Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 5

< 4 September	6 September >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shun Au[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article in order to assess notability. The subject has published a paper but I can find nothing written about the author or the paper. Does not appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. J04n(talk page) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim of an OBE is questionable in the absence of references.--RadioFan (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim of an OBE is in fact true (London Gazette Issue 58014 published on the 17 June 2006. Page 9 of 28 shows Shun Ying Au, Chair and Founder, Chinese Mental Health Association. For services to the Chinese Community. - however, I do not feel that being an OBE is sufficient cause for inclusion. Assuming I counted correctly, in that one honours list, there were 227 people who received the OBE To be Ordinary Officers of the Civil Division of the said Most Excellent Order - some of them are notable (such as Charles Dance, Andrew Fabian, Michael Morpurgo, Gary Rhodes, Julie Spence, Alastair Stewart), most are not - including Au. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for the record there are more than 100,000 living OBEs throughout the world. J04n(talk page) 23:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be careful about the acronyms here. An OBE is an Officer of the Order of the British Empire. That site says that there are 100,000 members of the order, which would include the lower-ranking MBEs as well as OBEs, CBEs, DBEs and KBEs. Having said that, I don't think that an OBE is sufficient in itself for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying that. J04n(talk page) 17:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite aside from the OBE stuff, he doesn't seem to have made a significant impact in his field. He co-founded a couple of minor societies. His publications appear to be minimal. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US invasion of The Conch Republic[edit]

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

This falls somewhere between a joke and an outright hoax. There was no "invasion" in the legitimate sense by the United States, mainly because there is no micronation in the legitimate sense called the Conch Republic. It is a tongue-in-cheek group that seeks to make independent all or part of the Florida Keys. Even the Associated Press, who give us the only reliable source reference in this story, refers to the group as the "mock Conch Republic." This article seeks to give legitimacy to an organization which does not deserve it, even after happy hour at a bar in Key West. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no evidence for this being a hoax, please back up your claims. Also, you sound more bent on bad-mouthing the Conch Republic (nation or not) than anything else. Kill me when i die (talk) 23:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there were a legitimate invasion of any entity by the United States, there would be far more than just one mocking article by the Associated Press somewhere on the Internet. You have no evidence to the contrary, at least nothing considered reliable by Wikipedia standards. (Self-published websites do not qualify as reliable.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not an actual invasion. More of a publicity stunt than anything else. Sources don't help point to a legitimate invasion per se, and this article isn't doing much to help out. Very unreliable and doesn't belong. Jmlk 1 7 00:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, i understand arguments that it's not worthy of an article, but it did happen. I'll admit to glorifying it a bit, but i didn't outright lie Kill me when i die (talk) 02:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Glorifying"? In no way was this anything close to any thing resembling an actual invasion, even though it was titled and presented as such. Go back to your buddies there in the Keys, have a brew or two, and take the jokes elsewhere. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? I'll admit it may not be notable, however, it is not vandalism, a joke or a hoax Kill me when i die (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Pure nonsense. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Edward321 (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We had deletion discussions last year (the year before?) on a putative "Sealand War of Independence", which seems about comparable to this - something did indeed happen, but it was a trivial event enthusiatically interpreted to present it as a dramatic affair with some kind of political significance. In the event we do want to refer to it, we should do so in context, briefly, in Conch Republic; anything more is verging on misrepresenting it's significance. Shimgray | talk | 08:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: patent nonsense. An administrative mistake blown into crazy proportions for a publicity stunt. While the citizens of Key West enjoy perpetuating this joke, this is an encylopedia, and we have no room for such. The brief mention already at Conch Republic#Great Invasion of 1995 more than suffices, and at least it is written in a more appropriate tone. bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What Bahamut said. This publicity-stunt "republic" already has more space here than it deserves. And while we're at it, somebody should delete the word "Great" from Conch Republic#Great Invasion of 1995 as unsupported POV. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

√ Done. --MelanieN (talk) 18:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as publicity/marketing stunt, not an invasion. First Light (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bahamut Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - as per Bahamut. Anotherclown (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leroi Samuels[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the contents of the article to sufficiently assess notability. Appears that he had small roles in two programs, Minder and Grange Hill, his name isn't mentioned on either of thos pages nor at List of Minder (TV series) episodes or I would redirect. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. J04n(talk page) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 22:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for actors and it is an unsourced BLP. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage, so doesn't comply with the general notability guideline, and the TV roles were minor parts, so also doesn't comply with the subject specific guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seems to fail WP:GNG. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything at reliable sources about this actor - although I did find a couple of very minor mentions about a stage actor of this name, but only in cast lists for non-notable plays. I can't find evidence that this is the same person, and it would not be the significant coverage which the notability guidelines require. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside nom JForget 00:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temple for Peace[edit]

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

Declined A7 (did not fit the categories), but still fails WP:GNG. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Vajradhara-Ling, since it's the temple/project of that congregation, and is already discussed on that page. First Light (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough good sources now to show that it's notable by itself. First Light (talk) 02:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is lacking source, I will therefore translate the french article, and will look for new references. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a number of references and information to the page and I propose it to be kept as an article. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a little bit crystall-ball-ish since the temple is still under construction, but there seems to be adequate sourcing (including a UPI article when it was visited by the Dalai Lama). Its annual festival also attracts coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The right to do what is wrong[edit]

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

unsourced, not understandable, current article will not be of help for writing proper article 草花 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect I asked a friend the question "I'm going to say 'The right to do what is wrong'... how would you say that back to me in a different way?" He almost right away came up with Free will. Perhaps the consideration to merge/smerge this into that? Pmedema (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced personal essay. I don't see anything here worth keeping or merging. --DAJF (talk) 22:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a poor machine translation of ja:愚行権. No opinion on if the concept is real or notable. —Farix (t | c) 15:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure essay. Would require extensive editing to put into proper English, but there is nothing encyclopedic here to be worth the effort. Don't redirect or merge it; nobody is going to look under this search term anyhow. If the author has things to say on the subject, they could add edits to the article Free will, but this article should simply be deleted. --MelanieN (talk) 16:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crime of conscience[edit]

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

not understandable, current article will not be of help for writing proper article 草花 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This is a poor machine translation of ja:確信犯. No opinion on if the legal concept is real or not. —Farix (t | c) 14:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Civil Disobedience. Edward321 (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in the article worth salvaging, and don't redirect. The concept is already covered under Civil disobedience. --MelanieN (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. While I agree with MelanieN that there isn't really anything worth salvaging and that a redirect should not be made, I do not think the Civil disobedience article adequately covers the subject. Civil disobedience, which more often than not refers to non-violent action, is only one form of a crime of conscience. Location (talk) 17:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Though the sourcing needs an upgrade. Courcelles 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Miles[edit]

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

Alice Miles is notable really only for one thing, and that's the parentage of her child (a jug-eared BBC news presenter). The case is, I believe, subject to a court injunction, and cannot be reported.

So what then is so notable about her? Not a lot, I say. Parrot of Doom 20:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching doesn't come up with results for the creation of a BLP . Off2riorob (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Her award as a columnist in 2007 suggests Alice Miles is prominent enough for a Wikipedia article. Articles being stuck at the stub stage is not a reason for deletion - yet. Philip Cross (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article is a stub but this is not a reason for deletion. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was? Does winning some obscure award make one notable? Parrot of Doom 07:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The What the Papers Say Awards were quite prominent in the UK. Philip Cross (talk) 08:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt that the awards may be notable, but being a recipient of an industry award does not confer notability. I'm pretty certain that the only reason this article exists is because of its subject's relationship to Andrew Marr, and that isn't reported in any reliable sources, due to a gagging order. Parrot of Doom 11:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Seems as though she could scrape WP:GNG but also, she has an extensive body of work in the Times and Evening Standard with hundreds of articles. Surely that should count towards notability? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' I think an extresively published columnist with a major industry award meets WP:GNG. IMarksman00 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Dread Beat an' Blood. JForget 00:55, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All Wi Doin' Is Defendin[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NSONG. No significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read WP:NSONG I do tend to agree with the above comment. I add some lines on the song to the article either on the album or the artist and I apologise for wasting everyone's time. The article may be deleted now as far as I am concerned. Sorry. We all make mistakes. I will hopefully be wiser in future. Smokey TheCat 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, as you are the creator and the main contributor and the user that removed the prod it seems an open and shut case and if a passing Administrator was to delete it we could call it a done deal. Off2riorob (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I placed the original PROD. I appreciate • Gene93k's attachment to the song, and it sounds like an interesting song, and I hope to see more contributions from this editor. And I appreciate his cowboying up on the issue. That said, while there's no hurry to speedy delete, there's no real contention anymore and probably no point in more people looking into this. Herostratus (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Dread Beat an' Blood, as article fails notability criteria for songs. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect would be fine, no objection here to that. Herostratus (talk) 01:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phallophilia[edit]

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

No sources; is this a neologism someone coined? Appears to be pure original research. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Found sources: [[1]], [[2]] - However, only the first source seems any way reliable, the second source is iffy at best. Dondegroovily (talk) 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-Notable Neologism... Carrite (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WrongDiagnosis.com site found by Dondegroovily does not strike me as reliable either. Their "About Us" page grandiosely self-describes the site as "one of the world’s leading providers of online medical health information", but does not reveal who is responsible for the content (professionals?) or otherwise why we should trust what they write. They appear to be a commercial enterprise, Health Grades Inc., sporting ads (see also here). And what they write under the heading "Common Misdiagnoses and Phallophilia" on their page Misdiagnosis of Phallophilia is ridiculous – it has nothing to do with phallophilia. They use the same text for Misdiagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease and Misdiagnosis of Vertigo, conditions whose symptoms are not similar to phallophilia. These texts are mostly boilerplate. Google scholar does not yield anything relevant. --Lambiam 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: the "About Us" section on that site indicates HealthGrades compiled the information contained on this Website from a wide variety of sources ranging from reputable medical publications to non-authoritative websites of unclear ownership. Based on the second half of that disclaimer, I don't think it can be assumed to be all that reliable of a source. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  It's actually on their "Terms of Use" page, in the first term, entitled "No Reliance on Information", where the user is supposed to acknowledge and confirm that they will treat the information on the website as inherently unreliable. --Lambiam 16:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human penis size per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 04:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While redirects are cheap, WP:R#PLA tells us that the page Phallophilia should only send the user to some target article if that article contains the term phallophilia, and for adding that term in an acceptable way to Human penis size we need a reliable source that gives some verifiable information about this supposed paraphilia. --Lambiam 16:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of great sources here. I don't think we have a winner of an article, but certainly enough for one section. Bearian (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This word/topic has never been the topic of serious study among sexologists. There exist a great many atypical sexual interests, and any writer can attach "-philia" to that interest as a short-hand way of referring to it. There is no problem in that, of course, but it doesn't make each such term notable.— James Cantor (talk) 13:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete both as blatant hoaxes (G3) by Airplaneman and Ronhjones, respectively. Non-admin closure --Pgallert (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Concert live in: "Knokke (West Flanders)"[edit]

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

Alleged proposed concert - google knows nothing about it. No reason to create a new article for every performance by an artist anyway. Unsourced, not notable and WP:CRYSTAL noq (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

noq (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the creator of these articles has been creating hoax articles and inserting unsourced misinformation into multiple Beyoncé-related articles. I have tagged these as {{db-hoax}} and blocked the creator. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality in Albania[edit]

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

I think that the article should be deleted because it is a wp:cfork of LGBT rights in Albania, Albanian sworn virgins and Recognition of same-sex unions in Albania — ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 17:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. There's no need to have this kind of article, and if there's really any useful information that isn't yet included in some other article, we could merge it into another aticles. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 19:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Kedaditalk 21:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started this article, and because zjarri and keda want to delete it i agree with them! -22:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- Comment: the article was not created by Vinie007 who wrote the above line but by Albanian222 (unless someone just admitted to using two accounts at once). De728631 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok sorry formulated wrong Albanian222 is bro's account, so started by him

Keep every country will eventually have a "Sexuality in ____" article. See Sexuality in the People's Republic of China and Sexuality in Japan. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 02:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. And I sure hope you're wrong, Heroeswithmetaphors... Carrite (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's the typical article prone to OR. --Sulmues ^(talk) 02:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick McCarthy (musician)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. J04n(talk page) 17:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as seems to fail WP:GNG. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable independent sources about this musician -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside the nom JForget 00:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thottichiamman[edit]

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

unsourced and WP:original research. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The deity does seem to have at least one temple. utcursch | talk 04:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Turner and Coulter's Dictionary of Ancient Dieties, while it has heard of Jam and Tuna, has not hear of this deity under any of the names listed in the article. Are there any alternate spellings for transliterating the names into English? Edward321 (talk) 00:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Searching for alternative names/spellings (Jakkamma, Thottichi Amman) seems to suggests that this article is not original research. I've added a few references. utcursch | talk 05:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the sources found by Utcursch. Edward321 (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References available. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 05:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Lee (director)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to verify the contents of the article in order to establish notability of this contested prod. The article claims that the subject has been nominated for two daytime Emmys and a Directors Guild award, but I can find nothing to reliably verify it. The article does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:CREATIVE. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Soap Operas was notified of this discussion. J04n(talk page) 17:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Markiewp (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no reliable independent sources which verify the information in the article -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to IMDB (which I know isn't a WP:RS) Andrew Lee did indeed direct one episode of All my Children. The Daytime Emmy seems odd, we don't even have that category listed. Rich Farmbrough, 15:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- http://www.soap-auditions.com/ lists Lee as a director of a soap. I'm inclined to think he is a director of soap episodes, and hence probably marginally notable, but that needs to be verifiable. Can WP:WikiProject Soaps help? Rich Farmbrough, 15:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  - Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series Directing Team - it's a team award. I saw an article saying someone was a Nobel Prize laureate - they were one of the hundreds if not thousands on the IGPCC or whatever it is called. Rich Farmbrough, 15:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not everyone who directs TV episodes is notable, and this guy's career seems pretty run-of-the mill. The Daytime Emmy citation was, as noted above, for a directing team (I always find it annoying when someone claims an Emmy or similar award when they were actually part of a large team that got the award); furthermore, they merely got nominations, not an actual award. Here is one of the Daytime Emmy nominations [3] and you can see that he was just one of four directors credited (along with six associate directors and five stage managers). --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. clear consensus to keep based on notability and reliable sources JForget 00:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Katarina Marinič[edit]

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

Just being very old is not really grounds for notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karin Elly Hansen. Reywas92^Talk 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: I see where the nom's rationale is coming from, but if this one goes, I don't see why the third oldest person in the United States is here, or for that matter, why some of these people have articles. I think the notability here depends on coverage in WP:RS. (This is a copy-paste of my other rationale at Karin Elly Hansen, a similar case.) _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion most of these should go. This article has weak coverage and notability warranting an article is not shown. Reywas92^Talk 19:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : The general Wikipedia standard for age, in itself, being notable seems to be the achievement of "supercentenarian", or 110 years, as very few people reach this age; the best estimate being about 400 such persons, or about one out of every 16,000,000 people. Also, Ms. Marinič is/was allegedly the oldest person ever from Slovenia, which would contribute to notability. Tom Barrister 06:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombarrister (talk • contribs)
Keep: Comparing articles is pointless. One is about a centenarian that is poorly sourced. This is about a verified supercentenarian, which is backed by plenty of reliable sources. If you check Google, you will find hundreds of articles about her numerous birthdays. SiameseTurtle (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per previous two commenters. — Yerpo ^Eh? 11:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of verified supercentenarians who died in 2010 per WP:ONEVENT and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Her only claim of notability is that she died at the age of 111. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep the page! Articles such as these are important for people who may be doing research in the future! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.60.213.26 (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:Armbrust --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Supercentenarian & Oldest Person from Country are good enough for me, although this is one of those instances where any decision is highly subjective Vartanza (talk) 03:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Shes the only vberified person ever from Slovenia, and therefore their oldest person ever and is therefore notable. Longevitydude (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article about this supercentenarian (=being notable) is backed up by plenty of reliable sources. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 19:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for what its worth, this afd probably assumes bad faith considering it wasn't nominated until another editor mentioned this article in a different afd. Longevitydude (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How the heck is that bad faith??? Am I not allowed to nominate an article that I feel is not notable? It's not like I could nominate something before I knew of its existence. The other article was deleted, but apparently some disagree on this one, so OK. Reywas92^Talk 00:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heres the afd. Longevitydude (talk) 19:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text says the following: notice the time is the exact same minute this afd was posted. Longevitydude (talk) 19:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content
Question How is she different to Katarina Marinič? Lugnuts (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katarina Marinič. Reywas92Talk 17:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment making comments copyed form another AfD collapsed. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Tom Barrister. WereWolf (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per copyvio and spam concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Human Science[edit]

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

I used a proposed deletion tag, but it was removed by the article creator. This article does not appear to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria (although one could make an argument that 'patent nonsense' could apply), so I bring it here to AfD. On my prod I said " Wikipedia already has an article on Astral projection, but a redirect seems unnecessary, since people will not be likely to search for that subject under this title," and I don't really have very much to add to that statement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in the WP spirit at all. Not cited, not objective, and probably copied from something else. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Reywas92^Talk 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content into the talk page of Charles Tart for sourcing and wikification. K2709 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have been willing to speedy delete as promotion, but since this AfD is here we may as well let it run its course. It is also rather nonsense, though I agree with FisherQueen not quite enough for speedy deletion on those grounds. There is nothing at all about this article which is remotely suitable for an encyclopedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and yes, some copyvio issues, see this for the CIA data. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the comments above. みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Copyvio of e.g. [4] (2007) and blatant advert which would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Chzz ► 12:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no argument for deletion aside the nom JForget 00:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soth Phetrasy[edit]

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

"This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2007)" has been applied since Dec 2007, and the Google scholar search makes no sense... RedBlue82 ^talk 16:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Stub article about high Laotian government official. Not a BLP. Useful information would be lost by deletion with no corresponding benefit to the project. Obviously in need of further sourcing, but that's not a unique or even unusual situation. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar search gives three excellent sources:

Laos in 1993: The Revolution on Hold by Arthur J. Dommen. Asian Survey Vol. 34, No. 1, A Survey of Asia in 1993: Part I (Jan., 1994), pp. 82-86. Published by University of California Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2644960.
Laos in 1975: People's Democratic Revolution -- Lao Style by MacAlister Brown and Joseph J. Zasloff. Asian Survey Vol. 16, No. 2, A Survey of Asia in 1975: Part II (Feb., 1976), pp. 193-199. Published by University of California Press. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2643148.
Quarterly Chronicle and Documentation from The China Quarterly No. 61 (Mar., 1975), pp. 176-202. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/651950.

