Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 November 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 November 14 November >

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 no consensus. This may well be the AfD with the largest number of shockingly poor "Keep" votes ever, many of which appear to be from dubious sources, but since the article has since been re-written to be about the series, rather than an episode list for a series that we didn't have an article on, a no-consensus close seems indicated here, and I will rename the article to simply "The Nostalgia Critic". Black Kite (t) (c) 10:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Nostalgia Critic episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of The Nostalgia Critic 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)

Non-notable subject who makes videos and puts them on a website. Anything important could be merged into That Guy with the Glasses, but I don't think a stand-alone article is warranted. —Half Price 20:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:WEB, lacking significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete excessive plot summary and trivia. Even if trimmed down, we don't have a standalone article for just the Nostalgia Critic — sadly, he doesn't seem to be quite notable on his own, although That Guy with the Glasses as a whole is. (ETA: This list's first AFD was evidently a bad faith nomination.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular talk 00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't know that it's ever appropriate to have a list of episodes of a series of any kind that doesn't merit its own article. postdlf (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note At this point, the debate was originally closed as Delete. It was subsequently brought to WP:DRV, where it was noted that the page had not had an AfD template placed on it, apparently through a script failure. This debate should continue from this point. Jclemens (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong KEEP Noteworthy, very detailed, full of information, and well done. No reason to get rid of this. Many television shows have episode lists, so should this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick lay95 (talk • contribs) 23:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying it's of good quality doesn't tell us anything about the subject's notability. See WP:PRETTY. —Half Price 10:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This list has multiple references to establish notability. The Nostalgia Critic show has been noted by reliable sources, as can be verified by this article and the references on the That Guy With the Glasses article. Merging with that article would make it too large and so it would become a subject for splitting into daughter articles; which is a pointless cycle to go through as it is already split. Episode lists are a standard and, to my knowledge, non-controversial form of list article. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The angry video game nerd has an episode list, nostalgia critic is just as relevant as him. Also the show is up to television quality, with each video being of the length of a standard tv show, so it is justified having an episode list like any other tv show has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.95.159 (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:I use this article to know what the next episode, nothing wrong with it, and the Critic is popular enough to have his own article. Man I hate edit conflicts. SeanWheeler (talk) 14:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But please show why NC warrants his own article. —Half Price 17:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can create a standalone The Nostalgia Critic article if necessary. There are ample reliable references in this list already to do so (such as the Chicago Sun-Times, USA Today and Advertising Age). I can probably add Entrepreneur magazine as well. All of which will establish basic notability; ie. it is notable because it has been noted. However, I don't really like that kind of article proliferation; I feel the current set of articles are sufficient and multiple articles just "dilute" (for want of a better word) the content on Wikipedia. On the other hand, if the lack of a specific article for The Nostalgia Critic really is a serious enough problem that it is reason enough for deletion, then I can go ahead and do so (or ask an admin to move this list over the The Nostalgia Critic redirect and expand the lead into a full article, which is probably a better solution). Afterall, Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER. I'm not trying to make a WP:POINT, it will be a viable article with viable referencing. I mean this honestly and, I hope, in good faith: if the lack of a Nostalgia Critic article is a problem, then I can fix that problem by creating one. Article creation aside, I do not, therefore, consider your argument about the lack of notability to be valid. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first ref is the best one, but even that is more focused on copyright and 'That guy with the glasses' as a whole. The 2nd ref is primarily just about Channel Awesome and has only one paragraph on the NC. The 3rd ref is also more about Channel Awesome and the NC gets one sentence. The 4th ref is primarily about blip.tv and even Channel Awesome only takes up less than half the article. The NC gets 1 paragraph. The 5th ref is a tweet and so can't really tell us anything. The last two refs are Channel Awesome ones and so not independent of the subject. My conclusion from this is that whilst coverage is certainly reliable, it is far from significant. —Half Price 19:03, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What in your mind would be significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThAlEdison (talk • contribs) 22:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I understand that it is a matter of opinion. I'm not sure exactly what I would class as significant, but this isn't it and I doubt I'm alone in thinking that. —Half Price 22:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "I use this article to know what the next episode, nothing wrong with it," Wikipedia is not a directory. Or TV Times (if that is still going...) If the subject of the episodes isn't notable enough for an article, I can't see any reason why a list of the episodes should be. Peridon (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Very Strong Keep It failed to be deleted last time, and we've documented AVGN's episodes, so why not this as well? It would only be fair seeing as how he's a very popular. He's actually got quite a bit of popularity. He is noted and Channel Awesome even has its own little template box. Nostalgia Critic is probably the number one draw of the entire site as well for a great many people who visit it so I'd say that He's quite notable as is his show. It would be nice if this were linked back in now. Since this we can see he IS notable. Klichka (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further more, evidence is posted by others that show that he is notable, there are several honorable publications that have talked about him. He is the headliner of a big entertainment website. I'd say we need to bring back the Nostalgia Critic article as well. You'd have to delete the AVGN Episode guide as well if you want to kill this. There are also others that need to die as well. You also have a history of attempting this kind of deletion and I am beginning to suspect a bit of ill-faith from looking at your records. Also, I'd say that the deletion of this is chained to the other articles you demand deleted and the arguments of against Spoony are even stronger here and that looks like it stands a great chance of being kept. I see no reason to show bias here, especially to someone more notable than Spoony. Klichka (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Nostalgia Critic. The sources in the article support an article of that title but only weakly support the current title (and I can't find anything better). The article will need to be refocused, but the list of episodes would largely end up staying as a major part of the article (though likely significantly trimmed). Hobit (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a fairly culturally significant series. At the very least, keep the episode list but leave out the minute details or something.- JustPhil 20:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY Strong Keep. If anything, it serves as a guide to one of the most notable Internet reviewers out there, kinda like AVGN. Also, while this is slightly better than That Aussie Guy's attempt at deleting this, I don't find your argument to be the slightest bit convincing given your track record. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • VERY VERY VERY Strong Keep. I agree with the "keep" users above me. This helps serve as an informative and organized list, and there is nothing wrong with it. I have enjoyed it and its helpfulness for many a moon, and there is no very good reason for getting rid of it. --

Haon 2.0 (talk) 16:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete we really can't have an episode list for something which itself is neither notable nor verifiable enough for an article, and "episode" lists for youtube videos are a bad idea anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources in the current article would appear to be enough for GNG for the series. [1] is about it's role in a copyright dispute. USA today has two short paragraphs of coverage. the Guardian has 3 pretty long paragraphs (and more on the author/creator). Roger Ebert links to it (yeah it's really short, but it's frickin Roger Ebert saying good things about it). While short, USA today, the Guardian and Roger Ebert all count for something and the techdirt article has plenty. Hobit (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I agree with the "keepers." This episode guide is informative and organized, I see nothing wrong with it. I've also enjoyed it and much like most articles on Wikipedia that are about episodic series', It's helpful for other people to watch any episode that interests them. Getting rid of the list wouldn't be very helpful for Wikipedia's article on the Nostalgia Critic.

BigJohnnyCool (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Looking at the article, it does appear that it should work better titled as "The Nostalgia Critic" since it has a lot of content that isn't the episode list. NotARealWord (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wow, this is a real minefield now. I pity the admin who has to close this! I'm not going to reply to every keep here, as most of them are nothing more than 'it looks nice', and some of the users don't even have talk pages. But, for the purposes of a proper discussion, I will reiterate my point mentioned above: I do not think the subject warrants a WP article. Coverage is reliable but not at all significant. And then of course you have the question of the validity of lists of internet/YouTube episodes. —Half Price 19:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've mostly said what I think I need to say but I want to comment on that last part: 1) These are not "YouTube" videos; they are professional internet-based videos and it unfairly demeans them to label them as merely "YouTube episodes." 2) The fact that they are distributed via the internet rather than traditional broadcast or home media should be irrelevant (and highly ironic for a discussion taking place on Wikipedia). There should be no "question of the validity of lists of internet/YouTube episodes" separate from the normal inclusion criteria or we start violating WP:NPOV. While some users in this discussion may be guilty of WP:ILIKEIT; the WP:IDONTLIKEIT approach is no more valid. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If The Angry Video game Nerd gets an episode list, so does the Nostalgia Critic. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 9:51 18 November 2010 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. Each article stands alone. Whatever it is that you are mentioning might well deserve deletion itself. Having just looked at it now, I feel that the comparison between the two lists is justified, and that the other one should go too. If I was any good at getting things into AfD, I'd probably nominate it myself. As it is, I'm sitting here, hoping... Peridon (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own suspicions of trollage behind this proposed deletion. While they aren't as strong as they were when That Aussie Guy tried to get it deleted a while back, they're still there. For example, I can't trust AFD's that are biased against so-called "YouTube videos" when in fact said videos have their own website. Also, I went Wikisurfing a couple of days ago and discovered a (minor) rampage against Wikiarticles on That Guy with the Glasses here on this Wiki. If anything, that's not a really good track record. --Ryanasaurus007 (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been accused of trolling before, but I'm glad you've been looking through my contributions! I have proposed 1 page that is linked with TGwtG loosely, and have commented on a few other 'Channel Awesome' AfDs nominated by others, but that's just because I've stumbled across them all recently and believe that several of them don't deserve a place on WP. I nominate pages covering all areas. I have no reason not to dislike this person or the website he works on. I live in England and don't use the web much outside of WP. The majority of my edits are to do with English football. So don't worry, I'm no troll! —Half Price 22:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split I believe the stuff in the introduction section has enough notable secondary sources (3-5 depending on whether you count the Techdirt and Twitter sources, also all of the secondary source articles are independent of each other) to meet WP:WEB, but the section is longish. Turning that into a separate Nostalgia Critic article would provide a better foundation for this article, and it would allow the intro to be trimmed. Because the series consists of 20-30 minute episodes and uses a distribution site that is non-public (i.e. not YouTube, although episodes occasionally end up there). I think that the remaining "list of episodes" article should exist and follow the guidelines in "List of ..." structure.ThAlEdison (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have been using this page as a guide of the episodes. How about removing the intro since the page That Guy with the Glasses already covers it, but keep the episodes list like before. (Emigdioofmiami (talk) 13:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • You use it 'as a guide'? Wikipedia is NOT A GUIDE. Can anyone writing 'keep' give an actual valid reason? Sorry for being a moan, but this is getting a bit silly now. —Half Price 11:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep This article is a very convenient source for information on the Nostalgia Critic episodes. --JFP (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very to Infinity Strong Keep Side with Al, ditch the long intro but keep all this episode info. It seems fair since the AVGN episode guide is still up and not at risk of deletion! WolfRisingSun (talk) 13:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Split There seems to be enough notability for the show to have it's own article & a list of ... episodes article. Jarkeld (talk) 14:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the proof of notability? —Half Price 18:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Remove most episode content summaries. Knowing every point he makes about the films is not necessary. Just list the episode names and which film he reviews, but maybe keep content of Old vs. New and Top 11 episodes. --LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article should be kept. If anything, remove unnessary trivia and detailed summaries. Besides a few minor issues, there is no reason why this article should be deleted. It's a convenient source of information, and the show is popular enough on the Internet for this article to exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.243.144 (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator has withdrawn request to delete after articles listed in the disambiguation page were created, rendering the dab page useful. (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 09:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Riedelia[edit]

Riedelia (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)

dab page with only redlinks Morgankevinj(talk) 23:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Diannaa (talk · contribs) as a copyvio (non-admin closure) Goodvac (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematics of Language[edit]

Mathematics of Language (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)

If it is not a copyvio then it is original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Speedy Close , as the equivalent to our customary speedy deletion of articles by blocked users , CSD G5. This does not prevent anyone from proposing a merge, or just going ahead and merging. . DGG ( talk ) 01:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Expansion of Health Sector in Saudi Arabia.[edit]

The Expansion of Health Sector in Saudi Arabia. (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)

Original research. Garyseven (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 due to clear WP:CONSENSUS and withdrawal by the nominator. (Non-admin closure) Johnsemlak (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2010[edit]

Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2010 (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 certainty that there will be an election
  • No factual knowledge about it (date, candidates...)
  • No confidence that it will take place in 2010 Kevin McE (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It know it violates WP:CRYSTAL and it's not been announced. Its will take place fairly soon, probably mid January, early Feb 2010. It think for all the duplication of efforts, it's worth leaving for the time being. Its certain the WP editor will be coming back to complete it. scope_creep (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't actually violate WP:CRYSTAL, as it meets the first exception listed: it is "notable and almost certain to take place". Warofdreams talk 22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is certain there will be an election, even though it hasn't yet been called (see, e.g. next UK general election for a parallel situation). The date hasn't been set, but there are declared candidates, and there is already sourced information about the election in the article. It might not take place in 2010, but that's a reason to propose a rename, not deletion. Warofdreams talk 22:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, 1) The election will take place as the ruling to void the general election result by the election court cannot be overturned. 2) There is factual knowledge on the page, discussing how the election came about and the declared candidates. 3) The title being inaccurate is not a reason to delete the page. If the election does not take place in 2010, it is very easy to just move the page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is bending the rules of WP:CRYSTAL a little, but as we are likely to know in a matter of weeks whether Phil Woolas gets his way in the Court of Appeal. In the event that he does, there's still scope for an article about the court case (which now is a notable landmark case in its own right, whatever the outcome), and the content can be merged into that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the by-election will take place even if Woolas is able to succeed in a judicial review - his best potential outcome would be to be permitted to stand. The by-election will only not take place if it is overtaken by an unexpected general election, or in the implausible circumstance that Parliament votes against holding one. Warofdreams talk 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Its now a certainty that there will be a by-election as previous result has been voided, this cannot be changed. All any subsequent judicial review can do is award compensation, although this is very unlikely indeed. - Galloglass 00:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's certainly happening - even if Woolas' appeal was on the facts of the case, it wouldn't succeed, but the descion of an election court is final by law, so Galloglass is quite right. The candidates have been declared, but even if they hadn't that wouldn't be grounds for deletion. Procedural bad nomination grounds: the year not being known is not a reason for deletion. ninety:one 00:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enough already: OK, no offence intended in the nomination, and clearly consensus is for retaining it. I had apparently misunderstood the basis of the appeal. However, I maintain that an article that can give neither the date nor the candidates (giving two PPCs is not the same as saying that the candidates have beed declared) is premature in its publication, and two of those defending the article confess that it does seem a breach of CRYSTAL.
"We are likely to know in a matter of weeks" seems to be a strange defence for promulgating something today: "there's still scope for an article about the court case" is not really a defence for an article about a putative election. Equivalent articles in the projects I spend more time on would not survive a AfD on that basis. The 2018 FIFA World Cup will surely take place, and a large article will appear there in due time, but as yet dates and participants are unknown, so the article is not yet in existence (except as a redirect): maybe that is what should happen to this, at least until a date is announced, redirecting to the appropriate section of Woolas' article. I'm most surprised to see that such an article such as next UK general election exists, consisting of essentially nothing but declarations of what should be expected to happen.
An inappropriate name is, I acknowledge, not grounds for deletion (I certainly would not have AfDed on that basis alone), but the fact that even a year cannot be given bears testimony to the scant factual information that the article can give, and serious consideration should be given to renaming the article.
I have no intention of getting trapped under a Snowball, but I really see nothing in the article today that justifies its existence other than as a redirect. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL has been mentioned a few times in this discussion, and it seems to me that this is a perfect example of an article falling under the first exception: it is "notable and almost certain to take place", and "speculation about it [is] well documented". It even gives 2020 Summer Olympics as an example of an acceptable article. Warofdreams talk 13:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The key difference being that there are salient facts available about the 2020 Olympics, in the form of bids information. At least we know what year that will take place! Kevin McE (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That keep is, to me, precisely the point as to why it is premature. The announcement of the election should be the trigger for article creation. However, interest here seems to be in earliest possible creation of articles, rather than promptly after information is available, so I withdraw the nom and throw my arms in the air in despair at the attitude. Kevin McE (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Welch[edit]

Jeffrey Welch (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 politician. No sources. DimaG (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Camerons[edit]

The Camerons (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 was created by a now-blocked editor who created many hoax pages. This article is NOT a hoax. However, as far as I can tell, it is a TV show that ran for only seven episodes, making it not notable. In addition, the article is a mess with many problems. If others agree it's not notable, then it's not worth fixing. Bbb23 (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The article says it ran for several seasons, however IMDB seems to suggest it only ran for a few episodes. I was unable to find significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Process of the accused person[edit]

Process of the accused person (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)

Some of the content has been copied from http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/terrorism/terrorismcoates.htm. Other than that, this has unreferenced and unencyclopaedic material. Also, I've realised the author removed the speedy deletion tag. [4] Minimac (talk) 20:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A redirect would be a CSD R3. THF (talk) 10:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think do — I wouldn't call this title all that implausible. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do. THF (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Let's stay with delete then. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

‘Reconciling Differences: Malay-Muslim Identity in Thailand’s South’[edit]

‘Reconciling Differences: Malay-Muslim Identity in Thailand’s South’ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While this doesn't seem to meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, it is not, as far as I can tell, an encyclopedia article, nor can it be rewritten to be turned into an encyclopedia article. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all per WP:SNOW Mandsford 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Formula One season[edit]

2014 Formula One season (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)

Irrelevant page that is way too far into the future. They also do not display enough new information, which is the only reason why a new season page would be made. Examples are new teams, rule changes, etc. RomeEonBmbo (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all too far ahead, and they all display no new information.
2015 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2016 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2017 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2018 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2019 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2020 Formula One season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
RomeEonBmbo (talk) 19:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:CRYSTAL. Compare solid delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Formula One season. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all The content of each article is "The 20__ Formula One season will be the ___th FIA Formula One season." (2014 is the 65th, 2015 the 66th, etc. I'm not sure why these articles were considered necessary, but no point in keeping all these for the next 4 to 10 years. Mandsford 20:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Four years is too far ahead. scope_creep (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no contents, no references, nothing worth salvaging. Unexpandable stubs set too far in the future for contents to be anything other than WP:Speculation. Also consider 2013 Formula One season deleted six times now. Speedy criteria A1 and A3 could both apply. --Falcadore (talk) 21:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, pointless placeholders with little information not already in the title of the entries. Hairhorn (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy if possible Delete Why do people keep putting this sort of thing up? When info that's verifiable is available is quite soon enough. OK, there is a remote possibility that some nut will record an album called '2019 Formula One season' and hijack the title. I'd prefer the odds on winning the lottery.... Peridon (talk) 23:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all per nom. Cs-wolves(talk) 23:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow, is it snowing already? Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all per nom. DH85868993 (talk) 08:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - User:Falcadore brings up good point that 2013 Formula One season has been deleted six times now. ∙:∙:.:pepper:.:∙:∙ 13:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Jed[edit]

