Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 29

< 28 April	30 April >

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 Speedy delete. The article was deleted for unrelated reasons (via speedy deletion criterion G11) some time after this AfD was created.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 07:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Golf Buddy[edit]

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

Delete The worst written article I have ever seen. If the creator of the article wants the article to stay IT HAS TO BE MORE TIDY!!!

Willrocks10 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French tuesdays[edit]

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

Article fails WP:EVENT (I read it as an event, it's really hard to understand) and WP:GNG. Bluefist ^talk 23:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Per {{db-promo}} which states "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." There are sources like [1], [2] and [3], but the article "need(s) to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", as stated in the {{db-promo}}. Nimuaq (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Spam. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gelus[edit]

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

To my research, there was no such god. It is unthinkable that some Greek god be unknown, yet there is no hits in Google Books or Scholar for it. There are some webpages, but they look like cross-copies with extra speculations and without solid references, i.e., pure "internet phenomenon". I did some diligence and looked up the metioned Apuleius. As he is Latin writer, I readily found the equivalent, Deus Risus, is indeed searchable, in Metamorphoses, and reasonably translated as "God of Laughter". However knowing the Apuleus to be a good jester, there is not at all clear whether there was such god and it is quite dubious that this god's name was Γέλως or Rhisus, both words simply meaning "laughter". Kaligelos (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The god's name may be transliterated as "Gelus", but (edit) was historically more commonly given as "Gelos". Google Books finds multiple references to Gelos - here is a list of books that mention Apuleius and Gelos together [4]. I can add a hatnote to our article on Gelos (a French commune) redirecting editors looking for the god to Gelus, if there's consensus for this, or if preferred we can move this article to Gelos (Greek god). --NellieBly (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catch. I was looking (Γέλως), but not seeing, despite being a "good gelos" (but not "god gelos") myself :-). Anyway, one of the refs says: "According to PG Welsh this festival is probably an invention made by Apuleius and not to be connected with Gelos in Sparta". Whatever this "Geolos in Sparta" may be, the current article is obviously misleading, and I still stay behind my vote to get rid of it, since I fail to see how Gelus may be transliteration of Gelos (unless via Latin, but, in Latin language the word actually means "cold" and as I say, books do not mention "Gelus" as god, neither cold one, nor funny. Kaligelos (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment In many English-language accents (including mine), "gelus" and "gelos" are pronounced identically. It's hard to see how the mistake could be avoided. --NellieBly (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Typos and ignoranse are not the reasuns for new articels. The best way to avoid mistakes is to read wikipedia written without propagation of mistakes. :-) Kaligelos (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite to show the possible confusion. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Nellie. Qrsdogg (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CSD G11 This is adcopy, not an encyclopedia article. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PrimeConcept and PRIME[edit]

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

Russian "lifestyle management" company. Refs fail WP:CORPDEPTH, many do not mention the company at all. (Disclaimer: some of the Russian-language refs may establish notability, I'm not sure) The Interior (Talk) 22:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unambiguous advertising: PrimeConcept is a private club, established in 2006 in order to build a community of society leaders. "References" are to minor trade awards, and non-notable events they sponsored or had a hand in: The division PRIME Events organized the Aeroflot festive dinner for privileged clients of the airline, Aeroflot Bonus members. PrimeConcept began to support the Healthy Heritage Charity Foundation («Zdorovoe nasledie») and serves as the organizer of the Good Event charity dinner («Horoshee meropriyatie»). PrimeConcept also held the Kids High Society New Year for club members and their families at Barvikha Luxury Village. Prose is vague about what they actually do, and "lifestyle management" is a nonsensical description for a travel agency or conciergerie, which is what it sounds like. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Segrete[edit]

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

Interesting conundrum. Is part of a crew in a TLC show, and yet has absolutely no reliable third party sources. Of the four sources in the article now, one is the IMDb, two are self-sourced, and one is a mention-in-passing type source. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was not a member of the crew: she was a member of the cast of all these interior design shows (she's a designer) and the host of at least one of them. I'm seeing multiple articles specifically about her in Google News Archives, including one from the New York Daily News that I'll add to the article. Edit to add: articles about her specifically have also appeared in the New York Times and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. Looks notable to me. --NellieBly (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as noted by NellieBly, she was one of the cast members of two unquestionably notable TV shows (Trading Spaces and While You Were Out). The article was pretty tragic when nominated, but finding additional references was not difficult. There is enough out there to establish notability. Horologium (talk) 09:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Among spurious sources in Gsearch there are numerous notable articles and media interviews. Had not heard of her before and proved an interesting read. New references added to article appear to pass notability factor.Readorama (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - fairly well-sourced (including a New York Times piece), we have kept lots of articles about "reality stars" here, and we want to make more of an effort to keep articles of interest to women. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Couture[edit]