They show that the subject was a very notable member of the Pathet Lao cabinet, onetime Minister of Economics, etc. The Google Books search gives 40 results, mostly reliable and academic sources, which I won't list here. Nominator: please see WP:BEFORE listing articles at AfD, and re-read the note I left on your talk page two days ago regarding this same issue with your three previous nomination. First Light (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We are !voting on the topic, not the currents state of the article --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, notable subject, no blp issue. --Soman (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources indicating notability are available. AfD is not for cleanup. Edward321 (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Hill (band)[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet any of the the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles. (Comes closest to meeting the first point, but the refs in the article are both inaccessible and most search results are either irrelevant or decidedly trivial.) – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 16:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. The awards are not significant (no Wikipedia article) and a sponsorship deal or playing before/with notable groupes does not make them notable (See: WP:NOTINHERITED). Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatshot[edit]

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

non-notable and obscure fictional character. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Transformers:_Victory#Sixchanger if no good citations can be added. Mathewignash (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real sources cited, no evidence of real-world notability. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Transformers G1 character list when the list is created from the mergers of other G1 characters. —Farix (t | c) 22:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- When dealing with non-notable character articles, it is always preferable to look for a list or to create one to merge the article into, or merge/redirect them to the main article instead of outright deletion. Only in cases where the character is completely incidental should it be deleted. Also, how the page is currently organizes shows the folly of trying to cover more than one character from different series that happen to share the same name. —Farix (t | c) 17:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable information to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third-party sources that can WP:verify notability of this topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is tha tthis character is not notable. Courcelles 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Icebird (Transformers)[edit]

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

non-notable and obscure fictional character. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Mutants - Problem with merging this character is he isn't a Maximal or Predacon, and there isn't a page for the Beast Wars toy line. Perhaps we need a page for the Beast Wars toy line to have a list of the toys. THEN we can merge all the minor character into it. Mathewignash (talk) 16:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do we really need redirects for obscure, irrelevant characters? NotARealWord (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This request by Mathewignash to continually suggest for mergers of poorly written transformers articles is ridiculous. They are normally obscure characters which are highly unlikely to be searched for so I vote Delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Too big to merge and is a character in multiple media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't get your argument. It's not like we need all this information. Keeping an article on this subject here is like indiscriminately collecting information. Which is not what Wikipedia is meant for. Also, I'm pretty sure this topic fails Wikipedia:Notability considering that Serpentera and Emperor Zurg sure didn't pass. NotARealWord (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete It might be one of the more notable characters in the series, but it really does not look like it is notable enough to actually deserve a separate page. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Notable in the series? Not even close. NotARealWord (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This character is not notable within the series and definately not the subject of independent verifiable secondary writings. Who the fuck is Icebird anyhow? Fuck this shit, this shit is making wikipedia look foolish. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the general notability guideline because there is no reliable independent coverage. Blest Withouten Match (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability, no significant coverage in reliable independent sources. This stuff should be on a transformers wikia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third-party sources to WP:verify notability of this character in any form of media. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with scott, tarc and shooterwalker.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutant (Transformers)[edit]

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

non-notable and unimportant aspect of the Beast Wars toyline. Delete, or merge with Fuzor. NotARealWord (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I only created this page as a contral place to explain the category. It's not really that important.

Mathewignash (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you create this page if it's not really that important? It's not even remotely worthy of an article here, and not important to Trnsformers itself. NotARealWord (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/merge as it is not notable enough. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If you feel this should be merged, the first step would be suggesting somewhere it should be merged to. The second would be explaining why that article would benefit from this unsourced, trivial content... J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even the author admits this one isn't important, and damn do I ever agree. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No real-world notability asserted for a fictional character. Tarc (talk) 02:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources that can WP:verify notability of this character in the real-world. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 County Clare earthquake[edit]

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

2.7 earthquake with article on Wikipedia? Are you kidding me?. Not notable, no casualties. Nothing. Diego Grez (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Comically fails Rule of 7, the informal rule of thumb that states any earthquake under 7.0 must break lots of shit or squish lots of people to merit inclusion, while earthquakes over 7.0 are rare enough and historically important enough to be automatically worthy of inclusion. Can you imagine if every 2.7 earthquake had its own page? There would be 30 Californians working non-stop... Carrite (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, this earthquake is obviously non notable. --Diego Grez (talk) 17:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is Rule of 7 related to Seven of Nine? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)}
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To counter the argument raised in previous AfDs - it's huge for Ireland - I point to WP:NOTNEWS. It is now pretty clear that, while there was major coverage and it was seriously newsworthy, it is of no historical imporance and does not have lasting notability. There was news, yes, but it seems there was nothing more. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Again, I hold my stance that this is yet another news article. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No lasting significance. Ireland is not particularly prone to earthquakes meaning when they do the local coverage is quite substantial it is temporary at best, and of a largely local nature rather than substantial global coverage. O Fenian (talk) 15:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Rule of 7. Marcus Qwertyus 18:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - According to the Irish Independent, "The tremor was 10 times more powerful than the one which hit Co Donegal earlier this year" which was also unusual. Plus a representative from the School of Cosmic Physics calling it "very important", "there is no record in any historical archive of a tremor or earthquake before", "This event forces us to reevaluate the west of Ireland's geology". [5] There is absolutely no "Rule of 7" policy or guideline in Wikipedia. We base our content on the significance decided by reliable sources, not personal opinions. A 2.7, or even a 1.7 can be notable per our guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment co Donegal isn't located anywhere near county clare so i'm surprised that article even mentioned the earthquake. Marcus Qwertyus 23:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Shadowjams (talk) 10:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, delete, delete The poster child for the recent spate of worthless articles about trivial earthquakes. The fact that earthquakes are unusual in that area is irrelevant; the tiny tremor did no damage and had no lasting significance. There were overhyped claims about it being "the strongest earthquake ever recorded in the area," but since records have only been kept for 30 years, that means little. It's no wonder the (Irish) School of Cosmic Physics got excited about it - finally, something local to talk about! - but they were the only ones anywhere who thought it was notable, and that was just because it was in their backyard. --MelanieN (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Bad idea Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the City University of New York[edit]

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

On the recent RfC of what a list should be and more pertinently what is a good and what is a bad list, there was much focus on the topic of a list. The topic of this list is "Laureates affiliated with the City University of New York" and I doubt it would survive as a proper article. So to test the waters/agreement of what should and shouldn't be a list, I nominate this for deletion. Sandman888 (talk) 15:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep and a Troutslap for Sandman888. Carrite (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Meets all requirements for Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nomination indicates the purpose of this AfD is to "test the waters" and fails to discuss why the subject might be inappropriate as a list. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Reams & The Barnstormers (band)[edit]

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

Some hits on Gnews confirming they did some touring through bars recently but nothing for a Encyclopedia Article Weaponbb7 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete I found Lupton, John (22 September 2005), "James Reams and the Barnstormers: Troubled Times.(Brief Article)(Sound Recording Review)", Sing Out! but after that just listings. not enough yet. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 New Zealand Fletcher FU24 crash[edit]