Brother Jed (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 this person is fairly well-known I am proposing the article on him for deletion as being unsuitable for WP. The main sources cited are college newspapers. Are these reliable sources? Maybe for some things. But I don't think they should be considered for a biography on a living person when much of the coverage is about negative things. I also don't think he is all that important we need an article on him. Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the reason for an AfD here. The bulk of the college newspaper cites seem to be used to back up fairly uncontroversial things about the style and content of Jed's act, and I don't know of any WP policy that makes campus papers untrustworthy sources. I'd also disagree about him not rising to the WP notability threshhold, if only on the basis of the size and extent of his audience in the several decades he's been performing (though he's had plenty of media coverage too, including an NPR "All Things Considered" profile). --— (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did notice the NPR link. That almost made me decide not to nominate it. I know that a very good case can be made to keep the article. However what I am seeing is a person who goes from campus to campus making wildly "politically incorrect" outdoor public talks. College journalism students, needing something to report on, write stories for their papers. Please consider that they are thinking of their professors, their grades, and their reputations. I think this could raise problems, not at all that they are bad reporters, when covering someone whose opinions are so far from the campus mainstream. So all-in-all I looked at the subject's slight importance in society at large, possible problems with WP's policies about coverage of living persons, and the possible weakness of campus newspaper reporting and decided to suggest deleting the article as the best thing for WP. Of course I know that some people will disagree. Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not our job to disappear articles on people we find unpleasant (as I have found Jed for 30 years). He is a public figure, and campus newspapers are WP:RS for campus events. No case for deletion. DavidOaks (talk) 01:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:I don't like it is also not a reason to keep, as well as not being a reason to delete. :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject appears to be notable and the article is well referenced. If particular, negative, unreferenced claims about Brother Jed need to be deleted then be bold. Handschuh-talk to me 01:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: the majority of the sourcing is to the subject's autobiography (excessively so, to my mind -- in fact the lede & biography section are both entirely referenced to his autobiography) and to student newspapers (sources of, at best, uneven quality). Remaining sources include a youtube video and an interview on The Colbert Report (a somewhat hyperbolic comedy news show). This would seem to be borderline sourcing for a WP:BLP. Is a transcript available of the NPR piece? The only version I can find is behind this paywall. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone in America has freedom of speech and freedom of religion. There are thousands of people talking about their beliefs every day. There is nothing remarkable or important about this guy. As the nominator said it is only because he does his thing on college campuses that he is even noticed. It is possible for WP to have an article on him but we are not required to have one on everyone that gets written up in local, or in this case college, newspapers. -Steve Dufour (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The main source of the article, his autobiography, is self-published. That plus multiple coverage in college newspapers doesn't seem to add up to reliable coverage to establish notability, however colorful a character he may be. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep meets all requirements of WP:Notability, which is really what we are deciding here. It doesn't matter if WE think he is notable, unique or interesting. The important thing is that many third-party reliable sources, including two with a national scope (Colbert and NPR), have made him the primary subject of published work. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an explictly comedic/parody source, Colbert is of questionable reliability. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Student publications alone are not enough, but the NPR story and the Colbert coverage (even if the latter is not a reliable source) indicates that this person is of more than local interest.  Sandstein  07:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of Kansas[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Grand Lodge of Kansas (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, tagged for more than a month. In general there is not a need for a separate article about each chapter or each meeting of Freemasons. No notability asserted or established for this particular local version of the organization. I mentioned this article also at AFD for a different article where it was claimed i was making an OtherStuffExists argument. I wasn't, there, but this "other stuff" should be deleted, anyhow. doncram (talk) 11:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep convenient how one can click on the "news" link above and find 61 references immmediately on Google News that range from 1880 to 2010. Long-established organization, widespread coverage (Atlanta Constitution, 1922; West Coast Times, 1891; Marlborough Express (New Zealand) 1891; and other local and regional sources. Article can be re-written or information added during an editing process, but the subject itself is clearly keep.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Week Keep - While Freemasonry as a whole is notable, and the concept of a Masonic Grand Lodge is a notable sub-topic, there is no "inherent notability" for individual Grand Lodges (we have deleted other articles on individual Grand Lodges when they do not pass WP:ORG) If you look at List of Masonic Grand Lodges, you will see that there are thousands of Grand Lodges around the world (several hundred in the US alone). Some of these are notable, but others are not. The Freemasonry Project strongly supports the idea that if we can not establish notability as per WP:ORG for an individual Grand Lodge, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. That said, it appears that there are reliable sources available to support an article on this specific Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sheer size and history of state level grand lodges make them notable. Sources are difficult to find because they are often in these old things we used to call books but with a little work they can be easily found. PeRshGo (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also, to list grand lodges as not inherently notable supports the falsehood that Freemasonry is one international organization when it most certainly isn’t. It is a group of individual grand lodges with mutual recognition. Each grand lodge is an entirely autonomous organization. So when we are talking about the Grand Lodge of Kansas keep in mind we are talking about an organization that it itself has had thousands upon thousands of members. PeRshGo (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I raised the issue of Grand Lodges not being inherently notable precisely because each grand lodge is an entirely autonomous organization, and so the fact that one GL may be notable does not mean that another GL will be notable. Each must be judged on its own merits. In this case, there seem to be independent sources to support notability. This may not be the case when it comes to some other Grand Lodge. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A Grand Lodge that is "regular" according to the UGLE would have to be heroically small to not be notable enough for an article. In fact I'd say it's close to inherently notable. Kansas certainly is not tiny and has a large number of lodges. JASpencer (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think it would be a very large and well established organisation. scope_creep (talk) 21:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Renovation Series[edit]

The Renovation Series (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)

Disputed prod. Fails WP:MUSIC. Forthcoming albums are not notable without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. None provided, non found. SummerPhD (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  07:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Krash[edit]

Tommy Krash (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 did a PROD on this in 2008 as a musician who did not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music). Krash was a temporary, fill in, guitarist for Britny Fox and most of this article is about other, non-notable, projects. The PROD was contested so I have let it sit for two years to see what happens. Compare the dif from October 12, 2008 and November 13, 2010. There are currently 5 "sources" - One is to a Wikipedia article, one if a list of tour dates, one is an old interview for an old band ("Dead Star Factory"), another is (was) a link to MP3 downloads at Amazon from another artist and one is for a record review at sleazeroxx.com. The article itself still suffers from unsourced/uncited information and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Today an editor added this article to {{Horror}} because, according to the article, "Tommy is directing the horror film, 'Waterbed'" Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Lishinsky[edit]

Eli Lishinsky (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 on a music producer that may not meet WP:BLP. I checked GNews for this name, but it has turned up empty; GBooks only brings up an unrelated (?) match in a jazz periodical. A profile at Discogs is about as close as it gets here. Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 23:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nice rant, but the Google Search absolutely does not establish notability. All of those results are from lyrics sites, obviously not reliable. Please provide some links that show significant coverage of Lishinsky in reliable sources. Goodvac (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IZAK - I understand your concern regarding DONTDEMOLISH. I would add that looking at the edits for the user who created the article, it looks like a (self) promotional piece. It is the users only article and the only other edits by that user are links to the Lishinsky article.
Regarding notability, the search results you point to, many are promotional (from production companies pushing albums or concerts such as teemproductions.com), many are from the same source ("Mixing and post-production work has been keeping the maestro Eli Lishinsky real busy." is a phrase used word-for-word on many sites), and many simply list his name as a producer. Take a look at the criterion for notability of a musician as I'm unsure he qualifies. Joe407 (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for reasons I have cited above. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote struck; editor already voted above. Goodvac (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Drake (actor)[edit]

Paul Drake (actor) (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 per WP:ACTOR. Credits include a number of small roles but nothing substantial. No secondary sources for any of the info, especially the biographical data. Dismas|(talk) 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Needs work to bring the quality up, but I believe it can be done. I am sure there are other sources out there that can be found, other then IMDB.--NavyBlue84 16:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless someone can find and add RS to show notability, this should be deleted; it's as close to 'unsourced' as possible; IMDB is not reliable enough to support a BLP, and the article author has created several other articles which have been deleted as hoaxes  Chzz  ►  21:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I did not nominate this because the creator has also created hoax articles! The subject of this article is not a hoax and this AFD should be about this article and no others. We're talking about the article, not the creator. Dismas|(talk) 00:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a deceased actor smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. IMDB lists sufficient and numerous credits in film appearances to keep. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. Rather than deletionism why not try to improve the content or reach out to the contributors by obtaining more information? PsychClone (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Ignore troll's comments. JDDJS (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Chzz. Not notable. JDDJS (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete significant coverage in reliable sources is lacking. Goodvac (talk) 10:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO, includes DOB, DOD, career highlights and place of birth. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 13:20 10 November 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis Fowl: The Album[edit]

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

Original research over a non-existent album Narthring (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete I agree. How do you establish notability? It may be OR or all true. Fails WP:GNG. scope_creep (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Looks like original research or even a hoax. After a search the best I can find are a couple of quirky downloadable songs by the book's author and some very loose affiliations from interested musicians. I recommend reading the book but deleting this article. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unreleased albums are rarely notable, and only with significant coverage in independent reliable sources (per WP:MUSIC). None provided, none found. May or may not be a hoax, but the point is moot. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the myriad reasons procided above. Fixer23 (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete. delete - hoax (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome edited, a slip of the keyboard! – ukexpat (talk) 22:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Story of Sex, Drugs and Crime[edit]

A Story of Sex, Drugs and Crime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reason I am taking this to AfD is to get confirmation from others that this is yet another hoax by this editor. I can find no evidence for this British Drama Film myself. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything either, if its not a hoax its not notable and uncited, suggest, speedy deletion is warranted. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G3 'blatant hoax' (unless anyone finds evidence to the contrary - but I cannot)  Chzz  ►  21:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  • Comment This has now been deleted by G3. scope_creep (talk) 21:41 13 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Corner[edit]

Tom Corner (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 not made an appearance in a professional competition (Conference only). EchetusXe 15:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Not done anything to achieve some notability, except show up. scope_creep (talk) 21:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 14:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clear failure of all relevant notability criteria. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only played conference level which is below levels required by WP:NFOOTBALL and sports journalism coverage that is general in nature, nothing of significance to show he is generally notable.--ClubOranjeT 10:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus.  Sandstein  07:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ships of the Hanseatic League[edit]

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

An unreferenced very short list. It has been nearly four years, but this very short list has never grown larger than two items - and presumably never will. It is not useful as a list and should be deleted. Kugao (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC) Kugao (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep This was prodded as "Unreferenced very short list." a few minutes ago, I removed it and the original prodifier has moved to AfD. WP:IMPERFECT seems relevant here. To address the issues:
  • "Unreferenced". The two articles listed are adequate in themselves. A longer list might want its references to be made more explicit, but this i no reason for deletion.
  • "Very short". Whilst it's currently very short, the conceptual limit of the list could be far longer. I would welcome expansion, but present shortness is no reason for deletion.
As always, there's a question as to whether a category or a list is the best choice. As it stands there's no reason to favour one or the other, but we might reconsider this post expansion. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMO this is precisely a case when a category is just right and a list is useless. The League operated how many? thousands of ships over many centuries. There was no single registry, no single flag (and I'd assume that many small boats never had anything like a real flag, and no one would care to register them anywhere even if they could. Middle Ages). Only a few of these ships made history. Only two are on wikipedia. Wikipedia will never have anything like a "complete list", and no one will. Then why attempt the futile task, at all? Use categories! East of Borschov 18:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have no issue with replacing this by a category. Would the nom here see that as acceptable, or would they see the same reasons for deletion applying to both category and list? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take no issue with replacing this list with a category. Kugao (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list gives the false impression that these two ships are somehow more important than the other hundreds the league used. I don't think we should have a list when so little is known. It seems to me that just putting the category for the League itself would be fine for the articles, rather than having a sub-category for two articles. Although that would not do any harm.Jaque Hammer (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a Google book search for the Hanseatic League[7]. Not sure how many ships were in it, if they are listed anywhere, and how many would be notable enough to have their own articles. Were the two listed the only famous or important ones? Should be more. Anyway, it is quite is quite encyclopedic. You want to know about a historical group, then having a list of all the ships that were part of it, would aid you in understanding that. At least two of those ships are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. And you can't make it into a category, since any category with only two entries would be deleted very quickly. It hurts nothing by remaining here, Wikipedia not paper WP:NOTPAPER so not going to run out of any space, and it can aid those interested in the subject to have a greater understanding of things. This league was far more famous in another nation, probably taught to all the school children there, so perhaps an article in their language's Wikipedia will show more results. I'll check on that. Dream Focus 20:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Typical 2007 Wikipedia article, with no sources, no real information, and no action after getting started as a stub. Until someone cares about writing an article about the military campaigns of the Hanseatic League (we have a Category:Wars involving the Hanseatic League), the two ships here (the Adler von Lübeck and the Peter von Danzig can be mentioned in a couple of sentences in the Hanseatic League article. Wikipedia isn't paper, but it isn't waste paper either. Mandsford 21:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creating this list several years ago, I thought it would take off soon, but it never materialized. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see potential for expansion, even if it is in a currently weak state. This pic at commons has 6 ships on it, if we could identify them, we would have something to expand the list with. This book, starting at page 141 specifically discusses ships of the hansa, both in terms of general models of ship (the cog, the caravel, etc.) and of specific named ships. This book only allows a limited preview, but even in that I can see specifically named ships. There are certainly more notable named ships of the Hansa, given the sheer number that were likely in existence. The fact that this article only has two listed is not a testament to the lack of notable Hansa ships, just a testament to the lack of editors who have found the time to write articles about them. Since Wikipedia is not finished, we shouldn't delete those parts that aren't finished without compelling reasoning. I don't see a compelling reason to delete this. --Jayron32 03:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: If someone wanted to, one could translate this article from teh German Wikipedia, which is about a "Hansecog" (Hanseatic Cog) named the Bunte Kuh. Here is another named the Jesus von Lubeck, and here is another named the Leopoldus Primus. Here is another possible one, named "Wapen von Hamburg". Here's another about a notable hanseatic shipwreck, the original name doesn't appear to be known, but its still a notable hanseatic ship. --Jayron32 03:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good find! There should be a wikiproject or something somewhere on Wikipedia where you can ask people who speak another language to check it out. I used the search, but couldn't find anything. Can't think of what it'd be called if it exist. Dream Focus 19:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • For the record, I don't speak any German beyond counting to five, ordering a beer at a bar, and a few choice swear words. I just started from the ships that already existed at the English Wikipedia, followed the interlanguage links, and then started picking through categories. The books were all English language books I found in 15 minutes at Google Books. --Jayron32 05:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jayron. Sources clearly exist and there's plenty of room for expansion. Edward321 (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A category might be appropriate, but this is a several year old unsourced, unreferenced list with just two ships on it. Yes, it's quite possible to find books on the Hanseatic League, but no one's proposing deleting the League's own article. Beyond that, the very subject is inaccurate. The League was a loose confederation of city-states; it had no standing navy. Any vessels involved in the League's military campaigns were private vessels homeported at one or other of the League members, lent for the duration of the fighting. Considerably more is necessary to meet WP:V than "Oh, there's a picture of ships, they must be Hanseatic League ships and there must be information on those ships somewhere or other."  Ravenswing  17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notable ships that were recorded as being part of that league, have been identified in the German language Wikipedia, they having stricter rules of notability for articles than we have. So they already found ample sources to prove this. You could have a list of notable/famous ships of the American Civil War, and list those with articles or a lot of historical coverage. Same thing. List of notable/famous ships in the Hanseatic League might be more appropriate since not every single ship in it will be worth listing. Dream Focus 19:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? And your sources for them being "Hanseatic League" ships is what? From what I'm seeing above, the provenance of this speculation is that some editors who admittedly do not speak German are finding articles on 15th century ships operating out of the Baltic. Speaking to your analogy, no, you couldn't have a list of notable/famous ships of the "American Civil War." You could have a list of (for instance) Confederate Navy ships, that being a verifiable list pertaining to a particular organization. For here, I could see a List of notable 15th century ships, for instance.  Ravenswing  19:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here [8] it is from Google translator. They list ships in that league. Dream Focus 21:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you didn't actually click on those links; you would have found that the Adler von Lubeck was, in fact, a warship of Lubeck (but which never, in fact, served), that the Bunte Kuh was a converted merchantman in the service of Hamburg, that the Jesus of Lubeck was built in Lubeck but was in fact an English naval ship, that the Leopoldus Primus was put into service after the last meeting of the League, and the Peter von Danzig was in service to the city of Danzig for a year before passing into private hands? In any event, you're quite aware that Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source. Do you have any specific reliable sources you would care to cite to back your assertion that these are "Hanseatic" ships?  Ravenswing  21:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are in a category for that. Their articles mention the "Hanseatic League" in them. And the references are listed at the bottom of those articles. The first ship listed, Adler von Lübeck, or the Eagle of Lübeck, has Fritze, Konrad & Krause, Günter (1997): "naval war of the Hanseatic League," Brandenburg publisher / Siegler, Berlin as well as Dollinger, Philippe (1998), "The Hanseatic League, Alfred Kröner Verlag, Stuttgart. It was part of the league, even if it didn't serve in active combat. Google translator says "Handelsschiffen der Hanse" translates as "Merchant ships of the Hanseatic League".[9]. So the article says its in that league, and has references to back that up. Dream Focus 22:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And you've reviewed those sources to verify that they say what you claim they say? No, of course not. Sorry, after the Ashley Wood AfD, I'm afraid I'm not taking your assumptions on sources on faith. You cannot really be asking us to accept that "An article about this ship has a book about the Hanseatic League as a source" equals "This ship was an official vessel of the Hanseatic League."  Ravenswing  02:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whoever put them and many other sources in the German articles reviewed those sources. Do you not trust the Germans? I'm not going to go out and buy a copy of those books, learn to speak German, and read them myself. As for as the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashley_A._Wood, what does that have to do with this here? The first link shows ample news coverage from a major news program. The fact that it was based in the same well populated city that she is in, made someone declare it invalid, calling it local coverage, which is ridiculous, since this isn't just some small town which covers everything, but a major city. Dream Focus 10:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one's asking you to learn German. What I am asking you to do is restrict your claims about what sources say to what they actually do say, and to not read wishful thinking into them. The parallel to the Wood AfD was that it was a case in which - in like fashion - you made exaggerated and inaccurate claims for sources.  Ravenswing  14:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The scope of the list needs to be defined, but there is justification for the list to exist. The fact that it may never be complete is neither here nor there, as that applies to the vast majority of ship lists. Mjroots (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Be nice to have something a little larger, but not issues with keeping it as is. We aren't going to run out of space anytime soon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep A category would be as useful for navigation. However a list full of redlinks is useful as a guide for new articles. Probably should include at least 1 ref for a redlink entry so people some starting point. I don't understand the contention that these ships would only be notable if they were part of a standing navy (rare anywhere in that period). The Hanseatic League was primarily about trade and when I saw the title my first thought was merchant ships.Dankarl (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: That wasn't the contention; the contention was that since the League was an association of sovereign city-states, the only way they could be "ships of the League" was if the League maintained a standing navy, which it never did. The issue of whether the ships themselves are notable isn't on the table. (And that being said, would the previous three Keep voters care to express a policy reason to retain? "There's justification for it to exist," "We're not running out of space" and "It's useful" are scarcely valid ones.)  Ravenswing  19:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a different sense of "ships of..." Were we to write "Ships of France" it could just as well include French merchant ships. Likewise we could then write "Ships of the EU" and it would include all the ships of all the states of the EU. Same situation 700 years earlier.Dankarl (talk) 04:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Add to the list, and add a prose lead section at least. Perhaps later the article would have a prose summary on each ship. These types of historical articles are the kind of material Wikipedia needs to encourage more of. It's much harder to find free online reliable sources for ships of the Hanseatic League (and editors willing to do the work) than for a list of Grey's Anatomy episodes, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't endeavor to expand our information on the Hanseatic League.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Huish[edit]

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

Information about the ex ground is covered at Yeovil Town F.C. therefore there doesn't seem much point in keeping this small stub as well. — Rod talk 14:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since it's at Yeovil Town F.C. Endofskull (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • redirect to club page. East of Borschov 18:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into new section at Yeovil Town F.C. GiantSnowman 14:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - being a stub is not, of itself, grounds for deletion. This stadium was the home of at least one significant giant-killing (ask any Sunderland supporter) and the article need expansion, not deletion. The content in the club article is brief, to say the least. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand The Huish and its sloping pitch were well known in English football, particularly due to the Sunderland giant-killing there. Even now, articles about Yeovil will tend to mention that they play at a new, flat, ground. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Huish was a notable ground, and article needs expanding not deleting. Eldumpo (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greenpark Villa[edit]

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

No apparent rationale for notability. Previously speedy deleted as spam, though thus far this version is innocuous. JNW (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Straulino[edit]

Straulino (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 (created by his agent) on an apparently humdrum fashion photographer about whose work very little has been written disinterestedly. Hoary (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Bargar[edit]

