years to find 'evidence' that I disagree with certain JW beliefs and policies, and of course AuthorityTam hasn't bothered to dredge up other edits where I have defended the religion where other editors have made false claims. Of course, none of this has any bearing at all on whether this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. As previously stated, anything notable about the JW publications cited should be at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clear lack of notability. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of publications issued by a religion that attract no external notability. And AuthorityTam's conduct and comments here in denigrating an editor for a standard Wikipedia administrative process are beyond belief. BlackCab (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After doing quite a lot of searching on WP I found many articles about various publications produced by or about religious organizations. I am fully convinced that aritcles about various current and past JW publications are entirely appropriate and noteworthy. No one will deny that JW's are a well known and often controversial religious group which affects many people. George (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the criteria for notability of articles about books. Though the religion itself is certainly notable, there is little evidence that specific JW publications are so notable that it is necessary to have more than the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications where any notable details can be located. Most third-party sources citing JW literature are either critical or cite factoids rather than overall discussion of the specific publications themselves.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I will not repeat AuthorityTam's and George's comments. I agree with both.GabrielVelasquez (talk) 15:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreement with AuthorityTam here is not good company to be in. Aside from the irrelevant personal attacks, AuthorityTam dishonestly claims that I suggested the article, and complains about allowing the article time to garner reliable third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The titles may be worth mentioning, and their existence is certainly notable enough, but as part of a single list. JW literature garners public attention in general, but this breakdown lacks the third-party coverage sufficient to support separate, categorized, articles. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:01, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of notability in books[edit]

Before Jeffro77 interspersed, my comment looked like this.

How dare I intersperse your irrelevant personal attack.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The threat to delete these notable titles has always seemed awfully close to WP:SNOWBALL, but this AfD hasn't yet been dismissed, so... I took five minutes and checked just one website: books.google.com for the individual titles. So this is JUST BOOKS which help demonstrate the notability of these titles:

  1. "Our Kingdom Ministry" 74 books
  2. "Benefit From Theocratic Ministry School Education" 10 books (its predecessor title was referenced in 38 books)
  3. "Organized to Do Jehovah's Will" 4 books (immediate predecessor 41 books, earlier predecessor 50 books)
  4. "Shining as Illuminators in the World" 4 books
  5. "Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock" 21 books

If editors still seriously question the notability of these titles, I can cite some periodicals next week. This misguided mission of deletion just seems remarkable for its long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As those Google results show, they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability about books, and a simple count of Google search results does not establish notability. Acknowledging that a book exists is not the criteria. Most of the results (in a standard Google search) are references to those works on JW-related web forums, with some Wikipedia mirrors and book stores thrown in. AuthorityTam has previously tried to misuse the Google method[47] (after confusing nouns as modifiers with standard adjectives).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim of "long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions"... I expressed concern at the outset about notability, but have allowed a year for citations to be added, for which I am criticized by AuthorityTam. If I had allowed less time, is it likely that AuthorityTam would be less critical?? There are certainly "strong emotions" at play here, but they're not mine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Google Books search, AuthorityTam refers to 'search results' as 'books [that discus the specific JW publications]'. However, of the 'books' (search results), many simply quote a JW publication but don't involve discussion of the book itself. Some simply refer to a phrase, and not the book at all (e.g. see results from above link for "Shining as Illuminators in the World"; 10 of the 21 'books' that mention "Pay attention" refer to Acts 20:28 with no reference to the JW publication at all). As previously stated, any notable information about specific JW publications can be included at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JW publications article[edit]

I have edited Jehovah's Witnesses publications to include all information referenced in third-party sources from this family of articles, with provision to add sections for any information about specific JW publications if they are discussed (rather than merely briefly cited) by notable third-party sources. The article also includes brief mention of other primary JW publications, even though they are not mentioned in third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then it would be best to merge this into that. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 21 June 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 Jehovah's_Witnesses_publications. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses publications for evangelizing[edit]

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

Insufficient third-party sources. Individual publications fail notability guideline for books. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Jehovah's_Witnesses#JW_publications Jeffro77 (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not an evangelical resource for any religion. Guy (Help!) 14:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I can appreciate Guy's concerns, I believe that one can write an encyclopedic article about evangelism in an impartial, non-evangelical tone. Although this is one of the smaller denominations (7 million people), it is, like the Mormons, one where the members are expected to be actively evangelical. For those who have ever seen the Land Shark skits from the original Saturday Night Live, I'm not ready to club the guy bringing "The Watchtower" to the door. Mandsford 18:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure you can, but it would need to be something other than a directory and sourced from independent sources. Which this isn't. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't about evangelism, it's about specific books a particular religious group uses, with a lack of third-party sources, and I'm not aware of similar articles about publications used by other religious groups. This series of articles was originally created as a concession in lieu of separate articles about various non-notable JW literature. It is sufficient to include an overview of JW literature at the existing article, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just started looking for third-party references. I've found a couple already for "What Does the Bible Teach?" including "Winning the Witnesses" by Daniel Rodriquez. I have encountered opposition on other Jehovah's Witnesses pages when trying to delete unreferenced material, or decrease material based primarily on Watchtower Society (self-published) literature. If people were willing to make changes to the page, I think it could be saved. Mandmelon (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, it is sufficient to include an overview of JW literature at Jehovah's Witnesses publications, which can include any of the information to which you refer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


This again? A similar 2009 AfD by the same nominator was rejected by an administrator, and this one should be rejected also.

The result of the 'similar' AfD was a redirection, not a rejected deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors unfamiliar with Jehovah's Witnesses should keep in mind that JWs release at least three or four new publications every year, and nearly every title has an initial run of several million. While those titles are not necessarily notable for Wikipedia's purposes, this article doesn't seek to discuss all those titles (the majority of those titles can properly be relegated to a mere list or a general discussion). These few titles (which are each discussed in a section of this article) are significantly more notable; each of these books has in turn been the primary bible study textbook of JWs (until its successor title was released). Every one of the titles has had a printing of nearly or in excess of a HUNDRED-MILLION copies (except 1946's "Let God Be True"). In recent years these textbooks are distributed at no cost rather than "sold", but "The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life" is universally recognized as an all-time top-ten best-seller right behind the Book of Mormon. See List of best-selling books#Between 100 million and 1 billion copies.

Previous to the creation of this particular article, a couple of these notable publications of Jehovah's Witnesses each had an individual article. Among them:

Ironically, Jeffro77, the editor who here nominates this article for deletion, actually CREATED this article, except with the title "Jehovah's Witnesses publications for proselytizing".

After AuthorityTam requested[48] help with creating the article, I created it as a favour[49] because there had been recent tension in editing. I now know that it is not worth doing AuthorityTam any favours.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, the article material at "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" (the article since 2007 about JW's primary bible study textbook, a notable publication) was used by Jeffro77 to anchor his moments-earlier-created article Jehovah's Witnesses publications for proselytizing.. At the same time (about 05:20, 10 May 2009), Jeffro77, the above AfD nominator, also effectively "moved" the article material from "The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life" (about JW's earlier primary bible study textbook, a notable publication) to this same article which he now seeks to delete.

Of the original articles prior to consolidation, neither had any third party references, though The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life cited a JW publication that cited an entry in the Guiness Book of Records. I have no concerns about adding any notable information about that publication to Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that Jeffro77 has bided his time for a year, at first merely diluting notable titles alongside others, but now relaunching his effort to delete detailed discussion of notable JW book titles, in this case books which each have a printing approaching or exceeding a HUNDRED-MILLION. Doesn't it seem remarkably odd to shoot directly for deletion without giving {{Template:Refimprove}} or a similar template even a moment to work? Editors should be assured that it would be time-consuming but boringly straightforward to collect the dozens (perhaps hundreds) of additional references showing the notability of these titles. Again, odd that an AfD is the first choice of an experienced editor such as Jeffro77. Odd for an editor to try and delete an article he himself had created a year earlier.

I created the article at AuthorityTam's suggestion[50][51][52][53] as a concession, but remained concerned about notability[54][55][56]. In response to my acknowledgment of creating the articles at his suggestion, he deleted my comment which he considered to be "obsolete", though he retains most Talk comments back to 2008.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffro77 is himself a former Jehovah's Witnesses, having discussed his "firsthand experience" with expulsion from the religion, as well as his "close contact" and his claimed personal observations, such as how "elderly Witnesses are largely ignored". Regarding JW publications and JWs themselves, Jeffro77 has claimed that they evade taxes, inflate their statistics, abuse human rights, receive "emotional coercion", are "pharisaic", and "morally bereft". Before being rejected by an administrator, Jeffro's 2009 AfD was only seconded by one other editor, BlackCab aka LTSally, a self-described "ex-JW" editor who had previously declared himself "sickened" by the "claustrophobic, sycophantic, incestuous" Jehovah's Witnesses.