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

This article's notability appears to rest on the presence of international news coverage, although they of course are all simply repeating the primary source coverage, suggesting this is a case of notability through bombardment using many newspapers. Given that newspapers will always give coverage to accidents where multiple tourists are killed, and none of the dead are apparently wiki-notable, and apparently neither was the skydiving company, then I think this is a pretty weak claim for showing this article is anything more than just a news article, here today, forgotten tomorrow. I cannot see how this is ever going to be anything other than an orphan, it has pretty much no relevance to any other article except the plane model, and possibly the glacier, so I see absolutely no point keeping it for all time. As ever, if anything historically notable emerges, such as a change in skydiving laws because of it, then I have no issue with recreation with the article reflecting that. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worst plane-crash accident in New Zealand for a long time and will have lasting notability, which is covered by the WP:RS meeting WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 16:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. In terms of death toll, this is the seventh biggest air crash in New Zealand history, and the biggest since 1989. Hardly a "here today, forgotten tomorrow" incident.Grutness...wha? 23:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that really a relevant factoid though? When you get into such small death tolls, due to the nature of NZ aviation no doubt, such rankings are pretty irrelevant it seems. That is well illustrated by this list, where you can go up and down the rankings by many places, just by having one more, or one less, death, and which is in the most part, made up of forgotten, non-notable incidents (except maybe to create a basic list of all deadly NZ aircrashes). And when the NZHerald profiled "New Zealand's worst air disasters" in 2008, even it could only bother to list 6 incidents, with the bottom one having eight deaths, one less than this. This article exists due to NEWS coverage. When you eliminate that as proof of historical notability, you get to the reality of what historical notability is all about - neatly demonstrated by the fact that of those 6 accidents, Wikipedia only bothers to cover the top two with stand alone articles. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three of the other six, actually, not two - and a fourth one used to have but is now a section in another article. Not that that's particularly relevant given that what is or isn't elsewhere on Wikipedia is not a good argument in a deletion process debate. And you're getting into circular arguments if you say that a list of notable historic crashes is only notable because of the media interest in it, when the only reason for the media interest is that they were notable. Air crashes of this type are rare in New Zealand, and as such, and because of the size of this one, it stands out as being notable. Given that one air crash smaller was on the list (presumably the one about seven years ago in mid-Canterbury), there is indication that smaller crashes than this one are not likely to be forgotten quickly (as such this meets one of the criteria at the guideline - not policy, but guideline - WP:AIRCRASH). If the consensus is deletion, I'd suggest that information from this be merged into the Fox Glacier article. Grutness...wha? 07:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AVIATION is not a WP:Guideline. And as explained in WP:OSE, if you state that statistic x is a mark of notability, and the presence/absence of other directly comparable stuff on Wikipedia does not appear to support that, then it is a valid argument. Even if it is 3 out of 6. I do not dispute there is continuing media interest due to rarity of deadly aircrashes in NZ - but this really does only support the notability of a list topic per WP:N, such as List of air accidents in New Zealand by death toll. The ongoing coverage is not directly addressed towards just one of those incidents, which can be re-ordered just thru one extra death. If this isn't true, then there should be some evidence that there has been ongoing signficiant and direct coverage of that 8 dead crash, both before and after it got dumped from the 'top 6'. MickMacNee (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"AVIATION is not a WP:Guideline" Neither is the Bombardment (BOMBARDMENT! BOMBARDMENT!!) and the 10999Newspapers you cited. Lugnuts (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"AVIATION is not a guideline" - I never said it was.WP: AIRCRASH is the relevant guideline. It's listed as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Notability, in the section "Guidelines by subject", and is further referred to as a guideline in its first sentence. In any case, since it's clearly not a policy, if you say it's not a guideline either than what is it? A handy rule-of-thumb? Or just a suggestion? In either case, it becomes a far weaker argument for deleting this article. Grutness...wha? 21:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grutness - I was quoting MickMcNee, not yourself. IE he's using two "guidelines" that aren't actually guidelines at all, in his deletion rationale, and then countering WP:AIRCRASH with that same logic. Lugnuts (talk) 06:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I of course meant AIRCRASH. Despite what the text says, it is not a WP:Guideline, it is an WP:ESSAY, and is tagged as such. Which means that it has not yet been demonstrated to have sufficient support to be cited in discussions like Afd with any degree of confidence that it reflects wide community consensus, and/or does not contradict already existing Policies and Guidelines, such as NOT#NEWS. And not that I'm even sure which criteria you meant, but if you actually read the essay, just meeting one criteria of it is not a green light to create an article. MickMacNee (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's an essay, a new article doesn't necessarily have to mean any of those criteria. This isn't policy or even apparently a guideline. it's just an essay. If new articles were created according to the stipulations of all essays across this site, we'd have some very odd articles indeed. A far more relevant criterion might be the one at WP:NOTNEWS, which states Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. [... R]outine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. I do not see exactly how this would apply to the biggest air crash in a country in 21 years. This cannot be described as "routine news coverage", and is certainly of enduring notability. Grutness...wha? 06:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's routine in the sense that it is coverage that is always going to happen for such an event. Simply being in the news, does not convey notability. NOT#NEWS has been used to delete a hell of a lot more things than people just trying to record the day's sports results or celebrity gossip, as detailed in WP:EVENT. And I've already addressed the idea that 'biggest' in this situation means anything except a nice byline. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have. I didn't buy it then and I don't buy it now. Biggest in this circumstance means far more than a "nice byline". It means "biggest", and as such is clearly not routine. I don't see exactly how being covered in the news is exactly meant to rule this out from being a notewotrhy event, either. Yes, coverage is always going to happen in this sort of event - news coverage is likely to occur in any major event. In pure logical terms, where M=media coverage, W=Wikipedia-notable event and W'=Wikipedia-nonnotable event, you're trying to argue here that If W or W' -> M, then M-> W'. It doesn't wash. Grutness...wha? 01:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, aircraft crashes during skydiving ops are not infrequent and nothing about this one makes it stand out. It completely fails to meet guidelines at WP:AIRCRASH and also falls foul of WP:NOTNEWS; while terrible for those directly involved, this is another brief flash-in-the-pan that will soon fade into obscurity. At the risk of my own falling foul of WP:OTHERSTUFF and related policies, another article about an NZ GA aircraft crash (a chartered Piper Seneca that crashed in 1988 that also killed nine), was deleted a few months ago for failing to meet standards of notability. YSSYguy (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you the Afd link? It could be informative. PS, AIRCRASH is not a WP:Guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have thought to post it; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1988 North Island plane crash. I am aware that AIRCRASH is as yet not a set of guidelines (I could hardly be unaware after other recent air crash AfD discussions), but as the French say "faute de mieux". Anyway, back to this discussion; this happened on the weekend and it's now Monday in Australia, where media coverage has basically ceased despite there being an Australian among the dead. YSSYguy (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sad, unusually high death toll for NZ, but really not that notable in Wikipedia terms. It might possibly be worth revisiting this next year if the aviation inquiry finds anything of note. --Avenue (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my position, I think the essential information here is worth covering, and I agree with Grutness that merging it into the Fox Glacier article would make sense if this article is deleted (since that article covers the township as well as the glacier itself). I'd also be happy to see a List of air accidents in New Zealand by death toll. I just don't think we need a separate article on this crash. --Avenue (talk) 12:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. And to annoy User:MickMacNee, who seems to nominate for deletion EVERY new article regarding accidents where people lost their lives and which are NOTABLE! (Gabinho^>:) 08:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Oh right. I forgot the golden rule of Wikipedia that when you type out the name of a Guideline in CAPITALS!!! it means you REALLY REALLY understand it. You can make as many WP:TROLL / WP:PERNOM votes as you like wherever you like as far as I'm concered, far from annoying me, it actualy helps my cause by continually underscoring your cluelessness about policy and Afd process in general to other editors and closing admins, meaning that if it's not happening already, you will rapidly become a very ignorable editor, even if you break with tradition and actually say something intelligent and worthwhile one day. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um... perhaps you both need to take a couple of deep breaths here? Irrespective of what is or isn't a guideline, WP:CIVIL is a policy. Grutness...wha? 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How does a smaller encyclopedia help? Do not read this article if you're not interested. Why not have all commercial aircraft fatal accidents? Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because there are inclusion guidelines for a reason, please read WP:N and specifically WP:NOTNEWS. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per number of deaths. - Eugen Simion 14 (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And deaths make it automatically notable? —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Although this is tragic, it is nothing more that a news story, newsworthy, but not notable. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again. Every news article does not need an encyclopedical article.... Use Wikinews! <-- Spam :-P --> --Diego Grez (talk) 23:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Apparent cause makes it notable, in addition to death count. Fatal aircrashes in New Zealand have almost invariably been caused by the plane flying into something, as opposed to bursting into flame. Limegreen (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't burst into flame until after it hit the ground, so there is no apparent cause as far as I can see except possibly a classic "stall after take off" scenario. At any rate it is completely useless for you or me to surmise the cause from some erroneous news reports and a one-sentence accident bulletin. YSSYguy (talk) 00:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still notable then. No other seriously fatal aircrash in New Zealand has occurred on takeoff. Look through any list, and it's invariably "Plane flies into X", whether X be Mt Erebus, power lines, a hill, or the ground. Limegreen (talk) 10:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it's now notable because it's unusually commonplace? YSSYguy (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse. Limegreen (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commonly unusual? Crash immediately after take-off is a very common occurrence among light aircraft. I can name three people I have known who have died in aircraft that have crashed just after take-off. I have witnessed eight such crashes myself, one of them fatal: a Mooney 201, a Cessna A-37, a Lockheed Ventura, a Klemm Swallow, a Lake Buccaneer, a Mudry CAP-10, a Piper Seneca and a Pereira Osprey. Not even the fatal accidents warrant a WP article. I have been in a light aircraft that crashed after take-off. I have worked on another dozen-or-so light aircraft that crashed immediately after take-off. I am aware of many more, including four that crashed on skydiving ops, one of which killed twice as many people as this crash. YSSYguy (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. per Lugnuts. and for the last time MMN stop misusing WP:NOTNEWS. it clearly does NOT apply here. Moreover it is WP:NOTLAW and the will of the community cannot be ignored. it is very clear from recent debates on air crashes that the community wants these articles kept.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you do something with Wikipedia:Notability (air accidents) then? The more you try and steamroller these debates like this, saying the same thing at any Afd on any crash with any plane with any death toll in any situation and with any kind of coverage, without doing anything about that redlink, the less credibility you have for claiming to speak for the community. MickMacNee (talk) 19:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well I am sick and tired of WP:NOTNEWS being used as the SOLE argument for starting these AfDs and then invariably these AfDs failing and people like you refusing to get the message per WP:STICK . I think Mjroots is a respected admin who has an interest in Aviation related articles and he is working on something. meanwhile how many failed AfDs before you see the folly of your way of thinking. or is that too much to expect from somebody who has been blocked > 20 times ????--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sick of your constant ABF, vague and incivil attacks, and other general whining, like this 20 blocks bullshit, as if it has anything to do with Afd in the slightest. But you don't hear me complaining about it do you? If you can't be bothered, or more likely, just aren't able, to write the guideline, then just keep this general rubbish to yourself, and leave the real work of solving this problem to others, who will take care of it for you. Oh, and by the way, Mjroot's draft doesn't even come close to what you've been saying in these Afd's about crash notabiity, and his draft is nowhere near what AIRCRASH actually says, and what AIRCRASH actually says is so weakly supported, it has been in a permanent draft state for ages. Stick indeed. More like a wet marshmellow frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are playing the man, not the ball. What has the number of times he has been blocked got to do with anything? Yes he is strident, yes he rubs people up the wrong way (he rubs me the wrong way even though we have never communicated and we are usually in agreement in the discussions we have both been involved in); that doesn't mean his arguments are unsound or that they can be dismissed. The "will of the community"? "The community" does not want "these articles" kept; some in the community appear to want to keep articles pertaining to every crash of an aircraft operated by an airline, something that is not supported by AIRCRASH (which is one reason why we keep having these debates, in which people say "keep per AIRCRASH", even though AIRCRASH specifically says, do not have an article if it meets only one criterion, or words to that effect). This is not such an article, and several articles about fatal crashes of light aircraft that have occurred, have been deleted this year. The only ones that have been kept after PROD or AfD discussion have been about crashes involving wikinotable people, and even then not all have survived as stand-alone articles; I am aware of one that has been merged and redirected, and there may be others for all I know. I find it interesting that you have invoked Mjroots' name; he is almost always on the other side of the debate from me in AfD discussions about large aircraft crashes, but has often supported deletion of light aircraft crash articles, and as an admin has sometimes carried out the deletions himself. Isn't there something somewhere about "widespread lasting, significant coverage"? The coverage has already ceased; it had ceased in Australia - which is the neighbour to New Zealand, where events in NZ are very often reported and which has citizens involved in this event - two days after the event. The argument for keep seems to be, "a number of people died in an aircraft crash, let's have an article". Where is X number of deaths a governing criterion? Why are aircraft crashes treated differently on WP to other modes of mass transportation? YSSYguy (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made my !vote before reading the above. In reply, I agree with YSSYguy that generally, GA crashes are non-notable, a higher threshold of notability being required due to the frequency of GA accidents. However, in this case, I believe that the accident just about creeps over the notability threshold for reasons I gave below. Air (and rail) crashes are treated differently to other modes of mass transportation due to their comparative rarity, especially in relation to road transport. By extension, ship accidents are also comparatively rare. Ship AfDs are generally unsuccessful due to it being generally accepted that ships are inherently notable enough to sustain stand-alone articles. See WP:SHIPS/AFD for the record of ship AfDs. Mjroots (talk) 07:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: per YSSYguy, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Coverage has significantly declined. The prevalence of trolls such as Gabinho and others who constantly berate MickMacNee is concerning. Protector of Wiki (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notabilty is not temporary. Why state NOTNEWS, when WP has a section on the frontpage titled "In the News". People are saying it will be forgotten about by the next day. Well it's the day after the day after tomorrow and I still remember it. Lugnuts (talk) 06:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Tell me if you recall this in ten years. It's the simple question at the bottom of WP:RECENTISM. —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The presence of an "In the news" section invalidates the application of WP:NOTNEWS? NOTNEWS would have been deleted long ago if that were true. From WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, Although notability is not temporary, meaning that coverage does not need to be ongoing for notability to be established, a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. A search for news articles from the past 24 hours unveils nothing. The coverage for this crash qualifies as a "spike of news reports" "published during or immediately after". Because there are no more articles 4 days after the incident, "further analysis or discussion" is nonexistent. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - FWIW, it's a bigger crash than the one near Christchurch in 2003 which I can still tell you lots of details about without referring to any references. And I'm nothing to do with the air safety industry - details of that crash are fairly widely known even today. So I'd say the same will be true with this one in that many years' time. Grutness...wha? 23:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage of a General Aviation accident would not normally expected to be worldwide. Local reporting is normal for any GA crash. This one has been reported by notable agencies and press including the BBC (UK), the Wall Street Journal (USA) and Indian Express (India). As the worst aviation accident in New Zealand for over 20 years, and the 7^th worst to date in NZ, notability is clearly established. Mjroots (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television news here regularly shows footage of light aircraft performing wheels-up landings in the United States, in which nobody is even injured. Air show crashes overseas are also regularly reported. The Romanian Air Force An-2 crash earlier this year was reported by notable press here in Australia; the article about that crash was deleted. This is not "the 7^th worst to date in NZ", it is one of three "7^th worst" on New Zealand soil, at least one other of which had an article on WP - which was deleted. If, as Grutness seems to suggest, we look at New Zealand history and we include Erebus and other NZ-connected aircraft crashes outside New Zealand, then it is one of three "10^th worst" that I am aware of, perhaps lower; and perhaps he remembers the "less-worse" (by one death) Christchurch crash because he lives a few hours' drive away in Dunedin - at the risk of being flippant I am reminded of a line in the Mel Brooks movie To Be Or Not To Be, "he's world-famous in Poland". Put it in a list, as MickMacNee and Avenue suggest; there are other such lists. YSSYguy (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware that the Erebus crash is the worst accident involving a New Zealand based airline, but it didn't happen in NZ. It is accurately stated as the 7th worst crash in NZ, not the 7th worst NZ-related crash, which are two different things. Mjroots (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erebus is on Ross Island, part of the Ross Dependency, which is claimed by New Zealand. Also, the proximity of Christchurch to Dunedin is not as relevant as that planes mostly don't crash here, so they do become very newsworthy. Limegreen (talk) 12:42, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point was, it's not the seventh-worst, it's one of three "seventh-worsts", and an article about one of the other two "seventh-worsts" has been deleted because it was deemed not notable enough to keep, with no lasting significant coverage - exactly the same situation as we have with the coverage of this crash. YSSYguy (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one that was deleted, was it also the worst in NZ for over 20 years? Joint 7th worst in NZ + worst in over 20 years in NZ = just notable enough to sustain a stand-alone article IMHO. Mjroots (talk) 12:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was; it was the worst for 25 years, and you !voted for the article's deletion. YSSYguy (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the deleted article (advantage of being an admin). The article did not assert that it was the worst in NZ for 25 years. The two references used for the article were this and this. The second one is a wikibase, and would probably fail WP:RS if it was to be challenged. Even the ASN Wikibase does not assert the accident's status as joint 7th worst in NZ. Therefore, going by what was asserted in the article, I stand by my !vote of "delete" as being valid, without prejudice to the recreation of the article with more information to establish the notability of the accident. Should a recreated and expanded article be brought before AfD, then I may !vote for its retention if notability could be demonstrated in the article through reliable sources. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 48 hours after the crash was far too early to determine that the crash was not notable. Yes, this possibly means that the article was created too soon, but deleting it now for later re-creation is pointless.

dramatic (talk) 03:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have the wrong end of the stick - 36 hours after the accident was far too early to decide this was going to be of enduring significance and to start an article. YSSYguy (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep lots of coverage. for New Zealand this was a very high death toll. Higher than the earthquake too. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the "lot's of coverage"? The coverage has ceased. To compare this with the earthquake and suggest it's more significant because people died is ridiculous. Deaths does not equal notability. YSSYguy (talk) 11:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't ceased: [6] - plus the investigation has barely started, and is likely to take a year. Of note is the amount of comment in news reports of the coincidental timing of the crash (9 deaths) and the Canterbury earthquake (0 deaths).dramatic (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "lot's of coverage" are in the article. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep worst air disaster in New Zealand in over 20 years? Notable by any remotely reasonable standard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Which standard is that? Bigger digger (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Passes WP:GNG but only because it's news. WP:NOTNEWS applies, reinforced by WP:EVENT - no enduring impact yet. Also, remind me not to get on a plane anywhere near YSSYguy! Bigger digger (talk) 00:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,not fair ! :-), I have been working on airports and going to airshows for over twenty years, and have seen a lot of prangs as a consequence. YSSYguy (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unusually high amount of media coverage for a GA crash, plus first major crash in New Zealand for quite some time, equals notable. C628 (talk) 19:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auditors of the Literary and Historical Society (University College Dublin)[edit]

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

List of auditors of a just notable university debating club, the reference is the clubs own website where this list rightly belongs. Delete. Codf1977 (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - contains a number of notable people, eg- Cearbhall Ó Dálaigh, 5th President of Ireland; Adrian Hardiman, Supreme court justice; Anthony Clare, psychiatrist & broadcaster; Gerard Stembridge, playwright, Dara Ó Briain, comedian. All of the above linked articles mention being auditor as part of their bio. I agree that the list needs work, but I do think that this is an encyclopaedic topic. Quasihuman (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just list the notable auditors at Literary and Historical Society (University College Dublin). It is beyond doubt that this position does not confer notability, and the listing of non-notable people (in my view) violates WP:BLP.--Mkativerata (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How does the listing of non-notable people violate WP:BLP? I agree that the position does not confer notability, but WP:NNC says that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. For example, see List of Provosts of Trinity College, Dublin for a list of people, ~~all~~ some of whom do not have articles themselves. I think that, while the position does not confer notability, it is itself notable. Quasihuman (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPNAME and WP:NPF. These are ordinary punters and there's no good reason for us to have information on them. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are not just ordinary punters, these are people who stood for and were elected to the position of auditor, their election was probably covered in the various university media. Auditor of the L&H is a public position within the university, and is one of the most prominent student positions. 193.1.172.195 (talk) 11:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC) (I just realised that I wasn't logged in, to avoid accusations of sock puppetry, I am User:Quasihuman[reply]

Keep - The L&H Society is a highly notable institution acknowledged as the most competitive of its kind in Ireland or Britain. Even James Joyce attemped to become auditor (here, the term auditor does not denote an accounting function; it means something akin to chairperson). Most L&H auditors have later had highly distinguished careers in Irish and international society. The position of auditor of this society is practically a marker of future distinction. One comment above states that the list belongs at the original UCD website, but that PDF file does not provide links to existing Wikipedia articles about people on the list, which is why this wikified version is needed. People listed are the very opposite of "ordinary punters" alleged above; they could hardly be less ordinary. Perhaps they were simply not recognised by the person who made that remark. Citations of WP:BLPNAME and WP:NPF are wildly off-target and misapplied in this instance because no privacy is violated as alleged, and the people are very well known. It is alleged too that there was violation of WP:BLP but this was claimed without a shred of substantiation, and is wrong. The argument that "It is beyond doubt that this position does not confer notability" is simply not true. Most holders of the position go on to highly visible and notable social distinction: that is the very reason the list is of such interest and value. More wikilinks will be embedded as I and others find more Wikipedia articles about people on the list; some people have already been improving the list since it was proposed for deletion: the list has just been newly uploaded and is a work in progress. It needs time to reach its potential and proposal for deletion is premature. BMFMKJA (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found an article in the Irish Independent from December 22, 1956 which I think is relevant to the discussion, it is available from www.irishnewsarchive.com here. The relevant quote is below:

"When one comes to the auditors who still flourish one could muster a powerful array of the judiciary or trust one's fate to a team of eminent surgeons; their names figure large in Government and Opposition. Very many more now hidden in the recesses of Government offices or county halls are contributing their share to making or easing the taxpayers' burden or its twin structure that goes by the name of the ratepayers' load. Some, very probably, are now bestowing a proper professional frown upon doings of which they in their callow youth set the pattern."