Nancy Bargar (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 local politician. No in depth coverage in multiple secondary sources as required by WP:BLP. There is a New York Times story about her close defeat in an election in 1992, with almost no information on her. There is also a story from this year about her nomination to run in another election, this time with some good biographical info, but only from her local paper. Borock (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete; she may be marginally notable for her perennial candidate status (which is why I decided to go ahead and put it up, otherwise I wouldn't have) but that's about it. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:POLITICIAN. Bargar was Majority Leader of a New York county legislature; this is surely at least as notable as "members of the main citywide government". Further, she is an "unelected candidate for political office" who has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". Articles about her candidacies and her work as a county legislator were published in the Buffalo News, the Albany Times-Union, Buffalo Business First, the Evening Observer, and the Jamestown Post Journal. Some of the articles are solely about Bargar and her candidacies. Even "marginally notable" is still notable. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This person is not notable enough to have her own article. Basically just local coverage. She did not win in the recent election...just running for a notable office does not make the person notable. The Eskimo (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - classic local official and failed candidate who doesn't meet general notability standards (coverage is of the race, not of subject in and of herself). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I personally think that the standards in WP:POLITICIAN set the bar for inclusion too low, there is no doubt that the subject currently meets those standards: she held a notable public office in the past which is enough in itself. As the policy is currently written, this article qualifies for inclusion. Doc Tropics 19:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, which office? County legislatures are not an automatic pass of WP:POLITICIAN. RayTalk 02:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the politician guidelines: "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." The New York Times and Business First don't usually cover Chautauqua County, so the fact they felt her notable enough to cover her at least establishes a case for qualifying under the GNG. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BIO. I do not think the coverage is significant or in-depth enough on the subject for GNG, and the subject has never held an office (despite repeated candidacies) qualifying for automatic notability under WP:POLITICIAN. RayTalk 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CAVR Award[edit]

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

There are no independent sources for "Cyberspace Adult Video Reviews Awards" at Google and the article cites not reliable sources. Appears to be non-notable. Spartaz Humbug! 13:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samburu, Kenya

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Girlvana[edit]

Girlvana (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:NOT as an indiscriminate cast list for a series of porn movies. Two of the features won awards but that notability isn't inherited so this undoubtedly has issues with GNG/N too. Spartaz Humbug! 13:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So you also could delete Gag Factor. Girlvana won 2 AVN Awards. There is nothing to debate about it. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No two separate films won awards. The series didn't. Have you got reliable independent sources that discuss the series in detail? Please readact your personal attack on me in your previous comment. Spartaz Humbug! 13:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will write 2 seperate article for Girlvana 3 and 4, thanks for your advice! And now I will go off. --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - We have precedence for aggregating award winning movies from a series into a series article (as long as multiple movies from the series have won) like POV Pervert and Gag Factor. As for Girlvana, it won three Adams Film World Guide awards for best girl-girl series (2006, 2007 & 2008). [11] [12][13] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited from an individual film to the series as a whole, or vice versa; and the claimed award is not a "major" award for "excellence" as required by WP:NOTFILM. This is just a collection of castlists, not an encyclopedic article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If at least two of the films are notable, then having an article for the series makes perfect sense. Dream Focus 22:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Morbid. --89.211.65.21 (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per established precedents, as clarified by User:Morbidthoughts. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Morbid. It's technically true that notability isn't inherited to a series, but I think we should treat it as doing so in this case. Call it WP:IAR if you want, I'm thinking of it as a common-sense interpretation of what that phrase is supposed to mean. Let me explain: Let's say we made articles for each film, two of them (#3, #4) there seems to be consensus would be notable. From that hypothetical point, it'd make a lot of sense (and make the encyclopedia more usable) to merge those two articles into a single article to avoid duplication and establish that this is part of a series. Certainly we haven't *lost* notability in the process, and including content that would not be notable on it's own (they, there's a #1 and #2) about the other films in the series seems entirely within process and policy as well. To turn my thinking around, the end result of a delete result here won't, I predict, be no articles on these films, it'll be two articles, one on #3, one on #4. I think the status quo is better. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where the Boys Aren't[edit]

Where the Boys Aren't (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)

Clearly breached WP:NOT as an indiscriminate cast list with no encyclopaedic value. Spartaz Humbug! 13:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well-known series of Vivid and AVN Award-winner. --Hixteilchen (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Notability is not inherited from an individual film to the series as a whole, or vice versa; and the claimed award is not a "major" award for "excellence" as required by WP:NOTFILM. This is just a collection of castlists, not an encyclopedic article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You´re funny the AVN Award is the award in the porn industy, but if you wish I will write an anticle about the first part. --Hixteilchen (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Ivy[edit]

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

Doesn't meet N. Nomination for an AVN award is not the same as being notable and, per BLP proper reliable sources are required. Spartaz Humbug! 13:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that this page was blanked by the article creater citing pornbio. Pornbio is subordinate to GNG and BLPs still require reliable sources to survive so this takes precedence. Source it or lose it please. Spartaz Humbug! 13:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Madison Ivy nominations, [14], [15] It is fact, that she received 2 nominations! --Hixteilchen (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So what?? PORNBIO is subordinate to N which is subordinate to BLP and this is a BLP. You need reliable sources for this. Not avn and some porn site but actual independent secondary sources. Have you got any? Spartaz Humbug! 13:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AVN Awards site this is no reliable source, from the hoster of the award, I don´t write anything here...--Hixteilchen (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not independent and I would question if its detailed enough. PORNBIO no longer reflects the overall expectations for sourcing BLPs. The community decided over the last 6 months that BLPs needed more stringent sources and this has only got AVN, which isn't in-depth and has serious reliability issues. Therefore PORNBIO is no longer the be all and end all of the inclusion standard. Overarching requirements have not been met and the guideline needs rewriting to reflect this. Spartaz Humbug! 13:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm that's interesting Essentially you are relying on a second that is about to be removed and is marked as disputed. Spartaz Humbug! 14:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2nd nomination here, reliable source. As long as the guideline exists, the article meets the criteria, so remove the AFD-tag.--Hixteilchen (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFD tags cannot be removed until the conclusion of the AFD discussion... which usually rund some 7 days. And while yes, any facts in a lengthy BLP will need support in RS for its content in order to meet WP:BLP, it might be seen that multiple nominations of well-known genre-notable awards might meet WP:ANYBIO. And no, Pornbio is not sub-ordinant to N, but is part of and supportive of N. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this performer had received individual nominations in two different years, she would meet the awards criterion of WP:PORNBIO. However, the claimed nominations were given to scenes in which she performed, not to the performer herself. Appearing in an award-nominated episode of a TV show, or being a musician who performed on a Grammy-nominated song, doesn't automatically support individual notability, and I see no reason to make an exception to that general practice for porn performers absent appropriate RS coverage. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    We might then look up the hill to WP:GNG and decide if any of the available sources might source any asserted notability. Its understandable that she will be in articles in Adult Video News, but its quite rare to find that such as the Toronto Sun would even mention a porn actress. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, if group scene or solo scene doesn´t matter, she passes WP:PORNBIO (nominations in different years) that´s fact. If the article will be deleted I will call deletion review, because what some users do here is not acceptable--Hixteilchen (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not agree with HW's separating the performers from the scene for the AVN nominations/awards. The performers are listed in the nominations and are each given a award trophy when they win. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not "my" separation, but a classification created by AVN in its own listings; and while it's not common, whenever scenes have individual titles, AVN has listed the title rather than the performers. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • However AVN might choose to edit themselves, that's AVN... not Wikipedia. And when an individual receives an award trophy for their participation and contributions to an award-winning scene, even AVN does not demand they return the awards they were given. Because of the importance of an individual's contributions, it is genrally recognized across mulitiple guidelines that individuals may be found notable by their particpation in notable group efforts. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Empty rhetoric, and not terribly accurate. "May be found notable" hardly translates to "are automatically presumed notable." AVN said its "scene" awards do not go to individuals, and they know better than Wikipedia editors. Real actors who appear in films that receive "ensemble cast" nominations or wins are not automatically presumed notable, nor are all members of national championship winning college athletic teams. Perhaps you could cite those "multiple guidelines" you insist are relevant rather than just asserting without perspective or points of reference.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Calling another's comments "Empty rhetoric, and not terribly accurate" is not reflective of policy or existing guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I dislike porn on Wikipedia, as even minors may read such articles without any oversite or regulation. But as WP:PORNBIO is being dismantled and is under dispute, it is reasonable to then look up the hill to the very basic and relevent WP:ANYBIO, which grants a "presumption" of notability for multiple nominations of notable awards (even if the awards are specific to one genre). Nothing is or is not "automatically notable" and it is consensus that is seen as the final arbiter. I am not myself "assuming" anything, but am rather acknowleging an allowable presumption based upon guideline. As that "presumption" as clarified by User:Morbidthoughts is verifiable, we have an acceptable assertion of notability. I agree with his interpretation of guideline in this instance, as it is supported by both policy and guideline... and there is no guideline that specifically states being part of a group effort is automatically non-notable... and indeed many that clarify the exact oposite. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. WP:ANYBIO says exactly nothing about notable awards creating a presumption of notability. It refers to "well-known and significant award[s] or honor[s]." It also refers to being nominated for such an award "several times," and "twice" is not "several." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? WP:Notability (people) does indeed speak toward allowable and reasonable presumptions without the word "presumption" having to then be repeated over and over and over in every sub-section for the edification of those who missed reading it earlier (though even WP:BASIC begins by allowing a person is presumed to be notable... if later caveats are met). And the WP:ANYBIO section is immediately preceded by the instructions "People are generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." I read this as a section indicating that after a reasonable and verifiable presumption of notability is made, it is up to a consensus of editors to make the final determination. That the awards are well known and notable within their industry is fine. The sections at WP:PEOPLE exist as a inter-connected and supportive set of conditions. None exist as sole and only considerations. That you do not read that as allowing anyone else a presumption of notability is interesting, and you have made your opinion on the matter abundantly clear... but please, I will await the consensus of others. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing around the main,if not only, relevant point. "Well-known and significant award" is a higher standard than "notable award"; there are many examples of awards which are notable, but do not transfer notability or a presumption of notability to their recipients -- eg, Rhodes scholarships, various annual British crown honors. My grandchildren are "well-known and notable" within the family, and Wal-mart's employees of the month are well-known and notable within their industry. In neither case are the subjects Wikipedia-notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your WP:WAX arguments are not germain, as your family members or Walmart employees are not the subject under discussion. When they have articles up for deletion, we can speak about them then. What IS the germain issue is that this person has been recognized by peers within their industry and can be verified to have received two nominations of awards well-known and significant within their genre... and better too that these awards have been found notable per WP:N. To my knowledge, your family members and Walmart employees have not. I will await consensus. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: WP:N met by WP:PORNBIO #2, that test is verified by the (yes, primary) sources at AVN which is a reasonably reliable source for verifying the winners of the awards they themselves give out. (Those same sources would not be useful at all for establishing notability under the GNG, but that's not what I'm saying here.) --j⚛e deckertalk 17:18, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. author has requested deletion Favonian (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patyek Kane[edit]

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

The result was redirect to David M. Eddy. Since general consensus was that the company was not independently notable, but Mr. Eddy was, and since that article has since been created, then a redirect is indicated. That article may need eyes to ensure that it does not become a coatrack article for the company, however - as it appears to be becoming already. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Archimedes, Inc.[edit]

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

An article on a four year old company. Fails the notability guideline and the WP:ORG guideline specifically. The article also involves some very concerning conflict of interest issues. The creator of the article works as a "communications consultant", and has admitted on Twitter that he was paid to write the article. Article lists citations, but there are trivial references, that fail to meet WP:N. res Laozi speak 12:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For any users who want a specific analysis of each citation, here it is:
  1. First citation is about the founder of the company, trivial mention of a program called Archimedes. Doesn't mention the company at all.
  2. Again, focused on the founder of the company and a program of his. There is a trivial, one sentence mention of the company.
  3. Main page of the company. Not a reliable source.
  4. Another trivial mention. Just a single sentence.
  5. An interview from a relatively obscure publication. Not sure if it's notable in the field.
  6. Considered trivial by WP:ORG standards. Mentions that the company has recieved a grant, then focuses on the founder and the computer model.
  7. Minor mention on the computer model and its creator. No mention of the company.
  8. Award for one of the founders of the company. Very trivial mention of the company.
  9. Considered trivial by WP:ORG standards. Mentions that the company has recieved a grant, then focuses on the founder and the computer model.

--res Laozi speak 13:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not seem to include "peacock" language and it appears to be properly sourced. Of course, any editors with criticisms of the company (properly sourced) can add them in at any time, including now (I see that none have chosen to do so...). Regarding notability: The company's founder and CEO invented the term "evidence-based" (and that is the focus of the company's work); as sourced in the article, the major RWJ grant just awarded to the company is its largest ever in this field and prompted the RWJ president to write, “Archimedes is the gold standard in healthcare modeling”; and the company has been featured in Wired and Business Week (as cited in the article), among other notable publications. The criticisms raised above could provide direction for improving some parts of the article. But many are very questionable, such as: "Not sure if it's notable in the field" (It is...), or attempts to somehow separate the company's major work ("The Archimedes Model") from the company itself ("Archimedes, Inc.") They do not add up to sufficient grounds for deletion of an informative and useful entry.12.179.50.234 (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) The founder of the company did not invent the term "evidence-based". Gordon Guyatt coined the term, and on a date the predates when the CEO supposedly did. Also, notability is not inherited, it doesn't matter who the founder is, this company is not notable. 2) The lack of peacock language has no reflection on the notability of an article. 3) It "appears to be properly sourced" but, by Wikipedia's reliable source standards, it clearly does not. The Wired article indicates that the computer model (created in 2004) predates the formation of the company (in 2006), and as such, notability is not inherited. In the BW and Wired articles, the company, by itself, was not featured. The citations are considered to be trivial mentions by WP:ORG standards, which are not sufficient to satsfy notability guidelines. 4) Not a specialist, can't take your word for it that a news site is notable in a specific field, you'll need to verify it. But the point is moot either way. The WP:RS guideline prefers "mainstream news sources", which three of the citations are not. --res Laozi speak 14:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: At the time this article was created, the Wikipedia article on "evidence-based" clearly (and for quite some time) identified Dr. Eddy as the inventor of the term. That article has been changed within the last few days (see edits to that page) with no discussion about said changes on that article's discussion page. There is a proper place, I am sure, for working out that issue.Danieldis47 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of the company's notability, I see no response to the raised point that (as sourced) the company received a record-breaking grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (as well as the praise from that foundation, as also noted above).Danieldis47 (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sources clearly indicate that it was Gordon Guyatt who coined the term "evidence-based". And either way, the point is moot. The subject up for discussion is the company, not the founder.--res Laozi speak 13:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the point is moot, friend, then why did you raise it? Thanks.Danieldis47 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because you (and the IP, which is likely an associate of yours) brought it up first! I'm merely responding to it. ;) --res Laozi speak 15:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The IP addresses raises some interesting points, but they are all irrelevant when you compare them against the nominators concerns. The company is simply not notable when compared against WP:ORG. Adding a criticism section won't solve that concern. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Serious concerns must be raised about the nominator’s “list of concerns,” including (new comments in italics):

• First citation is about the founder of the company, trivial mention of a program called Archimedes. Doesn't mention the company at all. “Trivial mention” would appear to be inaccurate. The term “Archimedes” appears at least seven times in the article, including this lengthy passage: “Eddy dubbed the model Archimedes and tested it by comparing it with two dozen real trials. One clinical study compared cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to a placebo in diabetics. After 4 1/2 years, the drugs reduced heart attacks by 35%. The exact same thing happened in Eddy's simulated patients. "The Archimedes model is just fabulous in the validation studies," says the University of Michigan's Herman. The team then put Archimedes to work on a tough, real problem: how best to treat diabetes in people who have additional aliments. "One thing not yet adequately embraced by evidence-based medicine is what to do for someone with diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, and depression," explains Kaiser's Wallace. Doctors now typically try to treat the most pressing problems. "But we fail to pick the right ones consistently, so we have misdirected utilization and a great deal of waste," he says. Kaiser Permanente's Dr. Jim Dudl had a counterintuitive suggestion. With diabetics, doctors assume that keeping blood sugar levels low and consistent is the best way to ward off problems such as heart disease. But Dudl wondered what would happen if he flipped it around, aiming treatment at the downstream problems. The idea is to give patients a trio of generic medicines: aspirin, a cholesterol-lowering statin, and drugs called ACE inhibitor. Using Archimedes and thousands of virtual patients, Eddy and Schlessinger compared the traditional approach with the drug combination. The model took about a half-hour to simulate a 30-year trial, and showed that the three-drug combination was "cost- and life-saving," says Kaiser's Wallace. The benefits far surpassed "what can be achieved with aggressive glucose control." Kaiser Permanente docs switched their standard of care for diabetes, adding these drugs to other interventions. It is too early to declare a victory, but the experience with patients seems to be mimicking Eddy's computer model. "It goes against our mental picture of the disease," says Wallace. But it also makes sense, he adds. "Cardiovascular disease is the worst complication of diabetes -- and what people die of." Eddy readily concedes that this example is a small beginning. In its current state of development, Archimedes is like "the Wright brothers' plane. We're off the sand and flying to Raleigh." But it won't be long, he says, "before we're offering transcontinental flights, with movies."

• Again, focused on the founder of the company and a program of his. There is a trivial, one sentence mention of the company. “A program of his” is the Archimedes Model, which is the basis and purpose of the work of Archimedes, Inc. (as the sources explain). I’m not sure what is gained by attempting to blur this actuality.

• An interview from a relatively obscure publication. Not sure if it's notable in the field. “Managed Care Magazine publishes a peer-reviewed managed care publication that serves the professional, business, clinical education, and information needs of managed care decision makers. The company’s circulation includes medical directors, pharmacy directors, physicians, pharmacists, and other executive titles in HMO/PPO, home health care, nursing home, hospital, group practice, and integrated health care organizations.” Bloomberg Businessweek: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=30085500

• Considered trivial by WP:ORG standards. Mentions that the company has received a grant, then focuses on the founder and the computer model. The topic of the article is the awarding of a grant to Archimedes, Inc. The article makes clear that the grant was not given to an individual, and that it was not given to a computer model. Indeed, the title of the article is, “Archimedes' new benefactor” – a direct reference to the company. I must admit, this “point of concern” seems more than a bit strained.

• Minor mention on the computer model and its creator. No mention of the company. That is (rather clearly) because this source is used for a brief section of the article that focuses on the Archimedes founder and CEO.

• Award for one of the founders of the company. Very trivial mention of the company. Again, that is because this source is used for a brief section of the article that focuses on the Archimedes founder and CEO.

• Considered trivial by WP:ORG standards. Mentions that the company has recieved a grant, then focuses on the founder and the computer model. The topic of the article is the awarding of a grant to Archimedes, Inc. The article makes clear that the grant was not given to an individual, and that it was not given to a computer model.