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

Non-notable blog. No sources provided (but look in the history--I removed a reference to the Daily Star which didn't mention our subject), and I can't find any. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim to notability regarding the 'Blogger's choice award' nominations were a self-nom and the blog currently has 0 votes. Thus, only notability claim fails, delete Jebus989 ^✰ 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. {Insert nasty comment about people who exaggerate their own importance on Wikipedia here.} Sven Manguard Wha? 21:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Delete as vanispampuffery"? Drmies (talk) 22:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No substantive coverage found--either for the blog or the blogger. Blueboy 96 22:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable/successful person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holybolt888 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citizens Building (Eugene, Oregon)[edit]

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

Building appears to be non-notable. A Google search failed to provide significant coverage in non-trivial, reliable, secondary sources. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. I don't want to appear unkind to Eugene which is, I'm sure, a town with real civic pride and offering much to its citizens. But this appears to be a 10 storey office building from the later part of the 20th century. That's it. Outside Eugene, that would not be remarkable, and even Eugene, it seems, boasts something taller. --AJHingston (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. There is simply not enough coverage in reliable sources. --Jsayre64 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trust me, this building has never been a source of civic pride. Citing Style & Vernacular: A Guide to the Architecture of Lane County, Oregon, which contains one paragraph on the building, the only thing I can find of interest is that the ground floor was designed by the S.F. office of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill. If someone could find something about the law that I believe limits buildings to 10 stories (because of Ya-Po-Ah Terrace another structure of dubious notability), that might be worthy of adding to the Eugene, Oregon article, but that doesn't mean this building itself is notable for being the tallest post-statute structure. Valfontis (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the Eugenius-affected folks (Jsayre, Valfontis) say it isn't notable, I believe them. tedder (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this building has been the subject of a few articles in news archives. Adding sources to article now riffic (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The information added does nothing to address the notability issues. Not sure what to say about it being a "landmark". That sentence in the 2006 article looks like filler--just a fancy way of saying what year it was built. Valfontis (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not our place to determine intent of the writer's decision to call it a landmark. verifiability, not truth. riffic (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel with recently added sources the article crosses the threshold set by the general notability guideline and is satisfactory for inclusion. riffic (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additions. They appear to be run of the mill coverage about occupancy rates from the local paper. The possibility of a claim to fame is being an incredibly ugly building Eugene. I can't find any depth of coverage outside of Eugene, such as The Oregonian. In my mind, the building benefits from the local paper being online and searchable, nothing else. tedder (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spirit of the notability guidelines is that there should be something beyond 'everybody in town knows the building' to qualify. That might get it mentioned in the local press and a town guide, but it doesn't explain why it should be encyclopedic. The problem is that it looks so ordinary - I'm fascinated that only the ground floor was designed by Skidmore, Owings and Merrill; I'm guessing that means only the interior layout, which may not even exist today. Now if it had been designed as a single storey, and another nine had been planted on top, that really would be notable. --AJHingston (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify that it was the ground floor banking space that was designed by SOM, and it was said to be "especially worth seeing" in 1983 when the book was written. The space was occupied by the locally owned Citizens Bank, which I'm not sure has survived the banking crisis. I think there was a really large macrame/fiber art hanging in the lobby. And yes, the layout has probably changed. Valfontis (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once notable, always notable. So that might be enough, if the sources will support it. I'm trying hard to be fair to Eugene here - living in an historic and world famous European city, it's difficult for me to work out what the appropriate criteria might be.--AJHingston (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I don't think a 1970s lobby design necessarily confers notability, especially from a book written by the same architects whose work is being boosted within it. And as a Eugene native, I see absolutely no reason to have to be fair to Eugene (though that's awfully nice of you), numerous articles (including one now cited in the Wikipedia article) talk about Eugene's "butt ugly" architecture. Many things about Eugene are quite laughable. Some folks pride themselves on it... Valfontis (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I live just down the road in Corvallis, Oregon. While we may be collegiate rivals, I won't let the fact that UO is laughable as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nike interfere in my judgment here... This is not a notable building in that there are no "high rises" in Eugene. The second tallest building in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho or Billings, Montana or Fargo, North Dakota wouldn't be notable either. There are notable buildings in Eugene, the subjects of multiple instances of independent coverage. This is not one of them, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY KEEP as disruptive nomination. No valid deletion rationale presented, no tagging of articles has occurred. postdlf (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon species articles (2nd nomination)[edit]

Do we seriously need a list of ALL pokemon species, even ones who are not "rare" or "legendary"?

I propose that all "non legendary" pokemon from the following list be deleted.

Or the very least combine some species. For example, Umbreon, Espeon, Leofeon, Glaceon, Flarion, Vaporion, and all "Evee" evolution lines can be combined with "Eevee"

Non essential Pokemons include but not limited to:

Wikipedia needs to be cleaned up.

Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close - You obviously have no idea how Wikipedia words. These articles are notable because they have coverage in third party reliable sources. Stop acting so rashly and discuss this so we can tell you why they are notable, and what you are doing is wrong. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Hart (footballer)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:FOOTYN guidelines as he has not yet made a professional appearance. Jameboy (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need to alter NFooty. Lets wait till he plays, atleast once. Szzuk (talk) 18:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 20:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and recreate when he plays for someone. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Doesn't meet WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:07, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails the "not fit for purpose" WP:NFOOTBALL but more importantly fails the WP:GNG as he lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Mtking (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Denitely non-notable footballer as for now. Keb25 (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close , malformed nomination.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon species articles[edit]

(View AfD)

Do we seriously need a list of ALL pokemon species, even ones who are not "rare" or "legendary"?

I propose that all "non legendary" pokemon from the following list be deleted.

Or the very least combine some species. For example, Umbreon, Espeon, Leofeon, Glaceon, Flarion, Vaporion, and all "Evee" evolution lines can be combined with "Eevee" --Tyw7 (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) Changing the world one edit at a time! 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It is not clear to someone who doesn't follow Pokemon which exactly you are nominating, and you have also not cited a policy reason for deletion. (I say oppose and not keep because this is really a proposed policy and not a deletion request) Monty ₈₄₅ 17:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John W. Ross[edit]

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

No reliable source given to establish his notability -- indeed, it's not established that all the buildings listed here were actually designed by the same J. Ross. Designing notable buildings does not automatically make you notable. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination statement no longer applies, since information about 2 architects has been developed and split to 2 articles. --do ncr am 04:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The AFD is a response to some content disagreement, or really just some temporary lack of complete information, at Talk:John W. Ross. The resolution of that will be clarification that there was one architect in both Iowa and North Dakota in that era (most likely), or that there were two notable architects, both deserving of Wikipedia articles. An architect who has major public works such as substantial city halls of moderate sized cities, and multiple buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places for their architecture, is going to be Wikipedia notable.