:Quasihuman (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: - This is unquestionably a notable society, as are its auditors. Perhaps it seems obscure to non-Irish editors but Irish ones will recognise it and its notability straight away. There was another relevant quote at the beginning of the article cited above by Quasihuman: 'The claim made by one of the contributors to this book that the Literary and Historical Society of University College Dublin was "the nursery of the statesmen of the new Ireland of the future" is so near the truth that the exaggeration will be readily forgiven' (my italics). Medhbh (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the efforts of Quasihuman in finding WP:RS that show {{WP:N]] (some unaccessible to me but I AGF based on the titles and dates), but please give it a meaningful WP:LEAD asap! I'm not sure that every Tom, Dick and Harry should be named, but that's an article issue, not a deletion issue. Bigger digger (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Quasihuman. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Builder[edit]

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

Contested PROD plus a failed merge discussion at Talk:Mario (series)#Merge of Mario Builder here, which includes a recommendation to outright delete. Otherwise, I cannot find any reliable secondary sources that can provide any significant coverage here. Hence, notability is not asserted.‎ –MuZemike 14:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) –MuZemike 14:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Shows no reliable sources. The only source shows comments made by the creator of the game. Plus, the website shown is a freewebs website. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mario clone with an editor. Unless there is some ascertaition of more notability than any other similar game - delete as non-notable and unsourced. Unlikely to garner broader attention. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable software with no WP:RS indicating any third-party coverage. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources. Not notable enough for Wikipedia's guidelines. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. no arguments for deletion aside the nom JForget 00:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud storage gateway[edit]

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

Subject does not appear to be verifiably notable. Most of the sources are unreliable - typically blogs and/or regurgitated press releases. Seeking others' opinions on this contested prod. -- samj _in ^out 13:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think the subject, while representing a relatively new and cutting edge technology, clearly meets WP:GNG. The following reliable secondary sources discuss the topic, and are clear evidence that the topic is notable enough for inclusion: GigaOM, Datamation, Computer Technology Review, 2 ZDNet articles, The Register. All are well respected sources. This is significant number of sources which address the subject directly in detail. There are at least eight distinct companies producing cloud storage gateways. A simple google search will help concerned editors establish that this real and notable topic which is worth inclusion. Marokwitz (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant subject in the field, though it needs watching to prevent abuse for BaaS (this year's New! Exciting! replacement for last year's vBullshit). The article is being improved by user:SamJohnston who is an expert in the field. 80.176.82.42 (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm flattered, but I also proposed it for deletion. -- samj _in ^out 21:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A real device, or new appliance type. Worth expanding. scope_creep (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?: Serves as an example of hybrid cloud? 8 September 2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zennou-Naru Musuu-No Me Ha Shi Wo Yubi Sasu[edit]

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

Non-notable album, can find no reliable sources to expand/reference it. Dr. Blofeld 11:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. That the article is original research is the consensus. Courcelles 00:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Politically motivated violence[edit]

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

This article should be deleted per WP:NOTDIC. Furthermore it doesn't cite any sources since March 2009 and is written as a personal reflection. Marokwitz (talk) 09:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Original essay in dictionary definition form. Carrite (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Markowitz, Carrite.AMuseo (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced mini-essay, appears to violate WP:OR. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A word from the article creator[edit]

It has been several years since I created this article. Notwithstanding the obvious wish to see an article of mine remain, i do feel that it deserves an independent entry, as it puts some clarification on the nature of the subject which would be too easily lost diluted or diminished in value if merged into the various other articles (terrorism, war, genocide, etc.). Essentially merging it with terrorism, war, genocide, or any of the other subjects ti refers to defeats the entire point, as e.g. Terrorism is the more specific article, i.e. it would be illogical to merge 'sports' into the article on 'football', 'baseball', 'la crosse', or 'golf'. If a merge is necessary, and I think given the size of the article, that is probably the case, the only article into which I think it would be suitably merged; and thus dealt with appropriately with the subject matter being expounded upon rather than merely deleted because someone is 'offended' with it; would be the article on Violence. AQBachler (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its size and lack of citations is the issue then I suppose I can spend the time to work on a more thorough and well cited article given the time to do so. I am not sure exactly what the time frame is but I can probably have something finished if given a few months. AQBachler (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an essay/original research, not allowed here; please see WP:OR. Yes, lack of citations is a major problem. If you can find citations to support what you say, the article might qualify to stay here. I suggest that the article be WP:Userfyed to AQBachler so that you can work on it at your leisure without anyone hassling you about it. Again, what it mainly needs is citations, so that we can tell that this is not just your opinion - that what you say is verified by reliable outside sources. After you do that and you think it is ready for Wikipedia, you might ask someone to take a look at it there in your userspace (your own area), before moving it back to mainspace (the main Wikipedia pages). --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destenee[edit]

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

Non-notable individual. A Google News Archive search returns no relevant results. I have reviewed the sources in the article and none of them are reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. Most of the sources are unreliable. Here is a sample of two:

This article from chictoday.com is insufficient because the subject is given a passing mention. (Summers has even worked with celebrities such as singer Destenee McKenzie, Mercedes Yvette Scelba-Shorte and Joslyn Pennywell from America’s Next Top Model, and Katrina Darrell from American Idol.)

The second source, http://www.youngblackstarz.org/2010/07/19/ybs-welcomes-a-new-fresh-face-destenee-mckenzie/, does not appear reliable because it is not neutral and likely not reliable: Be sure to visit Destenee’s profile to learn more about her! You can also visit Destenee’s Official Website HERE.

Because this article is composed of unreliable sources, the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and the subject fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Persuasive nomination; I did find some other coverage, but this[7] is a trivial mention and another one appears to be self-published (and the fact that it triggered a 'spam blacklist' warning when I tried to post the link confirms that!). This person doesn't pass WP:BIO at this time. Robofish (talk) 14:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The one thing that would have alowed this article to pass WP:N would have been

"Awards and Honors - Destenee has won the Las Vegas Music Awards for Best New Artist and Best Vocalist in 2008" The cite for this is a broken link and I tried everywhere to find a list for these awards with her name on it without success making it complete WP:OR. Pmedema (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:MUSIC. There are no WP:RS indicating the subject meets WP:GNG. A majority of the article is fluff, with very little about her actual musical career, or lack thereof, at this point... a song "coming soon" with no reliable reference is at best a WP:CRYSTAL issue. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvest Faire[edit]

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

Non-notable event. Only references are from the event's own website. Does not meet WP notability standards. PROD contested by original author. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local event only. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given above. And I'd like to add another, little-known rule: everything that has that archaic -e added should be burned. At the stake. With haye and tare. Drmies (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable local event. Or is it an evente? (ducking) --MelanieN (talk) 17:27, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Édmée Schneerson[edit]

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

Relisting, because of a previous discussion that degenerated into personal attacks. Myself, I have no clear opinion; But I note the article currently relies on a single source, and it would help to know the extent to which the book discusses her. The footnotes given seem to indicate only 2 pages, and a footnote. I suggest that in view of the amount written on her cousin Menachem Mendel Schneerson, if she was of very great significance in his life there ought to be other sources available. DGG ( talk ) 05:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: This article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:V, and WP:INHERITED. Highland14 claims that Schneerson influenced the decision of her relatives to move to Paris. That, by itself, is no indication of notability, per WP:ONEEVENT. A Google Search retrieves no reliable sources or any sources for that matter (besides Wikipedia and mirrors) to demonstrate the notability. My question to the creator regarding WP:ONEEVENT: what has Schneerson done besides her role in a single event (precipitating her relatives to move)? Protector of Wiki (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention outside of Wikipedia or its mirrors; no Google news, no Google books, no Google scholar. The article also makes no claim to notability. Being related to someone notable does not make you notable. Fails WP:GNG. Astronaut (talk) 06:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As I observed in the earlier discussion, while this woman may have played an important role in the life of a notable figure, that alone does not even approach a criterion for notablility. Vartanza (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not to re-hash all the previous points made, but prior to her mention in the sole source cited which fails WP:V, this article also fails WP:GNG and cannot begin to claim any significant notability. Winchester2313 (talk) 07:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopedic relative. Dr. Blofeld 11:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication of notability. Being a relative of notable person does not make somedy notable, as notability is not inherited. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Using Google as the sole (or even primary) standard is explicitly against notability, and should be discounted. In the Lubavitch community she is very notable, and it is also obvious that in that community females are not splashed in the public's eye (e.g., traditional secondary/tertiary sources) due to their cultural sensitivity as publicity relates to women (i.e., there would be a cultural bias on the part of Wikipedia without adjusting the standards for that community, just as there would be for Native Americans, etc.). More prudent, IMHO, is to take seriously DGG's concern of the limited source, and because Wikipedia is not paper, retain with the tag asking for additional documentation, with the understanding that additional documentation may be from atypical sources.Edstat (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It was claimed that "In the Lubavitch community she is very notable". I am highly familiar with the Lubavitch community, and I have never heard of this woman; please adduce some sort of internal Lubavitch publication (I read Hebrew and Yiddish as well, if needed) to confirm your claim. Thanks. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would have been better for you to just vote (as you do below), instead of arguing against others' vote (which I understand was the reason for the "reset" to begin with). I will explain my vote, but only because you have asked.
  - (1) "Establishment of Notability: Notability is more difficult to establish in non-Anglophone topics because of a lack of English sources and no incentive among anglophone participants to find sources in the native language of the topic. A lack of native language editors of the topic only compounds the problems. The lack of sources and therefore notability causes articles to wind up going through the deletion process of Wikipedia.
  - "Article Deletion: The group of participants in the discussions of AFD may not include any native-language participants or participants familiar with the subject of the non-anglophone article. A single native language editor's views will not be deemed consensus because of his minority in the group of discussion members..."
  - (2) If you really are that familiar with the Lubavitch community, you would know that women in general are not publicized in the written word, but their actions are definitely part of the Mesorah, as, for that matter, is the case in other cultures as well.
  - (3) If you are unfamiliar with the subject, how familiar could you be with the Lubavitch community?
  - Therefore, I suggested to avoid bias, a tag be placed to ask for documentation to support notablity.
  - Finally, you have suggested below another good alternative, which is to absorb her into a larger article. That will also avoid bias.Edstat (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - 1. Agreed.
    - 2. Women are definitely publicised in the written word in the Lubavitch community, what with the various histories published of the Chabad Rebbetzins, and in terms of publications for women, there is the old English/Yiddish Di Yiddishe Heim magazine (now defunct), the Nshei Chabad magazine, and the supplements for women in the Beis Chabad and Beis Moshiach magazines.
    - 3. I am familiar with Lubavitch history. However, this woman is discussed nowhere, and nor have I ever heard of her orally. There are indeed a few people who make it their business to know about every single obscure person ever to have a connection to the Scheersohn dynasty, but that does not qualify as being "very notable" "in the Lubavitch community", nor does failure to know of it reflect on a lack of familiarity with the community. Again, what is your source for the claim that she is "very notable" within this community?
    - 4. I didn't mean to suggest that she warrants a mention in any other article, either; sorry for the misunderstanding. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don’t want this to degenerate into an argument about a vote (which seems to violate the spirit of the “reset”), but I also don’t want anyone to think your comments stand without rebuttal. It is not true that “women are definitely publicized in the written word in the Lubavitch community.” The Halacha and Minhag, based on “Kol Cavodah Bas HaMelech P’nimah,” was rather unanimous in Chabad as it was throughout the history of orthodoxy (with famous exceptions such as D’vorah, Esther HaMalkah, Rabi Meir's wife, Rashi’s daughter, etc.), at least until the first Sephardic Chief Rabbi’s ruling, and even today in many communities it remains in the category of something that is not generally done. Histories of the Lubavitcher Rebbes’ wives are exceptions, not because they were notable, but because they were public personalities due to their husband. In any case, your example would restrict notables to seven women in the history of Lubavitch. Your periodical listing is irrelevant. Di Idishe Heym only began in 1958, and “in Di Yiddishe Heim’s earliest issues, a short-lived series entitled “Great Women in Jewish History” focused exclusively on the biblical matriarchs and pre-Hasidic heroines” (B. J. Morris, Lubavitcher Women in America, 1998, p. 109). The N’shei Chabad newsletter only began in 1973, Bais Moshiach in 1995, etc., and this clearly was not their mission. My advice: vote, but don't argue against other's vote.Edstat (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per my first !vote, fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. I'm all for countering WP:Systemic bias, but until those sources actually appear, en.wp cannot have an article on her. Perhaps Edstat or Highland14 would have the article as a user page until these WP:RS are forthcoming? Bigger digger (talk) 18:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This woman does not satisfy WP:ANYBIO, her lineage is insufficient to warrant a stand-alone article as per WP:INHERITED, and the only remotely notable information on her is insignificant as per WP:ONEEVENT. Yehoishophot Oliver (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA recent book (2010) by two sociologists of Hasidism, Heilman & Friedman, published by Princeton University Press, made a very important point. It explains why the futur Rebbe of Lubavitch, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, and his wife, Chaya Mushka, decided in 1933 to leave Berlin and settle in Paris. They lived in France for about 8 years, before coming to the U.S. Now, that decision to move to Paris was not a casual decision. The fact that three relatives, cousins, were living in Paris made the difference. The three cousins were Edmee Schneerson, Schneour Zalman Schneersohn, and Isaac Schneersohn. That decision to settle in France, and remember that the futur Rebbe and Rebbetzin applied for French citizenship, will have an enduring influence on the thoughts and life of the Rebbe.(Highland14 (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. I found an online source which confirms her existance under the alternative spelling of her last name as Schneersohn. The source is also French, but lucky I can read French. The source provides useful information such as her birthday ("29 septembre 1907") and second name "Minette" which could lead to other sources. It's too bad the snippet view won't show more. I'll add the translated material to the article shortly. Though I've yet to form an opinion, I think that counting this online source and good faith acceptance offline source may make it worthwhile to hold off deleting for now as per WP:DEMOLISH as this article is quite young —CodeHydro 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This supplement of information is very interesting, because it shows that she is the only native among the three cousins in Paris. She was the "real French born". (Highland14 (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment This article was started in early August, plenty of time to find sources. Just read the article, she didn't do anything except be related to a few other people. Bigger digger (talk) 22:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of the "reset". There are now two people arguing against others' vote. I suggest, *again*, vote with an explanation, but stop arguing others' votes. A consensus will or will not be found, but what is the point in arguing?Edstat (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the purpose of the relist either. It was a clear delete. what is the point in arguing? The point is that others may be distorting policy and making false assumptions, so we need to expose that. Only then will the closing mod be able to weigh the true points and consensus will form. Protector of Wiki (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't know for sure that she didn't do anything noteworthy; only that not much in this article stands out ;) She may well have done some amazing things that were ignored by biographers, perhaps simply because she is a woman. For example, the fact that she studied at the Sorbonne may hint at exceptionality since women were seldom highly educated in that era. I also may point out that the inclusion guidelines were originally made in response to defamation of living people... she's dead so this is quite unlikely to harm her or her posterity. But these are just the musings of an open mind; not arguing for or against until I get a chance to look into it deeper. —CodeHydro 00:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. There isn't anything in this lady's profile that could even remotely justify a stand-alone article on her. If she has her own article, we could justify adding thousands of irrelevant people who may have influenced someone notable at one time, which is bizarre, to say the least.Londoner77 (talk) 18:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject appears to have been related to notable people, but notability is not inherited. Edward321 (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who speaks about notability inherited? She was born into the dynasty. If we would stop there, you would be right. Here, what we have is a relative, but a relative who has an influence. So, the argument of inherited doesn't hold! (Highland14 (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - as per WP:BIO and WP:GNG. There is no indication of any notability at all, nor any proof of significant influence(s) or achievements. Csteffen13 (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I find Edstat's and Highland14's arguments desperately unpersuasive. There is a school of thought circulating around Wikipedia that if there is some putative excuse for reliable sources not to be found on a particular subject, the requirements of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG and/or WP:BIO are suspended. This curious notion has no basis in policy or guideline. Wikipedia is under no onus to be "culturally sensitive" to a group's alleged distaste for having their deeds documented. The only acceptable response to the suggestion that this woman's history lacks adequate sourcing because the lives of Lubavitcher women are out of the public eye is "Then a Wikipedia article on her cannot be sustained." Ravenswing 02:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Schoenfeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP whose only sources are primary, and whose subject is of questionable notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems like a notable public intellectual/pundit. Article should be better sourced, but not deleted Vartanza (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Public intellectual with much in Google news. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - notable intellectual, although article must use third-party reliable sources to add to the primary sources as well. So, this article should not be deleted. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sjones23. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Positions that seem to pass WP:ACADEMIC and, to a lesser extent, WP:CREATIVE. Bigger digger (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Lindemann[edit]

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

Inadequately sourced BLP, subject is of questionable notability. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep seems to meet the academic requirements. Here's his Google books listing, google scholar. A decent listing of various publications stretching back to 1974 or so, in a number of scholarly journals with a number of books too. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources show a recognized historian. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susanne Winter[edit]

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

BLP of a person of questionable notability; some of the sources are also troublingly biased. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? The 2008 elections and the ludicrous court case are done deals, so no matter who runs the "source" the outcome is quite clear. 24,000 euro and two years' probation. Love or hate mainstream media, but the ORF, Die Presse, Krone and Kurier all presented the case more or less evenly. East of Borschov 10:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the "Dhimmi Watch" website and the Brussels Journal. Stonemason89 (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as she is only notable for one event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not news, blp1e. Ray^Talk 20:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Ericleb01 (talk · contribs) 21:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Sharkey's Last Game and associated pages[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTFILM, as there are no reliable sources available to confirm its notability. Was PROD'ed, but notice was removed because "being directed by [D. W.] Griffith is strong evidence of notability". This is contrary to what NOTFILM says: "2. The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."