Thank you. Danieldis47 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial mention" is not trivial in the layman's sense, but as outlined in WP:ORG, the criteria of which this article does not meet. You repeat your argument that the notability of the founder of the company and his computer model (which again, predates the founding of the company), somehow transfers that notability to his company. But notability is not inherited, the subject under discussion must independently be notable, which you have yet to established. Your arguments may justify the creation of an article on the founder of the company, for his previous work in the medical field, but not an article on his company, which is just four years old.--res Laozi speak 13:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of notability, you still have not addressed the well-sourced fact that the company, Archimedes, Inc., received a record-setting grant from the United States' largest philanthropy devoted exclusively to health and health care. What say you, friend? Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 14:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you accept my other rebuttals? But moving forward, "record-setting" is highly exaggerated. The source notes that the grant was unusual for the specific foundation (there are other similar foundations in the United States, and the source indicates that, while it is a large one, it is not the largest). It's a stretch to morph that fairly mundane statement into "record-setting", and there's nothing online to back it up. Not even your citations mention it breaking any records.--res Laozi speak 15:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that several of the points you raised have some merit and would be very useful in improving this article. I must say that you do appear to be working very, very hard to present as many criticisms - tenuous or otherwise - of the article as one could possibly imagine. (For example, must we argue "record-setting" to death? I certainly did not make that stuff up, you know. We could debate a point like this for pages and pages...) I do admire your tenacity, anyway. Cheers! Danieldis47 (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit one thing. I find paid editing, in general, to be of poor taste, since it undermines a NPOV. There have been so many egregious examples of it on Wikipedia; hence why it doesn't enjoy much support among the community.--res Laozi speak 16:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite understandable. Danieldis47 (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: And use those criticisms which are valid to improve the article. Danieldis47 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be perfectly honest, I'm more concerned that you're being paid to edit Wikipedia, and I'm tempted to ignore your arguments on the basis you're being paid to make them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One would have guessed. It is my understanding that Wikipedia has chosen not to prohibit paid writing. Wikipedia could change that policy, but it has (for whatever reasons) not done so. So that concern strikes me as a potential bias that can easily distract from an honest appraisal of an article on its actual merits, per current Wikipedia guideline. (Note: Whether I am paid or not, I certainly do my best to follow Wikipedia rules.) I'm curious: Is there any solid research to actually show that a paid article is more likely to be sub-standard? (I have not seen it…) To assume so would, I think, break a highly complex issue down to either-or black-white thinking that does not align well with the real world. (For example, would not a paid editor have even more incentive to write high-quality articles? If he didn't, and his articles were deleted, then how could he market himself? Or this: I babysit my friend's kids so he can write on Wikipedia about an issue that concerns us both. Is that friend "paid"? And if it’s easier for me, being wealthier, to pay for a babysitter for his kids while he edits, is that being paid? And if I actually “hand him the money,” so he can pay the sitter? Etc… etc….) Editors can’t be mind readers. Best to judge each article on its merits, rather than trying to enter the very complex world of human "motivations", IMHO....
To quote, "It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown..." - Jimmy Wales. The problem is not editing being paid, the problem is that you have a conflict of interest. Your articles have been put up for deletion because they're not notable - that is, they're sub-standard and don't stand up to our requirements. The problems with paid editing are already covered by our existing policies at WP:NPOV and WP:COI. You have a conflict of interest here and your account exists "for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization". Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, as far as I know, statements by any one individual are not equivalent to Wikipedia policy.
You claim that I have a conflict of interest. I say: Not true. My interest is quality Wikipedia articles – that is the only kind I would ever associate myself with. Which does not mean that I will not make mistakes. And when they are pointed out to me in a rational fashion, I will acknowledge them. That is a matter of personal honor. (BTW, let’s face it: We have both read many ridiculously biased Wikipedia articles -- and articles about non-notable topics -- that appear to be the product of “volunteers.”)
Further, my account certainly does not exist solely for promoting anyone or anything, paid or not. (My history of edits clearly demonstrates this).
Comment Actually, your history of edits demonstrates the opposite; yours is what we call a single purpose account. — Danieldis47 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --MelanieN (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I just sent Zachary Taylor's delinquent bill ("For Various Edits to Your Page of Wikipedia, Etc.") to collections. And the War in Afghanistan is WAY in arrears... Danieldis47 (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your last comment, you abruptly switch your argument from COI to “notability” – as if the two are somehow inexorably linked. To me, this sounds like more a matter of faith than of proven fact. If an article I edit has demonstrable notability issues, then I will gladly participate in (as I am now), and accept, the proper Wikipedia processes that ensue. I have no desire to ever be associated in any way with inferior writing, on any platform.
Thank you.Danieldis47 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You posted off-wiki that you were paid to write this article, this clearly makes it a conflict of interest. It's very difficult to maintain a "neutral" tone if a corporation is paying you to do so. Your older edits were focused on your field of interest; that's perfectly fine, but don't use Wikipedia as a PR venue for your clients.--res Laozi speak 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge your concerns. But I am sure that you would not obfuscate or lie for money -- and neither would I.Danieldis47 (talk) 13:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one being paid to edit, not me. The neutrality problems remain, if your "interest is quality Wikipedia articles", you wouldn't have accepted payment from your client in the first place. "When someone is being compensated, the integrity of the work, including the likelihood the content remains neutral toward those who are doing the compensating, is reasonably considered to be compromise." People have done a lot worse than lying for money, after all. --res Laozi speak 15:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This point you keep making appears to be quite tautological, and thus unhelpful; that is: “You must have a COI because you cannot be neutral because you are being paid which means that you cannot be neutral and thus you must have a COI.” Leaves me scratching my head, it does… Danieldis47 (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"....if your "interest is quality Wikipedia articles," you wouldn't have accepted payment from your client in the first place." And this is another tautological statement with little logic and even less actual evidence behind it, IMHO.... Danieldis47 (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read WP:COI? This is an established guideline, not an opinion. You may dispute it, but that doesn't change the fact that it has consensus on Wikipedia. To quote: If you "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia... then you are very strongly encouraged to avoid editing Wikipedia in areas where there is a conflict of interest.". --res Laozi speak 16:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And as we can all see, the established guideline, pointedly, includes no prohibition. (Sometime, somewhere, did wise heads prevail?) But this fact seems to hold little sway in some circles.... :) Danieldis47 (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no absolutes, for all its guidelines. But "strongly discouraged", is still strongly discouraged, not commit with impunity. I understand you dispute this notion, but it does have consensus among the community, so let's leave it at that.--res Laozi speak 17:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! Danieldis47 (talk) 20:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellently sourced. The coverage listed is enough for notability, including an in-depth Wired article and mentions in Businessweek and the New York Times. Now, user Laozi has concerns that the articles are for Dr. David Eddy, rather than his company. However, that means David Eddy certainly deserves an article, and there is a section on him in this article. Now, I don't particularly care if you make a David Eddy article with a section on Archimedes, inc or an Archimedes, Inc article with a section on David Eddy, but the sources clearly show that there should be one or the other.  The Steve  12:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may be a case for an article on Eddy, but notability is not inherited and the case remains that this company, by itself, is not notable. The correct course of action would be to create an article on the founder and start from scratch, not to keep this article.--res Laozi speak 12:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The company is not notable, but there may be a case for an article about Dr. Eddy. --MelanieN (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"May be?" Why in the world wouldn't there be? (just curious...) Danieldis47 (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't judge generalizations. Show me the article and the sourcing, and then we'll talk. --MelanieN (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grazie. Danieldis47 (talk) 01:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The company article. Looks as if David Eddy could have an article, though this AFD is about the company. I don't think moving it in it's current form would be appropriate. Suggest if deleted, it be retained in user space so the info about Eddy can be used in a newly written article about him, if that is how this plays out. The Eskimo (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Since it seems to be headed that way, I have started the bio of David M. Eddy and moved most of the information to there. Could use a look, but I don't think Dr. Eddy will be seen on AFD anytime soon. Also, if Archimedes, Inc gets deleted, I would suggest a redirect to David M. Eddy instead. Cheers,  The Steve  01:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm ambivalent about the notion, but I don't outright reject it. As long as the article isn't as overtly promotional as this article was (and so far it doesn't look to be, some of the more contentious content has been removed), I'd be perfectly fine with it.--res Laozi speak 22:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I have no interest in this article or its subject -- & I didn't even know that an article about it existed, let alone had been submitted here to AfD, nor has my username been mentioned here -- yet I found this message on my Talk page. It is from a user whose only edit to Wikipedia was to alert me to this discussion. Anyone know why I was contacted about this matter? And I emphasize "know" rather than "think" or "suspect", because I think I know why I was alerted to this discussion. And I would rather not assume an editor, who has been blocked, is evading that block & act accordingly, only to discover that I acted wrongly. -- llywrch (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I made the block, but don't have a clue why you were alerted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hongkongresident supplied me with a plausible explanation. Although it confirms my suspicions, the individuals behind this stopped their recruiting, so I'm willing to let the matter drop. -- llywrch (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to David M. Eddy, the founder of the company. I concur with the statements above that the company is not independently notable and that the creation of David M. Eddy (done by Thesteve (talk · contribs) on 16 November 2010) is the best approach. Cunard (talk) 08:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Retzlaff[edit]

Bryce Retzlaff (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, Reztlaff has not yet played a senior game for the Brisbane Lions but is verified as being in their current player list. Delete? Keep? Merge? Shirt58 (talk) 12:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Answer Comment - I'd say he's had a change in opinion about notability in the months since creating the article, but didn't want it deleted via Prod but discussed here.The-Pope (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To ensure a formal, constructive, and informed deletion discussion took place, which is exactly what is happening here. It's hardly of world-shattering importance, but there are a number of player bios in AFL and NRL squads for players who have not yet made their professional debut (some of which I may well have started). You could call it a test case, of sorts. Or you could call it pointiness on my part, which I agree may well also be a fair assessment. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm I was going to say delete, but I think the The-Pope's idea of a redirect is a good one. To reiterate was has been said above, there are occasions when a player will not meet WP:NSPORTS, but will still meet the WP:GNG (eg David Swallow), normally when there is significant coverage about their draft prospects. This article, however, is clearly not one of them, as there is no significant coverage. Jenks24 (talk) 02:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arleen Taveras[edit]

Arleen Taveras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD) • Afd statistics
Ted Taveras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) added by --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:41, 16 November 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)

Fails to show notability. There are several references, but not all of them mention the person, and those that do are either trivial mentions or primary sources such as press releases. The primary claim to notability is the award she has won, but being named Woman of the Year by the Groesbeck Chapter of the Business & Professional Women is not sufficient. The creator of this article has also created the article about the subject's company, which is also up for AfD for lack of notability; that article was created for payment and it is more than likely that this article was, too - which doesn't mean that the articles should automatically be deleted, but when there is paid editing involved the notability of the subject needs to be shown very clearly indeed, which isn't the case here. bonadea contributions talk 12:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see that one of the spammers (User:Danieldis47) has already been blocked indefinitely as an advertising-only account. However, the colleague, User:Etalssrs, has picked up the baton and is writing an article at his/her talk page about Dr. David Eddy - apparently to replace Danieldis47's Archimedes Inc. page when it gets likely deleted. Danieldis47 was also working on that article (seems rather unusual for a user to work on an article on another user's talk page) until he/she was banned. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - fail WP:BIO - sources do not amount to the significant coverage required; spammy ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding a delete !vote for Ted Taveras as well. When I first looked at the article I thought he might have been slightly more notable, but having looked closer and seen the lack of sources, I strongly feel that the Ted Taveras article also lacks a credible claim to notability. --bonadea contributions talk 22:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CocoOS[edit]

CocoOS (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 cannot find adequate coverage in reliable sources to show that this software product is notable. VQuakr (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 09:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Some of the sources are in other languages too. Endofskull (talk) 14:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota College at Bottineau Lumberjacks men's ice hockey[edit]

Dakota College at Bottineau Lumberjacks men's ice hockey (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 junior college hockey team. Note: neither high-level college hockey, nor junior hockey. Grsz11 07:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As the creator of this article 5 years ago, I would ask that it is speedily deleted. It no longer has a use and is not regularly maintenanced. DMighton (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After some thought. They were members of the SIJHL Jr. A League and are multiple champions of NJCAA... maybe this team deserves another look. DMighton (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N Endofskull (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and creator of page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I forgot they played in the SIJHL so they were a Junior A team at one point, and as such meets our requirements for a page. -DJSasso (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any source for their participation (record, etc) in 01-03. According to 2005–06 SIJHL season, they were a part-time member and played just 20 games in the conference, but I'm not sure if it was the same before. Grsz11 03:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm not going to fight for it if the article's creator has lost interest in it, but they're the defending champions of the NJCAA (four straight titles in '07, '08, '09, and '10, and four others before that), and they've been in 20 of the past 35 finals. I guess the nomination is premised on the idea that no junior college athletic team could ever possibly be notable... judge for yourself... Mandsford 21:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there is no automatic notability for NJCAA teams, it looks like the team previously competed in JR A hockey. The article may just need some tlc with refs, and things... Bhockey10 (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This team, which is a member of the NJCAA, meets the criteria for inclusion per WP:GNG. Dolovis (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 10:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhpAnts[edit]

PhpAnts (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)

Totally fails any sort of notability. Triwbe (talk) 06:35, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I PRODded this, and seconds later it was tagged for speedy deletion. The author removed the speedy, so possibly that could've been reinstated, but because of the PROD...I'm not sure. Anyway - here we are. My PROD reasoning still stands; This does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines; it does not show coverage in appropriate independent reliable sources, and I cannot find such coverage. See WP:VRS.  Chzz  ►  20:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Normally I like to support these quirky open source software WP articles, but zero presence on the inter web, means quick delete. Suggest WP:OR Speedy Delete. scope_creep (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close & Delete Mostly OR and NN, with a dash of spam. Google results show essentially nothing. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 03:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. WP:SOAP, WP:RS, WP:GNG. Ipsign (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Mix[edit]

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

The result was delete. Many of the keep !votes concede that there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish notability and make a claim for "inherent" notability based on the "popularity" or widespread use of the product. Such an approach (setting aside notability guidelines) requires a firm consensus and there is none here. The consensus is to delete, on the basis that the subject fails the relevant notability guidelines. Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mp3nity[edit]

Mp3nity (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 product, no links to reliable sources, Google mainly returns links to download sites or cracks, torrents etc.—J. M. (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep We already had a similar conversation yesterday with other users about deletion and an administrator allowed it to stay, is this going to be a daily thing now? If you haven't personally heard of this software before it doesn't mean it's Non-notable. It's been circulating online since 2002, it has a strong fan base, you can find talk about it on thousands of webpages, look how far the reviews go back on download.com, and yes, like all popular software, some users request cracks for it on illegal sites, it doesn't make it subject to deletion, quiet the opposite, it makes it more notable. To —Soap—, go check, most articles about software have virtually no sources at all, I could include more sources if that should settle it. And where did I claim that this article is superior to Winamp and Windows Media Player??? I simply said that this article is written in the same style as the other software articles in the categories that I mentioned. And you name the biggest as examples, Winamp and Windows Media Player, how long have those been on wikipedia? Mine is just one night, give it some time to grow. Greeen (talk) 17:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is silly, but I'm not sure how to vote, is my vote counted now? I don't think it is because that stats page is not changing, please help. Greeen (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, thanks for the info, I didn't know that, it makes sense. Also, I can see from J.M.'s talk page that you're a big fan of his, it's nice that you're there for your buddy, but it's not cool that you're overwhelming this page with objections to every other comment, so that it would seem to the admistrator that J.M.'s opinion is the dominant one while it's not. Come on guys, play fair. Greeen (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greeen, I already warned you that you should stop making personal comments. Secondly, FleetCommand is not my fan, we have a long history of serious disagreement, and I never asked him to "come here for me". It was his free choice, and anyone on Wikipedia is free to comment on whatever they want.—J. M. (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's right. J. M. and I have never been friends of bosom, though that does not mean that I should nurture a grudge against him and hesitate from requesting his valuable service on Wikipedia's behalf in the field that he is good at, (i.e. Multimedia). On the contrary, it is everyone's duty to acknowledge that Wikipedia is not about winning and employ the sacred power of forgetting to deal with painful parts of the past disputes.

    As for filing objection in AfD, everyone has the right to do so, as long as the objections do not go against Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process. I am personally of the opinion that my objecting a person who says "this article is notable" (under the circumstances that the article fails to comply with Wikipedia Notability Guideline) is completely legal. However, to make this discussion fair, I grant that I'm talking about myself and my own comments and not those of J. M.

    Fleet Command (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personal Attack? Warned me? Friends of bosom? What are you guys talking about? Obviously, you're taking this way too personally. I was mainly objecting to what turned out to be, since you understand guidelines so well, a WP:WABBITSEASON. Repeating the same argument over and over just doesn't make it any stronger. Re-pasting it after every positive comment will only waste the administrator's time rather than delude him/her. Secondly (and unimportantly), "big fan" was a reference to the "Lord of the multimedia section of Wikipedia" greeting, unless that's J.M's official wiki-title. Greeen (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, dear Greeen, I did understand that you are referring to that certain greeting; hence came my explanation. As for a personal attack, I personally see nothing wrong with you. But let us cease this discussion now and focus on the matter at hand. Fleet Command (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the issue at hand here is "should this subject article be kept?" and I believe so. It is not written as an advertisment and seems to me to go over the features of the software itself. It could use more sources, and independent sources at that--but I see that (in this case anyway) as being a content issue and not a deletion issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I'm reasonably sure that the issue at hand for a discussion at "Articles for deletion" is if the article should be deleted or not.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never deny that what you said in your last message is literally correct. However, what I called wrong is your judgment of article's eligibility for Wikipedia. You said that you believe it should be kept because "it is not written as an advertisement [sic] and seems to me to go over the features of the software itself." And I said this fact has nothing to do with the nomination. This article is not accused of being advertisement in the initial nomination; but it is deemed as failing WP:GNG. Fleet Command (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is advertising: an all-in-one batch Music organizer, File renamer, Tag editor, Audio converter, CD ripper, Lyrics finder, Playlist maker, that supports most popular audio and video formats. Google News, Books, Scholar find zilch that looks like a reliable source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Its a well know utility, which has been around and used for donkies years, with 10's-100's of thousands of users. Clearly passes notability. The article is a wee bit spammy, needs work, but no reason to delete it. scope_creep (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Its a well know utility, which has been around and used for donkies years, with 10's-100's of thousands of users." This is irrelevant, popularity does not establish notability as required by the official Wikipedia notability guideline. The only thing that would make it notable is if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources". And so far, nobody has been able to show that.—J. M. (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article establishes notability and google confirms. Article needs a clean up though. Handschuh-talk to me 01:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment J. M., When you examine and compare popularity and notabily for a big enough population size, you see that fundamentally they are the same. scope_creep (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, as I say again, is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia can only have articles that satisfy the requirement in the official notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources". If a subject has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, then it does not meet the official Wikipedia requirement and therefore cannot have its own article on Wikipedia. These are the basic, official Wikipedia rules, which are non-negotiable. The official Wikipedia guideline even explicitly says that "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity". Which means all arguments presented here based on alleged popularity are bogus. So far, nobody has been able to even back up the claim that the software is popular (even though, again, popularity does not make it notable for Wikipedia), and secondly, nobody has been able to show that the product has received significant coverage in reputable sources.—J. M. (talk) 01:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought popularity had already been taken care of and proven. As for notability, when we talk multimedia/online software, unless we talk about Microsoft or Apple, the only reliable sources you'll find are software and multimedia websites, and you can find a page about this program in every single one of those websites, and that's notability. On another note, I think you made your point over and over again, it's been noted. Why don't we leave this space for fresh opinions. Thank you. Greeen (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, popularity has not ben taken care of and proven. As for notability, you cannot reinterpret the official Wikipedia rules. They are clear, explicit (e.g. they explicitly say that popularity alone does not mean notability) and apply to all articles including software-related articles. Nobody has been able to show significant coverage in reputable sources (for example books, articles in magazines etc.), because they apparently don't exist. The fact that the software is available for download at various download sites means exactly nothing for notability on Wikipedia. This is, again, clearly written in the official Wikipedia rules and guidelines.—J. M. (talk) 04:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as for making my point over and over again—I'm only replying to invalid arguments. When people stop giving bogus reasons that go against the official Wikipedia rules over and over again and start offering valid arguments, I will leave this space for fresh opinions. So far, nobody has offered anything yet.—J. M. (talk) 04:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article fails to establish its notability as required by Wikipedia General Notability Guideline and hence does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per popularity doesn't confer notability. All of the current references are to sites or pages controlled by the software's publisher. Google searches seem to bring up exclusively cracks and downloads. Page has RS issues. OSbornarfcontributionatoration 03:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP notabily guidelines are just that, guidelines, not policies or rule of law as set in stone. They are meant to be interpreted and applied, not translated verbatim. WP isn't some religious tome, and we are not fundamentalists. Popularity does establish notability given a big enough population, and it's used by 100's of thousands of folk. So Strong Keep. These software packages and their ecosystems aren't that well connected to traditional media, so your not going to find many links to them, and that's where WP fails in this aspect. It's good encyclopedic knowledge and well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 13:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to change the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, this is not place to do so. You can discuss the changes on the policy/guideline talk pages, and seek consensus. Until then, the policies and guidelines apply. Secondly, the official policies and guidelines are not arbitrary. They are interconnected. When the official Wikipedia guideline says that popularity does not mean notability for Wikipedia (even though it may do elsewhere), it says so for a good reason. The reason is one of the most important rules of Wikipedia: verifiability. When someone here says "this software if popular, so strong keep", it is something anyone (for example a spammer) can do here, as it costs nothing. Proving the claim (by offering reliable sources) is something completely different, something that Wikipedia is based on. Nobody has been able to do that here. One of the most basic rules of Wikipedia is that all articles must be based on reliable third-party sources. The official verifiability policy explicitly says: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This is not a case of "not finding many links to them". This is a case of not finding a single one. Nothing at all. Neutral point of view is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It clearly says that "This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." So no, core Wikipedia policies are not negotiable, you cannot reinterpret them. Because neutral point of view means verifiability, which means notability, because notability needs verifiability (i.e. significant coverage in reliable sources), which is needed for neutral point of view. All these core Wikipedia policies are just variants of each other, meaning the same thing, for the same reason. Basing a "strong keep" vote on a premise that the most basic, non-negotiable Wikipedia policies do not matter and do not have to be taken into account, while refusing to offer any proof for anything, is a severe misunderstanding of the values Wikipedia is based on.—J. M. (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Oh yeah, this is definitely popular. Now, Google Books does return no books for this article, which only makes it not the most notable subject according to the guidelines, nevertheless, we can still fairly admit that it is notable enough to have its own article, specially that many programs like this are already accepted. 74.100.240.187 (talk) 02:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection: Notability required evidence. This evidence is absent. Fleet Command (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This anonymous IP address is a single-purpose account used solely for voting in this discussion, which means the vote should not be taken into account, as it is probably just a proxy spammer in disguise.—J. M. (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment J. M. Dude we know you want to fervently delete it, so why don't you follow form, stop trying to raise objections and let us discuss it. scope_creep (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you actually read the link in my objection, you can find out that identifying and tagging single-purpose accounts in deletion discussions is a normal procedure on Wikipedia. There is a tendency in this discussion to influence the result with vote stacking, cheating and other dirty tactics. The above vote from the single-purpose IP address is most likely a vote from a proxy spammer with connections to the product (who also happens to use invalid arguments like "other stuff exists)". Tagging anonymous spammers is, again, a standard, documented way of dealing with them.—J. M. (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response registration is not required to participate, neither is experience (I wish they'd change that too... but they haven't).--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody says that registration is required. However, when the only edit that an anonymous IP address ever does on Wikipedia is voting in a deletion discussion, suddenly appearing out of nowhere, you can be pretty sure that they're not honest about their true motivations and that it is a vote that should be disqualified, especially as they just repeat the same invalid arguments that were presented here before, disregarding the official Wikipedia policies. Anyone who has an interest in keeping an article on Wikipedia alive (like the product author and/or the article creator, who also happens to advertise the product on other Wikipedia articles, like Greeen), can vote multiple times in a discussion by using anonymous IP addresses. It's too easy and doesn't cost anything, that's why things like this happen very often on Wikipedia. And that's why the Single-purpose account article warns against this, as the anonymous IP addresses may be sock puppets (which is forbidden on Wikipedia), and the admins are free to ignore their votes. The result of a deletion discussion should always be based on the validity of presented arguments, not on the number of votes: "Justification and evidence for a response carries far more weight than the response itself." All arguments presented from people who voted "Keep" are just variants of "Keep, because I say so", without offering a single proof that the product is indeed notable.—J. M. (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this was "not a vote" and "anyone on Wikipedia is free to comment on whatever they want". Greeen (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there's any actual evidence of sockpuppetry, I'd welcome it for review and would suspect a block be put on the IP address. As for the intentions of the individual making the comment, you're "probably" right but that means you "could" be wrong. But even more importantly, as Greeen has pointed out... it doesn't matter anyway because it's not a "vote" -- the value comes from the content of the comments provided. If the closing admin wants to value that, yay. If not, so be it. I trust the admins enough on this one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag is appropriate, but JM's comments seem to assume bad faith on the part of the annonymous editor. Can we please try to maintain decorum in AfD debates? Handschuh-talk to me 21:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment J. M. It wasn't the anonymous account, I was commenting on. I agree it looks suspicious, but you must assume good faith. However, it was the fact that your not following form for Afd nomination. Usually when raising an article for Afd, the editor in question waits for the for the Afd to be discussed before a decision is taken by him/her on a admin. But what you have done throughout this discussion is raise an objection after objection for every entry and not allowed the discussion to proceed naturally. That's wrong. scope_creep (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment was added as a reply to the "anonymous vote" thread, so naturally I assumed you were commenting on that. Anyway, it is not true that I raise an objection for every entry. Simple statistics: there are 9 "votes" here (excluding mine), I objected to 2 of them (and this includes tagging the anonymous IP address). Plus, when you look closely at my comments, you can see that many of them are simply replies to messages directed at me (like the helpful suggestions to leave this place), which is exactly what I am doing in this comment, too. When someone says something to me, I reply.—J. M. (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I'm on trial. To clarify some things, I made a few edits previously, but maybe my IP changed, I don't know, but anyways, I'm not an avid Wikipedia Editor. I stumbled upon the Mp3nity article, I saw the delete banner and I had something to say. Sorry. 74.100.240.187 (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No need to be sorry. You comments are welcome and they will be given consideration by the closing admin. Handschuh-talk to me 05:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the merits, as I'm not finding sufficient independent sourcing to show notability. I'd also add, to the nominator and others above me - cool it, guys. J.M., your points have been clearly made and are well taken, and it would be impossible for the closing admin to miss them - no need to engage with every single editor wishing to keep the article. We're inching toward more heat than light on this one, so can everyone take a deep breath and calm down? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no single WP:RS provided to prove WP:NOTABILITY. Ipsign (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aastha Chaudhary[edit]