AuthorityTam here makes various false or misleading claims about my edits:
  • A false statement implying "firsthand experience with expulsion from the religion", in reference to a diff in which I referred to the existence of firsthand experiences, which I did not claim as my own. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
  • A reference to my "close contact" with JWs, wherein I indicate that I happen to know JWs (through relatives, though it's no ones business), which AuthorityTam seeks to use in association with the imagined admission of 'expulsion'. (edit was 4 years ago)
  • A misused reference to 'evading taxes' in reference to the Watch Tower Society's change from the sale of literature by the organisation to avoid sales tax imposed on literature following a US Supreme Court case (http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1374/argument, http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=493&invol=378) involving Jimmy Swaggart, which is not at all a statement that individual JW members 'evade taxes' at all. (edit was nearly 3.5 years ago)
  • A statement about inflating statistics of 'preaching', based on observation and reports from others. (edit was 4 years ago)
  • An opinion about how JWs must acquiesce to doctrines they don't necessarily agree with. (edit was 4.5 years ago)
  • Various opinions about JW policies based on observation and reports from others (edits from 4 and 4.5 years ago)
  • An expression of disdain about a JW article that suggested it was unfortunate that "apostate" JWs could not be killed by their family members (edit was 4.5 years ago) (Actual quote from JW source "We are not living today among theocratic nations where such members of our fleshly family relationship could be exterminated for apostasy ... The law of the land and God’s law through Christ forbid us to kill apostates, even though they be members of our own flesh-and-blood family relationship.")
Put simply, AuthorityTam is quick to indicate (quite irrelevantly) that I don't agree with everything JWs say and do in order to sidestep the issue of whether this article meets Wikipedia's notability standards. AuthorityTam is very quiet here about many occasions on which I argued strenuously against claims that JWs are not Christian, and many other issues - unlike AuthorityTam, I don't have time at the moment to leisurely trawl through edit histories - see JW Talk history pages and history pages of related articles if desired.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors and administrators who are less directly affected by Jehovah's Witnesses should reject the efforts of a former JW (such as Jeffro77) to delete this article, as administrators have rejected similar AfD's in the past for titles such as "Shining as Illuminators in the World". and "Aid to Bible Understanding". The fact is that Wikipedia is well-served by a detailed discussion of a handful of individually-notable but related publications. This discussion in this article should be in addition to a mere list or general discussion of the hundreds of other JW titles of lesser notability.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Despite what AuthorityTam claims above, I did not 'discuss my expulsion from JWs' in the ambiguous statement AuthorityTam misuses above at all; I simply indicated that firsthand experiences exist. Additionally, AuthorityTam's assertion is irrelevant to whether the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability.
Aside from that, when these articles were first created as a concession for existing individual articles for non-notable JW publications, AuthorityTam (the main proponent for keeping the original articles) was warned that there were still notability concerns.
As already stated, any notable details about these publications can be indicated at the existing article, Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorityTam also claims that I have taken quick action to move for the article's deletion rather than add a {{refimprove}} template. In reality the article has had a ({{Primary sources}}) template seeking third-party references since May 2009.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is both disturbing and amusing that AuthorityTam has decided to trawl through my Talk page edits from the last 5 years to find 'evidence' that I disagree with certain JW beliefs and policies, and of course AuthorityTam hasn't bothered to dredge up other edits where I have defended the religion where other editors have made false claims. Of course, none of this has any bearing at all on whether this article meets Wikipedia's criteria for notability. As previously stated, anything notable about the JW publications cited should be at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a clear lack of notability. And I am absolutely gobsmacked by the depths of AuthorityTam's venom against another editor for pursuing a standard Wikipedia administrative process. I could never have imagined that an editor could be so petty as to trawl back through more than four years of another editor's history to make a personal denigration of them and try to stitch together evidence of an agenda in an effort to save such shitty, low-grade, nakedly proselytizing articles on publications produced by his religion. My God. BlackCab (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Keep? I think it should be kept since (as has been mentioned already) JW's are known for evangelism and these are their tools for this work. I haven't read this article for a long time or contributed to WP because of the incredible amount of difficulty in reaching agreements with people who want these JW articles to not be (paraphrasing) 'Pro-JW', so you must forgive my lack of knowledge, but if it includes past publications used for the same purpose then it would provide a resource for those who want to know what has been used by JW's. Arguably all our pubs could be put under this title, so it could perhaps be renamed, but I seem to remember that being discussed a long time ago when I was still contributing and this being settled upon, but my memory could be tricking me, there were so many 'arguments' :p George (talk) 01:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most third-party sources citing JW literature are either critical or cite factoids rather than overall discussion of the specific publications themselves. Do you have any issues with moving any notable information to the article Jehovah's Witnesses publications, as I have suggested several times?--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have any problems with your recommendation, I think that the most notable books (currently being used) are all that need be described. I believe that 'the brothers' who direct us would rather people read about our pubs at our website anyway. =D George (talk)
  • strong KEEP - The proselytizing of this denomination is of GLOBAL notability, Laws of the land having been changed in landmark cases globally, and I have the exact opposite viewpont of BlackCab. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is about publications, not proselytizing. The publications lack external notability. BlackCab (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per BlackCab, this article is about specific publications, which don't have special external notability. The relevant information, including specific about how JW publications are used in the preaching work is already covered at Jehovah's Witnesses publications.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of notability in books[edit]

Before Jeffro77 interspersed, my comment looked like this.
The threat to delete these notable titles has always seemed awfully close to WP:SNOWBALL, but this AfD hasn't yet been dismissed, so... for a related AfD by this same nominator, I took five minutes and checked just one website: books.google.com for the individual titles. The result was an avalanche of books which demonstrated the notability of those titles; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jehovah's Witnesses publications for adherents#Examples of notability in books.
If editors still seriously question the notability of these titles, I can do the same for the titles in this article, and also cite some periodicals next week. This misguided mission of deletion just seems remarkable for its long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now it's a "mission". You're certainly right about the "strong emotions" here! BlackCab (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As those Google results show, they don't meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability about books, and a simple count of Google search results does not establish notability. Acknowledging that a book exists is not the criteria. Most of the results (of a standard Google search) are references to those works on JW-related web forums, with some Wikipedia mirrors and book stores thrown in. AuthorityTam has previously tried to misuse the Google method[57] (after confusing nouns as modifiers with standard adjectives).--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the claim of "long duration, careful planning, and strong emotions"... I expressed concern at the outset about notability, but have allowed a year for citations to be added, for which I am criticized by AuthorityTam. If I had allowed less time, is it likely that AuthorityTam would be less critical?? There are certainly "strong emotions" at play here, but they're not mine.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AuthorityTam refers to an "avalanche" of Google Books results. In actuality, many of the results refer to phrases entirely independent of the JW publication with the same name. Of those results that do mention the actual publications, most are simply passing quotes rather than discussion of a notable publication. Many of the search results are unflattering and it is unlikely that AuthorityTam would like to actually use many of them as sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all my comments on this page.--Jeffro77 (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Jehovah's Witnesses publications. The titles may be worth mentioning, and their existence is certainly notable enough, but as part of a single list. JW literature garners public attention in general, but this breakdown lacks the third-party coverage sufficient to support separate, categorized, articles. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The JW publications article[edit]

I have edited Jehovah's Witnesses publications to include all information referenced in third-party sources from this family of articles, with provision to add sections for any information about specific JW publications if they are discussed (rather than merely briefly cited) by notable third-party sources. The article also includes brief mention of other primary JW publications, even though they are not mentioned in third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Orvetti[edit]

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

Courtesy nomination. This was nominated by an IP, discussion page created by User:Romrem04, but added clumsily to the June 12 AFD logs, with no templates, it seems to have been missed. The entry is still tagged for AFD, I am reposting a properly fomatted discussion here in lieu of removing the tags. Comments from the previous verison of this page follow. Hairhorn (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Hairhorn (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not notable enough for inclusion -- nothing interesting in last few years

Once notable, always notable. Is this AfD properly formed? It looks off. There was prior AfD of this I think.--Milowent (talk) 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