As we cannot establish a reliable source, there is no indication that this was a "major part of his career". This AfD will be accompanied by many more articles which reflect on this same principle. I've tried hard to find sources for all of these articles (I've found one so far, rendering the article notable), but for most, to no avail. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are possibly many more, but I just wanted to nominate the following pages first, per above (collapsed for your convenience):

{{Collapse|1=

With respects, I have uncollapsed this section to aid in editor's better understanding of the scope of this discussion and to unhide the proffered Find sources Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|2=Articles part of this AfD}}

Speedy keep, speedy close, and a healthy round of trout slapping for the nominator, who not only seems to believe that cursory internet searches are the best way to assess the notability of hundred-year-old films, but also hasn't bothered to check out Google Books, which provides as its first hit on the title a reliable source declaring that this was the debut film for a notable actor, thereby satisfying the cited section of WP:NOTFILM. [8] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Ah, you (User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz; didn't sign your post, btw) are the one who closed the inital PROD. I left two messages on your talk pages, and after waiting about an hour, I came here. You can't say you didn't have it coming. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for your book source, great! Give us the page number and we're all set for that article. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 03:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz provided a link to the page; however, coverage of the film is trival. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find enough reliable sources for this article, and sadly being the first film of a notable actor is not a claim to notability. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE ALL Blatantly fails WP:NF#General principles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims that the first hit in Google Books is a reliable source. Although I agree that it's reliable, the notability guideline states that it must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources". The Google Books result is a passing mention, thus not suggesting notability. Also, the film has not been the subject of "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inapplicable criteria, suitable only for more recent films. The "nationally known critics" you might wish for were not even born when these films were made. And "full length reviews" is an attribute of the modern era, intended for judging modern films. Few if any films received more than a few sentences back in 1909. And for THAT time and era, those sentences DID comprise the review length expected for that era. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for sources for every article listed above and find no significant coverage. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your major error is in the erroneous presumption that the GNG is the only guideline and that the internet is the only place to find sources. Deleting articles on 100 year old films simply because the newspapers and magazines that covered them 100 years ago are now dust is not worthy of Wikipedia. Notability is not temporary. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so we are supposed to presume that everything 100 years ago had coverage? My major point is that if it's not found today, it probably wasn't important back then. Or at least, if we can't find that old coverage today. You can't tell a murder suspect he's guilty of a crime if you don't have evidence for it. It doesn't work that way. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're not discussing "everything". We're discussing these films nominated here that have made it into the enduring historical record. So yes, for THESE we may safely presume that thay had some sort of coverage, as that's the common sense that guideline encourages. You own decision that sources-now-turned-to-dust could never have exzisted in the first place or they'd still be around, and then limiting your own searches to a spotty check on the internet only, as if the net were the only source that editors are to ever consider, is not common sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're using circular reasoning. You're claiming that the films above are notable because they are in the "enduring historical record". When I ask for proof of this historical significance, as I cannot find evidence for it, you say that we should not rely on today's information, and instead keep in mind that the films might have been reviewed in the past. When I ask WHY we should be exempting these films from proper verifiability, you respond saying that they are historically significant! This begs the question once again: why are they notable? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below, you have been given dozens of sources for dozens of these films, showing their being in the enduring record, and written of in books offering the POLICY mandated verification. But back up here you act as if you have not... and continue your quest to undo the roots of Amercican cinematic history. Below you have even acknowledged that so far some have been shown to be improvable (through the quite properly diligent and honorable WP:AFTER of User:Lugnuts), and yet you come back up here with eyes and mind closed to guideline's encouraged common sense in the treatment of films from the birth of one countries cinematic industry. It is NOT common sense to demand that a 100-year-old film MUST be treated in the same manner and for the same reasons as modern-day big-budget blockbusters. Guideline acknowledges that it is not. I find your reticence to even consider these and their historical contributions to the growth of a film indistry or the careers of those notables who recieved their starts in these films, and the entire manner in which you have conducted this mass slaughter, to be quite disruptive. AFD is not for Cleanup. Bad form. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Did Lugnuts WP:CANVASS you into coming here (as noted by this), seeing that you are a "film and television actor and fine arts model"? Because now I have reason to believe that most of your arguments are fuelled by some sort of WP:COI with the film industry, and that your "Speedy keep" is therefore invalid. I recommend you step back from this AfD (even though it should be closed per my withdrawal), because most of your arguments seem to indicate you are bent to include as many instances of "American cinematic history" as possible. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHOAH. That sort of bad faith accusation is totally unacceptable, and acts to attempt to besmirch both Lugnuts and myself. That is NOT how AFD discussions are to be done. I was not "canvassed" to speak in a film discussion... no more that your asking Protector of Wiki how to create a mass nomination canvassed him. I am a member of Wikiproject films and quite regularly contribute to film-related deletion discussions. And I have been contributing to article preservation for a while now, solely in my continued efforts to improve Wikipedia for its readrs. And your suggestion that my contributions to film articles is a COI borders on an indefensible perssonal attack. I suggest you yourself please "back off", as my record in contributing to the project is reasonably decent. I have written 27 articles, and have assisted in improving over 300 others so that they may serve the project, as well as working on essays to make this a more user-friendly environment. Do you have any similar accomplishments? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Always a problem with these group nominations - some articles clearly meet notability guidelines, and one may fall a little short. And it's very hard to find online sources for films that are 100 years old! I'll try to address them individually:

Gentleman Joe - Some sources [9], but at worst it should be redirected to the Harry Carey filmography as a plausable search term.
None of these books review the film, but merely confirm its existence. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy reading some of the 27 book results offered by Lugnuts, it is seen that there is more than enough that address the film and/or its actors in detail to expand and source that article. It a "keep and fix". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Claiming that there is and proving that there is are two different things. I saw many mentions but no reviews or significant coverage. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go to your public or university library and look just a little harder. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An Unseen Enemy Directed by D. W. Griffith, starring Lillian and Dorothy Gish (along with Carey). Tons of WP:RS [10]. Quite simply put, Griffith and Gish were one of the most important director/actress collobariations in cinema history, and if they were alive today an knocking out films in this decade, their articles would be kept. Compare Lynch/Maclachlan, Herzog/Klinski, et al. Also per film notability: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." And it was the Gish sisters' on-screen debut!
With that rationale, I wouldn't oppose, but it still needs to be sourced properly. This might do the trick. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source added. It would still pass the notability guidance I refered to without it. Lugnuts (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perfect. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good. Another one that was fixed when the AFD was used to force improvement. How will you now remove it from your lengthy list? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Are you going to stick around here simply to trash my decision to bring this to AfD or are you going to DO something to help out? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two Daughters of Eve per An Unseen Enemy. sources.
I don't see a review of the film anywhere, just mentions of it. Saying that it was Gish's second film is not notable. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You did not look at the 45 book results deeply enough. Enough of them address the film and actors in enough detail to allow this article to be expanded and sourced. Or is it your contention that because ithas not yet been done the article should be tossed? WP:NOEFFORT is a poor reason. Using an AFD to force cleanup or delete as the only options to improvable articles runs afoul of WP:DEADLINE, and ignores that Wikipedia itself accepts that it is WP:IMPERFECT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I repeat: "Claiming that there is and proving that there is are two different things. I saw many mentions but no reviews or significant coverage." Give me a book and page I may have missed. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "A closed mind sees only what it wants. Your apparent mindset runs completely contrary to WP:POTENTIAL. How many of these have you yourself REALLY tried to improve? Or perhaps you might wish to spend some reading the instructions at WP:ATD. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Friends Starring a whos-who of silent film stars, sources [11] and also screened as part of a Biograph studio retrospective in 2007, meeting point 2 of FILMNOT with "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." Passes the "The film features significant involvement..." bit citied above.
Wouldn't be opposed again if a source showed your re-screening was right. Significant involvement is still bollocks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Refs added. Lugnuts (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the most experienced in AfDs, but I do know that forum sources are not acceptable on Wikipedia. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again - I said refs, not ref. Lugnuts (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but that still doesn't seem to cover the re-screening, which is what you were contesting to be the source of notability. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And another one improved with cleanup being forced by this AFD. Lugnuts is becoming my hero. So much to do and so little time. And hey... the nominator has promised us a few dozen more. I do not think they should be added to an AFD ale=ready-in-prcess, as that will reduce the time those new additions will actuallyave to be worked on during this overwhelming threat of unneccessary deletion.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So Near, Yet so Far Another Griffith/Pickford vechile. Sources [12] and again passing the "The film features significant involvement..." bit.
Per above, I do not see any source which shows the significance of the role for either of them in any of those books. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've already shown an poor understanding or WP:BEFORE and an inability to actually evaluate offerd sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Feud in the Kentucky Hills Again more Griffith/Pickford work with sources [13].
Found a somewhat notable mention, but only in the form of where it was made and what films were made at the same time. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Aisles of the Wild Not actually tagged for deletion! Anyway, another clearly notable Gish/Griffith co-lab. Sources [14].
My bad, I must have skipped it over; quite tedious to do. Still no sign of "clear" notability, not even in the books about Griffith and Gish. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The One She Loved Stars Gish, Carey, Pickford and Lionel Barrymore. Source [15], and per the "The film features significant involvement..." bit.
You can't just slap the names of the actors and say "it's a significant part of their career", especially when (still) no sources show it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have shown no ability to judge what is significant part of an actor's emerging career or not, and a tremendous lack of good faith in anyone else's efforts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Painted Lady Even more whos-who with Gish (both of them), Barrymore, Carey and Blanche Sweet. Sources [16]. Passes per "The film features significant involvement..." bit.
Finally, SOME sort of review here. Up to AfD to decide if it's a notable one. Still shows no significance for the actors per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your own poor WP:BEFORE shows an inability to judge what is significant for a 100 year old film. Expecting them to be judged in the same manner as big-budget, highly-touted blockbusters, is not using common sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heredity Carey, Barrymore and Griffith. Sources [17].
Found nothing per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you did not look hard enough, nor have been able to make any claim to having been to a public or university library, that "you" found nothing is expected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gold and Glitter The Gish sisters and Griffith again. Sources [18]. More of "The film features significant involvement..." bit.
Perhaps here, though it seems to be more of the author's opinion than a factual claim ("...this is the first of Griffith's movies in which Lillian looks truly beautiful, her face and her mass of curls..."). Up to AfD. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anther save by Lugnuts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brutality Another Gish, Carey, Griffith vehicle. Henry B. Walthall and Lionel Barrymore are in there too. [19].
Found a brief (two sentences) mention of this film in a book about romance in the silent era. Up to AfD. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another save by Lugnuts. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My Hero Gish/Griffith, per the dozen examples above. [20].
My lord! I may have found a review! Still needs a page number as there is absolutely nothing you can pull from just a Google Book listing (and it's the National Board of Review, so it might not even have anything about the film at all, AFAIK) with no description. Per above, not notable until then. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Visit your library. As a resonable presumption of coverage exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Burglar's Dilemma Per above. [21].
Found the book again, but same problem occurs. Still not notable per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty notable per above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Cry for Help Per above. [22].
Not notable, per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty notable per above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The God Within Blanche Sweet again, with Griffith, Barrymore, et al. [23].
Found a book about "eloquent gestures" in film mentioning it, but other than that, not notable, per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More that you did not "find". For what it is, when it was, plenty notable per above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three Friends Sweet, Barrymore, Carey, Griffith. [24]. Note that this article's image was a featured pic of the day too!
Congratulations, but this is the film which has the least book and web sources per your links, let alone one that renders it notable, per above. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another save by Lugnuts. Good job. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Telephone Girl and the Lady Mae Marsh, Carey, Barrymore... [25].
REVIEW, finally! Seems like a good review right here, but again, that's up to AfD. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been contextually expanded and cited. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that works fine. Is it possible to withdraw a nom? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No... whch is the problem when you toss so many salvagable articles into one pile. Now its gonna be an all-or-nothing... or you have forced some overworked admin to go through each sub-discussion one-by-one and make a call on-by-on. You may have meant well, but now we have a big mess. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for being a bit more helpful in this. I tried to contact you after the first two PRODs to help settle this out of AfD, but nothing came out of it (probably were not awake).

Yes, not awake/at the cricket. And ignoring your uncivil comments. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil comments?? Please show me where I was being uncivil, as I was definitely NOT trying to do so at ANY point during this entire process. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implying on my talk page that I don't have a life outside WP (as you seem to do), and the above comment of "Significant involvement is still bollocks". Please correct me if I've misunderstood that one. Maybe you could help by adding the sources you agree with in the text above. Lugnuts (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page comment was implying that I have a life, and at the time, I didn't want to spend it scouring through Harry Carey filmography (I later found D. W. Griffith filmography) to look for notable articles alone. It was a sarcastic comment. As for bollocks... err, I may have pushed it too far, yes. I probably should have used "nonsense", but I wasn't really aware that it was an expletive word (I'm a native bilingual between French and English, a little more French). Sure, I'll try and help out with the sources. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I feel that this AFD needs to be re-thought out. Mass grouping on this level has to have alot more weight towards the nominator's arguments in order to get some sort of consensus. Looking at the arguments so far, I think we would be derelict without re-thinking this Afd. Pmedema (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had initial doubts of just throwing this into AfD, and that's why I went to get an opinion at the Help Desk. There didn't seem to be an alternative (perhaps there should, and noted at the AfD main page for future reference). If you want to give suggestions, go right ahead. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Rethought" is too kind; the nominator made no meaningful effort to check for sourcing here (skipping GBooks and GScholar entirely), declaring that he was "not exactly willing to verify the bulk each article for an AfD" [sic]. [26] Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I spent nearly two hours looking for sources (unfortunately there's not much I can do when the books on Google Books don't show a preview), and I added one source to a Library of Congress entry for one film. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All - Nothing would be gained with a hurried bloodbath of this group of articles herded en masse to the slaughterhouse. We all have to be cognizant that internet-based sourcing for early film is going to be sparse and the process of documentation a slow one. Forcing the defense of a mass of such challenges in a one week period is unrealistic. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Edited: Carrite (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Comment: This isn't a "hurried bloodbath", especially when there are no "internet-based" sources for these claims. A few (as noted above) seem to be okay, but simply saying that a film is notable because thing and thing acted in it does not render it notable. I'm not a deletionist, but nor am I an inclusionist; especially when there are no sources. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, offering a dozen and promising dozens more to all be resolved in 7 days, specially whan that 7 days includes a US national holiday when public libraries and university libraries are closed and their books, microfilm, databases, microfische, or acrhival and reference hardcopy souces are thus unavailable, is indeed a "hurried bloodbath" that stikes at the heart and soul of Project Film and American cinematic history. And you would do well to understand that "significant coverage" for a 100-year-old black & white film will not be anywhere near the same as coverage for a recent boxoffice blockbuster. Guideline does not demand nor expect that the historical Bill Sharkey's Last Game have the same quantity of coverage as does Batman Returns. For historical matters, all that is absolutely required in verification... and that verification need not itself be substantive. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then, what would you have suggested I had done? Individually nominate a few of these articles every week until the end of the year? If someone creates a pile of articles which someone else finds should be deleted / redirected, is it their fault that (1) there is no other clearly designated process to accommodate such a nomination, (2) that the AfD process only lasts seven days, (3) that the nomination JUST SO happens to be on the final day of a holiday weekend (which is somewhat irrelevant since the creator seems to be available), and (4) that other editors perceive the move to be a "hurried bloodbath"? _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ALL Deleting films from early cinematic history simply because the pre-internet newspapers that wrote about them are now dust, or that the film magazines that wrote of them did not survive two world wars, does an incredible dis-service to the encyclopdia. This is not as if these were films from some indie from last year that were never seen or written about. For Hod's sake, we're talking about films 100 years old... films that represent the birth of an entire industry and ushered in the careers of dozens of notables. Who wants to claim that some of these are not in a national archive? Who wants to claim that no University ever has used these representative examples of early American cinema in their courses on early American film and cinema history? Who can claim with a straight face that these films and actors were never covered by popular press 100 years ago. I have a realistic and reasonable presumption that such sources did exist at one time, even if some are dust now. Sheesh. These films singly and as a group represent a unique accomplishment in cinema (its birth), are milestones in the development of film art (US cinema), and contributes significantly to the development of a national cinema (US cinema). These films features significant involvement by notable persons and are major parts of dozens of careers... not a doubt in my mind, even without having driven into Los Angeles to the USC Film Library. And hey...these films were successfully distributed domestically in a country that was not then a major film producing country, as the US film industry was barely born in 1909, and were produced by this country's equivalent of a major film studio (and some of these studios are themselves now dust). NOTABILITY IS NOT TEMPORARY. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do you mind reading my replies above? They were written as you were writing this. I agree that films with a past have notability and most have built the industry, but that doesn't mean that every old film participated in making that happen. If someone wants to change the inclusion guideline to reflect your opinion, then by ALL means, go right ahead. I'd be glad to drop this AfD immediately. But right now I'm just following what is written. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is written is the use of WP:Common sense and the knowledge that policy understands that there are exceptions to guideline. So sorry... and as well meant as your mass deletion efforts might be, I recommend that any Admin step in and close it speedily as destructive to the project and to Wikipedias efforts to preserve cinematic history. We have a reasonable presumption that ALL of these films were written of 100 years ago. Guideline recognizes this and does not insist that coverage continue into infinity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And we are not speaking about every old film ever made, just the dozens you wish mass deleted. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict × 2) Could you clarify the purpose of your cited guideline? All I see is "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." That doesn't apply here. I don't personally think IAR applies here either, but IAR is subjective. Let's see how things go from here. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 16:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The most minimal of common sense indicates that Bill Sharkey's Last Game was covered in multiple newspapers and magazines in 1909, as was the various principle's participation in that film. Even early fillmakers neeeded to get coverage of their products or go broke. That the newspapers and magazines that covered that film are now dust, or if still existing 100 years later might not have online archives of 100-year-old articles is EXACTLY why WP:NTEMP was drafted and it most specifcally does apply. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what is the point of a notability guideline for films if we are just going to assume that they all have had coverage? Without evidence of such? I'm sorry, but that's not common sense, and as someone who strongly believes in verifiability, I can't personally accept that as a rationale. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is the purpose of WP:NTEMP having been written up in the first place? It is to explain to editors, including you, that coverage need not exist into infinity, and to expalin that even Wikipedia understands that hardcopy sources can vanish over time.... even time-before-the-internet. And why would each and every guideline encourage common sense? It's not as if we are speaking about forgettable films from last year, where a lack of sources after a diligent search would doom them to extinction. We're speaking about films from the very birth of American Cinema... films that predate the internet by nearly a century. Does your common sense tell you that they could not have had coverage? And in your diligent serch for sources, did the libraries you visited before your nomination not have reference materials about early films? Did the universities you visited not have early films as part of their courses on American cinema history? Did none of the film archive vaults you visited have these films saved for posterity? And why did you not approach Peoject Film about your concerns? You mention above that you went to the Help Desk for assistance... but all you did there was ask about how to mass nominate articles? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close - I suggest the application of WP:IAR here and close this Afd so that a little more WP:BEFORE can be applied. Pmedema (talk) 19:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You know what, withdrawn. This nom really isn't worth the time and effort. If someone can make a little notability appear out of these sources, then whatever, yeah, WP:IAR. HOWEVER, I really think this type of nomination should be outlined somewhere on Wikipedia, as I found the guidelines and instructions very unhelpful as to what to do in this type of situation; let alone what a completely new editor would think of doing. Perhaps there should be a limit on the number of nominations in one AfD, or maybe a time limit extension, I don't know. But this just seems very messy at this point.. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - From what I see here, here, and here, non-admin closures are allowed when withdrawn. Please notify me at my Talk page if I did it incorrectly. Thanks. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 21:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Superpop[edit]