Aastha Chaudhary (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 Hindi actress with insufficient WP:RS to satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER or even WP:GNG … dated PROD contested by author. — The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the official website of STAR India TV Network. What can you say now?? Have I edited the same. Check the about us page of Indya.com if you are unsure. If she is un-notable why did she got a great lead role in her first time?? And, I think you people have some problem with Indian content, if I am not wrong. UnbeatableIndia2020 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with wikipedia now a days ...???? I think they have some problem with Indian content. UnbeatableIndia2020 (talk) 05:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any person cannot project himself/herself as notable. I am a fan of her. and i think her page should be created as she is notable enough for the same. This frequent nomination in deletion log of such a notable T.V Actress means that the concept of deletion without observing is going on. Please refer to the wikipedia pages links on this article. especially those related to the TV Serials done by the actress .i.e. Babul Ka Aangann Chootey Na and Aise Karo Naa Vidaa. There anybody with a normal observing power can find out her name and details. And, you are also not ready to treat Indya.com as reliable source, which is the most reliable source and people even cite their sources while in discussion in forums,etc. If thats so, the wikipedia policies then thanks a lot for such great policies. UnbeatableIndia2020 (talk) 06:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just added three more reliable sources - one from Times of India(TOI), one from MSN India and one from DNA India. check it in references heading and decide what to do. thanks UnbeatableIndia2020 (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the Above. The decision to delete a notable actor from India smells bad when the subject page in question contains a beg for money message from Jimbo Wales. There is clearly way too much East Coast user/admin bias on these deletions. A lead role is notible whether it be a long or short career. Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform. PsychClone —Preceding undated comment added 21:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC). Trolling struck per ANI consensus. Favonian (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see what Jimbo Wales (who hasn't taken part in this discussion so far) has to do with an Indian actress, unless you know something we don't. Also, how do you know where any of us come from (unless we say so explicitly on our userpages)? I for one don't come from the east coast. I've never even been to the USA. You don't know my ethnic origin - I don't even know what a quarter of it is myself. "Actors and artistic performers should not be deleted by armchair critics who have no personal knowledge or have actually seen them perform." So who should decide? You? Your qualification being? "The decision to delete a notable actor" - but is she notable? To me, she is as notable as anyone who acts in soap opera - my apologies if this series isn't one but if not, it's similar to. It is at least referenced. I am not !voting here, but would point out to you that if you want to support the article it is best to do so using Wikipedia's policies and the existing references. Show people who may not have read them how they do indicate notability. Referring to another discussion, one doesn't have to be an expert to know that something referenced by a personal site, twitter and facebook is definitely not notable. Here, discounting the blogspot one, there are references that could be good. Explain to us how they are, and how reliable they are as sources. Don't play the racist card or try to belittle editors like Schmidt, who has gone in and saved many articles against quite high odds. Peridon (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She has had two named lead roles. One supporting and one lead. The one she had the lead role lasted for a hundred episodes and seven months. Both shows are notable productions - one has run for three years and the other seven months (hundreds of episodes for both). She has had two exclusive interviews with Times of India and DNA and one in Tely Chakkar. So i would say she is just about makes it in both WP:ENT and WP:GNG. (OMG, i am voting keep in a AfD where MQS has voted delete!) --Sodabottle (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Changing my opinion based upon new information offered immediately above. Now that it has been shared that she has had lead roles in more than one notable project. This brings her in under WP:ENT... and as WP:BLP1E no longer applies, the coverage is enough per WP:GNG. My thanks to User:Sodabottle Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Decided to !vote after all. Thanks to Sodabottle for taking up the challenge I issued to what turned out to be a troll. (Only found out later...) Good explanation. Peridon (talk) 14:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On arguments, and less importantly numbers, there is a rough consensus to delete this article. The controlling policies and guidelines are, as recognised by the participants, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT. The keep !voters have not pointed to substantial evidence of the enduring notability and significance of the visit, of which WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT both speak. Such evidence would have been necessary to stand in the way of the widespread support (measured numerically, less the occasional junk !vote) for deletion at this AfD on the basis that this was a routine state visit without enduring significance. There is no consensus for a merge, largely because of the absence of a suitable merge target. Of course, I would be happy to provide the uncontroversial history of the article to anyone who would like to use some of the content in a different article. Mkativerata (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama's visit to India[edit]

A note to those mentioning a transwiki: Wikinews and Wikipedia have different licenses, of which Wikinews' is the more liberal, meaning that a transwiki is impossible unless each and every contributor agrees to relicense their contributions. Further information at WP:Wikinews and n:WN:Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barack Obama's visit to India (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)

Heads of state make state visits. That's what they do when they aren't in their own county. Wikipedia is not a news source, and this trip has no implications in significant changes in international relations, law, etc. Grsz11 03:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

otable enough for its own article. (I was initially going to suggest a merge to List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama, but that article seems like a content fork in itself. Maybe that should also be listed here?) Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think a merge would be the best option, per Erpert above. While the tour may be significant, it is still a state visit after all and there is nothing to suggest any notability. Mar4d (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or better still, do a transwiki as Hongkongresident suggested. Mar4d (talk) 07:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to timeline and delete the rest, as Erpert suggested. This is just another visit, and per WP:NOTNEWS, this article should be deleted. Nightw 08:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete via Strange Passerby. Wikipedia is not the news. Hekerui (talk) 10:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but news is sometimes appropriate for Wikipedia. The set "things that are news" and "things that are appropriate for Wikipedia" overlap. WP:NOTNEWS actually addresses the distinction. Trivial announcements? Not for Wikipedia. Major events? Okay for Wikipedia. --Ginkgo100talk 19:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This will be one of Obama's most significant state visits, simply by the fact that India is the 2nd most populous country in the world. I see nothing wrong with having articles about signficant state visits. We have an article for 1972 Nixon visit to China. This, while far less significant, is a similar item.--Johnsemlak (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that every major politician that visits India should get an article devoted solely to details about that visit? Your comparison to Nixon's visit to China is a bit WP:FUTURE. Nightw 13:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:NOTNEWS. State visits are routine, there is nothing demonstrably notable or significant about this particular one. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone a few days and if nothing of real significance happens, then probably merge into India – United States relations. Article is relatively well written and sourced. The problem lies in notability of the topic itself. If this event does not turn into something significant, then the article would become just would-be wiki-news article. But there is still possibility ahead, that world wide media might report about it something of importance. Don't now what. Some agenda behind the trip cost, some significant speech or controversy might happen. As the article is weel written, I would wait few hours/days to see, it would well incorporate into this news skeleton (so I would relist the nomination few days ahead from now). As Johnsemlak states some significant state visits might be noteworthy, but we still have no criteria to judge it here. If nothing special will happen, part of its wikicode might be usable for updating India – United States relations article. It seems to me that it will fit there better then just to Obama's timiline (there is not enough space for that) or List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama. Reo ON | +++ 14:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are actually right. At applying the rule. I expected this reply somehow. I didn't write the article and I wouldn't do so myself. But looking at it, I just see fit to apply WP:IAR or WP:WIARM for there is really only hours left before we will see. And from all the possible state visits between different politicians of the world, in this one at least I judge it to have at least the potential to be noteworthy. At least if fore someone from central Europe like me, non related to either India or US the visit seems to be an event... And I do see it been reported here in our country like this: [17], [18]. For myself, the world wide news does not prove it to be noteworthy enough yet. But still I do not see it to be on the of the same level as blabber like reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities (from NOTNEWS). It is high-end connection between two world powers, so it kind of crossroad and it has different potential to change world. (just for ex.: It may be crazy interesting and of importance, whether relations with Pakistan might be influenced, impact on contracts, strategic alliance in region or ties of India to western world will actually replace recent gravitation of India more and more towards Rusia?) Wikipedia is not crystal ball :) thats right. But I would (IAR) just wait the few moments if it is as it right now. (visit's ending today). That's all. :) + Transwiki is not bad idea here too. Reo ON | +++ 16:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect, your rationale for the application of IAR is flawed. IAR doesn't mean we can ignore any particular rule or set of rules when it suits us; it's for special cases that aren't accounted for by the rules as written. The rules in this case (NOTNEWS, GNG, EVENT etc) were written with very similar circumstances in mind and, being a policy and guidelines respectively, are supported by a much wider consensus than we'll get in this AfD. These rules don't "prevent [us] from improving or maintaining Wikipedia"bolding mine for effect and so shouldn't be ingored. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- This is exactly the sort of tabloidy nonsense that NOTNEWS applies to. And of course there's the likelyhood that the article will become a coatrack for the idiotic talking point floating around about the trip costing $260 million per day. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WikiNews I agree that it does not bleong here but transwiki will allow us to preserve the effort put into this The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's only possible if every contributor to the article gives their consent because WN has an even more liberal license for redistribution than WP does. In other words it's so much of a headache as to be near impossible. I'm not against the idea, though. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - has no encyclopedic relevance. Not like the first ever visit or something and even if it was not exactly groundbreaking considering its India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muscoviteinheaven (talk • contribs) 13:42, 6 November 2010
  • The article's traffic stats are significant and growing strongly. This indicates that there is a significant readership for this topic and so the title as a search term is both plausible and useful. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or more likely, people see this AfD and think "this is such a stupid topic for an article, I just have to go look at it once before it gets obliterated". Tarc (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a ridiculous deletion argument to say that a bad title means an article should be deleted. Rename if it needs it. Sheesh. --Ginkgo100talk 19:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was ridiculing Warden's "people are searching for it, so keep it!" position, not advocating that it be deleted because of the current title. I don't care what it is called personally, it is the subject matter itself that I am opposed to. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is not just another routine visit. a classic misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS which states routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia This visit is an event of enduring significance with US reversing its long standing policy & lending support to India's bid for NSG, MTCR etc for 1st time, several large Indian firms being taken off "entities list" by US thereby paving trade between US and these companies. it clearly meets WP:N with multiple independent RS from across the world covering it so I will not spend more time discussing that. as far as meeting WP:EVENT is concerned the WP:EFFECT is already evident and I would point to Barack Obama's visit to India#Impact. creating 50,000 jobs in the middle of a recession and concluding $10 billion in business deals is no small feat IMO (even for POTUS). Approx 80 countries have GDP lower than that. Wall street journal even has an editorial on this event [19]. what percentage of events covered by WP are considered notable enough for an opinion piece by WSJ ?? WP:BREAKING states and I quote Articles about breaking news events —particularly biographies of participants— are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. It seems to me that the deletionists want a separate (much higher) threshold for notability for Obama's actions and another threshold for the average notable person. I agree not everything obama does is notable but this visit is one of the notable things he has done recently--Wikireader41 (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI Disclaimer: User:Wikireader41 is the creator and primary contributor of the article. Nightw 08:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
COI Disclaimer: User:Night w is not the creator or the primary contributor of the article. --Wikireader41 (talk) 08:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um...so? Erpert (let's talk about it) 08:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with it being merged and redirected to India–United States relations, but even there it would need to be substantially trimmed down. I don't think there is a real argument to be made for the article staying intact. Whatever the American press say, this is no more significant than all the other hundreds of visits that nobody would ever create an article if it weren't Obama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to that article would give WP:UNDUE weight to this visit. The only article I think this could be merged to would be Barack Obama's Asia tour 2010 when that is available. could you clarify that "I don't think there is a real argument to be made for the article staying intact". Is it because with only a few thousand cites in WP:RS this is not notable enough or because you think the Impact is not substantial enough? AFAIK the threshold to establish notability to justify a stand alone article per WP:GNG is the same for everyone and heads of state do not have a separate higher standard.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumed notability. Quoting: ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not." Wikipedia is not, for example, News. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well WP:NOTNEWS is about Routine news. A visit from the head of state of the oldest democracy to largest democracy to discuss its membership in UN security council, while sealing export deals worth $ 10 billion, reversing long standing policy to support Indian membership to Nuclear Suppliers Group, MTCR, Australia group etc can hardly be considered routine news. If I may mention Routine news doesn't get editorial pieces in the Wall Street journal and New York Times about it.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WSJ would be derelict in its duty if it didn't write about this. Just putting Obama on the front page sells newspapers and that's what they're trying to do. This is very routine news. David Cameron did something very similar just a few weeks ago. India is becoming a big player on the world stage and many western governments see trade with India as a good way out of the recession so they're bound to visit and get chummy with the Indian PM, that doesn't make it notable. Oh, and the US is not the world's oldest democracy, democracy has been been around for centuries before the US was even thought-of. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK so now Notability should have a benign motive behind it to be considered notable. I would argue newspapers and the likes of BBC are in the business to make money and would put anything on the front page if it helps the achieve that goal. "India is becoming a big player and many governments want to get chummy with Indian PM". you are right about that. And that is exactly what makes this notable. The world is witnessing an unprecedented shift of power from the west to east and this visit is a small indicator of that. US is not the oldest functioning democracy ? maybe we should write to the RS that say that then and have them speak WP:TRUTH. Last time I checked it was the only superpower, the richest country in the world and the strongest military power by far and POTUS sits on top of all that. How many billion dollars worth of business did Cameron do? maybe we should have an article about that also.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're using quite a lot of verbiage to defend what is in reality a simple, routine news event. Typical hyper-inclusionism run amok. Tarc (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it hyper-inclusionism. It's natural to seek to defend what you've spent a considerable amount of time writing, but we can argue over whether the US is the biggest this or the oldest that til we're all blue in the face but it still won't make this trivial visit notable. Notability is defined by WP:N, WP:GNG etc, all of which are guidelines. [[WP:NOT] is a policy and this falls afoul of WP:NOT#NEWS. Wikireader41, with the greatest respect to you, if you look at this dispassionately, you can't possibly justify the existence of this article in its own right. By your own admission, it fails WP:UNDUE (another policy). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE would apply only if we include all this info in the article on US-India relations or try to merge it into the Obama article. well I think we have a disagreement here what WP:NOTNEWS means when it says what Routine News is. Not the first time this 4 sentence policy has been misapplied and I suspect it won't be the last. with due respect to all !voting for delete here I do not think that one can consider a state visit by Head of State of the Richest democracy (OK maybe not the oldest) to the largest ( a billion plus and counting) democracy where deals worth $ 10 billion were sealed , permanent membership of India into UN Security council was discussed, long standing US opposition for Indian membership to NSG, MTCR, Wassenaar arrangement, australia group is dropped, routine by any stretch of Imagination. Not to mention today we will see a rare address by a Head of State to a Joint session of Indian Parliament. IMO that in itself confers this event notability enough for a stand-alone article like Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009. This kind of speech happens much more rarely than the state of Union addresses in US and 2010 State of the Union Address would be a similar speech. Bush was not able to do this during his visit in 2006 [20] and this is a truly rare honor afforded by The Indians. Recently David Cameron's request to do so was politely turned down by Indians[21]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. Those supposed billions of dollars' worth of business aren't being done just because Obama get on a plane. He could have negotiated those deals on the phone, but that wouldn't make it notable. Likewise, he didn't support India's hypothetical bid for permanent UNSC membership because he was India at the time and thought it would be a nice gesture. Again, he could easily have done that from the comfort of the Oval Office. So what we're left with basically (assuming we all accept that not everything Obama does is notable) is that some bloke got on a plane and flew a few thousand miles. I did that a few weeks ago, but my trip's not notable. It's not made notable by a speech and an empty gesture that could have been made from anywhere nor by the status of the bloke. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HJ that is complete WP:OR by you. what makes you so sure that the deals would have been signed if he hadn't come to India and personally sucked up to Singh. The bid for UNSC is hypothetical only in your mind. I agree it may take some time but looks like China too may announce support for India's bid ( UK,Russia & France have already endorsed India's bid). Now that India already has a (temporary) seat in UNSC one of their main thrusts will be to move forward the bureaucratic process and hasten reform of UNSC. ask any businessman around a telephone call or email is no substitute for a personal visit if you want to seal the deal.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A comment here, in reply to wikireader. This isn't being covered by news organizations because it is a state visit to a large country with many important discussions on the table. It is being covered because there was some wingnut furor over the perceived cost of sending the president and his entourage abroad. Bear that in mind. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that is complete and utter BS--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge in something about Obama's work. Really "x president visited x country", c'mon. TbhotchTalk C. 01:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We shouldn't make an article everytime the wingnut wurlitzer spools up. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Barack Obama trip to Asia 2010 since he'll be going to 3 additional countries (Indonesia, South Korea, and Japan), not just India. WP:NOTNEWS is not applicable here, since this is not a routine story such as the weather / business / sports / crime reports, which is what WP:NOTNEWS is intended for. Victor Victoria (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple stops doesn't elevate this past "not news". Presidents routinely visit other nations, there is simply nothing spectacular or earth-shattering about this particular one, despite vague hand-waving to the contrary. This is about as routine as a presidential itinerary gets. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
right and US presidents routinely go around endorsing other countries bid for a permanent seat in UN Security council ?? Maybe he will do the same in Indonesia and South Korea. This visit was as non routine as it gets despite vague handwaves to the contrary.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The endorsement itself is probably notable, and worth a brief mention in one of those CountryX-CountryY relations" articles, sure. But the visit itself is not, it doesn't matter where Obama was when he made the endorsement. There's a notable difference. Tarc (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
apparently Obama did not think it would be sufficient to pick up the phone and call Singh let him know of the endorsement, send an email or ask his Press secretary to release a statement ( about US support to India for UNSC seat). Instead he thought it was necessary to go to India accompanied by 36 warships, 500 staff and 200 business leaders & become the 2nd US president ever to address a rare joint session of Indian Parliament and reveal the major shift in US policy there. If he had listened to you American Tax payers could have saved a bundle. Tarc read WP:LETGO. there is no way in hell this article will be deleted. It might actually be a featured article per WP:FA in not to distant a future.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, WP:LETGO is far more applicable to users with fanatical ownership issues, ones can't stand to see an article they worked on or created be deleted, I'm afraid. And the fact that you have a bone to pick about the cost kinda calls into question the motivations to write and keep this article in the first place, so now we're wading into pointy, undue waters. And finally, "there is no way in hell this article will be deleted" ? I certainly admire your unwavreing confidence, but this is currently running 2:1 in favor of deletion or merging elsewhere, so I hope you like the taste of crow. AfDs are not bean-counting votes, but it'd take some amazingly powerful "keeps" to overcome that. As the "keeps" are pretty much a collection of "it may be notable one day", "all trips are inherently notable", and so on, I don't see that happening. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:NOTNEWS is that every official trip that the president makes is notable. Whereas, his personal trips, although covered in the media, would not be notable. In this case, he is making one trip to 4 countries. Two of those countries (Japan and Korea) will probably be be covered in expanded articles for the 2010 G-20 Seoul summit and APEC Japan 2010 conferences, but that doesn't mean that the other countries and/or other activities in Japan and Korea that dont have anything to do with the meetings should be left out. Which is why I recommend renaming the article to Barack Obama trip to Asia 2010 to cover all that. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Nixon's visit to china in 72 was notable. Kennedy's meeting with Khrushchev in 61 was notable. Churchill and Roosevelt's meetings (though secret at the time) in the middle of the atlantic were notable. There are probably dozens of state visits in the past 100 years which have had serious and detailed coverage in the press and in retrospective sources. A far cry from the notion that every trip abroad by an american president is notable. Protonk (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:UNDUE and WP:CRYSTAL are all relevant here. This is trivial, however ego-stroking India may find it at the moment. Nixon's visit to China was a crore times more important! --Orange Mike | Talk 17:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep with a future possibility of merging as per several suggestions above. This is "news," true, but so were the Chilean mine rescue, the Gaza flotilla raid, and the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. This trip is a noteworthy event that has generated significant international controversy and discussion. Here is the relevant text from WP:NOTNEWS: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." So, there shouldn't be an emphasis on updating the article in a breaking-news fashion. However, this is not "routine reporting" on trivial subjects, and it is an event with enduring notability. The controversy ($200m a day etc etc) may not have enduring notability, but the article hardly touches the controversy. --Ginkgo100talk 19:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Ginkgo100. Like many simuilar articles, it is both news and a historic moment. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to whom? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Times of India thinks the speech was historic[22] and BTW POTUS started his speech saying US is the worlds oldest democracy. You might want to write to him to stop spreading lies around the world and stick to WP:TRUTH--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, yes because he's such an impartial source. Democracy was born in Greece. Obviously. Luckily, you live in a country where you don't have to blindly accept everything your precious president says as indisputable fact. Though apparently fortune was wasted on you. Nightw 13:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what "POTUS" means! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha! Yeah, that one took me a while as well. Nightw 14:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Wikireader41's reference to WP:BREAKING and Ginkgo100's analysis. I would have said the page could have been merged into India – United States relations but that page is already long enough and merging the information from this page would inevitably result in cited material being inappropriately trimmed. Therefore, I think it fits nicely into its own page as a subtopic of those relations. Plenty of well cited material and a visit that has already proven important historically in terms of India's relations with the United Nations easily satisfy basic notability requirements.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How has this event "proven important historically in terms of India's relations with the United Nations"? Surely you mean the United States, yes? Even then, no it hasn't. Nothing "historical" has occured on the back of this, there's hardly any impact to speak of except for a few trade deals and minor agreements. It's a major overkill of minor information that can easily be summarised and merged into another article. Cameron went over to India in July in what he called the "largest UK trade delegation in living memory" (BBC). Should I also create a David Cameron's visit to India article simply because he made a few trade deals whilst over there? Rediculous! Nightw 14:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a topic has to be Historically important to justify a standalone article. who defines what is historically important?? will anybody even remember what wikipedia is 100 years from now. Is wikipedia itself historically important ?? maybe we should delete wikipedia itself . Ludicrous argument. Like I said NO way in hell will this article be deleted. Just hang around and see. and BTW UK is not USA and will never be. This article is about a matter between the oldest and the largest democracies of the world. David Cameron did try to address the Parliament and was politely shown the door by Indians--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So now it's notable because it's American? Ladies and gentlemen, please have a seat as this news may shock you: not everything American nor done by Obama is notable! We now return you to your scheduled programming. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
who said that ?? I totally agree that Barack Obama's bowel habits are not notable. but when he goes on a state visit and does all the things he did and both PM Singh and Obama call it a "Historic milestone"[23] then IMO its notable enough for a stand alone article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notable" is a much lower standard than "historic." Things don't have to be as important as Alfred the Great saving England or Martin Luther nailing up posters in order to be notable. This isn't a paper encyclopedia where space is at a premium. Of course we keep out the fluff like your neighbor's new garage band and the local high school's girls' swim team results. But at this point I'd say the burden is on the deleters to demonstrate that this is not an important event, and that the Wikipedia community would not be served by having this article. --Ginkgo100talk 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Agree with Cdogsimmons.This article reprsents a very important state visit. As the India – United States relations page is long enough, this article must STAY. Very important deals were made between India & the USA including Deals related with the Indo-Us Nuclear Agreement.The deals were worth $ 15 billion . Also an important step was taken by President Obama for declaring U.S. support for India's permanent membership to the UN Security council. So I think this article must stay.--Yohannvt (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Rabbabodrool (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VAGUEWAVE? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think it is significant enough 03:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishikt (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Any significant and notable developments in bilateral relations are hidden by placing them in article associated with a state visit. Information about new permanent members to the security council, for example, to the extent to which it is notable is better placed in the articles associated with those organisations and bilateral relationships. There is nothing inherent in this state visit that makes it notable. --Inas66 (talk) 05:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and exactly which policy on wp stops you from placing such info in more than one article?? By all means this info should be included in all relevant articles. The notability of the visit is well documented in the tens of thousands of RS which covered it and by the reactions of governments of several countries around the globe.--Wikireader41 (talk) 09:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be serious. Just because an event appears in the newspapers, it doesn't mean we have to rehash it as an encyclopaedic article. Less than 10% of the article is actual encyclopaedic information. The rest... (I quote):