To SarekOfVulcan: I have noticed you have opened a number of administrative proceedings and requested moves and AFDs and other actions, sometimes without your actually taking a position, as if to merely test the waters, and call for other editors to resolve some question. If you don't actually have a position that is really your opinion that you will defend, I would call those "false" proposals. Which is this? Is this a false proposal, or do you seriously think this article should be deleted? --do ncr am 17:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found coverage in Google Books for St. Stanislaus Catholic Church in Warsaw, ND and the Plummer House in Hillsboro, ND. I also found a couple web references for Davenport Hose Station #1 and Davenport City Hall. I don't know if this guarantees that the "John Ross" who designed all these buildings is the same person, since "John Ross" could be a reasonably common name. Since this John W. Ross designed at least a few notable buildings that are on the National Register, I'm going with keep for now, but I'd like to see more evidence that the same John W. Ross actually designed all of these buildings. His name is more common than Clarence H. Johnston, Sr.. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw some of those refs, but discounted Directory of historic house museums in the United States because it's only a mention of the name, not significant coverage of the architect. America's religious architecture is a bit better, because it establishes him as having built many other buildings in ND -- but nothing yet connects all the buildings listed here. Especially as the QCMemory links refer to him as a "local Davenport" architect known for local buildings. I would think that we'd need a birth or death date to nail down notability here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on clear sourcing that he was an important North Dakota architect. Whether the Iowa architect is the same person is not an issue for AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from article space (i.e., userfy or move to project space) for development, and don't return to article space until there's at least enough solid information to determine whether this is one person or two. It appears to me that this is about two people by the same name: (1) John W. Ross who trained in Wisconsin, arrived in Grand Forks in 1880 and designed important buildings in the 1880s and 1890s and (2) John W. Ross who arrived in Davenport in 1874 and designed or supervised important buildings built in 1888 and 1895. It doesn't seem real likely that one guy was moving back and forth between Davenport, Iowa, and Grand Forks, North Dakota, (two not-very-large cities that aren't real close to each other), but did no important work anywhere else. One or both of these men may turn out to be notable. However, until there's enough solid content to write one or two biographical articles, the information here about the architect(s) can be included in the articles about the buildings he or they designed. --Orlady (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove from article space. This link and this suggest that the John W. Ross of Davenport was John Wesley Ross, originally of Westfield, MA, who moved to Davenport in 1874 or 1876; whereas this states that the John W. Ross of Grand Forks was born in Germany in 1848 and raised in Wisconsin from 1852. Suggest that it be dropped back into user space until the author can distinguish between the two men and write a separate article for each. At present it's not clear which one should be the primary subject of the article. Choess (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you had to do a fair amount of original research even to get that much data out of the sources. That's my objection to the existence of the article -- there's almost no sourcing talking directly about them, and they are therefore not verifiable. Database lists pulled by last names are NOT reliable sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy for creator. The article clearly conflates two separate individuals per Choess' sources. A quick look at the 1910 United States Census shows an architect named John W. Ross who was born in Massachusetts in 1932 and lives in Davenport, Iowa (with his wife and family, including his son, Albert R. Ross who is also listed as an architect). Confirming this source. On the same date, the 1910 United States Census shows an architect named John W. Ross who was born in Germany in 1848, immigrated in 1952 and lives in Grand Forks, North Dakota (with his wife, Caroline and son, William H. Ross who is listed as a draftsman). Confirming this source. As suggested by Orlady and Choess, separate articles are required so that questions of reliable sourcing and notability can be addressed for each individual separately. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks several of you for providing sources and clarifying the status. The second possibilty turns out to be the case, i.e. that there were two notable architects, both deserving of Wikipedia articles. I added the sources and split the article, encountering some edit conflicts with SarekOfVulcan, and moved the original one to John W. Ross (North Dakota architect). I object now to finding that SarekOfVulcan has userfied the Iowa architect article immediately, while it has sources and notability asserted. I think that is a conflict of interest, he is an involved editor, and I have recently criticized him in the ongoing RFA about him. In fact i came here today because he called attention to this AFD, there. I think he should have let the AFD conclude. In fact it is still open. Seems inappropriate for the proposer to be taking strong action to delete (userify) one of the articles under development during the AFD. --do ncr am 02:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the article that repeated and/or contradicted itself every paragraph? "John Wesley Ross was an architect in Davenport, Iowa.... John Ross came to Davenport in 1874.... He was born in Massachusetts in 1932 and lives in Davenport, Iowa.... John Wesley Ross, originally of Westfield, Massachusetts, moved to Davenport in 1874 or 1876." Of course I moved it out of mainspace. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This has become a major mess. It seems that Doncram split this into two separate articles and redirected John W. Ross to point to the North Dakota architect. Sarek userfied John W. Ross (Iowa architect), as discussed above, and Doncram moved it back to article space. I converted that redirect into a disambiguation page, but I see that there are now lots of backlinks to that page that should point to one or the other. The AfD template appears on John W. Ross (North Dakota architect), but not on the Iowa guy's page. I still !vote that both articles (presumably also the DAB page) should be userfied, since there isn't enough information about either guy (yet) to support a meaningful biographical article. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I copied the deletion tag to the Iowa and disambig pages, so it's clear they're both being discussed here, and added the two new articles to the header here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a mess at all. There are now two articles, per the 2nd possibility all along. There is also now a dab page, which Orlady created. I don't think the dab page is needed, but it does not cause a problem for it to exist. --do ncr am 03:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original nomination for deletion no longer applies. I think the 2 separate articles have sources and adequate assertion of notability. Perhaps some commentators who were for deletion could revisit this now. I presume those against deletion of the original article are against deletion of the current two. --do ncr am 04:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting. I still !vote to userfy all. Neither man appears to meet the general notability guideline, in that no substantial independent coverage of either one of them has been located yet. Additionally, it does not appear to me that their claims to notability (i.e., being the first licensed architect in Grand Forks and designing some important buildings in early Davenport) fulfill the additional tests at WP:BIO. The lack of solid biographical information to use as the basis for articles is a symptom of the lack of demonstrated notability. These men can be discussed sufficiently in the articles about their buildings, and the content can be userfied until such time as notability is demonstrated. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy - this situation is exactly the sort of thing that happens when semi-researched articles go live. Better that there be nothing in mainspace until it is sorted, than something which is the subject of confusion, doubt and - yes - even notability issues. - Sitush (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revisited -- This seems to be straightening out now. (doncram, please note that the original erroneous creation is one of the reasons WP has rules against synthesis and original research -- cobbling together info from disparate sources leads to this kind of misinformation. Our intuitions are not a substitute for reliable sourcing.) There appears to be enough sources addressing some notability for each architect, although whether or not there is enough for bio pages remains questionable. For example, in the case of the Iowa Ross, it seems that the son is more notable and I could see a merge and redirect created to the son's page. But this issue would be best discussed separately for each. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are more sources available about the John W. Ross in Davenport, Iowa, including sources cited in the docs already linked, including:

Shank, Wesley. “Iowa’s Historic Architects: A Biographical Dictionary”. University of Iowa Press: Iowa City, Iowa, 1999.
Svendsen, Marlys. “Davenport, Where the River Runs West: A Survey of Davenport History & Architecture”. ND