How long does this have to stay here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.179.2 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Normally only 7 days, however I don't think this nomination was done right. If someone wants me to nominate it correctly, let me know.--Milowent (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sufficient achievement for inclusion. Carrite (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was both speedy deleted by JzG (talk). JohnCD (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fanbush[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism

  • This was the first article created by this editor. It was WP:PRODed and the editor removed the tag after receiving the PROD warning. After this warning, the editor created another similar article called Fanbushing which was nominated for a CSD G3 Pure Vandalism as it is creating inappropriate articles. --moreno oso (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both; tagged as such (and I added Fanbushing to the nomination). The creator full-on admits on both articles (which are really carbon copies of each other) that he just made the phrases up today. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both as tagged - blatantly made-up nonsense. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:08, 12 June 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, nom withdrawn. NAC. Cliff smith talk 16:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Munford[edit]

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

Non-notable actor; article created by a single-purpose account. Prod contested by IP, which might be the same user. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Yes, he appears to fail WP:ENT, but meets notability through WP:GNG for things other than acting. Yes, its newbie author User:Montysmobile apparently has a WP:COI... but I won't hold it against the author since now that the article is here it belongs to the project. As a sidebar, it could easily seem that every new editor would appear to be a WP:SPA... until they make more than a few edits and move on to other articles. In his newbieness, the author simply picked the wrong thing for which to assert a notability. Keeping in mind that the article is now Wikipedia's, I looked at it on its own merits... judging the message rather than the messenger, and looked toward possibilities. Given: the original sorry stub article mentioned two films he's completed, and two un-named films he is currently working in. But in digging a bit, I learned that his notability is found elsewhere and for other things. Using the author's username as a clue, a search for sources finds this individual has greater notability as an individual involved in U.K. and India mobile media, and who is also a tech journalist with a long-running column in Times of India,[58][59][60][61] but who has also had some roles in Bollywood films. As the fellow meets WP:GNG for things other than his acting, the article will need expansion and sourcing to change its focus... with perhaps only a sourced mention of his acting set in context to his overall career in other fields. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to Schmidt's improvements, I withdraw the nomination. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam R. Vareika[edit]

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

A speedy deletion tag was removed so I thought I'd bring this here. There does not appear to be notability here in any one of a number of fields, although notability is somewhat asserted. The sources are not reliable or particularly useful, and a Google search reveals no real achievement in the field of "socialite"; this gentleman seems to be a social worker and or non-MD-level therapist, based on Ghits. I could not verify any of the assertions from reliable sources, although there seem to be professional designations that I cannot check (I doubt they would contribute notability).Accounting4Taste:talk 04:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources, no notability. Delete. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:04, 12 June 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. by JzG (talk). JohnCD (talk) 13:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bosom time[edit]

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

Appears to be about a non-notable neologism (WP:NEO and WP:NOR), or a WP:MADEUP game. Prod was removed by an anon. Feinoha Talk, My master 04:34, 12 June 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. Shimeru 08:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Garcia-Fanjul[edit]

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

I cannot find significant coverage on Google, sources listed are incomplete an unreliable (wikianswers). —fetch·comms 20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Lots of Google hits, and quite a few GNews hits (mainly in German), but coverage seems limited to his having been the best man at Boris Becker's wedding. There are pictures of him in Der Spiegel and Life (magazine), FWIW (both in the wedding context, however). Definitely looks like he should be notable, but I'm not seeing the kind of coverage that we need here. Regardless of how this turns out, though, that copyvio'd image should be deleted yesterday. Heather (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - coverage is from WP:ONEEVENT. I listed the Life magazine photo copyvio for CSD G12 and blanked it on the article page. GregJackP (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article appears to be largely a duplicate of the older Luis Garcia Fanjul article. I've listed it as up for deletion with this nom also. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Take quick look at the history of the articles for some of the bizarre reverts by the article creator. Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:24, 12 June 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. G11 -- Cirt (talk) 04:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa DeLeon[edit]

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

Yahoo and Google searches for this interior decorator turn up little in the way of reliable sources. Barely escapes a G11 in my mind, though I won't object if it's speedied. High COI as well--author is DeleonDesign (talk · contribs). Blueboy96 03:12, 12 June 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. This debate nicely shows the tension between our interpretation of notability and that presumed elsewhere. In closing an AFD we look at a rough consensus based on measuring arguments against policy rather then counting snouts. A lot of the keep arguments are very weak - a lot of assertion and relying on previous discussions. The most compelling keep arguments revolve around the Christianity today interview and appearance on a TV programme. Reliable sources have to be primary, not secondary so a promotional interview for a film isn't going to count and the TV appearance is a couple of minutes of interview in the context of a general discussion and not specifically about her. The paucity of reliable secondary sources concerning this person are argued by the delete side and they have challenged the sources provided and highlighted an absence of additional reliable material. There is no consensus that the sources provided pass the notability bar and a reasonable plain reading that they are both primary and therefore ineligible to count towards notability. Another keep argument was based around significant coverage being achieved through aggregating trivial coverage. This is not a policy based argument and, in a BLP, what counts are strong sources. The sources here are not enough to pass the inclusion bar so the rough consensus is to delete Spartaz Humbug! 11:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crissy Moran[edit]