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

Non-notable bootleg/pirated album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it is Madonna. Being a bootleg is non-notable enough, but combined with a lack of reliable sources makes this article not worthy of inclusion. Even if the artist is notable, a bootleg is still a bootleg. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. It was never officialy released and bootlegs are generaly not notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we speedy delete this crap? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Color of Violence[edit]

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

closest thing to notability shown here is multiple bluelinked members but Bloom's only claim to notability is being a member of two notable bands, one of which is this band. without Color of Violence he is not notable so Color of Violence is not notable. sourced by band's label. lacks in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music duffbeerforme (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The Color of Violence is signed to what is easily one of the most notable indie labels, Epitaph Records. The band features members from the notable bands From First to Last and The Human Abstract. Many of the former members were also in From First to Last. Their debut album Youthanize features a number of guest musicians from other notable bands, such as Limp Bizkit, Daughters and I Set My Friends On Fire. Youthanize has also been reviewed by Decibel magazine, Alternative Press magazine, Talon Marks newspaper, AbsolutePunk.net, ArtistDirect and PunkNews.org (which has an ISSN and features writers from other notable publications). The Color of Violence has also received other third-party coverage outside of album reviews with interviews and other news posts [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. The group meets criteria WP:MUSIC criteria #1, #6, and is half way to #5. It should also be noted that the Alternative Press ref used in the article gave a lot of good information about the band, but is currently a dead link. AP is in the process of revamping their website and archiving their old news posts, so hopefully that will be back up soon. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Members from another notable band, only one album but on an important indie label, and putting aside all the user reviews and forum posts there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources including New Zealand Herald, FemaleFirst, Blabbermouth.net, and Exclaim!.--Michig (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig – meets WP:BAND criteria #1 and #6. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by Admin (G3) (Non-Admin Close, action previously taken) Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Am... The Concert[edit]

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

Delete. Unremarkable future concert. Fails notability as a single event, see WP:MUSIC. WWGB (talk) 00:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 00:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:V. Possibly a WP:HOAX, in which case this should be deleted via WP:CSD#G3. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL says we shouldn't be providing a setlist for this. Beyond which, a single concert wouldn't seem to meet WP:GNG anyway, no matter who the artist is; at most this would merit a mention in the artist's article. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 00:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~ Concert cancelled Not only does it fail WP:CRYSTAL, but I also failed to find any sources to prove it will even happen. Most definitely a hoax so tagged as G3. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Lawrence[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to sufficiently verify the contents of the article in order to assess notability. Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. J04n(talk page) 00:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BASIC; I could not find any sources at all, much less reliable ones. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 02:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Markiewp (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of references and potential BLP concerns. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UPS Airlines Flight 6[edit]

Parallel AFD discussions:

Articles for deletion/United Parcel Service Flight 6

Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 6

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

Per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS. There have been so many recent air crashes and not all of them seem to be significant. Article received routine news coverage and this is not an indication of notability, but newsworthiness, the two not being interchangeable. —Mike moral ♪♫ 00:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- Juanantz 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanantz (talk • contribs)
- Wikipedia requires consensus, not votes. What is your rationale behind the keep vote? —Mike moral ♪♫ 16:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely keep. This crash will have far reaching significance in the realm of air safety. Already the fifth most read forum on the professional pilots PPRUNE site, it points to the failure of in-flight fire safety measures. It will be as significant as Swissair flight 111 in the history of in-flight fire. The loss of life and size of aircraft are not what makes this accident significant. It's important because a modern transport type aircraft was brought down by heavy smoke in the cockpit. The plane was likely undamaged by the fire, but the pilots couldn't see to fly it. That is a big safety issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookstcollins (talk • contribs) 09:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This accident will serve as a textbook case in the future. Never has there been this type of accident in a nearly state of art aircraft. We will learn wether or not systems such as fire detection and surpression, as well as the types of masks, goggles, and training the crew were given could have been better?
- Note - this !vote was added by 66.58.235.171 (talk · contribs) in this edit at 21:35, 5 September 2010. The closing editor has discretion on whether or not it merits consideration. Mjroots (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only remotely historically significant aspect appears to be that it is the first fatal/serious accident for UPS (although bizarrly, the news coverage doesn't seem to even say that, so maybe it isn't?). And per the WP:AVIATION essay, without any other defining characteristics, it does not warrant coverage outside of their article. Other than that, I agree with the nom that, for a deadly 747 aircrash, the coverage is very much as could be expected, which is as the nominator points out, is absolutely not an indication of lasting notability, per WP:EVENT, which is of course, the consensus backed Wikipedia Guideline extending the interpretation of WP:GNG and WP:NOT#NEWS for specific advice on treatment of current events just like this.... MickMacNee (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reference found for first fatal for UPS Airlines and info added to article. Mjroots (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination rationale on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Parcel Service Flight 6, which I've now withdrawn in favour of this AFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentioned before was the fact that accidents happen on a routine basis and therefore does not qualify for notability. If this is the case then why is there around 20 pages covering air accidents? Are we planning to delete all these as well? Also mentioned before was the fact that 747's rarely ever crash. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 03:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Just because other such articles exist is not good reason for keeping this one. Strange Passerby (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - While that is broadly true, results of previous AFDs and DRVs can signal a trend. There are instances where people can appropriately use WP:OTHERSTUFF as a proper rationale. The WP:OTHERSTUFF page explains how this can be the case. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An incident of this visibility will get beyond the "Article received routine news coverage and this is not an indication of notability, but newsworthiness, the two not being interchangeable." - An accident report will happen. News coverage will continue to cover the developments regarding the investigation. The air accident articles that get deleted are typically minor turbulence incidents or incidents that do not result in extensive reports. Two deaths and a totaling of the aircraft will result in continued, notability proving news coverage. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. See also WP:CRYSTAL - just how can you be so sure that international news coverage will "continue to cover ... the investigation"? There's no way of telling. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; WP:EVENT states "It is wise to delay writing an article about a breaking news event until the significance of the event is clearer as early coverage may lack perspective and be subject to factual errors. Many articles on events are created in anticipation of their notability. Anticipation is the creation of an article on a recent event with the expectation that it will meet inclusion guidelines, before the duration of coverage or any lasting effect is certain." This appears to be the case here. There is no proof that the eventual investigation's findings will be significant enough to meet inclusion guidelines. Strange Passerby (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable." Full investigations have not been carried through yet. So I encourage that tis article in the meantime not be deleted. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 04:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. There is a way of telling. Study previous aviation accidents and their media coverage. El Al Flight 1862 (another cargo flight), a cargo 747 which crashed, had the same cycle of events. FedEx Express Flight 80 will have the same cycle of events. So did other accidents with passenger airliners (Air France Flight 447, TWA Flight 800, etc.) The reports almost always happen. The constant and lingering coverage almost always happens. "Full investigations have not been carried through yet." but an investigation will happen. The only thing WP:CRYSTALBALL covers is "what is the cause?" We won't know that until the investigation concludes. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A hull-loss accident involving a very large modern aircraft such as the Boeing 747-400 should be notable enough to sustain an article on Wikipedia. Adding to the notability is the fact that it is the first fatal accident suffered by UPS Airlines. As others have pointed out, an investigation is taking place. Expect an interim report with about a month. The final report will take 1 - 2 years. The only part of WP:CRYSTAL that would be breached is if a cause was speculated upon. There seem to be more air crashes this year because there are. 10 year average is 23 crashes with 616 fatalities. So far in 2010, there have been 21 crashes with 773 fatalities, so it is a worse than average year (Aviation Safety Network). Mjroots (talk) 05:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major operator, crew deaths, large aircraft hull loss, UPS's first major accident per cited and unchallenged source), NTSB involment = Lasting news coverage = Notability. - BilCat (talk) 06:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BilCat. Mathmo ^Talk 07:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-per WhisperToMe, MjRoots, and BilCat. First, it's only been less than 48 hours since the incident, so the media coverage is all there really is (investigations will be ongoing for a long time). Second, and this is been stated several times before, hull losses involving 747s (one of the most-produced jet airliners) are fairly rare; this also involves an airline (UPS Airlines) that previously had not had a crew or passenger fatality. While the airline has had a couple of major incidents, as shown in a section of their article, this accident is noteworthy enough of its own space. As things evolve, this article can be edited to rely less on the media coverage itself and more on the facts; the facts just have not emerged yet.--SteveCof00 (talk) 09:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Huge aircraft, important airline, scheduled flight, deaths, notable enough. (Gabinho^>:) 10:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. It is not just "routine news coverage" as defined in WP:ROUTINE. Routine news coverage for a plane crash would just be a short notice that a plane has crashed, with some basic facts about the flight, number of deaths etc. (like the typical coverage after crashes of small GA planes in local newspapers). The widespread coverage in this case (Google news mentions >1300 articles) however includes comprehensive speculation about the cause, comparison to other crashes; there are already follow-up articles about the identification of the victims and discovery of a flight recorder as well as the beginning of an investigation, indicating that there will be further follow-up coverage. The crash is therefore at least "very likely to be notable" per WP:EVENT. --memset (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note WP:109PAPERS. So what if nearly every agency reported the crash? Notability is not newsworthiness, clear the crash was newsworthy, but is it really notable? Can we really determine if this crash will be significant still in one month? One year? A decade? How can we determine this two days after the event? I fail to see how. —Mike moral ♪♫ 18:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we cannot know for sure now how significant the crash will be in a year, we have to guess this using the information available now. Waiting a year before creating articles about events like this, to see how notable they really are (as you seem to suggest), is nonsense, because even if the crash is still significant then, fewer people will care about it then and contribute to the article.

To claim that this crash is not notable and the article should be deleted, you have to explain why exactly it will not be significant in a year or decade. Just mentioning NOTNEWS is not enough.--memset (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And often even when a subject isn't necessarily in the news anymore, people write documentary TV programs about aviation disasters (such as Mayday and Seconds to Disaster) that discuss past accidents. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

A long comment on the relevance of investigations etc. Read ir not, I don't care, it's more for my sanity, and proving to future generations that not everybody interpretted N in the way that this Afd is perfectly showing often happens in aircrash articles MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd shows exactly what the problem is with this apparent obsession in some editors with creating articles based on news coverage of aircrashes, and then claiming it is not a news article. Frankly, 'it is being investigated', is not, and never will be, something that will EVER make it into an aircrash notability guideline. Why? Because an investigation is a routine part of air crashes. People believing this fact makes this crash significant might as well be claiming that a single cinema release is evidence of automatic notability of a film (a concept which was roundly rejected years ago). How did that come about I hear you ask? Well, the people who know about films realised that a single cinema release is a routine aspect of making films, and they wrote, and stick to, their notabillity guideline with full realisation that the GNG is not a free pass to ignore WP:NOT, and specifically NOT#NEWS and NOT#INFO, and that in order to be notable, there must be something significant about the film's life cycle and existence, beyond the routine aspects.

And if people somehow think death or hull losses make any difference to this, it really doesn't. Every single instance of a fatal aircrash or hull loss is always investigate by a body like the NTSB, and will always get large amounts of news coverage, so if what people really want to say is, every fatal aircrash or hull loss is automatically notable, then just say it, and then that can be put into a proposed Guideline and people can try and get it approved, so it can actually be cited it as an indisputable non-policy violating fact in Afd's, without people having to bother to consider whether the accident or the investigation has to involve some kind of unusual or significant outcome or aspect, to take it beyond the routine.

And yes, you can even try and get support for the idea that 747's falling out of the sky it is so massively unusual or interesting that this should also always denote automatic notability, although having seen people argue that tiny island-hopping airliner falling out of the sky is also automatically significant, I don't see the point. Hopefully though any guideline will be a little more detailed and nuanced than 'huge plane=significant crash', but you get the idea I hope.

And then, if that gets done, everybody who sees these arguments as a blatant violation of NOT#NEWS and the constant creation of these articles as a blatant raping of Wikinews' mission, can just move on with their lives. Trying to pretend that all these routine things occuring, somehow always makes an accident historically significant, misses the point of the nomination by a country mile frankly, and when deconstructed, it really is simply just a vague wave to the GNG. And the GNG was categorically not written to greenlight the automatic inclusion of anything just based on getting lots of news coverage, because the GNG is a Guideline, and WP:NOT is core Policy. Which is something a lot of keepers always seem to dismiss in aircrash Afds. The EVENT Guideline was notionally written to reconcile the two for events, but for aircrahses, in my eyes, it is not working, as people are just reading small details of it, without undertsanding the big picture behind it. And no, this is not something IAR was written to cater for, it is a very normal aspect of the pedia, that is dealt with by truthfully recognising the contradiction, and redrafting the guidance, not continually ignoring existing policy and guidelines at Afd.

And another classic feature is that yet again in this Afd, even if there are guidelines, they are apparently ignorable pretty much all the time. The AVIATION essay, which has always been claimed to be an aircrash notability Guideline in progress, states very clearly that this being the 'first fatal crash for UPS' does not justify an article. That just gets ignored though in this case. Why? You tell me. I absolutley genuinely have no idea why this happens, or why some closing administrators seem to completely ignore it is happening.

At the end of the day, all people seem to want to do in these Afds in my eyes, is try to turn Wikipedia into a competitor for all the other resources that document aircrashes in detail, because I am pretty sure that no general encyclopoedia such as Brittanica would ever hold this much avi-crash cruft, for the historical record. All this does that I can see, is dilute Wikipedia into a resource that, for someone actually looking for genuinely significant aircrashes with proven historical relevance, is pretty much useless.