I've noticed at least the latter one has been used sometimes by some Iowa editors developing out articles on National Register of Historic Places listings in Scott County, Iowa, in Downtown Davenport, in East Davenport, and in West Davenport. There's been substantial wikipedia editing about Davenport and its historic sites going on during the last year, by the way, and that can naturally extend to its historic architects. --do ncr am 13:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are on the right track now -- finding the reliable sources. Of course, you can't list those as references right now without you verifying what they say. For me, the current problem is that the Who's Who listing is about his son and the State Historical Society of Iowa document contains only a one sentence comment about him -- which is not enough to build a biography. The thing to do is look at the sources and read what Shank and Svendsen wrote about John W. Ross. (Shank is a professor emeritus of architecture and Svendsen is a paid historical consultant for the state. One may have used the other for their information, in which case only one source is used. OTOH, they may have researched independently, which means you would have two good RS sources.) The first step is to find what the actual authorities say about the person, then use those to create the biography page. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the sources should not be put in, even as "Further reading", if I have not consulted them. But i pretty knew in advance there would be secondary sources like these that would discuss the architects, and I mention them here to convey that to you. In general, architects who have designed multiple buildings listed on the NRHP for their architecture, will often have biographies appearing within one or more of the NRHP nomination documents, and usually there will be secondary sources listed like these ones in the documents' bibliographies. What we've referred to here as "State Historical Society of Iowa" documents are in fact copies of NRHP nomination documents. (I am not sure if these Davenport-library-published ones are entirely complete, and they are not as good as scanned versions showing final signatures and approval stamps and so on, which the NRHP program itself would provide upon request). But they do show that there are multiple secondary sources consulted in the writing of the NRHP nom, which itself is a reliable, secondary source. Hope this gives u some peace of mind. --do ncr am 18:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Problem solved, two different architects, two different pages. WP:ARTIST exist for architects, among others, it saying so. Number 4 says: "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." If the buildings get covered, that counts. Its a significant monument, and has gotten significant attention, books mentioning the areas listing the buildings. Dream Focus 14:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both architects have buildings that are on the National Register of Historic Places proving their works are notable, and both have buildings they made which have their own Wikipedia articles as well. There are references in the article. I'm certain people keep track of who designs notable buildings. Dream Focus 21:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have a copy of the Svendsen book mentioned above. Unfortunately, she devotes only one paragraph to Ross. In it she states it is "believed" he was "trained" in Chicago (not much confidence there). However, unlike John C. Cochrane and Willet Carroll, two other architects who have buildings on the NRHP, he was the first professional architect to come to Davenport and stay. She goes to say he came to the city in 1874 and that he designed the fire station, city hall, the Iowa Soldiers' Orphans' Home, and homes for Davenport's non-Germans. The NRHP nomination form for the Davenport MRA also mentions Ross in a single paragraph (page 22 of the pdf). It says very little is known about him, and that he came to Davenport in 1877. Martha H. Bower's name is on that form and she is listed as a co-author, along with Marlys Svendsen, of Davenport, Where the River Runs West: A Survey of Davenport History & Architecture. Somewhat odd that the date of his arrival in the city is different given Bowers is part of both. I also checked the 1910 Scott County history that contains numerous biographies, and there is no biography of Ross. Again, I find this strange seeing as he was involved with designing several significant buildings in the county. Farragutful (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and split, per Dream focus. It's good that the issue was examined. Deletion is however the last resort, and the split is another way of handling it. It's inevitable that there will occasionally be confusions of this sort. Regardless of how little is known about them, anyone who designed building in the National Register should have an article. It's the work that a person does in whatever field that makes them notable, not the routine facts of their biography. (we've usually made an exception for people who are purely society figures who havenever done anything particularly notable in the ordinary way, when there is really good overage in reliable non-tabloid sources--I consider this to follow the principle than that a comprehensive encyclopedic should have information for what people are likely to look there for, which is part of the basis of the concept of notability. The reasons they look is none of our concern. But this is the opposite case. If we can't say much about the life, we can say only what can be sourced, but we can talk about the work. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Mundale[edit]

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

Philosopher who is an associate professor at the University of Central Florida. She has published some articles and some book chapters. She was one of 4 editors of a book, the lead editor being her PhD supervisor. Publishing and editing is what academics do and there appears to be nothing out of the ordinary here. A Google search did not turn up anything additional. Web of Science lists 10 publications, with a total number of citations of 99 and an h-index of 3. Does not meet WP:ACADEMIC or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 16:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for lack of evidence of passing WP:PROF. The article says she "notably co-edited" something, but that seems somewhat oxymoronic to me. If that's the best we can say about her, then we're probably better off saying nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS gives a similar story, listing 3 papers (h-index 2). One of these from 1999 is pretty-well cited, but it was written with her advisor and he is listed as the corresponding author. It's pretty clear that she hasn't done anything substantial in terms of scholarship apart from her advisor, so I would say there's no basis for claiming notability here. Thx, Agricola44 (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. and write the highlights in the main article The Helpful One 14:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival[edit]

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

While the overall festival certainly is notable, each year's event is not. Wikipedia is not a directory, and these articles are all just lists of bands that played. Also nominating:

2010 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2009 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2006 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2005 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2004 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2003 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2002 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2001 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
1999 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reso lute 16:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into a list. I don't see the need for a separate article just to list each year's performers but presenting the information itself seems reasonable. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep solely because 2010 Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival has some sourced content other than line-ups. That makes combining '99, '01-09 and '11 into a list pretty messy, but still perhaps an improvement over all these non-articles Jebus989 ^✰ 20:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If one article has independent reliable sourcing then it can be kept (I didn't happen to look at 2010) but that doesn't mean that the others can't be merged and that the resulting list can't include equivalent barebones information about 2010. Harley Hudson (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that seems a good solution Jebus989 ^✰ 11:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, the articles are just directory lists of bands. The odd one might have some historical value, but there is no reason at all why such information could not be merged into the main article. Reso lute 19:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue with merging into the main article is that it would make that article quite large. Lists are useful as sub-articles to help keep the lead article at a reasonable length. Harley Hudson (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ them all into a single article, using the sources available (such as those cited by Jebus above) as evidence of general notability of the festival. Lose the lists of bands. It may well be, as the New York Times says, "one of the world’s premier music festivals", but that doesn't mean we need a separate listing for each year! Other high-profile music festivals do not get that treatment; see for example New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival, Summerfest (which lists only the opening headliner for each year), etc. --MelanieN (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Delete all these articles. Put a sentence or two for each year into the article Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival , and source that article better, but don't leave behind a lot of unnecessary redirects.--MelanieN (talk) 00:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. While it is certain that there is adequate media coverage available for each event, it would most likely best be presented in a single article. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and write the highlights in the main article. The individual events do not seem to pass WP:GNG. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and highlights in main (as Crisco says). Maintaining historical record of concert schedules is not encyclopedic, but having a chronology of significant events over the years in the main CVMAF certainly would be. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hard to see how lists of artists who happen to have performed at a particular festival are notable. I am also surprised that Musical Reunifications at Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival and List of artists who have played at Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival on multiple occasions have survived thus far. TerriersFan (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sevens, Elevens, and Doubles[edit]

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

Drinking game. No evidence offered so assume made up one day. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 16:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IAR Keep. Possibly not technically notable, but definitely worth an article. The internet is full of references to this game, including a YouTube video. This game definitely exists out there in the real world. Of course it always takes a while before a new game appears in reliable sources, and then it may again take some time before we find it. I see no harm in keeping the article in the meantime. Hans Adler 00:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- IAR Keep. My thoughts as well- there's a whole category of drinking game articles, and if you've got an entry on ride the bus, I hardly see how this is less notable given its comparative popularity. I added a couple of references, probably not as properly formatted as they should be, but it's a start. Again, if you're going to have a drinking game category, this is a relatively popular one which is why I created the article in the first place. Lmeister (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I can't make myself look at this category as I find the genre disgusting, but you might want to go through the other games to see if it's identical, or mostly identical, with another game known under a different name. In that case it's usually best to describe both variants in the same article, and of course they should at least link to each other. Hans Adler 06:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Qrsdogg (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A quick look at other articles in the drinking games in the template shows that they're mostly unsourced or sourced to a book on drinking games or campus newspapers. Does anyone have access to a book on this/know of a good source for something like this? Qrsdogg (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just added a couple sources[5][6], couldn't find too much out there about this though. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Google only return 61 results? If this a popular game? Does it go by different names perhaps? Dream Focus 15:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like "Seven Eleven Doubles" returns ~50x more hits. Maybe this page has the wrong title. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—There are a number of books about drinking games, which include coverage of dice games. However, none of theme seem to mention this game. Not much luck in the reliable secondary sources department. Sorry, can't support.—RJH (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found one book mentioning this game in Google book search. Cocktails and Drinking Games for Smartphones and Mobile Devices - a Complete By MobileReference] [7] It says its also known as Sloppy Dice. Dream Focus 20:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources in article are of low-to-mediocre reliability (and decidedly WP:HOWTO rather than WP:SECONDARY), with little evidence from {{find}} that better exists, so WP:GNG is not met. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Drinking games are notoriously hard to find good sources, especially print sources for, but this article now has just that. Although I had earlier nominated it for deletion for lack of sources and assertion of notability, I am now happy with the references. Oreo Priest ^talk 07:41, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on books found listing it, and websites that list drinking games including it, this seems like a real thing. Dream Focus 20:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITEXISTS? Certainly a decisive reason for an article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did mention it is listed in books and elsewhere. Dream Focus 12:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or delete rename and modify to generic Drinking dice games. I accept that dice games are the most difficult games to reference, but in this case I am not convinced that this is sufficiently original to have its own page and with the current sources doesn't pass notability. The given numbers seem unexplained, and I would expect to see other number combinations too if it was a notable game with an alias of sloppy dice.Tetron76 (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Noteable and very enjoyable drinking game. Tried to add info from "How to Play the Drinking Dice Game, "7, 11, Doubles"" but strangely ehow.com is on our spam lists even though only professional writers can create articles there. Anyway sufficient coverage is already demonstrated by the existing sources. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Baseplate[edit]