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

Fails every notability criterion I can find, including the GNG and PORNBIO. Valrith (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Nominating on a yearly basis does not dismiss the rather reasonable arguments made at the earlier AFDs which resulted in the previous keeps.[64][65] She was found notable then and remains so... even after the guidelines being rewritten. Retired now from porn, the WP:GNG appears to be still be met by such as Florida Times-Union, Magazin, MAXIvip, El Argentino, Dread Central, Etcétera, Collider, The Insider and I note that even the caveats at WP:PORNBIO seems to be nodded at by her non-porn roles in films AFTER she quit that biz. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of those citations offer only trivial information. The GNG requires significant coverage. Valrith (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment @ User:Valrith: Excuse me, but your idea of what is trivial coverage seems to be at odds with the instructions at WP:GNG and the lengthy, significant and in-depth articles of the subject in Florida Times-Union (Eng) and Magazin (Slovak).... and the less in-depth, but more-than-trivial coverage of the subject in El Argentino (Span), Etcétera (Span) MAXIvip (Fra) and Collider (Eng). Perhaps it would be best to allow editors to check the proffered links for themselves so that they may make their own determinations of significance. The article was soundly kept the last time you nominated it for deletion.[66] Since you felt the article should have been deleted and it was not, did you take it to WP:DRV back then? Why wait 39 months to renominate? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would like to hear this response from User:Valrith as well. Additionally, I would like to know why he has failed to follow the deletion process established by Wikipedia, specifically in regards to notifying interested people, Wikiprojects, and major contributors. Valrith has presented that the GNG requires significant coverage. And indeed, this is true. However, User:Valrith appears to dismiss the very definition of significant as provided by Wikipedia. WP:SIGCOV Under this definition, the subject clearly meets the criteria for inclusion.Cindamuse (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The past two AfDs typify the stupidity that this process is sometimes allowed to travel, as this joke of an article has been allowed to remain afloat on the back of "keep it's notable/ilikeit" vapidity. No significant awards or noms in multiple years, no notability for a porn niche or genre, no HOF membership. WP:PORNBIO is failed, utterly. Turning to WP:GNG, we have trivial foreign-sourced blurbs and one local piece from the Florida Times-Union in 2007 about her quitting porn for Jesus. Though that bit of news seems dated now that her official website was running by 2008. I certainly wouldn't throw her out of bed for eating crackers, as the saying goes. But not worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Tarc (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closer please note This argument is based on faulty logic and inaccurate information. While the Web site located at www.crissymoran.net claims to be the official Web site for the subject of this article, this is not true. The Web site in question is administered by a former boyfriend of the subject. It presents a compilation of photos and videos of the subject, who has no control over the content. Additionally, she receives no financial remuneration.Cindamuse (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer please note and judge the strength of an argument that denigrates previous consensus, ignores significant non-English sources in dismissal of the caveats of WP:GNG and WP:RS, and declares as "one local piece", an in-depth and widely distributed article from The Florida Times-Union... the largest newspaper of the Morris Communications chain, and a newspaper determined in 2007 to be among the "Top 100 newspapers in the US".[67] This comment also dismisses as "trivial foreign-sourced blurbs", significant and in-depth articles such as Centrum Holdings' owned Magazin, a media source which in Slovakia alone has 1.5 million visitors monthly.[68] Opining about sources without actually knowing about them... and then calling this a "joke of an article"... whether intended or not, feels strongly of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and all are rather insufficient in establishing notability; one local source and a smattering of foreign language rags. This weak, low-rung-of-the-ladder approach to BLP sourcing is precisely why I opposed your RfA. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Florida Times-Union and the Slovakian Magazin are not "weak" nor "low rung". The total breadth of coverage of this person in articles in the US, Spain, Argentina, France, Slovakia, et.al., all act to show that her notability and coverage is decidely more than of local interest. There are many more significant articles available, and she is covered in multiple books... and even if not great tomes, guideline specifically encourages supportive more-than-trivial sources without demanding that they all be lengthy. And toward your WP:ATTP and your feeling it neccessary to bring up a failed RFA,[69] I have since the RFA made a point of personally and repeatedly reviewing WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS, WP:BIO and WP:CIV at great length and in detail, and have since that RFA never included in an AFD discussion as poor a source as Babepedia or Foxy reviews for consideration as I did in error back in February. I am puzzled and saddened that you feel it neccessary to use that earlier and admited error from months ago to denigrate and now somehow negatively compare The Florida Times-Unuion or Magazin to those earlier and admitted poor sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Tarc. Clearly fails WP:PORNBIO, randomly trivial coverage in borderline-reliable sources doesn't satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer please note and judge the strength of an argument, which in total dismissal of the caveats of WP:GNG and WP:RS, implies that The Florida Times-Union is somehow a "borderline-reliable source". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per it's clearly of interest to some otherwise reasonable people, it's survived several previous nitpickingfests, and if it gets deleted now, somebody who finds the subject noteworthy will create a new one pretty soon, you can bet on it. Credmond (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a godawful rationale. Some people like it, Oh no, not again, and if your 3rd criteria happens, it is an easy G4 via speedy deletion. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Keep - Besides the non-trivial sources that Schmidt had mentioned to satisfy the GNG, here's another [70]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    An interview by a porn mag that does little but rattle off the "where's the kinkiest place you've had sex?" kind of errata? No, not even close. Tarc (talk) 12:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Tarc: Of all the many porn-related magazines extant, Adult Video News seems to be among the very few porn-related magazines seen as acceptable by WikiProject Pornography for sourcing porn entertainers. Or is it your expectation and demand that porn actresses can be covered only in non-porn mainstream sources? It's certainly no surprise that a 2003 industry interview of a (then) newcomer to the adult film industry, would ask the dumb questions that it does, in order to (then) help promote her as a porn actress. But even as an industry source, Adult Video News does not offer "errata" on each and every one of the thouands upon thousands involved in the porn trade each year, so their decision to interview her is indicative of her stature at that time.
    Policies WP:V and WP:BLP mandate that anything within a BLP must be verifiable in reliable sources. That said, the only thing that AVN article might do here is perhaps confirm the enclyclopedic information of her growing up in Jacksonville, Florida, having one male sibling, and having non-industry jobs until 1999. "The kinkiest place" she's had sex has no place within an encyclopedic article unless it is itself in some way notable. IE: If it were documented that she had sex on the wing of Air Force One, THAT might qualify. I am becoming increasingly concerned at what appears to be your fundamental misunderstanding of BLP policy and your disregard for that policy's mandated requirements for reliable sources for even the smaller encyclopedic details that might be written in a BLP. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage found in reliable sources, thus meeting WP:GNG guidelines for inclusion. I see some of those sources were recently added since this nom. Those sources include El Argentino, which is a widely distributed mon-fri tabloid in Buenos Aires. And Magazin.sk is part of a fairly high profile Slovakian media group. Could some disagree about the extent of coverage here? Sure, but I see its been kept twice with less sourcing than it has now. As an aside, its disappointing when a 3rd AfD nomination makes no reference to two prior AfDs which resulted in a "keep" outcome, especially when the current nominator is the same as for the 2nd AfD. Thus, while the nominator believes that the subject "fails every notability criterion I can find", he was proven to be in a distinct minority when that opinion was previously submitted to the editors of the project. I think its best in such situations for the nominator to explain why he believes the prior AfD was not the proper result. Though its not required, it can be more persuasive.--Milowent (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Among other improvements to the article that changed a conflicted stub[71] into a modest start class since nomination,[72] I also recently found and included an interview from Christianity Today that is somewhat more relevant to the new Crissy Moran.[73] Of course, since that article is in a widely distributed Christian magazine, I almost expect that some of the delete opinions might somehow declare it as false or local or irrelevent. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi, Christianity Today has a circulation base of at least 140,000.[74].--Milowent (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google news gets results. The first one has her bio at The Insider. So that news source considers her notable. Jacksonville gives her coverage for quitting the porn industry and turning to Christ. And El Argentino covers her as well. Dream Focus 01:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG for me. Dismas|(talk) 07:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG. Tarc, the requirement is that the total coverage be significant, not that every bit of coverage reach that level. The guideline specifically mentions that you can get there, even with all trivial coverage. It's just more trouble than it's worth most of the time. Even if you were correct about the sources, the article still hits significant coverage.Horrorshowj (talk) 12:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, so a collection of "trivial coverage" equals "significant coverage" ? I love it when the hyper-inclusionists simply make things up as they go along. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please tone down the TarcSnark(tm)? You've been foaming at the mouth lately about inclusionists.--Milowent (talk) 12:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great personal insult. Unfortunately, I'm at 16 deletes and 9 keeps for my last 25 AfD. I'm pretty sure I've voted delete with you on several occasions, so calling me a "hyper-inclusionist" makes you look a bit like either a fanatic or an imbecile.Horrorshowj (talk) 13:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources that were given here are not the only point, the other is that there was/is a lot of feedback in all 3 AfD discussions which proves an existing interest in keeping that article. It's also kinda ridiculous the nominate an article every year again in hope that the guidelines are meanwhile strict enough to get it deleted finally. These are still GUIDELINES anyway not policy to be strictly enforced at all costs. Testales (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Tarc and EuroPride. Fails all wiki policies WP:PORNBIO in primis. Can't keep these girls in Wikipedia, because they fail criteria. Good nomination for deletion. --Sulmues Let's talk 19:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer please note and judge the strength of an argument that erroneously assumes that PORNBIO supercedes the GNG for an individual who left that industry in 2006. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer please note that this lady already fails GNG. The articles from RS (yet primary) that user:Schmidt brings are mostly about her conversion to Christianity, not because of her notability as an actress. Doing a couple of indie movies doesn't make you notable. Converting from pornstar profession to Christianity doesn't make you notable either. In fundis I highly doubt that her notability won't be temporary. --Sulmues Let's talk 06:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Closer please note this person already passes WP:GNG, and guideline does not care if continued and significant coverage of an individual is about a porn career... or about a change in one's life... or about her films... or a combination of things. It is that continued coverage in multiple reliable sources over a multi-year period from at least 2003 through 2010 that specifically meets the instructions at WP:GNG... no matter the topic of that coverage. And it is through continued and significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that an individual can show Wikipedia guided notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Supposedly notable for being a porn actress and a regular actress, yet fails both WP:PORNBIO and WP:ENT. Remaining coverage about "finding God" or whatever is trivial and does not establish notability per WP:GNG. SnottyWong talk 23:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With respects, her notability has been established per her meeting WP:GNG. There is no assertion by me or anyone else here that her notability is dependent on WP:PORNBIO or on WP:ENT, only assertions that it fails those. So what? She also fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:DIPLOMAT. It is the GNG that must be and is met, not those others... and the various guidelines are not meant to be mutually exclusionary. That some of the WP:RS covers this person in context to her Christianity, her leaving porn, and her begining a new life, does in no way detract from that coverage being in multiple reliable sources and covering many years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'm missing what relevance WP:AUTHOR and WP:DIPLOMAT have in relation to a washed-up born-again porn star. SnottyWong comment 20:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The "relevance" is that failing a no-longer-appropriate guidelines does equate to automatic non-notability. One might meet ANYBIO through awards, yet fail GNG.... or might fail ENT or MUSICBIO or PROF or PORNBIO or AUTHOR and still meet notability through GNG. Guidelines are not set to be mutually exclusionary... but rather, mutually supportive. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. While I would agree that the article is poorly written, I would submit that the subject of this article CLEARLY meets the criteria presented under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC as shown through the various references submitted. Of primary interest is the article and interview in Christianity Today and her recent appearance on an ABC News Nightline program. (Interesting that national news considers her notable, but a handful of people participating in this conversation do not.) While she may not appear as significant within the scope of WP:PORNBIO, she has become a significant force in the fight against human trafficking and the exploitation of women and children. Too many individuals here are focusing on information regarding her pornography career in an effort to discredit inclusion based on WP:PORN criteria. Eliminating this criteria, the subject continues to establish notability under WP:GNG and WP:BASIC guidelines. There is sufficient information to show that the subject meets the criteria under the Notability guidelines established by Wikipedia. I would suggest, however, that the original poster may be focusing attention on the wrong sources regarding the subject, her life, and career.Cindamuse (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even Google Scholar provides a reasonable source for this topic and so its notability seems well-established per WP:N. As for WP:PORNBIO, isn't that a joke? These absurdly narrow, sectarian guidelines seem contrary to our policy of WP:NPOV. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 19 June 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 Orlady (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karunya University[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). More here (Category:Schools in Kanpur) but too lazy to nominate them all. Demetrioscz (talk) 02:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A university with a student body over 6,000 is not notable? Under what standard? We routinely keep articles on high schools, the coverage on this institution seems more extensive.--Milowent (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a degree-granting university that's been in existence for about 25 years. Pretty clearly notable. If an editor thinks that it should have more citations, then the solution is to add them. Just googling there's plenty of hits. --JamesAM (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. All universities and colleges are notable. --Nilotpal42 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok if thats what policy says then I guess thats what it says: "In general, all colleges and universities are notable and should be included on Wikipedia.". Definitely a strange policy though. Close this AFD then, I dont know how to. --Demetrioscz (talk) 11:34, 12 June 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. happy to inclubate or redirect on request Spartaz Humbug! 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imortal[edit]