"During his stay in Delhi he visited Mughal emperor Humayun's Tomb and paid homage to Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi at Raj Ghat. The Obamas then received a formal welcome at Rashtrapati Bhawan in New Delhi."

Who the hell cares? This reads like a column in Gossip magazine! Cut out the stuff that's actually notable information (there's not a lot of it), and paste it in a related article. Delete the rest. Nightw 12:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and your definition of encyclopedic information is ?--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objective prose that explains why anybody should give a flying fuck, not just "he did this, then he did that, then he did something else that every politician does when visiting another country".
so now you are saying that every politician visiting a country wants that country to be a member of UNSC, signs 10 billion dollars worth trade agreements and gets to address joint session. Care to give one another example where this happened in last 50 years.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support for a UNSC bid is interesting, but it doesn't make it happen. He's not exactly the Secretary General is he? India doesn't get on the SC just because the president of another country "supports" their motive. We certainly don't need an article dedicated to an announcement for some guy saying he'll "support" something. Nightw 05:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the proof's in the pudding. Obama's now in South Korea and there's absolutely zero news articles today about his India trip. Clearly demonstrates that whatever coverage there was was merely WP:ROUTINE. To Wikireader, repeatedly saying "there is NO way in hell" this article will be deleted is, at best, a failure to AGF on the part of the delete camp and possibly the closing admin; at worst it's uncivil. Sure, it sucks to have an article you worked on nominated for deletion. But attacking the opposing camp just for that is clearly doing no one any favours. StrPby (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strange passerby you might want to read WP:NTEMP. ongoing coverage is NOT required. clearly the visit to Indonesia and South Korea is generating lot less interest. which if anything adds to the argument that the India trip was not routine state visit. the reason I say that this article will not be deleted has more to do with standing wp policy that unless a "obvious consensus" to delete emerges the default is to keep the article. see WP:NotEarly. if anyone thinks that there is an obvious consensus to delete here I just have to disagree plain and simple.--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing coverage isn't required? Are we no longer concerning ourselves with such trivialities? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lasting effect is quite evident in as much that long standing US policies were permanently reversed, 10 billion dollars worth of deals signed, 54K jobs created. what more WP:EFFECT do you think would satisfy you. a cure for cancer or an end to global hunger ?--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
non notable visits by POTUS are not described as a "Landmark visit"[24] or an "extraordinary milestone"[25] by Reliable sources.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reporting in the first is from The Washington Post and the second is from The Hindu, a liberal-socialist Indian paper. Now, it wouldn't be in either of their commercial or national interests to exaggerate, would it? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
again trying to decipher hidden bad motives here. Point is both are WP:RS extensively cited on wp. you could argue the other way round also that FOXNews did not go gaga over this as they are right wing republican leaning and other countries press is jealous as countries in Europe especially ( all going bankrupt) cant see a former colony get ahead of them. too bad wp just is not in the business of publishing WP:OR--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete People are delusional if they think this has any comparison whatsoever with the Nixon in China visit. Really quite ludicrous and I'm being generous. If my memory serves me well, there was a Barack Obama 2009 China Visit article that was created and later deleted. I don't even think a G-2 state visit would be worthy of an article unless something massive happens. If that was deleted then it seems evident that this should be too. 76.69.63.244 (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
care to provide link to that deletion discussion. it sounds like a WP:OSE argument. I think people would be curious to see if such a discussion did actually take place. fortunately wp has a set of guidelines WP:SIGCOV, WP:INDEPTH and WP:EFFECT which tell us where a stand alone article is reasonable. this article meets all the guidelines. the deletionist are arguing that this is Routine News and should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS. Routine = course of normative, standardized actions or procedures that are followed regularly, often repetitiously. nothing regular or repetitious about this visit. and no we do not wait to write an article till "something massive happens". what if that something massive involved POTUS pressing the nuclear button ??--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People who have expressed a delete opinion are not necessarily "deletionists". Using such a term is highly inappropriate here. I appreciate you're unhappy that this discussion is taking place on "your" article but you need to stay cool and take a step back. The constant badgering of deletes, which has now escalated to name-calling, is not conducive at all. Please, Wikireader, the discussion will run its own course, and your constant rebuttals will not make the final verdict any different. Move on to something else. StrPby (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
same applies to you. I am sorry if you feel offended by the term deletionists. Maybe "editors !voting for delete" would be a better term. I will refrain from using the term deletionist. It was not my intention to use deletionist in a negative way ( I have myself voted for delete in many AfDs and would not mind being called deletionist on those AfDs one bit).--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wise to use a better term. Deletionist and inclusionist are terms use to imply that editors will vote a specific way due to their nature and not the underlying evidence. they are incredibly corrosive to discourse and we should avoid them. Protonk (talk) 21:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 2010 United States Presidential tour of Asia, retain content, and include material concerning Obama's visit to Indonesia, Japan etc. Nominations for "delete" are unconvincing (and, I strongly suspect, are politically motivated by wikipedia lobbyists coordinating their votes using off-wiki forums and mailing lists), given the wide coverage that this has received in mainstream media.59.160.210.68 (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "politically motivated by wikipedia lobbyists coordinating their votes using off-wiki forums and mailing lists"?! That's a very serious charge to make without any evidence at all. You just weaken your own argument by making such baseless remarks. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • voicing suspicions is not the same as making a "serious charge". a more likely explanation might be apparent from a reading of WP:BIAS I quote "A lack of articles on particular topics is the most common cultural bias. Separately, both China and India have populations greater than all native English speakers combined; by this measure, information on Chinese and Indian topics should, at least, equal Anglophone topics; yet, Anglophone topics dominate the content of Wikipedia. While the conscious efforts of WikiProject participants have vastly expanded the available information on topics such as the Second Congo War, coverage of comparable Western wars remains much more detailed." I wonder if we would have been having this discussion if the country supported to UNSC was Canada or Australia--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        • Yes, we would. How many articles on US Presidential visits to Canada or Australia do we have? None. I find it abhorrent you're not distancing yourself from the anon's comments. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I second that. Unfounded (and, as far as I'm aware, untrue) allegations of improper collusion are uncivil and could be construed as a personal attack. As for whether we'd be having this discussion in the same circumstances for a Western, Anglophone country, yes we would, because I'd nominate it myself, but such are strawman arguments. Deleting this article will not somehow make systemic bias worse nor will keeping it somehow reduce systemic bias. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Really. And how many times has POTUS gone to Australia and Canada and announced his support for their perm membership in UNSC , signed 10 billion in trade deals and called the relationship " defining relationship of 21st century" ?? None. the articles do not exist because this never happened for those countries. For US to support a country which is not a traditional ally is even more notable not less than Canada or Australia would be. are you saying that WP:BIAS does not exist and India ( and other non anglophone) countries are equally well represented on WP in terms of numbers and depth of articles?? please read WP:CSB which states and I quote "Be careful not to worsen the bias with your deletion nominations. If you are not familiar with a subject area, or it has meaning outside your experience base, discuss your concerns on the talk page or another appropriate forum before making an AfD nomination.". I see no such discussion ever taking place. It would be a relatively easy matter to figure out ( from their edit histories) which editors here have experience ( and how much) working on India related articles ( prior to this AfD) and which ones dont.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • When you stop claiming systemic bias and assume a bit more good faith, maybe we'll talk. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 03:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • You're right, lets strike out every comment that wasn't made by an Indian-American. On a more serious side, can you stop ranting and get back on topic, or stop commenting here altogether. Grsz11 04:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Systemic bias exists on wikipedia and that has nothing to do with assuming WP:AGF. it is not that wikipedians have bad intentions but the demographic of wikipedians is different from the world as such. Read WP:BIAS to get a better understanding of the phenomenon and why it happens. wikipedia is not written for the benefit of anglophone readers alone but readers worldwide. So some topics which maybe are not of much interest to readers in Denmark maybe of much interest to readers in Peru and vice versa.--Wikireader41 (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • This has nothing to do with systemic bias and arguing to keep because somebody didn't follow instructions in a document which is not only completely irrelevant but not even a policy or guideline shows just how few straws the keepers have left to clutch at. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                        • you mean WP:CSB has it all wrong ( it does include India in the countries where it needs to work) and this event happened in India. HJ you never know when the few straws come together they can club even the strongest delete !votes into oblivion.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Lots of things happen in India. That doesn't make them notable just because the country is under-represented on the English Wikipedia. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                              • that's right. but "lots of things that happen in India" don't get opinion pieces in the likes of The Salt Lake Tribune [26],NY times[27] and LA times [28]. It is equally (if not more true) that countless notable events in India don't get an article because of WP:BIAS. Unfortunately access to internet is not the same in the country where 1 in 5 humans live. If we are to popularize WP in India the we need better coverage of India related events and issues. The fact that this article may not be of as much interest to some body sitting in Nuuk does not mean its not notable or of interest to others. article traffic stats can verify the ongoing interest --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete: Not news, and this could never compare to Nixon in China, because US-India relations have been generally good, unlike US-PRC. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:25, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the question here is not whether this is comparable to Nixons visit to china but whether this topic is notable enough to merit a stand alone article per WP:GNG. till recently US policy was not to support India on the issue of UNSC, MTCR and NSG membership. That is a verifiable fact. That has been turned 180 degrees now.--Wikireader41 (talk) 08:50, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point which escapes you is that that does not make the trip itself notable, it only makes the policy change notable, warranting a mention in the US-India relations article. The very fact that Nixon went to China at all is the heart of that article's notability. Do you begin to see the difference? Tarc (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No the fact that he went to India signed 10 billion in deals and then stood in front of Indian parliament and announced the change is at the heart of notability of this article ( was it a Quid pro quo ???). if he had just done a press release announcing this policy change at some other time I doubt that as many RS would have picked it up. IMO just the speech to the joint session of Indian parliament was notable enough to justify a stand alone article similar to Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep - I would recommend merging this article into U.S.-India relations (not per WP:NOTNEWS, as this is not "routine news"--he is the 6th president to do so). However, since the main purpose of this visit was to improve American-Indian relationships, it seems to overlap in coverage with U.S.-India relations. See Wikipedia:Merge reason two: "overlap". If it cannot be merged, then I would ask that it be kept since it does have some notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 11:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All of the justifications I have seen thus far as to why this is not a routine are not convincing. This was the sixth visit by a U.S. president to India? So what? The media likes to speculate about the implications of routine trips. Many of the same things were said about Barack Obama's 2010 visit to China, which was arguably more significant, but the article was still redirected to Sino-American relations. For those arguing that the United States' support for India's UNSC bid is significant (despite its support for many other countries' bids, and the fact that it's not likely to lead anywhere), that goes into the UNSC reform article. All significant trade deals go in the economy articles, all key developments go into the India-United States article, one paragraph at most. The rest is news. Quigley (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a !vote to Merge or to Delete ?? looks like you feel at least parts of info in the article need to be kept.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saying 'merge' would imply that there is a lot more usable information in this article than there really is. India – United States relations#2010 visit by President Obama has an adequate summary of the visit, and a brief note (one or two sentences) can be made at India and the United Nations#UN Security Council; it doesn't have to be done with reference to this article. So, all that needs to be done is to delete this article. Quigley (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanx for clarifying. you also said that it was routine for POTUS to lead a trade delegation ( of 200 business leaders where 10 billion USD worth deals were signed). care to provide a reference where he did this last time? I also could not find any evidence for prior AfD of Barack Obama's trip to China. even tough it sounds like a WP:OSE argument I think it would be helpful for all to review what arguments were ( and were not) made there. could you provide a link to that AfD.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, it's not routine for the President to lead a delegation of exactly 200 business leaders and sign exactly 10 billion USD worth of trade deals. Not all visits are the same, but the general substance of these state visits are usually the same (and when they aren't, you won't need to argue about it). Barack Obama's trip to China didn't even need an AfD, as that page history shows, to be redirected. The policy is crystal clear, and I'm shocked that this AfD has been allowed to drag on for as long as it has. I just hope the reviewing administrator will not look at this AfD, as you say, as a tally of "!votes", but as a discussion where sound reasoning prevails. Quigley (talk) 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure the admin who relisted will take your comments into consideration. since this is such a routine thing for POTUS to do, maybe you can give us an example where he led >100 business leaders and signed > 5 billion in trade deals on a foreign trip. I am not looking for exactly 200 business leaders and exactly 10 billion. if it is such a routine happening you should be able to give us specific examples of how this happens all the time ( on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis). I am not even getting into the issue of perm seat in UNSC for the sake of this argument. I too just hope the reviewing administrator will not look at this AfD, as you say, as a tally of "!votes", but as a discussion where sound reasoning prevails. I suspect he will.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to either the timeline of Obama's presidency or US-India relations as there is nothing of any enduring significance here yet, and anything that might happen is only notable with the help of a crystal ball. Handschuh-talk to me 02:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Per Wikireader - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote. You can't say you "strongly" wish to see this article kept, and then say "per somebody else's comments". Nightw 14:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such a comment is perfectly reasonable. Please familiarize yourself with the norms of AfD before haranguing participants. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's reasonable and you're quite welcome to express your opinion and tell us how strong your opinion is, but just saying "strong keep" doesn't give your !vote any more weight. It's the strength of the argument that counts. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm familiar with the process, thankyou. WP:AFD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Yes, everyone is welcome to express his or her opinion. But if Ret.Prof feels so "strongly" about it, I'd expect a bit more participation. Nightw 19:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantry over keep versus strong keep is unnecessary. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's your opinion. Nightw 20:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ret Prof is mirroring the argument that I made. how would repeating my argument in his own language be any better ?? I think the basic reason is that this is not Routine news but a high profile state visit with well documented Effects. It has been called a Landmark visit by multiple RS including the The Age from Australia [29]. what National interest would an Australian newspaper have to exaggerate the importance of this visit ?? The bulk of Indian mainstream media described it either as a "Landmark visit or a "Historic visit".[30],[31],[32]. per BBC President of India Pratibha Patil also called the visit a "Historic milestone"[33]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just a routine trip abroad by a POTUS. --Barfoos (talk) 12:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
multiple RS describe this as a Landmark and Historic visit. None of them have described it as a Routine visit. please seemy comments above. your opinion that this was a routine visit is not echoed by RS.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sufficient sources for notability, though I would rename as suggested to 2010 United States Presidential tour of Asia. It's significant because he's the president, not as a personal visit. The proper application of "systematic bias" is to say that if people are interested in writing in this detail about similarly important state visits outside the US, they should do so, but, given the demographics, it's reasonable to expect that certain regions will be better covered by our contributors. This is not overcoverage of the US, it's undercoverage of the rest of the world. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sure. looks like undercoverage of India has not escaped the eyes of Wikimedia foundation who are setting up their first non US office in India.[34] I think with time the Bias issues will improve but still a lot of work needs to be done. but looks like a beginning has been made.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is kept on systematic bias grounds, then that is an exciting precedent. Quigley (talk) 05:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can envisage a Paris Hilton's visit to Bondi Beach article popping up next. Nightw 10:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
why not. if she can get a few editorials about it in the likes of New York Times, LA times, The Age etc. Then sign 10 billion in deals leading to American 50,000 jobs and of course get Indians to allow her to address the joint session of parliament I would be all for it and write the article myself. all we need would be a nice picture of her indulging in her favorite sport ;). seriously the point here is WP rules exist to have some kind of consistency across WP . right now we are debating this article while Falls of Cruachan derailment survived at WP:NOTNEWS inspired AfD and subsequent DRV with flying colors. classic WP:BIAS situation.--Wikireader41 (talk) 08:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more I think about this the more I think that NOTNEWS doesn't even come close to prohibiting this article. Looking at Wikipedia:Notability (events), it is clear this trip affects a 'large geographic scope'. It has resulted in 'in depth' coverage over a 'long duration', with numerous editorials in the US media alone and presumably the Indian media. A very large 'diversity of sources' supports notablity. I can't believe Wikireader is practically supporting this alone. This article clearly meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines.--Johnsemlak (talk) 09:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've said that this article isn't prohibited by a policy, but backed that opinion up only by citing a guideline. There has been no sustained coverage. Obama left India and dropped out of the headlines a few minutes later. Oh, and Wikireader, WP:BIAS is less applicable to your argument than, oh, WP:OTHERCRAP. Besides, how can you argue that a visit by an American president is the victim of systemic bias? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no sustained coverage'? Articles continue to be written about the trip one week later.--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we seriously objecting on the basis that an editor cites a guideline rather than a policy? (The guideline I cited is linked in the relevant policy). this is policy I believe--Johnsemlak (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't know if we should keep this, merge it to US-India Relations (probably the best option), delete it entirely, or what. I do know that this debate is a goddamn mess, for one, and that it's hard to imagine how consensus could emerge from it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no consensus the article should be kept.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't bean-counting, though. I would hope that the pile of "keep its notable, in the news, bla bla" hand-waving will be downrated in the final consideration. This is the epitome of "not news", despite the article author's fevered protests to the contrary. Very few presidential visits overseas rise out of the mundane, and this one certain;t did not. Tarc (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the delete arguments here are frankly ignoring the standards for notability, or ridiculously exaggerating them. This topic has clearly generated in depth coverage (e.g. editorials and op-ed columns in India, the US, and elsewhere) over a period of time (coverage continued after the trip was over) ofter a significant geographic scope (India and the US should easily qualify). All these arguments over whether what Obama did in India is notable ignores the notability of the trips media coverage (i.e. reliable sources). No, it was not a 'landmark' or 'historic' trip, but it was a 'notable' trip. That's enough. If the standards some people here are holding this article to were held across Wikipedia over half its articles would be deleted. Plus, does anyone possibly consider the fact that the article's info could be useful for students later studying Obama's presidency, or US-Indian relations, or whatever? Sure, the info could be merged, but the topic is reasonably self-contained and focused and an separate article makes sense.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please. Less than 10 percent of the article is even remotely encyclopaedic. About 50 percent is plain quote-after-quote from news articles. The rest is meaningless banter that reads like a gossip column: "He addressed the U.S.-India Business and Entrepreneurship Summit in Mumbai on November 6, 2010, after which, he paid homage to victims of the 2008 Mumbai attacks. During his Mumbai stay President Obama visited Mani Bhavan, the home of Mahatma Gandhi." Not important. If the entire article doesn't violate WP:NOTNEWS, then a serious portion of it quite obviously does. The actual information here could be summarised in a single paragraph on the India – United States relations page. Nightw 17:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I look at the article and see differently. There's a section on the address to the Indian parliament (how often does a head of state do that?). There's a section on trade deals with some pretty significant numbers mentioned. There's a section on the reaction of several countries by their foreign ministers. Reasonable stuff for an encyclodia. But we can argue forever whether the content is notable or not. Go read Wikipedia:Notability (events). Tell me how this article topic doesn't have a large geographic scope, isn't supported by a diversity of sources, or isn't covered in depth.--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, heads of state address foreign parliaments all the time. Here is an article posted 11 hours ago reporting one such instance. This isn't some once-in-a-lifetime event. Nightw 19:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question was how often do heads of state address the Indian parliament. You linked an address to the Mozambique parliament--a somewhat less significant event. It has be well established in this discussion that most heads of state do not get the privilege of addressing the Indian parliament (the parliament representing the world's largest democracy). Plus, your still not addressing my question of how this event has not met Wikipedia's standards of a)geographic scope, b) diversity of sources, and c) depth of coverage. Plus, articles continue to be written about it after the trip is over, establishing a significant duration of coverage. Johnsemlak (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
? Shinzo Abe addressed the Indian parliament in 2007. Before him, Vladimir Putin and Bill Clinton both did it on separate occasions in 2000. I don't know how closely you've been following "this discussion", but it certainly has not been "well established" that this some rare event, and if it has, that was obviously a mistake. Diversity of sources? Online media articles and ... Oh. Nightw 12:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three times a decade seems pretty uncommon to me. Certainly not 'routine'. And many heads of state are denied such a privelege. Regarding your objection to WP:DIVERSE, have you read the criteria? How does this article or topic not fulfill it?--Johnsemlak (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indian parliament address ( to a joint session) is indeed a rare event. and notability is not temporary. to all those arguing that coverage has dropped off please read WP:NTEMP which is a guideline and states "Notability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." the WP:EFFECT of this visit is certainly not temporary. and at least one of the editors here ( HJ Mitchell) voted to Keep Falls of Cruachan derailment and thinks this visit is less notable than that derailment and worthy of deletion. Give me a break. if this is not WP:BIAS then I dont know what is. TIME had 4 separate dedicated articles on this visit [35], [36], [37] and [38]. what percentage of WP event articles have this degree of notability. this event is not only notable but more notable than 90% of WP articles. not too long ago we had Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom on the main page "in the news" section. just like that visit was notable so is this one ( even more so).--Wikireader41 (talk) 06:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the derailment was more notable. Zero British people died. Meanwhile, this visit affected zero British people.
Seriously now, I think the last time a sitting president address a foreign national legislature must be Bush's 2003 address to the Congress of the Philippines in joint special session. The last U.S. president who address the Philippine Congress was... Dwight Eisenhower. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 06:36, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
HTD, can you say roughly how often any head of state addresses the Congress of the Philippines?--Johnsemlak (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from those two (Eisenhower and Bush) I haven't heard of anyone else. Clinton visited twice in the 1990s but he did not address Congress. Having a joint special session is sorta rare too. It only happens during a State of the Nation Address, canvassing of votes in a presidential election and for declaration of martial law. Bush (or any foreign head of state) addressing Congress in joint special session must've been remarkably rare. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 07:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People arguing that this article should be delated as a 'routine' state visit should browse some of the articles on Wikipedia. We have an article on the 1974 NAIA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament that apparently is not 'routine' (held every year but anyway). personally think there should be more articles on state visits by important heads of state (not just US presidents of course). --Johnsemlak (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's look again at the policies and guidelines:

  • WP:NOTNEWS. The only examples cited in the policy as breaking this policy are routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. There's no way this topic fall under these examples. This article clearly passes this criteria, or at least does not fail it.
  • WP:EFFECT It is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to speculate either as to the long term effects of course. There is ample evidence, however, in the present of teh effects of the trip. Numerous trade deals were signed that will create or affect thousands of jobs. At least 4 goverments released official reactions to the trip. That's fairly significant. Plus, there's Obama's support of India for the UNSC. I think it's reasonable to suppose that this will be remembered, and referred to for some time. While the trip did not result in a dramatic shift in US-India relations, the trip clearly had an affect. This article clearly does not fail this guideline.
  • WP:GEOSCOPE. This is pretty straightforward, with two very large countries affected and reactions from Brazil, China and other countries. The article clearly passes.
  • WP:INDEPTH. From the criteria--In-depth coverage includes analysis that puts events into context, such as is often found in books, feature length articles in major news magazines (like Time, Newsweek, or The Economist), and TV news specialty shows (such as 60 Minutes or CNN Presents in the US, or Newsnight in the UK). . Many articles meeting that description have been cited above. Clear pass.
  • WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE Again, we can't know either way whether this will be covered a year from now. But the trip has been over for a week, and is still generating published coverage from reliable sources: [39]. The article doesn't fail this one and I believe passes. Again, I think its' reasonable to suppose that Obama's support of India to the UNSC will be referred to in the future in significant contexts.
  • WP:DIVERSE From the criteria: Wikipedia's general notability guideline recommends that multiple sources be provided to establish the notability of a topic, not just multiple references from a single source.[2] A series of news reports by a single newspaper or news channel would not be sufficient basis for an article. This article clearly has a diversity of sources from different media organizations and different countries. Clear pass.
  • WP:OTHERCRAP This essay, which is not policy or a guideline, is inconclusive about whether the lack of articles on state visits is an argument for or against deletion. The essay clearly goes both ways. Also, as I indicated above, there are clearly many articles on wikipedia that are far less significant that this one. There's no way this can be an argument for delete.

Obviously, many people will look at my interpretations of the above policies, guidelines, and other criteria differently. But I really think when it comes down to it this ariticle is a no-brainer keep. I just can't see how anyone who looks at it objectively can really say otherwise--that it would fail all or even most of the above criteria.

The opposition seems to boil down to a couple of arguments: 1) state visits are not normally notable enough for an WP article. I ask, why not? I think perhaps there should be more such articles. They are clearly more notbale than say an article for each and every episode of Star Trek IMO. IN any case I see Obama's India visit as more notable than the Pope Benedict XVI's visit to the United Kingdom as cited above. As long as each article is forced to meet criteria such as those listed above, state visits represent signficant history between nations and should be worthy of articles. 2) Just because Obama did it, it's not notable. Well, ok, that's reasonable. That's why we have criteria such as those listed above to determine what actions of Obama are notable. It also seems ot me that no matter what sources Wikireader cites, peoeple opposers simply ignore them, coming up with reasons in no way backed up by policy or guidelines.--Johnsemlak (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're well-aware of where you and Wikireader stand by now, there's no need to rehash over and over and over and respond over and over and over to every new participant in the discussion. The same way I and others dismiss it as a run-on-the-mill, presidential everyday overseas trip, and Facepalm Facepalm at the attempt to attach possibly notable announcement of agreements and such to the trip itself. We're due for a closing tomorrow, and the closing admin is already going to have to wade thru 90k of sewage. Let's just all stop making their job more difficult. Tarc (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well an admin in all his sagacity relisted this AfD so I think they will be patient to go through what you think is "Sewage". I am pretty confident what the outcome will be. It is clear that we do not have different sets of notability criteria for different people. Just because Obama is POTUS does not mean his actions need to be held to a (much) higher standard of notability and I am pretty sure that the closing admin will agree. In his official capacity it is easier for him to do notable things much more regularly than any of us but that doesn't make his notable actions routine. Thanx Tarc anyway for contributing to the "sewage".--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love Songs (Ayumi Hamasaki album)[edit]

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

Fake track listing. Only thing confirmed is that the album will be released on December 22, 2010. Fails WP:GNG/WP:ALBUMS 夢追人YumeChaser 05:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is nothing to constitute an article as of now. Fixer23 (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't keep putting more fake tracklistings. Even the AHS forum is talking about those fake tracklistings, with some community members responding that they are fake (and some are quite responding to these humorous listings!), but until Avex announces the official tracklisting, weak delete per nom, as this can be deleted as soon as possible. When Avex announces the tracklising, feel free to recreate the article, but I think it's not the time to make up fake tracklistings, as we are still over a month away and generally Avex releases it within the final month to release day. ありがとう。 16:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Par WP:SNOW - notability concerns. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap (film)[edit]

Scrap (film) (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 speedy deletion criteria for films, but this is a non-notable film "made for his family". Corvus cornixtalk 04:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete And would love to see a speedy rationale; given that there appear to be no Google hits, how do we know this isn't a hoax? Alright, assuming good faith, does this mean articles about the home movies I've made of my cat can't be speedied? JNW (talk) 05:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This hoax article has been created by a newbie who has done nothing but make bogus genre changes to films so far. Just take a look at the edit history here.
This editor will get blocked eventually but it is a shame that we can't speedy this nonsense now. MarnetteD | Talk 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just exactly what language "would" indicate a hoax? The language, punctuation (or lack thereof), grammar are all childish at best. You might want to take a look at the editors talk page. They have created a least three other articles that have been deleted so hoaxing would seem to be a pattern with them. MarnetteD | Talk 23:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notability is strongly asserted in the first sentence of the article. Edward321 (talk) 00:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St.George's Orthodox Church, Dwaraka[edit]

AfDs for this article:
St.George's Orthodox Church, Dwaraka (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)

Local church, not notable per WP:ORG. No references, no news articles found in Google News search. Without evidence of widespread importance, individual churches are not sufficiently notable to merit a standalone article. This particular article is highly self-promotional. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BUDDY SOCIETY[edit]

BUDDY SOCIETY (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 Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_November_5, the consensus was to send this article to AfD. Administrative nomination only, I am neutral. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see multiple problems with this. It seems to be advertising, "Buddy Society is a one-of-a-kind teddy bear apparel". Another problem is that the picture seems to be copied from [40]. Last, it seems that the sources don't seem to be too reliable. Endofskull (talk) 04:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is mostly just an advertisement. JIP | Talk 10:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertisement and copyright issues. Surprisingly, some of the references are legit. Collectively, they and a detailed search for other references lack enough usable content to develop an article. Also, HIV/AIDS support group, Buddies Society of Ipoh, is getting the press and eventually will need that redirect. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic rock[edit]

Magic rock (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:MOVIES jsfouche ☽☾ talk 04:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was absolutely no consensus whatsoever, the discussion is probably more wide-ranging than this one article and should continue at another location. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

蜀[edit]

蜀 (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)