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

Insignificant and non-notable by itself; first choice: delete; acceptable alternative: merge with Lego. TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, haha, what is the point of this article? I don't see it being able to expand much more than it is - even Lego brick redirects to their article. For official deletion reasons, definitely fails WP:N. Bob talk 21:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste (pornographic actress)[edit]

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

Prod contested. This article cites precisely no biographical sources, as none exist. The sources cited are directories, mainly the unreliable kind (ones that maintain the kayfabe of the porn world). I think that the total budget for all her "films" would probably buy a day's filming on a real movie, but that's not the point, the complete lack of independent reliable biographical sources is. Guy (Help!) 14:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Passes PORNBIO with award wins. The sources cited are reliable to verify the awards won because they come from the awarding organisation; not sure how they maintain kayfabe when she actually won the awards. Current biographical sources are difficult to locate online considering her one-name status and since she was a performer of the 90s and actually retired in 1995 with movies of hers still being released afterwards. Stub status is fine. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She appears quite notable to not be deleted. Keep as stub. Cavarrone (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Porn awards are like crackerjacks -there's one in every box. Does not meet WP:GNG, no significant coverage. Risker (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Morbidthoughts. Numerous sources, two awards, contract girl for an exclusive major studio. Dismas|^(talk) 08:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ANYBIO with the award wins, plus the logic Morbidthoughts lays out. Tabercil (talk) 12:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

This deletion debate has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

Katy Waldman (11 October 2013). "Wikipedia Editing Party at Brown University! Woohoo!". Slate (magazine). Archived from the original on 13 October 2013. Retrieved 13 October 2013. Topic bias means that issues of concern to geek dudes (such as Linux distributions) are rated as important, while issues women might find compelling (the design of Kate Middleton's wedding dress, say) are deemed trivial and flagged for deletion.
Torie Bosch (13 July 2012). "Slate". How Kate Middleton’s Wedding Gown Demonstrates Wikipedia’s Woman Problem. Retrieved 13 October 2013.

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

The result was speedy keep. I think it's time to close this under the snowball clause. I'm aware that it's only been open for about 36 hours. However, I think it's clear from a thorough read of the discussion that there is no realistic prospect of this article being deleted and so leaving it open would serve no purpose other than to encourage and fuel the drama. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding dress of Kate Middleton[edit]

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

Delete/Merge into Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton - where all the text currently in the article exists already. Non-notable article incapable of being expanded beyond a stub. No other "Wedding dress of" pages exist for any other wedding throughout history (cf. Wedding dress of Princess Diana, Wedding dress of Princess Elizabeth) - this is just a case of recentism, and Wikipedia is not a news source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erolos (talk • contribs) 13:04, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is already plenty of online coverage about this. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is plenty of "online coverage" of every "Spring/Summer collection" that Alexander McQueen did every year until his death (featuring multiple outfits) - this doesn't mean they have nor deserve their own wikipedia articles. -Kez (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)'[reply]

Indeed. I think in WikiProject Fashion we (to the extent there is a "we") sort of decided that a notable designer's biannual collections are not inherently notable, and I don't see why that wouldn't extend to a garment. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep creating articles relating to the wedding dresses of Elizabeth II, Diana and Catherine Middleton could be of interest to a Wikipedian who edits British royal family, wedding or needlework articles. --Jennie--x (talk) 13:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All it needs is a note and photo in Kates article not worthy of a whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nirame (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per recentism, as per Jennie--x. As she expreses, there could indeed be a legitimate audience and articles for each dress mentioned in the nomination, but there isn't enough content yet to justify. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recentism is not a valid argument here as it is clear that this will be a topic of continuing interest long into the future,^{[citation needed]} albeit obviously at a lower level.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear to whom? In all the AfDs I've referenced below, that circular argument was used by all the keep voters. Time has proven otherwise. I don't see how there will be new articles about the dress six months or even a year from now. Daniel Case (talk) 14:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a really clear keep for me. I'll explain why in a second, after examining the nom statement:
- all the text currently in the article exists already That is because you gave the article 16 minutes to develop before swooping down on it and attempting to delete it without any consideration of how it would stifle the article's growth (see WP:CHANCE). Chzz had been planning to add a lot to the article, but due to your persistent attempts to delete it and lack of proper discussion with him a bout the matter, he no longer plans to have anything to do with it until the drama has died down in a few days time.
- Non-notable article - This is blatantly incorrect, and the nom has completely failed to explain why it's non-notable. According to the notability guidelines, this topic can almost certainly be considered to be notable, because it has significant coverage from sources speaking solely about it and in detail; the sources are highly reliable, including big names like the BBC; and these sources are independent, secondary etc. etc. It's even been described as "the Wedding Dress of the Century."
- ... incapable of being expanded beyond a stub - Again this is just not true, one only needs to read through the sources to see that there is so much to be said about this dress. There is no way that - if we stop with these insistent, yet irrational, deletion requests - the article will remain a stub, I guarantee that it will be expanded drastically. Simply because there is, as mentioned, a lot to say, and a lot who are interested in saying it. For example, the question of who was going to design the dress; the design itself; the work that went into creating it (which I hear from Chzz is very interesting, and could make a good DYK); the reaction to it, especially that online; the inspiration for dress, as well as anything it inspires itself, are all things which can be addressed (no pun intended ;D) by the article, and I'm sure there are a lot more obscure things to talk about too. Each of these things also show yet more notability, adding to my previous point.
- No other "Wedding dress of" pages exist - This is something I talked about briefly at User talk:Trident13. It's a very peculiar argument to me, it seems to be saying Wikipedia should be defined by what... isn't in it. If we took that attitude then we would have zero articles, and no one would be able to create one because "we don't have any other articles like that." It's not a very robust argument in itself.
- Wikipedia is not a news source - NOTNEWs is something I see (or rather used to see, when I actually spent more time at AfD) being used inappropriately as a reason for deletion a lot. My interpretation of NOTNEWs is that it's to prevent routine news coverage, and I don't really see how it can be interpreted any other way. In addition I don't see how this dress can be considered routine news. This topic clearly has lasting notability, and may well influence the future (see above about inspiration). As for recentism the same thing applies. I've not seen any comment from the nom explaining why these policies/guidelines (or in the case of recentism, essay) apply to this case.