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

Upcoming TV series with minimal information available. I don't see this as notable yet and it's not proven that it will be notable after the series starts. Note: Due to edit warring and possible vandalism over an unsourced cast list, I've had to fully protect the article so, unfortunately, any improvements will have to wait until things have calmed down, but let's discuss notability rather than the quality of the article for the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

I recommend this article to Strongly Keep. The Lead stars of Imortal, Angel Locsin and John Lloyd Cruz already revealed that since that they had already started to shot the series. [1][2] Many reports that Imortal will be air in August, 2010. Redskater (talk) 03:00, 12 June 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) 12:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matilde Malvina Vernet[edit]

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

Claim to notability is false (the Spanish word "Malvinas" actually predates 1830 by some distance, and is generally accepted to have come from the French equivalent, Îles Malouines, named ultimately after the town of Saint Malo). Google Books finds nothing, as does Google web search. I contend that she fails WP:N Pfainuk talk 20:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: is this speedyable under WP:G3? I didn't reread it before nominating, but it doesn't not fit. Pfainuk talk 20:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there is a case under WP:G3, but there is a case under WP:G7 (non-notability). Facts that I believe to be significant are that the original author has been banned for disruptive editing and that the subject's middle name was "Malvinas" - the Spanish name for the Falkland Islands. There is no indication in the article that of any other notable aspect of her life. Martinvl (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The creator was originally blocked for 48 hours for POV pushing on Falklands articles in the middle of last month. He was reblocked for a week yesterday after attempting to create a POV fork of Falkland Islands at Falklands colony, which was speedied per WP:A10 (clear content fork). I never saw the contents of that article, but I would imagine that it repeated the same problematic behaviour as before - hence the reblock. This article was created in between blocks and also takes a pro-Argentine line - but that's not (in and of itself) a reason for deletion.
I've reread WP:A7 (which I assume you meant), and I agree that it may well apply here since the only claim to notability is not credible. Pfainuk talk 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information but Malvina was a fairly common christian name at the time and was popular in the islands. The Malvina House Hotel in Stanley is named after the daughter of the original proprietor, it has nothing to do with the Spanish name for the islands ie it is merely a co-incidence. Justin talk 15:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Luis Vernet. I don't see any evidence of its notability for a biographical article. The relevant point is its relation with Luis Vernet; IMO it shouldn't be more than a mention in that article. pmt7ar (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Delete. pmt7ar (talk)
There's not really much to merge. On closer inspection, most of the details the article contains on this individual are incorrect based on the source - including both her name and her date of birth. Given this, I'd suggest that this would be is a distinctly unlikely redirect. We would be better off appropriating the source (or indeed finding other, better sources for Luis Vernet's family) and writing our own text on Vernet's children. Pfainuk talk 07:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about this character, it seems there isn't enough info online about her. Apart from the irishgenealogy site, I found [75] which seems reliable and only says that Vernet/Sáez had their fourth children on East Falkland and was called Malvina Vernet. Didn't found anything about her name Matilde. That link could be useful to add some mention of her and other details to Luis's article. No need for this article. pmt7ar (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Non-notable, contains misleading, inaccurate information and should have been deleted as a speedy under WP:G7 not relisted. Justin talk 07:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't think the author meant to imply that the Spanish name for the islands came from her; but in any case, absolutely no notability. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing muck from lake[edit]

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

Goes into wikiHow. OpenTheWindows, sir! 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTHOWTO. Gwinva (talk) 04:52, 15 June 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 Rothschild banking family of France. Spartaz Humbug! 11:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathaniel Robert de Rothschild[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:N. Unsourced for three years. Few hits and no independent mentions on Google (web), no hits on Google News, perhaps a passing reference in a book on Asset Allocation in Google Books but no signficant, independent coverage. I suggest redirecting to the Rothschild Banking family of France. Joe Decker (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:51, 12 June 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. Bearian has it right show us the sources and it can come back Spartaz Humbug! 11:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jameson Painter[edit]

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

Repeatedly contested BLPPROD without adding references. Not notable. GregJackP (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep WP includes professional football players, professional basketball players, professional soccer players, etc. from all around the world in leagues of various sizes. Professional poker has become a televised sport and professional poker players are inherently notable under the same general theory. While I can appreciate the frustration in having BLP flags repeatedly pulled, it is pretty clear that this guy is "notable" under WP notability doctrine (which I loathe and rarely cite)... But, see, for example: http://www.cardplayer.com/poker-players/69493-jameson-painter Carrite (talk) 15:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Career winnings of less than $40K, two WSOP final tables, and a couple of other cashes don't do it for me. Minor mentions here and there, but not enough. Poker players are not quite analogous to professional athletes; anybody can play in the big tournaments, whereas it takes quite a bit to make it to the top athletic leagues. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - how is a poker player an athlete? Poker is not a sport. GregJackP (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails various BIO guidelines. There is lack of independent reliable sources about this subject. There needs to be something substantial outside the various "trade" magazines and blogs, etc. Location (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:49, 12 June 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. per WP:PERPETRATOR and WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Vargas González[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor. The subject was the mayor of a town of about 12,000 residents. Only mayors of major cities are consider notable, unless they accomplished things to satisfy WP:BIO requirements in some way. He seems to have done nothing notable. He's apparently released a song, but it does not seem notable. The controversy surrounding him does not seem to be notable beyond its local area either. either way (talk) 01:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Maybe the person isn't notable outside Chile, but he was very notable when he took part of several controversies around the town, Pichilemu, where he was mayor. Additionally, his song 'Heredero de tu Amor' was very popular in 2004 [76] Chile hasn't charts, but the article states it received high play in some Santiago radios. His controversies have received coverage from the most important newspapers in Chile [77] [78] --Diego Grez let's talk 01:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC)This comment was copied over from user talk:HJ Mitchell on behalf of user:Diego Grez, who is currently under editing restrictions which prevent him from doing so himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per WP:PERPETRATOR. Criteria one states, "The perpetrator is notable for something beyond the crime itself." Mayors are usually considered inherently notable. That this mayor was the subject of two major controversies, arrested, placed in jail and removed from office makes him very notable. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, while I'm not opining due to my involvement as mentor to Diego Grez, speedy keep doesn't apply here since the nomination was made in good faith with a plausible rationale, I highly doubt the nominator is a sock of a banned editor and the apge being considered for deletion is not a policy, guideline or on the Main Page. Early AfD closures are usually done on the grounds of WP:SNOW, but it's way too early to be thinking about that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)I firmly believe "Speedy Keep" applies because you just supplied the reason: WP:SNOW. WP:PERPETRATOR is very specific in its first criteria and this mayor is probably their equivalent of their Rod Blagojevich. Had this happened in America, Vargas would be known from coast to coast. I've seen AfD's closed on just one vote and will supply a recent one as soon as I finish this edit and look it up. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this truly a high profile crime though? It seems like it was a blip on the radar at the time it occurred, and that is it. Mayors are not inherently notable. If this was the case, we'd have millions of articles on city administrators. Mayors of large cities are considered notable generally, but his city is only 12,000 people, not exactly large. either way (talk) 02:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Very notable subject in Chile. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 03:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To quote from WP:POLITICIAN "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." This person's notability seems to be made up of three events; 1) being mayor, 2) having false medical licenses, and 3) stealing money from the town. The singing career is not notable and fails WP:MUSIC greatly. So let's take the "significant coverage" aspect. Citation #1 is not significant, it is merely a national government website of the results of the election. I would expect a notable local politician to have a fair amount of coverage of the race and results in news media articles for "significant coverage" to be satisfied. Citation #2 and #3 are of a news media site and are good secondary sources. They relate to the charges of "embezzlement, falsification of public documents, fraud, incompatible negotiation, bribery, fraud and conspiracy" and the sentence handed down (541 days). Citation #4 is useful only to help establish notability of his career as a criminal but not his career as a singer. As noted, his singing career is wholly without note. Therefore, I feel that this is a marginal keep, and that it would be a firm keep if significant citations to back up his mayoral career and the election could be found in reliable sources. fr33kman -simpleWP- 05:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 12 June 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Nathaniel Henry Peters[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. Jeffro77 (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion?! - This Wittenburg University Lutheran produced the most exhaustive single work of pre-millennial thought EVER published. It is still being published after over a hundred years.