The cause behind this problem appears to me to be that a lot of people seem to want to interpret the word 'significant', as in historically significant, as meaning 'serious', as in serious enough to make the news. They are not the same. A big, fatal, crash, is serious, but truly historically significant? Well, the test I suppose is whether we have similar articles from the 1970s about crashes just like this, just becuase a couple of people died and it was a big plane and there was an investigation. I would say we don't, and the reason we are getting them now, is simply pure recentism. The fact that aircrashes are happening, and people dying, is a routine part of life. It was in the 70s, it is now. Frankly, when compared to the significance of the accidents of the 60s, 70s and 80s detailed in this list, a lot of the entries for the 2000s and beyond look like total news trivia. And that is why these Afd's are killing Wikipedia as a genuinely relevant encyclopoedia. MickMacNee (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mjroots. yet another waste of time by an editor who doesn't seem to have read WP:NOTLAW--Wikireader41 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a nice little piece of ABF right there. I wonder if any wandering admin is watching out for CIVIL violations in these Afds, as I have been assured is actually happening. MickMacNee (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although it's ironic you want to cite BURO to claim this Afd is a waste of time. If these outcomes are so common, BURO makes it pretty clear that there should actually already be a Guideline somewhere to justify it, as the existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. However, I have looked high and low, and I have never once found a Guideline that even comes close to what Mjroots suggests makes a notable aircrash. So, you can either keep on running around making these kinds of afd votes displaying just how much contempt you have for people who don't follow your interpretation of existing policies, or you can try and write the Guideline you seem to think documents common practice and common sense for these aircrashes. Although I warn you, the folks at VPP are pretty hot on what BURO handily describes as the principles of policies, and very much realise that written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously unless there is a good reason they may be changed to reflect evolving consensus. MickMacNee (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's nice to know I "waste[d]" your time. Aren't you the one who to the effort to click "Edit" and time in the wikicode to say delete? So I don't know how I caused you to "waste your time." —Mike moral ♪♫ 18:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, pretty much per everyone who's pointed out hull loss, investigation, first fatal UPS crash, etc. C628 (talk) 15:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:AIRCRASH standards. Spikydan1 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly? A3? I don't see any other qualifying criteria. Not only is it an essay, it makes it pretty clear that if the only unusual aspect is the UPS first fatal accident angle per A3, then no, a separate article is not justified - If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Articles for this should be at Wikinews, not here. We can't have an article for every single plane crash, should we? Diego Grez (talk) 15:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course we can't, but this (747 crashing + the fact its a UPS plane) isnt like every other plane crashes. And you would be surprised how many other articles on plane crashes we have, most havingless significance than this. Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 02:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as only the second fatal accident in a 747-400, the last was ten years ago so not that common. If the investigation turns up nothing unusual or does not generate any airworthiness directives then perhaps it can be reconsidered for AfD then. MilborneOne (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and after the numerous comments putting this AFD into context, I am invoking WP:SNOWBALL. Bzuk (talk) 16:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What/where is the rationale behind your keep !vote? —Mike moral ♪♫ 18:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well referenced hull loss. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is just a vote. —Mike moral ♪♫ 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has WP:RS and may seem like a news, one time, event, but still passes WP:N in my opinion. I agree with Bzuk that this Afd is a really big snowball. Pmedema (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my earlier comment, this AFD has a snowball's chance..., the latest count is overwhelmingly in favour of Keep. Bzuk (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this counting exercise of yours, ignoring your invalid double-vote of course, are you just counting people who have made valid votes, or just counting period, including even the bad arguments? And are you applying some sort of weight to people's opinions, or are you giving equal weight between people who have given an articulate rationale with reference to a policy they clearly understand, (or at least have conveyed enough information that you can accept their assertion in good faith), with those who have just turned up to serve up some acronyms or basic assertion. Have you ever read How to discuss an AfD? Are you absolutely certain this is a SNOW case, when nobody has even replied to valid challenges? Have you ever read WP:STEAM? Or WP:PI? Why haven't you even offered anyone any biscuits for turning up and commenting, even though it's apparently a lost cause? MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What? I gave my opinion (!voted) more then once in this Afd!? (not counting this comment...) That would be done in human error, which I am capable of but in looking around, I don't quite see where you think I made such an error. Pmedema (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking to Bzuk, hence the indentation. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:N, in that it has sufficient independent third party refs to establish notability, which is the deciding standard. - Ahunt (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I count 15 keep !votes, seven of which are just votes, without a proper rationale behind them, one "Keep" vote from Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs) without any reasoning, a "Keep per BilCat" from Mathmo (talk · contribs), a keep from Gabinho (talk · contribs) without a "why" behind the rationale, a "waste of time" from Wikireader41 (talk · contribs), failure to state why from Spikydan1 (talk · contribs), Bzuk (talk · contribs) stating a keep per WP:SNOW without explaining why the article should be kept, a keep from Nimbus227 (talk · contribs) without citing a policy, and Ahunt (talk · contribs) doesn't explain what it meets notability standards. And three delete !votes all explaining why it should be deleted and one exceedingly long comment from MickMacNee (talk · contribs). I request the closing admin take into account all these !votes and the comment before closing this AfD and close based on the merit of the argument instead of the number of !votes/votes. —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing "based on the merit of the argument instead of the number of !votes/votes"is actully SOP, and acting like it isn't going to happen here unless you ask for it is bad faith. You always have the option of appealing the result if you have reason to suspect the closer merely counted votes, ut at least wait until it's closed first. - BilCat (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Disregarding the disparaging comments here by at least two editors that certainly do not meet the standards of civility, and making the haughty argument that some votes/comments are not to be respected because the editors have not fully addressed the question, is attempting to derail the process. This article meets the standards of notability, has adequate reference sources and has engendered a great deal of attention by numerous authors. The event is a major hull loss of a 747, and has international connections, with the airline/carrier involved. The aforementioned article is not a stub, and because of its length and coverage, would certainly not be incorporated into the main Boeing 747 article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    - And also may I point out that in order to delete their has to Obvious Consensus to Delete ( as opposed to merely consensus) per WP:NotEarly. How anybody can still think that their is Obvious consensus to delete here is beyond comprehension. I agree with Bzuk and Pmedema WP:SNOW clearly applies here--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't think it is disparaging in the least to expect people to read, understand, and comply with, the instructions given at WP:AFD. Infact, instead of being disparaging, it is just plain good advice. If more people did it, there would be less instances of people totally wasting there time here by making completely invalid arguments, such as your 'it's not a stub' or 'lot's of people have worked on it' comments. MickMacNee (talk) 23:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - This has taken on a unsavoury tone, keep your comments to the topic, rather than making comments about other editors. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        Please keep your replies on topic too. If anything unsavoury is occuring here, it is your continuing insinuations that something dodgy is going on, when in actual fact, in an AFD, comments about whether the proper procedures are being followed by editors are not, is very much allowed, and expected. MickMacNee (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The topic meets notability as it is well documented, uses reliable sources, has no obvious bias or opinion, covers a significant subject/event and especially, has the consensus agreement from interested parties (editors) for its inclusion. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
        The nominator has not challenged the reliability of the sources, the neutrality of the article, or even how well it is documented. The rest of your post covers issues whose validity will not benefit from any more basic assertion in here I don't think. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The nominator challenged the article in terms of Wikipedia:NOTNEWS which states that Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events and this has already been covered by other editors. as well as stating that there has been so many recent air crashes therefore it does not warrant itself an article. I can assure you that a UPS 747 crashing is not routine news Fattyjwoods ^{Push my button} 02:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I really don't think the nominator was suggesting that this was just another in a long line of UPS 747 crash articles, and he is I am very sure, fully aware of what the AIRCRASH essay actually says about this, which is 'do not create an article'. And I really don't think he agrees with you that the company or the aircraft type makes the news reporting of a crash any less routine for the purposes of NOT#NEWS, even though it might make the incident seem unusual to aviation enthusiasts. Now, if they really want these sorts of factors to have some weight for the purposes of defeating NOT#NEWS concerns, then they should actually make sure their proposed notability guideline actually takes it into account and says it, ideally, with some actual evidence based justification behind it (like showing how similar accidents just like this have infact passed the test of enduring and lasting notability) without having to resort to simple assertion, predicting the future, and original research. MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since MickMacNee (talk · contribs) seems to be speaking for me, I should comment. When I saw the article, I considered WP:NOTNEWS and what it says: "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" and I come to think, "Is this event notable enough for inclusion in its own article." Then I consider Wikipedia:RECENTISM#Suggestions for dealing with recentism and its simple question, "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?" I find the answer to be no. Compare this crash to Capt. Sullenberger and his crash, I'm sure he and the crash will be remembered in ten years, unlike this crash. I thought an encyclopedia is supposed to put thing in a historical context, which I doubt can be found in the week of an incident, unless you can predict the future and tell me if people will be chatting about the article then. When I saw the article did I care about its length or the make or even the company? Not really. It's all irrelevant and all that matters is the "historical perspective." Plane crashes are routinely reported by many news agencies. Have you done a Google News search on "plane crash?" —Mike moral ♪♫ 16:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Mikemoral, the reason why plane crashes are often reported is because there are many, many, many small private general aviation planes that crash. By notable plane crashes, we mean commercially operated large airplanes like 737s, 767s, A330s, etc. Those crashes do not occur everyday. The everyday, non notable crashes are the Joe Somebody's private Cessna that crashes after leaving the local municipal airport. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whose 'we'? Not even the AIRCRASH essay says that write-off crashes involving 737s, 767s, A330s are just so rare they should always have an article. A 737 is written off on average three times a year. That's 148 accidents since 1967. Does anyone here really honestly believe that the consensus view of what Wikipedia is and is not, is to be a database for recording all of those incidents, each on it's own page? MickMacNee (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whenever someone on here invokes a "we" - it means the Wikipedia community.
  
  "A 737 is written off on average three times a year. That's 148 accidents since 1967." And that covers many years, from 1967 to 2010 is a total of 43 years. That's a long time span.
  
  "Does anyone here really honestly believe that the consensus view of what Wikipedia is and is not, is to be a database for recording all of those incidents, each on it's own page?" - Most, if not almost all of the accidents where it is a large aircraft and it is a writeoff and there are fatalities can be developed into a comprehensive encyclopedia article, far beyond a database entry.
  
  WhisperToMe (talk) 02:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By 'database', I don't mean a collection of stubs, a database can still consist of massive articles, and still effectively just be a database, a collection of information that goes beyond the purpose of a general encyclopoedia. Anyway, where it is a large aircraft and it is a writeoff and there are fatalities, is nowhere near what AIRCRASH says at the moment, but if that's what you think could make a good rule of thumb, all I can suggest is that you test it at VPP, against NOT, GNG, and EVENT, because I don't accept it, and I'm sure a lot of other people wouldn't, if presented as an abstract policy question, rather than in the arena of an Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we should not have any difficulty assessing who we are . I would like to point out 2 recent AfD's on AIRCRASH incidents in which both MMN and Mikemoral both !voted for deletion. The two are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Filair plane crash and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agni Air Flight 101. The same lame arguments/excuses were made by both these editors and both articles were kept. both cases then went to WP:DRV and MMN is not having much luck getting either one of these articles deleted their either Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 September 2. I think the WP community has spoken and it is very clear to me that there is broad consensus to keep articles on Crashes involving large or small airliners.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lame? I think not. Both sides here have perfectly valid opinions, they're both supported by policy, just happens that more people are in favor keeping these sorts of articles. In any case, the outcome of an earlier AfD/DRV shouldn't have any bearing on this discussion, each article should be judged independently. C628 (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - While each article should be looked at individually, often previous AFDs and or DRVs do set de facto precedents. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I'm guilty of using them as references myself, but just saying "keep this because we kept that" or vice versa without looking at anything else is, IMO, generally a bad idea. C628 (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - When ever the keep side brings brings up an argument I try to counter that argument with a better one. It rather insulting to call someone's argument "lame." You call my argument lame ~~about my argument~~, considering~~ed the~~ other keep votes and !votes, could be considered "lame" according to your standards? —Mikemoral♪♫ 21:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Was that in reply to me or Wikireader41? Not trying to be dense or anything, but I really don't know... C628 (talk) 23:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Directed at Wikireader41 (talk · contribs), sorry for the confusion. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

Keep, but not because it's a hull-loss, not because it's UPS' first fatal acccident and not because it is being investigated (anything involving large aircraft always get investigated, even a loss of separation). What strikes me as being a very good reason to keep this was that there was smoke in the cockpit, they returned to the airport, ~~they took off again~~ and crashed after reporting a cockpit fire. This cuts a swathe across several different AIRCRASH criteria (none of which mention hull-loss incidentally). YSSYguy (talk) 02:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out erroneous comment after re-reading source material, but my opinion stands. YSSYguy (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"cuts a swathe across several different AIRCRASH criteria" - can you be more specific please? Because I am not seeing which ones at all, except just A3. MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase Donna Moss in The West Wing I may have overstated a little, but just a little; a cockpit fire is a very serious matter, and I'd say that investigators would want to arrive at a basic understanding of the cause very quickly in case it's a fleet-wide problem or has widespread relevance to air safety (like the Cincinnati DC-9 fire). There are lots of seemingly-small things that happen to aircraft that don't result in WP articles, but which do have fleet-wide ramifications. There was a Qantas aircraft that had a serious electrical failure a few years ago; it turned out that a drip tray under one of the galleys was not installed correctly and galley waste liquid was overflowing onto an electrical centre. This had fleet-wide consequences in that inspections found quite a few similar problems in the fleet, across a number of carriers. I agree that people are in too much of a rush to create these articles before anything is really known other than that the aircraft crashed, I agree that "hull loss" does not equal "notable"; however we have the article now and at the risk of being accused of CRYSTAL, the cockpit fire is to me the stand-out factor. If it turns out that the cause is one of the crew dropping a cigarette or some other isolated event, then by all means re-open the deletion discussion. YSSYguy (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with this is more OR than CRYSTAL. You've taken the reports of a fire, but as far as I can see, everything beyond that is your own speculation without the actual evidence in this actual crash to back it (albeit the general theory is based on not unreasonable assumptions and aviation pratices), and that is what you are basing your vote on. A basic CRYSTAL vote would see someone simply assertiong something will happen, such as when people claim that something simply being investigated means it will have significance whatever the outcomes, whereas you've gone a bit more complex than that, and have implied you accept this could after all turn out to be an insignificant crash, and want to keep on a provisional basis. To keep on that basis is I think quite wrong and against the inclusion policy, because it does not take account of WP:NTEMP. Anyone trying to delete this article down the line, if it did prove to have been a totally insignificant cause, will face strong objections on the principle that due to NTEMP, if it's kept now, per wp:afd and wp:event and a bunch of other pages, that decision should have been made because it was considered, and proven through good arguments, that it is notable here and now, on the RS evidence available. Don't get me wrong, if there was even a scrap of RS evidence right now that this crash is believed to have had a cause which has fleet wide consequences, I could be persuaded to vote keep, but as far as I can see, this RS doesn't exist. As an aside, I would have actually thought if the pilot was smoking, it would be a pretty big deal no? MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - It's preposterous that we're wasting time on this discussion. Of course a fatal hull-loss crash of a nearly-new 747 with US crew and ownership is going to generate sufficient RS to sustain the article. The fact that nobody has published anything but news in the first days after the crash is hardly surprising. Show me a similar crash that didn't eventually meet GNG and I might reconsider. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the idea that lots of news coverage can 'sustain an article' is a revelation to anybody here. The issue is, whether that is the purpose of Wikipedia or not, per EVENT and per NOT#NEWS. You'd have a better case for expressing incredulity that anybody could even think this, if you yourself had actually found a similar incident that had an article, which detailed exactly how it had lasting historical significance, rather than asking others to look for you. We have a list of 747 hull losses, there must be one on there I'm sure. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll race you. Can you find a non-notable before I find a notable? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Turns out we have already have articles on every fatal 747 hull loss except the 27 November 2001 MK Airlines Boeing 747 crash, in Nigeria, of a 20 year old aircraft in which one crew member was killed. Perhaps we need to write that one too. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? What about the 1976 Iranian Air Force freighter? that was the first one I saw without an article on the list. If it's true, then perhaps a few of those need to be put through AFD? Because I would be amazed if every single one of those 49 crashed met 2 criteria of WP:AIRCRASH. Anyway, the MK crash occured in 2004, so that is surely more than enough time to be able to write an article that proves it was a historically significant crash, as defined by WP:EVENT. If it is only possible to write an article about it from contemporary news reporting, and it doesn't meet 2 criteria of AIRCRASH, then we are back to square one. I think I can almost guarantee we will be seeing that spring up in an article in one form or another, very soon. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it does have one - MK Airlines Flight 1602. It's not what I would call convincing. It appears to have been created on the assumption that a 747 loss is automatically notable, which again brings us back to square one - which came first, the chicken or the egg? Are they all notable becuase they all (maybe?) have articles, or do they all have articles because they are all notable? There's certainly no evidence in that specific article that that crash meets EVENT or AIRCRASH. MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you're right: we do need an article on Imperial Iranian Air Force Flight ULF48 crash near Madrid. I somehow missed Boeing_747_hull_losses#1976. There is an official NTSB report available, plus some other reliable sources, so it's only a question of getting around to writing that article. Re the 2004 MK Airlines Flight 1602 crash in Halifax, we do have a stub and there is a full Transportation Safety Board investigation report available. The earlier 27 November 2001 MK Airlines crash of 9G-MKI in PHC is mentioned in that TSB report (p.50). Therein is a Nigerian Federal Ministry of Aviation report identified, but it appears that contrary to ICAO rules the Nigerians have not made that report publicly available. This raises an interesting question of WP:NOTCENSORED vs WP:V. We should perhaps inquire if the full Nigerian report is available through the NTSB reading room in Washington.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSong: Have you checked the Nigerian accident investigation agency to see if any report copies are available on its website? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look, but couldn't find much. There's a lot of "under construction" on that website. Tragically, it seems that had the lessons of that 2001 event only been taken for action Sosoliso_Airlines_Flight_1145 four years later might have been avoided at the same airport. Its official report (avail on Skybrary) reads like a virtual replay, but with 105 killed. Bad wx, no power for the runway lighting during "daylight" hours, instrument approach below threshold, missed the runway, struck an exposed concrete culvert, and burned. This may have finally inspired serious reforms in Nigerian air safety, we'll see. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are invited to consider whether the article fails notability under the policy WP:NOTNEWS which in turn asks whether the subject of the article has enduring WP:Notability. WP:NOTNEWS then gives clarifying remarks which lead me to suspect this subject is "enduring". In the guideline WP:Notability it seems to me the only aspect by which this well-referenced article could "fail" is the general notability guideline where, because all five criteria seem to me to have been met, the article has a presumption of meeting the notability criterion for being kept. The matter is then referred to consensus. So, in this case there is no policy for deletion and we are asked to try and decide amongst ourselves whether the article is worth keeping. The matter becomes quite subjective. I happen to think the article is very well worth keeping and I note there are detailed bodies of such information for the US[35] and UK[36], for example, aimed at a broad audience. For me, merely not liking articles about air accidents and observing that they are reported as news, is nowhere near enough to sustain a delete argument. I think this nomination is unhelpful to the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I follow your logic, but you've completely missed out the part of NOT#NEWS that went on to mention WP:EVENT, which is the guideline that fleshes out the subjective 'is this just news' question for things like aircrashes, once the 5 N criteria have been met. And by the by, NTSB/AAIB reports are not meant for a broad audience, they are primarily intended to be used by legislators and the aviation industry. They are published for reasons of full disclosure, and cover far more incidents and accidents than Wikipedia ever would, even in the most inclusive of set-ups. MickMacNee (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More WP:WL by MMN. Do you still really think that this article has any chance of getting deleted ???? I would strongly urge you to listen to the community stop making ludicrous arguments again and again. stop being disruptive to the project and find something useful to do.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Way to assume bad faith there while being uncivil at the same time... Just saying as someone who's left their delete opinion but has no further opinion on the merits of the keep arguments. Strange Passerby (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikireader, there's still the hurdle of WP:DRV to overcome yet. Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