Andyjsmith, who probably is a new pages patroller, re-directed 蜀 to Shu, which, upon examination by any user who doesn't bother to take a second look, gives the inference that all Chinese terms with a pinyin of "Shu" are 蜀, which is worse than a fallacy. Because I wish to get on to other tasks other than provincial abbreviations, I believe that the compromise solution will be to delete the title, as I still believe that such a re-direct is inaccurate. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The above nomination was misformatted; I am just the person who reformatted it, not the nominator. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the English Wikipedia. If this character means anything to a user, that user is probably not going to expect to find an explanation or disambiguation of it in the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "If this character means anything to a user, that user is probably not going to expect to find an explanation or disambiguation of it in the English Wikipedia" is an incorrect assumption. Many Anglophones speak foreign languages but would prefer to read English where it's available, or they prefer using the English Wikipedia because other language Wikipedias are less complete. Thus it's quite common for people to paste foreign-orthography terms into the English Wikipedia search box. See for example the 노무현 redirect, which got more than 1000 hits in the days after he committed suicide cab (call) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am now recommending redirecting to Shu in hopes of helping build a consensus for that and avoiding a "no consensus" keep. I would prefer that a Chinese character not be the main title for a page in the English Wikipedia, but if it were a redirect that could be acceptable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Bandwagon, anybody? Recommending a position that you do not firmly believe in just for the purpose of creating a consensus. It does sound like you believe this is an election, but it is not. Sorry. If a decision to keep has been built on consensus, there has been consensus... And there already are quite a few titles (not re-directs) at Chinese, yet few have complained. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As to the last issue, see Andy's comment below at 15:48, 16 November 2010. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • As a small note, Metropolitan90, remember to indicate the time zone, as, though I knew quickly that was UTC, there may be other users reading this debate who may not immediately know which time zone you are referring to. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as these kinds of disambiguation pages are very useful when trying to disambiguate between article which may all be known by the same character, but be about different things. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Shu, keeping the redirect. I don't follow the reasoning that the redirect "gives the inference that all Chinese terms with a pinyin of "Shu" are 蜀" at all. On the contrary, it implies that all Chinese terms with 蜀 can be found at Shu. —Angr (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well maybe you did not read me correctly. At least to me such a redirect or merge gives the very idea that all "Shu" are 蜀. Such a redirect would be fine iff all cases of [pinyin-isation] presented are indeed [character] 文山. As such an interpretation is possible, it can't be discounted. It follows from the same reasoning that all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Get it? Moreover, there are Non-East Asian terms on that page (did you read the entire page?). Hence the re-direct/merge becomes even more ridiculous. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read you correctly, I simply disagree. Such a redirect does not suggest that all "Shu" are 蜀, but rather that all 蜀 are "Shu". If all information about 蜀 can be found at Shu, that's sufficient reason for a redirect, with no implication that 蜀 is the only meaning of Shu. Disambig pages have redirects from lots of things that are only subsets of what's listed on them. For example, Gloria (song) redirects to the disambig page Gloria, because every song called "Gloria" is listed there. The redirect Gloria (song) → Gloria doesn't imply that everything listed on the disambig page is a song. —Angr (talk) 07:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Angr, the fact that there are Western terms on that page is grounds enough to avoid the re-direct. The re-direct would be more appropriate if everything on that page were Chinese, but that's clearly not the case. Plus I believe the case you use, though valid, is dissimilar. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. The redirect just takes users who are interested in 蜀 to the page where they can find the information about it, with no implication or expectation that they won't find anything unrelated on that page. That's the difference between articles (one topic per article) and disambig pages (a wide variety of possibly unrelated articles that happen to spelled with the same string of letters). —Angr (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
whatever. the last sentence doesn't address the question at hand and is fairly obvious. I believe you are twisting what I said. I know what the potential re-direct does and what should be found on the potential target. It is simply not true that all 蜀 are "Shu"; the province is one example, and it should be removed immediately from the page: Does Sichuan equal "Shu"? what do you think the answer is?
Like it or not, the re-direct does imply that all "Shu" are 蜀, which is downright wrong: take for example, the two cities of Taizhou in Eastern China. Just because all 泰州 or 台州 are Taizhou, do we re-direct to that DAB? NO. And clearly a re-directing both of them to "Taizhou" would be WRONG. Not all Taizhou are 泰州！Your reasoning is ridiculous! You are pretending that you are qualified to participate in this discussion when you clearly are not! --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please be civil. You brought this ridiculous AfD and there's no reason to shout at people who choose to participate. Anyone can chip in if they wish, and if you don't like what they say you must make the point politely so the closing admin can reach their own conclusions. And on that point, please note my comment further down this page that a page with a Chinese title is against policy - it should have been "Shu" all along. andy (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, I am not the one guilty of baiting editors. And whether a person's tone is aggressive is up to interpretation, chiefly of the person being directed at. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to ShuDelete. I already did the merge but the nominator reverted my redirection. It's brain-dead simple: if you search for 蜀 you should go to an article with that title; but the article is a wholly contained subset of Shu so you should be redirected there, ideally with a targeted redirect. andy (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    to you it may be "brain-dead simple" (don't use such a term; that's blunt), but not to others. Read my response to Angr to see why I disagree, and respond there. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since most of us don't speak Chinese it would be more appropriate to explain our error than to shout at us about it. There was no reason for you to bring this AfD in the first place. If I understand your nomination you seem to be asking for the article to be deleted (which you could have done without an AfD) rather than suffer the ignominy of a redirection which, for reasons you cannot explain to mere "new pages patrollers", would be wrong. What's going on here? As I said earlier, if a user types 蜀 into the search box and clicks Go, what exactly should they find? andy (talk) 00:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, you ought to both read what I wrote and soften your reactions. Boldening, italics, and caps (when used sparsely) serve to emphasise and are not necessarily shouting, something which you ought to learn. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 00:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per Angr and Andy. I don't really see the point to this coming to AfD. Handschuh-talk to me 02:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nihonjoe. There is ample precedent for foreign-orthography disambiguation pages: Category:Disambiguation pages with Chinese character titles, many of which have been kept at AfD. People tend to go through these pages when there is potential ambiguity about how it could be spelled in English, either due to multiple competing systems of romanisation, or multiple potential languages the foreign characters could be read in resulting in multiple pronunciations (e.g. Chinese vs. Japanese, Arabic vs. Persian, Russian vs. Mongolian). In any case definitely don't redirect to Shu --- as HXL49 points out, this would be inaccurate and confusing. cab (call) 02:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Finally someone who explicitly agrees with me that the re-direct that Andy proposes is inaccurate. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 02:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shu per WP:Use English and WP:Redirects are cheap. All of the DAB content Nihonjoe refers to is there, so I don't see any real need to duplicate it here. On the other hand, inaccurate use of Chinese writing is not a policy concern on English Wikipedia, so far as I know. I note, too, that Shu contains links to three Wiktionary pages and mentions both 属 and 树. Therefore, I don't see any terrible consequences of keeping the title as a redirect. Cnilep (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    then if English WP does not value accuracy when the information does not need a source for verification, then we have a major problem here. WP: Use English can be struck down because there exist many DAB pages with a Chinese writing.
    well did you see the existence of non-East Asian terms on that page? Adds to the graveness of merely re-directing the damn thing to "Shu". --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but no, it doesn't. A user who searches for 蜀 and winds up at the disambig page Shu expects to find all information about 蜀 on that page, but he cannot reasonably expect to find no other information about things called "Shu" there. After all, it's a disambig page. —Angr (talk) 07:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument you just presented is some sort of circular reasoning. Obviously if we choose to re-direct to Shu, then the user somewhat have to expect other usages of the term. Whatever. I have my plans, as I will introduce shortly.
  • D00D. If a valid character representation were to re-direct to some page, in most cases there ought to be a Chinese wiki-link to that page. But there isn't for Shu, implying something that I shall not explain for now because I have already hit all of you on the head about it. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the third way is to re-direct to Sichuan. Obviously if we consider each term represented by the character in its proper name, the province is the primary topic by a considerably wide margin. For those of you who don't know, 蜀 is one of the officially accepted abbreviations of the province. I really should have considered this option before coming to the hard reality that many of you know absolutely nothing about this language. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is weird - your position all along has been that a disambiguation page is needed because 蜀 might reasonably lead to any one of several other articles, and that's why you created the darned thing in the first place! This AfD debate is taking place at your request - are you now saying that you have changed the basis of your nomination? You could have requested that the page be deleted, you could have asked for a second opinion, but you chose to bring it to AfD and now you're moving the goalposts. This is a waste of everyone's time. andy (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    no. During this debate I never said the disambiguation page is necessarily needed. I changed my position after you had re-directed (wrong thing to do) but before coming to this debate, in order to offer a compromise. The compromise, between my original position of keeping the page and re-directing, is, IMO, to delete the page. You need to learn how to read more thoroughly. And tone it down. I have warned you. You don't want to reach Level 4 --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying that you wish the page to be deleted? Because if so, as you are the author and the provider of the only substantial content, the matter can be resolved very swiftly with {{db-author}} and a non-admin closure of this AfD. Since it seems likely from the foregoing debate that the page will be redirected, which you don't want, then I assume you want it deleted? andy (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be the only provider of substantial content, but since you budged in, I am not the only author. I'm not sure if db-author would be legitimate in that case. Maybe I got the guideline wrong. One reason that I just realised to bring this AFD up was to bring to make people like you show how foolish your reasoning WRT to this manner is. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirecting to Sichuan it is, per primary topic. It seems that the only new participants are going to be the ones who don't know Chinese and will thus have a false understanding of the issue at hand. I did my part in not attempting to canvass. It's not like I have the energy to anyway. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 17:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "One reason that I just realised to bring this AFD up was to bring to make people like you show how foolish your reasoning WRT to this manner is" So, what you're saying is, this is a bad faith nomination? I would also suggest that you brush up on your civility. Handschuh-talk to me 22:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No I am not saying it in exactly that way. the word "just" is CRITICAL here. It was not at all my intent at the time, but now that I have come to realise it, you lot are downright embarrassing yourselves. And this nomination was not made for the show; If you read me, I nominated it as a means of compromise, something that Andyjsmith fails to, possibly refuses to (note the word possibly before you go off like a firecracker), recognise.
    And I ask that you withdraw your accusation, which was made after not properly reading what the other poster reads. I would also suggest that you brush up on your patience here before I am willing to work with you at all once more. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you of anything. I asked a question so that you could clarify your statement. Calling other editors foolish and "hitting them over the head" what not is not civil conduct. And you shouldn't use an AfD to try and prove a point. If you want the article changed then take it to the talk page. If you don't get the result that you want there, ask for a third opinion. If you're still not satisfied, go for an RfC. From what I understand, the article in it's current form is exactly how you want it, so how about we close this AfD since only Metropolitan90 is even making an argument for deletion (which seems to have been adequately refuted)? Handschuh-talk to me 02:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ok. I misunderstood your intentions, and I apologise. I viewed it as a sort of reprimanding, but evidently it was not so. and do I really have to repeat over again? I guess I am not being clear enough. The article in its current form is not my strongest preference. I'm fine with (no strong preference for any):
  1. a deletion on the grounds of accuracy and duplicating of content
  2. no modification
  3. or a re-direct to Sichuan, but nothing else. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with no modification, since it currently serves the purpose of disambiguating the Chinese character as it should. The disambiguation page for Shu lists all terms that could be meant by Shu (including any pinyin variants), so it is appropriate to have both pages. I also think that this AfD should be closed, since there is no serious policy based argument to delete it entirely and this is not the appropriate place to debate the form in which it should be kept. I think the take home messages are:

  1. There's nothing wrong with having two disambiguation pages for different terms with overlapping meanings (US, USA and United States for one obvious example).
  2. Pages shouldn't be refered here when the question is really one of what form the page should take (redirect to A or redirect to B or merge: have it out on the talk page of the article or the editor with whom you have the disagreement). Handschuh-talk to me 07:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a policy issue here which we've all overlooked, but it's there in black and white. Wikipedia:Article titles states that "Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated. Established systematic transliterations, such as Hanyu Pinyin, are preferred", and WP:EN says the transliteration must be "into characters generally intelligible to literate speakers of English". The guideline at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) states that "The article title itself is normally the pinyin representation with the tone marks omitted". So it's clear that 蜀 is forbidden as an article title, even for a DAB page, and should be rendered as Shu. The only outcome of this debate that is compliant with policy and follows the guidelines is to delete the page. I'm changing my !vote accordingly. andy (talk) 15:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There already are plenty of DABs at a Chinese character title, but changing them to pinyin would be strongly inappropriate in some scenarios. Realise that not all of East Asia is mainland China. An example is the second character of Tokyo (go look yourself; I'm on a comp that cannot input Chinese). Following your reasoning, because it is a Chinese character, it ought to re-direct to its pinyin-isation. But then you violate naming policies, and then we have some sort of unnecessary Sinicisation. Note that I am countering your reason for deletion and Metropolitan90 once recommended deletion on the same grounds. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you may have misunderstood my point. The second character of Tokyo, kyo in Japanese, or "Jing" in Mandarin, is currently a DAB. A re-direct to "Jing" based on the reasoning in your 15:48 (UTC) comment would discount Tokyo in favour of Beijing and Nanjing. I don't wish to explain further... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This "policy issue" is not one which we've all overlooked, it comes up practically every time there's a deletion debate for one of these pages. The article titles policy quite clearly does not apply to redirects, and arguably neither to disambiguation pages. Redirects may be misspelled, spelled oddly, use outdated terminology, use a different variant of English than the target topic, follow a convention which violates WP:NC(CN), use the name of an unnotable subtopic, etc. The only types of redirects that are regularly deleted are those which violate WP:NPOV (e.g. insulting nicknames) or WP:V (e.g. an unverifiable name for a topic), or which are clearly implausible. And if a redirect has more that three potential targets, then it becomes a dab page. cab (call) 16:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I can't find anything in WP:TITLE that makes exceptions for redirects, still less for disambiguation pages. There's a lot of stuff about misspellings etc, as you say, but it's all within the context of English. andy (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • regarding re-directs...Andy, don't make me go there. The community had such a discussion back in mid-April, and the deletist camp was soundly defeated. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 16:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That debate was not about dab pages and in a sense it wasn't even about redirects. It was a procedural matter and the outcome was perfectly reasonable because procedure had not been not followed. The discussion didn't overturn policy nor could it have ever done so. andy (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent job at distorting the facts. It was reasonable not only due to the procedural fail but due to the reasoning. I am not implying that policy was overturned. I have found nothing in policy banning non-Latin re-directs. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're not talking about redirects but non-Latin titles in general. The policy is at WP:TITLE. And please moderate your tone. Your edit summary for your last comment was "liar" which is astonishingly uncivil and really doesn't help your case at all. andy (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did I imply that edit summaries ever help a person's case? Edit summaries are not substitutions for discussion. And I have every right to say that in light of your extremely confusing direction. What are we talking about here? If you diverge off, it implies many things. You are not helping. You are obstructing, regardless of the intention. I think it is reasonable to presume that a person being lost in a conversation would be irritated. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 22:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andy, if you look at the list of articles that were deleted in violation of procedure, most if not all of them still exist. So in our case here we should at least maintain the article as a redirect. There is clear value to the project in keeping these pages, and it would be disruptive to the project to start deleting them. Deletion should be off the table at this point.

My understanding of WP:TITLE is to give guidelines for the actual title under which an article is published. Clearly, there is long standing precedent that non-roman redirects can be used, and it's not far from there to say that non-roman DABs should be used if there is ambiguity as to what the foreign characters may mean in English.

Even if current policy technically extends the ban on having non-roman character titles to disambiguation pages, I think the specific nature of cases, where Chinese characters have multiple meanings, demand a more explicit statement of policy. Absent explicit policy, I think ignoring all rules is appropriate, since following WP:TITLE to the letter is not helpful to our non-bureaucratic project.

HXL49, you're going the wrong way about arguing the right point. Advocating for changes that help improve the encyclopedia is helpful, but insulting other editors is not. When we're not civil to one another, the project suffers. Handschuh-talk to me 02:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not totally convinced but I could just about live with a redirect (which is what I tried to do originally before this weird AfD was raised). IMHO a dab page is an article and therefore shouldn't have a non-Latin title; a redirect is arguably not an article, but it does create a sort of pseudo-title for the real article. Whatever. andy (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now propose re-directing to Sichuan, per primary topic. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the avoidance of doubt, I meant redirect to Shu per WP:UE etc. andy (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful disambiguation page that does not violate any policies or guidelines. 蜀 will be very helpful to readers. Cunard (talk) 08:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid gorgeous[edit]

Kid gorgeous (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:BAND jsfouche ☽☾ talk 02:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primetime78 —Preceding undated comment added 16:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC). moved to end of discussion by duffbeerforme (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lea (singer)[edit]

Lea (singer) (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 musician whose only claim to fame appears to be having sung on a Lil' Flip song. She did release two singles but they didn't chart, and she was dropped from her label before her album was released (or even titled). In addition, of the two external links in the article, one is a MySpace profile that doesn't even mention her (aside from the name) and the official website is a dead link. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a guest on the charting track, lacks independent coverage of her. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lino F. Villarruz[edit]

Lino F. Villarruz (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 credible claim to notability, no reliable sources. JNW (talk) 05:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Monty Davis[edit]

George Monty Davis (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 claims of notability are doing yoga naked (getting citations for public nudity) and winning 0.45 percent of the votes in an unsuccessful run for public office. Hekerui (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete China Daily reference is nothing but a digested rewrite of San Francisco Chronicle reference. Notoriety due to public nudity does not, in my view, constitute a valid claim to notability. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 10:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nissash Amar Tumi[edit]

Nissash Amar Tumi (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 anf not as per WP:N and WP:NF - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 12:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Rotea[edit]

Mihai Rotea (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 don't quite see this individual fulfilling WP:PROF. There's an unsourced claim that he headed a museum, but I don't know if that would automatically confer notability on him, even if attributed. Other than that, he seems a rather standard archaeologist: a good run of research, to be sure, but nothing to entitle him a berth in this encyclopedia. Nothing, that is, aside from having his relative, User:Roteadan, write his biography—an act we should negate through deletion. Biruitorul Talk 14:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I couldn't find much on Gscholar. This being an obscure field, it's possible that the notability exists, but if we can't verify it with the tools available to us, then our guidelines tell us to delete. RayTalk 08:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal (book)[edit]

Unreal (book) (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 that this is important. What are all those subsections? Book plot? No third-party sources whatsoever. — Timneu22 · talk 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. jc iindyysgvxc (my contributions) 04:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and ditto Damian, Sadads (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. Article reverted to original subject Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SuperCity[edit]

SuperCity (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)

Blatantly promotional advertisement for band's website. Easily violates website notability guidelines because the site itself has not been discussed by third-party sources, and the references given in the article are either social networking, band promos, or only mention the website in passing. The existence of the site could maybe be mentioned briefly at McFly but even then, notability is doubtful. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - also, in recent days someone over-wrote an existing article about a Mexican retail store of the same name and created the current article about the website. Should the whole thing be reverted? --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect this spam to the band, this site shows no independent notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommendation - my nomination already counts for a "delete" vote, and so be it, but I have since looked at the history of the "SuperCity" WP namespace more closely. From an administrative standpoint, I'd like to raise the possibility of reverting the article to this version, when it was about something else and before it was so rudely overwritten. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Tawantinsuyo[edit]

Neo-Tawantinsuyo (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 concept, on google it just comes up a handfull web forum postings. ORish articles that argues that there would be any linkage between bilingual education and restoring the Inca empire. Soman (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There article could, indeed, be more precise in its description and should, perhaps, have a different title. To call it a movement might even be an exaggeration. Though it still stands that there are numerous politicians in the region who would actually like to restore at least four Latin American countries to a unified native state. A logical start for them is to reintroduce the indigenous tongues to the mainstream.

It's a movement without any clear leader, and without anyone really calling it a movement. Though more of a natural trend, there is something there.

Tawantinsuyo means "land of the four regions," and the name of the Inca's (deified emperor's) empire. It's an appropriate name for a large country with four regions to it. Four modern countries have large numbers of politicians and academics who'd like to merge their states into one so that they can move to reclaim their history and aggrandize their power. Though in the minority (with the exception of Bolivia), these people and their concept of a unified Andean state, based on a common Inca and Aymara heritage, are notable in that they represent the strengthening of Amerindian movements in the Americas and that they can transcend political parties while still acting as one.

TH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanib (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this were a popular movement, let alone a notable popular movement, you'd expect there to be some independent sources. Edward321 (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Canyon del Oro High School. despite the low participation it's clear that merge is what we usually do here. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canyon del Oro High School Athletic Titles[edit]

Canyon del Oro High School Athletic Titles (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)

High schools are notable, yes. But I can hardly think of an instance where a full blown article-list on a school's athletic title catalog is merited. Raymie (t • c) 18:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - assuming this can be sourced, the main article is too large to fit all this information in one place. Canyon del Oro is a fairly large High School with a strong athletics program, so I am willing to say it's notable. Bearian (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 11:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getamungstit[edit]

Getamungstit (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 about a student magazine has no independent reliable sources provided. The only external link is to the student union which formerly sponsored the magazine, but I don't see anything on that site about this magazine. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Kircubbin, County Down.  Sandstein  07:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Troubles in Kircubbin[edit]

The Troubles in Kircubbin (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)

Delete: Category:The Troubles in Northern Ireland by locality series of articles were created (not by me) to delineate fatalities, not property damage, during The Troubles. This page was created by a different editor despite the fact that as he/she acknowledged: "No-one was killed or injured in any of these attacks." [email protected] (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, by all means merge the relevant text, but the page name (The Troubles in Kircubbin) should be deleted. [email protected] (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just leave the redirect since WP:Redirects are cheap? Handschuh-talk to me 06:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundbites featured on The Jim Rome Show[edit]

Soundbites featured on The Jim Rome Show (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)

Almost completely unsourced list of non-notable fancruft. This is almost entirely original research. TNXMan 01:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Mass of trivia. No evidence that the topic itself is notable, even if individual jokes have sometimes been repeated in RS's. -Steve Dufour (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I created this page about three years ago in an attempt to break up the page List of content and features on The Jim Rome Show (since deleted) because that page was becoming extremely long. Since that page was deleted as being a list of trivia, I see no point in this page being here either. The show itself is obviously notable, but not every single little detail (or in this case, every soundbyte). Frank AnchorTalk 01:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as author has requested it. Handschuh-talk to me 02:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not notable. I declined speedy, as the list of editors is quite large.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, the show is certainly notable, but this isn't. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wells Fargo Center (Norfolk)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. No sources provided, much less multiple independent sources, as required by WP:N. Claims of "distinctive and recognizable features" are suspect. Prod contested by article creator. GrapedApe (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Gyimah[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article about a footballer who has not played in any fully pro league and who fails WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Forsyth[edit]

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

The subject is yet to make his major cricket debut, and as such fails the guidelines in WP:CRIN. But the references given do not provide significant coverage, and hence the article fails WP:GNG as well. StAnselm (talk) 00:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. The cricketer fails WP:CRIC as he has not played first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket, so until he does he fails notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_November_13&oldid=398013355"