The three books written by Peters are considered to be the most in depth history on the subject. An entire lifetime was spent creating the 10,000 pages of notes and of course his 3 volumes original published by Funk & Wagnalls.

Short History of the man: http://www.theocratickingdom.com/MrPeters/History.html

Google info on the man: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Nathaniel+Henry+Peters&start=10&sa=N

Google info about his books: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=The+Theocratic+Kingdom&aq=f&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

BradSp (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you should have no problem supplying information about him indicating his nobility as indicated in reliable third-party sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of the first 30 Google results about Peters, none refer to what could be considered a reliable source, and most don't say anything specific about the person at all.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of a book doesn't automatically make it or its author notable. Please read WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (books) for the relevant criteria.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Only apparently claim to notability is a book in the late 19th century. An ISDN book might put me down to weak delete on this. I couldn't find any other claims to notability after a quick search. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete or Cleanup With the ISDN, i'm more ambivalent, but if this can't be expanded somewhat, notability is still borderline despite the WP:BOOK criterion. Doc Quintana (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His books are sold in many locations.
http://www.christianbook.com/the-theocratic-kingdom-3-vols/george-peters/9780825435409/pd/35404
http://www.amazon.com/Theocratic-Kingdom-3-Set/dp/0825435404
ISBN: 0825435404
ISBN-13: 9780825435409
BradSp (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The notability guideline for books cited above states: "A book's listing at online bookstores such as Barnes & Noble.com or Amazon.com is not by itself an indication of notability as both websites are non-exclusionary, including large numbers of vanity press publications." Please read the criteria for notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The following should satisfy the notability minimum threshold and notability requirement. The article needs to be expanded but certainly not deleted.
According to the Wikipedia minimum threshold for notability the following has been verified and satisfied.
1. Has an ISBN - Verified
2. Catalogued in the Library of Congress - Verified
The following should satisfy Wikipedia proof of Notability. Peters is frequently quoted in other books. Below are several extracts showing his notability to a religious movement. The information was taken from academic peer reviewed Doctoral Thesis written by H. LaVern Schafer.
Peters Theocratic Kingdom was a “strong defense” against postmillennialism.
The theological emphasis of the last century shifted during the last part of the century. As early as 1842 premillennialism was pitted against postmillennialism. John Duffield, a Presbyterian pastor, wrote in that year, Dissertations on the Prophecies Relative to the Second Coming of Christ. This work was a strong defense of premillennialism against postmillennialism
In this case he was a notable among the premillenarians of his time.
“Peters' name is found listed on the roster of speakers addressing the International Prophetic Conference in 1886 at Chicago. Such well-known premillennial men as A. T. Pierson, Henry M. Parsons, W. G. Moorehead, Nathaniel West, A. J. Frost, W. E. Blackstone, George C. Needham, A. J. Gordon, and W. J. Erdman were also listed. These men include the most prominent premillenarians of the last century. The very inclusion of Peters with them would indicate acceptance on their part and the fact that he and his work were generally known.”
“Peters was well-known in the millenarian circles of his day.”
In the 1880s when mass produced religious tracts and Religious Conferences were the norm in order to sway laymen Peters released the highly academic Theocratic Kingdom.
It was through religious periodicals, Bible institutes, and Bible conferences that this emphasis was concentrated. The reason was that by 1895 many of the theological chairs of the major seminaries had fallen to the liberals. The plan, therefore, was not to present the case for premillennialism to the scholar, but rather to the layman. This emphasis is seen in a statement of the reasons for calling the Prophetic Conference of 1886 in Chicago.
Poor Peters can not catch a break - hope he doesnt get deleted. :) I am contacting Peters University and Alumni and hopefully the Lutheran project can come out for him.
BradSp (talk) 04:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main consideration here is the notability criteria for articles about people, which doesn't appear to have been met. The criteria you've indicated above are related to books, but may be relevant to a consideration of whether Theocratic Kingdom warrants an article. However, of those criteria you've listed, the guideline states that "these are exclusionary criteria rather than inclusionary; meeting these threshold standards does not imply that a book is notable, whereas a book which does not meet them, most likely is not." Those are not the criteria for the "minimum threshold for notability", but are a benchmark for excluding articles even if the other criteria are met.
Of the list of other people you've listed as notable there are only Wikipedia articles for Pierson and Gordon (the article Nathaniel West is about a different person). Inclusion of Peters' name among other people who aren't all considered notable by Wikipedia standards doesn't make him notable.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear which parts of your text above are quoting H. LaVern Schafer and which are your own interpolations. More importantly, it doesn't actually say anything specific about Peters.--Jeffro77 (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The small text is from the thesis. You may want to read the thesis if you do not understand Jeffro. I did my best to explain certain passages which show Peters and his books influence over the respective 19th century religious movement. BradSp (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your 'clarification', my previous comments stand. The only reference to Peters in what you quoted were in a list of people, the notability of some of whom is also not well established.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jeffro, I think you may not understand what you are reading in the above passages. Every passage provided above is about Peters and part of the thesis.
76.19.146.192 (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It still does not seem to establish his notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Peters is seldom mentioned without reference to Theocratic Kingdom. As stated above, it may be suitable to have an article about that particular book if it meets the relevant criteria. Alternatively, if there is anything else notable about Peters, then this article could be kept and Theocratic Kingdom could be a subsection.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


It appears, Peters has clearly made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. In various ways Peters was part of the unfolding millennial movement of the 19th century.
1. It has been well established that Peter’s three books are the most extensive scholarly study on the subject of millennialism.
2. In the 19th century sources have stated that Peters was an answer to previous religious thought. Sources have repeatedly provided scholarly challenges to his work for about 130 years now and he has remained relevant in the scholarly study of millennialism.
At this point I see no reason why we should not redirect The Theocratic Kingdom to Peters. If we are done establishing notability I suggest we further develop the existing Peters article respective of his Biographical information and written analysis of the persons methods, career and life.
1. His scholarly work contains 10,000 pages of material and various articles synthesizing his exhaustive work.
2. He is the author of other books "Antichrist: A Systematic Study of Satan's Counterfeit Christ " By: Arthur W Pink, George Nathaniel Henry Peters
3. Peters published material which was in answer to pre-millennial criticism of the time. It was been established that he was part of an American religious movement and provided thought on the matter in various forms and activities.
4 Peters was published in various laymen religious journals. Trust me - These articles are required reading for anyone attempting to crack The Theocratic Kingdom. :)
BradSp (talk) 21:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly meets V, arguments for N seem to be appropriate. Multiple Google Books hits, mirrored in Google Scholar, and that's just restricted to the full syntax of his name. If expanded, this could probably be an interesting article. Jclemens (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BradSp (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Ghits are not helpful for a man who died 100 years ago. Bearian (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - From what I've gathered from this discussion, Peters wrote a book, was described as "mysterious and fascinating" by another book, and then was mentioned in somebody's doctoral thesis. Seriously? Sure it meets WP:V, but there is no way this article meets notability requirements. As suggested above, an article on the book might be more suitable, but good ol' George isn't ready for his own. If somebody could find evidence that Peters did something other than just write a book on premillennialism, maybe he would get an article. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 03:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Dancers[edit]