Delete. Wow. My eyes hurt, I've read this twice over and gone to the bother of reading the guidelines...

TL;DR Synopsis: WP:N defers to WP:NOTNEWS which says "look at WP:EVENT" which, for me, this event fails. The essay WP:AIRCRASH, if you actually work through, also says there is no notability here, but that essay is still being debated on its talk page. The guys over there should get it sorted one way or the other to avoid these ridiculous AfDs.

The Long Version. My argument follows the line of logic that I believe the other deleters are using but might not have set out like this. WP:N suggests this is notable what with all the news articles, but suggests one considers WP:NOTNEWS. This is not applicable as the news coverage is not quite run-of-the-mill postings about school plays, etc. WP:NOTNEWS tells us that events in the news are actually covered by WP:EVENT, so I will do that guideline the honour of going through each point:

An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable.

Not at the moment, and impossible to assess without a WP:CRYSTALBALL.

Notable events usually have significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group.

Well, the impact at the moment is only in the news. Are there going to be any changes as a result of this event? Well, who knows, still no WP:CRYSTALBALL here.

An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.

The guideline focuses on in-depth information, but at the moment there are only reports of the event, so not enough notability here for me, at the moment.

Next is Duration of coverage

To hard to ascertain, but not likely to last that long. I can't even see the crash results being reported internationally, but, oh, that would require my WP:CRYSTALBALL again.

Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable. Wide-ranging reporting tends to show significance, but sources that simply mirror or tend to follow other sources, or are under common control with other sources, are usually discounted.

There is indeed diverse coverage at the moment, but I don't believe that's the point of this clause, it's looking for something deeper, all we see at the moment are "sources that simply mirror", perhaps not literally, but they're all reporting the same superficial facts.

So my conclusion from the guidelines, which are the consensus view of notability at en.wp, is that this event is not notable. There is some additional colour from WP:AIRCRASH, where this event ticks A3 - Airline - First, deadliest, or most significant accident for a particular airline but just above it there is the statement If the accident or incident matches criteria only in this section, then coverage should normally be on the article about the aircraft or airline.. So according to that page it fails as well. There is some discussion on its talk page as to whether the inclusion grounds are too tight, so I wouldn't want to apply it as gospel either way.

The keepers generally seem to argue that as this is "non-standard" news, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply, and so notability is asserted by various WP:RS, but for me they don't do enough to refute WP:EVENT, as it's not possible for them to do this so few days after the event and its impact (if any) has not yet been assessed. Others are arguing that deaths or a hull-loss confer notability, which I have yet to read anywhere in guidelines, policy or even in the essay at WP:AIRCRASH. The seeming consensus of keepers here should therefore be overcome by the consensus forged at WP:EVENT.

I think that's enough! Once more facts are forthcoming about this crash we can re-assess, but at the moment this article is for a non-notable event. Bigger digger (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A few issues:

"To hard to ascertain, but not likely to last that long." - Take a look at the coverage of Air France Flight 447. The coverage lasts and lasts, and lasts, and lasts. See, many of the responders are aware of how aviation accidents involving large airliners are covered. They do not last a short time. The coverage may stop for a while, but it comes back and back and back again.

"The guideline focuses on in-depth information, but at the moment there are only reports of the event, so not enough notability here for me, at the moment." I would argue that coverage is already "in-depth" because the media is beginning to explore theories and possible reasons why the UPS plane crashed. When that happens, the coverage is "in-depth." - For that matter, I just found a Wall Street Journal article which explicitly says that the UPS crash is raising concerns over smoke in airline cockpits. Another WSJ link discussed how there had been a long-running debate about how to combat smoke in airline cockpits. This alone is "in-depth" coverage.

"I can't even see the crash results being reported internationally, but, oh, that would require my WP:CRYSTALBALL again." When a crash of an American cargo airliner happens in the UAE with two deaths, the results will and are being reported internationally. Two countries are involved, and it will involve a relationship between the US and the UAE. This is already apparent. One cannot use WP:CRYSTALBALL to attack that reasoning. It's common sense.

"An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." - The way the aviation industry works, with its focus on preventing accidents and analyzing the heck out of existing ones to get as much data as possible, it is almost certain that this accident will be a precedent for preventing something else or starting something new. Everything from TWA 800 to Swissair 111 to Korean Air 801 - all have become catalysts for doing something different. It is what the aviation industry does.

BTW, thank you for the TLDR summary! It helps us determine how to get a consensus on this matter.

WhisperToMe (talk) 02:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WTM. I'm still of the opinion that your points contribute to the newsworthy-ness of the event, rather than its encyclopedic notability. That can only be ascertained some time down the line in order to satisfy WP:EVENT (and no, I don't know how much time will be required, but the Sept 7th WSJ article about smoke issues is a step in the right direction). No worries for the TLDR, where was yours?!! Bigger digger (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ack, I think my TLDR ran away into the sunset ;)

I found another source from a Louisville, KY paper that stated that the NTSB had been advocating for additional fire protections on cargo aircraft. This was put in the context of UPS Flight 6. It seems certain that UPS Flight 6 will be a figure in the debate over fire protection equipment on cargo aircraft.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when you no longer have to write "it seems certain" I'll be welcoming this article back, but at the moment that's WP:CRYSTAL. No tl;dr needed here! Cheers, Bigger digger (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As this progresses, once the level of debate increases I'll strike out "it seems certain" and replace it with "it is certain."

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your reasoning relies on the WP:CRYSTALBALL principle, but I think this is invalid for this purpose. This principle just means that Wikipedia articles themselves should not contain speculation and guessing. But when assessing the notability of a recent event, especially the long-term significance, we have to make guesses. Otherwise we would have to delete most articles about recent events, because there is rarely a way to definitely prove lasting notability shortly after the event has happened. As WP:EVENT says, "that an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable." (In the same way, every AfD discussion is in fact nothing other than WP:Original research. We don't want this in articles, but it is necessary for assessing the notability of a subject since we will find few reliable sources that directly say "subject X is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.") --memset (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment. Because of the way this scenario is playing out, I have every reason to believe that this is a notable accident. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This kind of accident doesn't happen every day, that's for sure. This was an in-flight fire, and this might change some safety guidelines. There are MUCH less significant crashes on Wikipedia too, so I'd definitely say to keep this.--Starbucks95905 (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Other stuff exists isn't good reasoning to keep an article. Strange Passerby (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF: "Other stuff exists" can indeed be wonderful reasoning for keeping an article. You just have to structure your argument correctly. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BilCat and Mjroots. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand most of the above reasons are valid.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolween (talk • contribs) 07:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take a look at WP:MAJORITY. —Mikemoral♪♫ 16:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please read that page 'Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some valid points in it.' Think what he means is that consensus is very clear here.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP

Historically important as it is the first UPS accident involving a complete hull loss and the expiration of crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.183.206.41 (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly City 3[edit]

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

Unremarkable recording. Not associated with a notable label. Google news search brings up zero hits on the title. Only references provided are primary sources. Contested prod. RadioFan (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Im split on this. there are lots of albums and songs. Does WikiProject Music have any rules on notability criteria? that might help(Lihaas (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]

Wikipedia does, see WP:NALBUM. --NortyNort (Holla) 05:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Mixtapes are generally not notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability criteria for albums. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS Nowyouseeme talk2me 09:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plan B (musical)[edit]

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

Musical with no evidence of notability. No 3rd. party sources either. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. College play with an unverifiable claim that it made it off-off-Broadway. Fails WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Core (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND; has not received recognition other than a Wired article about another band, their site implies that they haven't really achieved anything, can't find reliable sources on sales, nor on the claim that they've "received airplay on numerous podcasts and radio stations". _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not pass notability requirements, cannot find any reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanan Kattan[edit]

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

After tagging this article, I noticed that it had previously been speedy deleted several times. It's very clear that both recent contributors have a conflict of interest, and they keep removing the tags without making any substantial changes to the article or adding reliable references. I nominate for deletion not so much because of notability issues but because the article has clearly been created for promotional reasons and there is no apparent intent to improve it. A vote on deletion will at least settle the question of whether it merits inclusion at all. Deb (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is some coverage about this filmmaker, see [37][38] [39][40] etc. An informative article about Hanan Kattan and her partner could be useful for our readers. I agree, the article needs rewriting. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepNew at the comments, so please bear with me. I'm a writer and publicist who spends about 60% of my time doing research. I use Wikipedia for quite a bit of that (for news stories, press releases, speeches, etc), and I’ve found that these bio pages are very important and helpful to me. In this particular case, I think Kattan’s entry is important because of her work with LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) issues and the TEDxHolyLand initiative that is supposed to bring Palestinian and Israeli women together for the betterment of their countries and the world. That’s a pretty hot topic right now, and there aren’t a lot of women-led organizations trying to help. No doubt this entry needs to be rewritten and expanded, but I would not advocate removal. In fact, more public figures’ bios on Wikipedia would be preferable. I understand the issues, but I would rather have some info from the Wikipedia community than none because it violates a rule that is outdated, in my opinion. There have been many times where I’ve looked to Wikipedia to find these more obscure public figures and come up empty-handed. I was surprised but delighted to see Kattan’s. Let’s see more please. Thanks for your time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.145.58.10 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jazeerah Information Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find any coverage by independent sources, either for the site or its founder/editor. Prezbo (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks completely non-noteworthy to me. Deb (talk) 07:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo (talk) 04:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An interesting notable topic that needs work. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you provide some evidence that it meets WP:N.Prezbo (talk) 01:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't claim that an exhaustive search does much good, since almost every hit is a false positive, but I can't find any WP:RS for this one. Looks like it fails WP:GNG. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 02:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Antion[edit]

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

seems like an advertising article. fails wp:bio. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete nothing notable and blatantly an advert.(Lihaas (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete A few of the references are non-trivial - mostly about his earlier company, Prankmasters - and there is one reference that cites his book as a best seller in the narrow genre of paperback business books. Overall, though, it doesn't add up to much in the way of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy hip hop[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Only sources are CD Baby and an Artist network. No reliable sources found to back up the info. Last AFD closed as delete in 2007, article rebuilt in 2008 by now-banned editor. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete - maybe notable, i dont really know on this subject. Ask at WP:Music(Lihaas (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC));[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - new sub-genres are almost always deleted per WP:OUTCOMES, but I think this may really be about "Comedy in hip hop" - if it's the latter, then it's a keeper. Bearian (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Comedy Rock as a subheading. There are a small handful of comedic rap artists/comedians who rap, but no direct references to a genre explicitly called "Comedy Hip Hop". Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call this a delete. Far too small of a niche to even merge anywhere. There are plenty of media and genres that satirists use as a vehicle for their comedy, it doesn't mean we should have an article (or even a mention) of every single one. Zunaid 18:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Nowyouseeme talk2me 06:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mims (rapper). Redirecting per suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American King Music[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

article on an artist's vanity label. shows no independent notability. lacks in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:corp duffbeerforme (talk) 02:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mims (rapper); the label is not independently notable, no sources directly addressing the topic outside trivial mention or alongside the artist are visible. No notable singles/albums appear to have been released from the label. If redirect is not suitable, delete. Aeternitas827 (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Withdrawn per nominator. (non-admin closure) Triona (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of man[edit]

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

This article does not contain any references to reliable sources to allow the content of the article or it's notability to be verified. Without verifiability and reliable sources, this article appears to fail no original research. Because the notability of the topic can't be verified by reliable sources and because of questions of original research, I'm proposing deletion of this article. - Triona (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to Dictatorship article fails to give any evidence for its notability as a distinct phrase, and i could no obvious evidence to support this ever being expanded more than this. concept easily falls under other article names.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's certainly no shortage of reliable sources about this subject to allay concerns about notability, verifiability or original research. A few minutes' searching finds plenty of books that cover Aristotle's take on the subject, this one that has chapters on Hobbes's and Locke's views, these ones that cover Confucian and Qing Dynasty views, and these scholarly papers have "rule of man" in the title, mostly in a Chinese context. I've only skimmed the surface of the Google Books and Scholar searches helpfully linked in the nomination. There may be a case for a merge to rule of law, as nearly all of the sources cover rule of man as the antithesis of rule of law, but I certainly don't think that dictatorship would be a good redirect target. Rule of man could be used as a philosophical underpinning for dictatorship (although I don't think that most dictators worry about such niceties), but it also underpins other concepts such as absolute monarchy and sovereign immunity. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Phil Bridger - Awesome research. Based on that, I think it's appropriate that this nomination for deletion be withdrawn, as the rationale for deletion just got sunk. Thank you! Any redirect or merge can be discussed at another venue (talk pages? ) but for now I think you've made it clear the article is salvageable. Triona (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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