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

Self promotional material, containing almost exclusivly original research regarding a subject of local interest. MindWraith (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Fun[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable webcomic. I can't find any much significant coverage of it in reliable sources; and merely being the (claimed) first comic on the web doesn't confer inherent notability. Robofish (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I should have done a Google Books search: that does show that it's been mentioned in several books, but I'm unsure of if the coverage is significant enough to make it notable. I won't withdraw this right away, because I want to see what others think. Robofish (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As an editor who generally finds Wikipedia's webcomics coverage excessive for a general interest encyclopedia, I often find myself coming down on the delete side of webcomics-related AFD debates. That said, though, I think being the first webcomic of all is pretty damn notable. If that can be attributed to reliable sourcing, and other substantial coverage in reliable sources can be found to expand the article, I think notability is unquestionable in this case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • While still not seeing very strong soucing, I'm convinced that this has a reasonable claim to the title of first webcomic, and thus have changed my comment to full keep. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep First, This is not the first webcomic, and I've added a reputable source that says this is not the first webcomic. The author of this webcomic himself has told a newspaper that this was not the first webcomic. If anyone ever sees another unsourced wild claim like this in a wikipedia article please verify it with a reliable source or remove it. Second, I've also added 2 other sources and a template saying "This article needs additional citations for verification." I believe we can probably find more sources and improve this article. And third, I think we need to keep the corrected version of this article to help undo the damage of having this factually incorrect article for almost six years. Thanks, Starblueheather (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep It has a place in the early history of web comics, but Starblueheather is right in that it needs more and better citations. -- Kaszeta (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; though Where the Buffalo Roam predated Doctor Fun as a comic on the Internet, the author of Where the Buffalo Roam emself admits that "Alas, we cannot claim the title of "first Web comic" -- that distinction belongs to "Dr. Fun".". So it is almost certainly the first comic on the web. 91.105.125.91 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with only one "good faith" argument for deletion. All the other !votes are from blocked socks. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fann Cup[edit]

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

Very poorly written, the website that the creator told me to look at didn't seem to be a good enough reference. Seems like some minor charity event. UnknownThing (talk) 19:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per this revision, the article may be going under construction but there are still no references and it still seems unnotable to me. Plus the image is not of the "cup" but rather a non-free image of lacrosse. I think this supports the debate for delete some more. UnknownThing (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The creator of Fann Cup, Specialkjamie has been blocked indefinitely. UnknownThing (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Being a competition for the fans of notable teams doesn't make the competition notable. Majority of ghits (first five pages, anyway) appear to be unreliable sources. Peridon (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the note below, I stand by my !vote. Peridon (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note Nominator of this AFD has been  Confirmed by CheckUser as a sock of banned user GEORGIEGIBBONS (talk · contribs) and has been blocked indefinitely. –MuZemike 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only one reference that is unreliable as well as the creator being blocked from Wikipedia. 1313-EvilHomer (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm reading things wrongly, the creator and the nominator are both blocked - being one and the same person. Interesting..... Peridon (talk) 21:13, 13 June 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. Spartaz Humbug! 11:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undergone[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Does not truly meet the expectations of WP:MUSIC. No listing at Allmusic. Appearances on the Warped tour were local one-shots. Not signed to a major label or a notable indie label. No albums or tracks charting. No awards. No evidence of any significant coverage. References limited to their own Myspace, YouTube, and Twitter pages. None of which are acceptable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Myspace, You Tube, and Twitter pages are only 3 of 9 references. I believe there is significant coverage. It meets the the first rule on the list of criteria: "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." Is the magazine article and Alternative Addiction article mean nothing? The band is also signed to a major management company, does that not do anything? I will add a few more things to the article from antimusic.com for more references. Insomniac186 (talk) 8:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see the significant coverage that would establish notability. I see 11 references in the version I'm looking at but they aren't sufficient. My analysis follows:
  1. is a band profile for an event - doesn't establish notability
  2. is their management group's web site - hardly an independent source
  3. is a press release
  4. is a site for a film in which they contributed to the sound track - doesn't establish notability
  5. is a press release
  6. is coverage of the band focused on one band member in a local San Jose paper - this contributes towards notability
  7. is a link to their video - doesn't establish notability
  8. is the "Alternative Addiction" web site. It isn't clear that there is substantial editorial standards that would convince me that this site's coverage contributes to notability
  9. is a plea from the band for some help - self-published so not independent
  10. is their Myspace site - not indpendent
  11. is the "Alternative Addiction" web site identifying their picks for top 10 unsigned bands. Se above for why this doesn't convince me.

-- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per above (as much as I hate to simply agree and not put in my own opinion, Whpq says it all). — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:55, 20 June 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) 12:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demo (Pig Destroyer)[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Google shows this exists, but not that it's significant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- could not find significant coverage by reliable sources.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 17:32, 12 June 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. no consensus on how to handle this. further discussion on article talk pages would probably help Spartaz Humbug! 11:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Total Drama Island episodes[edit]

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

List that has served it's purpose and has all of it's content merged into List of Total Drama episodes.

I am also nominating the following article on the same basis.
List of Total Drama Action episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rohedin TALK 14:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I like to point out that while looking at the talk page, I noticed that someone suspected a copyright violation but failed to show any evidence to support it. Rohedin TALK 18:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The official blog put out a plea for no spoilers (since deleted from the official blog). The episode lists kept on getting changed to something which sounded rather like promotional copy without spoilers, but I could not find the source. --Malkinann (talk) 03:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the merge makes sense in general, there's simply too much content at the target article. No objection to a merge when there's a proper sized resultant article, but I also don't know that this needs to be an AfD issue. Jclemens (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tita Vendia vase[edit]

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

Article has only one reference and not notable per WP:GNG, not tagged as a stub or categorized. Could be a notable article if improvements are made; but as it stands, violates notability guidelines. - ηyχαμς 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC) ηyχαμς 11:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yup, it needs one more reliable source to pass the GNG. Here is that source.—S Marshall T/C 13:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. Tita Vendia has been mentioned in the History of the Ancient World that we studied in the fifth grade, but it was back in the USSR, and not a word about vase, only of the inscription. I'll see if there's more sources on the vase. This English source [80] calls it wine container, FWIW. Gone digging. East of Borschov (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. Truckload of sources, more or less certain dating, give me a few days. East of Borschov (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 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 anything encyclopedic to Vehicular_homicide, and redirect. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vehicular homicide (Georgia)[edit]

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

Per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vehicular homicide (Oregon). Vehicular homicide already exists and Wikipedia is not a repository of laws. I am also nominating the following pages for the same reasons:

Vehicular homicide (Louisiana) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vehicular homicide (Minnesota) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vehicular homicide (Washington) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Location (talk) 04:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated these four articles together because there was enough feedback in the Oregon Afd to suggest that they all meet the same fate. In my opinion, they are all identical in that they simply rehash a state statute in prose. The Oregon article rehashed a state statute in prose and it also had a sentence or two of coat-rack issues. I hate to get into "he says, she says", but it's clear that the closing admin of the Oregon article agreed with the WP:NOTREPOSITORY issue and indicated that coat-rack was only part of the issue. Location (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't have a problem with the bundled nomination. Each article is merely a statement of the individual state law with nothing more. The existence of these articles add nothing to the main article. If there were interesting case law associated, perhaps I'd be more inclined to keep. As it stands, they are in line with WP:NOT. Movementarian (Talk) 02:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill one, the whole bunch will go down, right? Cartman must be proud of this AFD! Agree, Delete. These, unlike the Oregon article destroyed earlier, are in such a poor state that wikipedia hardly loses anything. It seems like this AFD takes care of all "vehicular homicides", doesn't it? P.S. I pinged the creator of these articles about the AFD (he appears to be on a wikibreak, last edit June 3). East of Borschov (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all state articles WP is not a directory of laws. The main article on Vehicular homicide is quite interesting and informative. No additional information is added by articles on each state's law. If there is something different that could be mentioned in main article. Wolfview (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant content to vehicular homicide. No need for separate state articles. Gwinva (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. US vehicular homicide laws vary from state to state. That's why there's state bar exams and why lawyers can make careers out of specializing in serious charges like this one. Some state-specific angles on vehicular homicide that come to mind - that would, if expanded for every state, overwhelm the US article - include legislative history, judicial history esp. in state higher courts, max/min sentences, parole, feticide, reduced responsibility (fatigue [81], seizures [82], etc), failure to use a child restraint[83], the 3-strikes rule [84], what the relevant blood alchohol level is. A relevant legal detail in Georgia, mentioned in this book, [85] is whether charging a driver under 21 with vehicular homicide under the lower legal alchohol blood levels applied to those drivers was valid. The articles don't currently include any state-specific aspects, but they could. (Their creator is apparently taking exams). I believe WP precedents support keeping reasonable starts on inherently notable topics. Novickas (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone doubts that there are differences in state laws, but I think the relevant questions are: "Are the differences in those state laws notable enough for an encyclopedia, and if they are, should they be noted in separate articles or within a section in Vehicular homicide?" Writing separate articles actually makes it more difficult to highlight what is unique about each jurisdiction. Location (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know how similar the state laws actually are. I've tried to point to some major, pretty recent issues about vehicular homicide that are state-specific. But since we know the state laws vary on issues of this magnitude, and that reliable sources describing them along with their detailed legislative and judicial histories must also exist, and the info could be added, I say they deserve separate articles. Novickas (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the law in all these states is based on different statutes and cases. (It is important to note that the crime is prosecuted on a state-by-state basis. They may have nuanced variations. And even if the principles are EXACTLY the same, it is always important to know which statutes and precedents to cite.) Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And a follow-up Comment: As the person who initiated these sub-articles, let me just explain my intention: I believe that these articles can blossom in the same way that I hope for Freedom of information by state to absorb the content at http://www.rcfp.org/ogg/index.php. Thanks for keeping me in the loop. I'm sorry I don't have more time to address the arguments and counter-arguments. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 23:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles. The content in each of the state articles seems to be almost copies (if not actually copies) of the laws themselves. As noted in WP:NOTLINK, Wikipedia is not a place for public domain content that is meaningless outside of its original, unmodified representation. Even if the laws in each state were different enough to the point that a reader would even dream of visiting this article, the articles should at least be Merged, considering one article with all the information would be more useful to the average reader than a bunch of stubs spread across the encyclopedia. (In fact, the very point of stub articles is to act as seeds for future expansion, and I do not foresee these articles going anywhere beyond mere restatements of state laws.) — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These types of laws are notable. There are voluminous discussions of these laws in judicial decisions and scholarly articles, both of which are somewhat difficulty to procure in a free on-line format.--PinkBull 04:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into Vehicular Homicide laws in states of the USA or a similar generic article. The information in these articles is useful and verifiable, but they are short stubs not really worthy of individual articles. A merge would retain the content without leaving stubs behind. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All. The listing of slight differences in fines and prison times for a particular crime in a particular state is unencyclopedic and fails WP:NOT#DIR. If the topic of differences in vehicular homicide laws of the 50 states has secondary sources, it may be possible to contruct a single article on the topic. I would prefer to see lay sources with plenty of interpretation and analysis to justify such an article. Abductive (reasoning) 23:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: we need articles like this if we're going to build up up articles such as "Law of Georgia" (or California law). Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 01:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly do the existence of other articles facilitate the development of another one. These articles are simply copies of laws, which can be looked up very easily. (Not to mention you cannot cite Wikipedia articles so these articles would not help you there). — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Re Georgia, current article does not demonstrate notability of Georgia vehicular homicide law, but there's no need to delete the content. A merger into Vehicular Homicide laws in states of the USA or some such would work, and then individually notable states within the breakdown can have linked-to separate articles.--Milowent (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, i checked the other ones, too, they are all similar in terms of sourcing. I recommend we create Vehicular homicide in U.S. state jurisdictions linked to from Vehicular homicide. Redirect and merge all these articles into that list. Having a consolidated article will be more useful to the average reader for the current length articles. I'll volunteer to do the work.--Milowent (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to create a separate article. We can just merge directly into Vehicular homocide. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 16:25, 21 June 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) 12:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Okano[edit]

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

Independent league player who was never in the MLB farm system. Therefore, not fully professional, and not notable. Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he has played in leagues independent of the MLB farm system does not mean that he is an amateur. Contrary to the elitist attitude of WP:BASEBALL, professional baseball does exist outside of the confines of Major League Baseball. MLB does not have a monopoly on professional baseball. I have no opinion as to whether this particular player is notable or not, but to suggest that an athlete who is paid wages over several years time to play in a league with full schedules and paying fans is not fully professional just because his ultimate boss isn't Emperor Bud Selig is rather condescending and insulting to the athletes, the leagues and their fans. Kinston eagle (talk) 16:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was never regarded highly enough by MLB franchises to be drafted in the many rounds of the MLB draft. He was never signed to play even in Class A in organized baseball. I never said he was an amateur, only that by the definition of "fully professional" indicating advancing to the highest level possible, he is not notable. If every person who played for even an independent minor league baseball team is notable, that's setting the bar too low. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of "fully professional" does not include any mention of "advancing to the highest level possible". Wikipedia's definition of professional in the context of sports is "someone who participates for money. The opposite is amateur, meaning a person who does not play for money, but in an academic (e.g. college football) or other private setting." The people who play in independent leagues participate for money. They are not amateurs. Jim Thorpe played professional baseball with the 1909 Rocky Mount Railroaders. Neither Rocky Mount nor any of the other teams in the Eastern Carolina League were affiliated with any Major League teams. They were independent of MLB, and yet the International Olympic Committee still considered him to be "fully professional" and stripped him of his medals. The New York Times recently ran an article on Eri Yoshida.[86] Yoshida's debut for the Chico Outlaws of the Golden Baseball League was described by the Times as "the first appearance by a woman in American professional baseball since Ila Borders in 2000." This is the same Golden League that Mark Okano has been playing in and that you claim isn't fully professional. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia, the IOC, the New York Times, and Baseball Reference all agree with me that independent leagues can be "fully professional" which is one of the criteria for notability of athletes. If you have an issue with the notability guidelines, please take your issues up there and don't abuse the afd process. This player may be non-notable for other reasons, but he is "fully professional." Kinston eagle (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lacks significant coverage in sources that are independent of subject. The only sources cited by the article are the league's web site (promotional and not independent of subject) and two statistics sites (by themselves, don't qualify as significant coverage). BRMo (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree with Kinston: "fully professional" means "he lives off the income he makes from doing this". I don't know how much this guy makes, so I can't comment on whether he really is fully pro or not. Muboshgu says that "If every person who played for even an independent minor league baseball team is notable, that's setting the bar too low". That may be the case, but then that's a problem with wp:ATHLETE, not with this article. Buddy431 (talk) 16:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:V. Lacks significant coverage in sources that are independent of subject. Gigs (talk) 00:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Camerawalls[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Substantial updates have been made for the band. Also refer to link of notable Filipino musician Clementine
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 June 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 I Am the West. Shimeru 08:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Rep That West[edit]

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

No indication of notability has been added, despite weeks passing. -- φ OnePt618Talk φ 04:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this article should've been delt with a long time ago. STAT -Verse 23:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to it's parent album I Am the West until it charts or at least becomes notable for some reason. Str8cash (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as stated above. Just because the article has no references does not mean it automatically must be deleted and cannot be redirected, as TreasuryTag (talk · contribs) claims. The point of redirecting is to guide users arriving at the article to relevant content rather than just a blank page, and seeing as readers have already come to the page (since that probably was the cause of the article's creation), it is most proper to redirect. — Parent5446 ☯ (msg email) 02:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into I Am the West pending sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. --PinkBull 05:01, 20 June 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 Astrofaes. Redirecting as an editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Attraction: Heavens and Earth[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. While the sources provided show that it probably exists, they are not clearly credible, nor do they show notability. Furthermore, release was on two redlink record labels. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It does not matter if the two labels that did the re-issues were red links, that just means that no one has taken the time to create an article for them. Who knows, those labels might be notable, it's just no one has taken the time to prove it. I think that since this record has been re-released as many times as it has, that you are bound to over look sources from a simple Google search. Some sites even have the re-issue still around, and when people like Hell's Headbangers still have this release, it's bound to turn up in other sources. (I just have not had the time to go look for them right at the moment.) Basically, I'm saying this: You nominated a release for deletion based on it being a demo. This particular release has been re-released on multiple labels, and distributed through major labels. (See aforementioned link) Keep for now, give it some time to grow a bit source wise. Undead Warrior (talk) 06:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 June 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) 12:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Infinitum (demo)[edit]

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

Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. While sources show it exist, they are not clearly credible, nor do they establish significance. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Angel Locsin admits ‘Imortal’ requires a lot of hard work
  2. ^ [John Lloyd Cruz on being Box-Office King for three consecutive years: ‘Napakagandang birthday gift’ John Lloyd Cruz on being Box-Office King for three consecutive years: ‘Napakagandang birthday gift’]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_June_12&oldid=1142641096"