Now, I've explained in quite a lot of detail why I don't think the deletion arguments apply, and have also touched upon why I think we should keep the article. But just to explain slightly further why I think the article is a good topic for the encyclopedia to cover: The wedding is going to be one of (if not the) event of the year in the U.K., and it also has received a lot of coverage in other countries. The dress was one of the central points in the coverage, and will also be remembered as one of the central points of the event. It is important for us to cover such large events and the central points of them, because they can have such a large effect on the future - and indeed on the present, as this clearly has had. In addition most of the points I noted above about the deletion argument being flawed are equally reasons for keeping the article. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, in regard to the two merge !votes above, please address the topic rather than the content, as the only reason for such a small amount of content is the AfD itself, and the lack of time for development (as I've mentioned above). There is however a lot of development which can be done, and this page can be expanded many times over - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 2, to future !voters, please feel free to address my points, rather than ignoring them, thanks :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk)

Comment Might I suggest we move the article to Talk:Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton/Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, and close this discussion? That new location will preserve the editing history, while allowing to those wishing for this article to exist (if it can prove itself) to contribute? Once the article is fully developed, we can have a further discussion then. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we need to do that, it's generally considered fine to build articles in the mainspace, it's part of the idea of a collaborative encyclopedia. Surely if the topic is good it should have a page so that people can contribute to it? It's the whole point of having "stub" articles - yes, they're not perfect and can use work, but people don't generally write articles in one edit. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it necessary, it's just in an attempt to please the deletionists. Perhaps if the article exists as is, so it can be developed, but it wasn't so prominently linked in the main article? Would you revoke your nomination then, Erolos? -- Zanimum (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. LessHeard navU (talk) 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC) !vote by blocked troll struck. Favonian (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more specific please? Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton. Brandmeister t 14:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Brandmeister :), could you explain why you think this is necessary please? Thanks, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an anti-monarchist, gay or something like that, but the article is too short for a standalone one, while the wedding is not that big, at least currently. If more important details become available, the split would be reasonable, but not currently imho. Brandmeister t 19:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with Erolos that the fact that there are no other wedding dress articles is a telling one. At some point we need to say as a community where we draw the line, and this garment - and it's just a few hours old in the public consciousness - has not been given the time to establish itself to the degree that it needs an article. I am very uneasy at news-driven articles, this is not the Wikipedia way of doing things. What's the harm in putting the info somewhere else, inserting some cross references for the moment, and giving it time. If in due course it could become part of a series about notable wedding dresses, fine.Asnac (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that a telling fact? Have you read my comment above about that? Also, this is not "a few hours old in the public consciousness," and I have to wonder where you got that idea from. People have been speculating over and discussing the dress for much longer than that, which it doesn't take much research to find out, so I have to wonder what research you have done. The same kind of harm that would result in merging every article into one massive page - sometimes to properly grow and flourish an article needs it's own page. And that is the case here, there is a lot more to say here than can be said in a sub-section of the wedding article. Maybe because there is no way to make a "series about notable wedding dresses" when every time you create the first one it gets hauled over to AfD because there are "no other wedding dress articles"? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton where the wedding cake and wedding ring can be found. I know WP:BLP1E is for people notable for only one event, but I think it suits here as well. My only concern is WP:BIGEVENT which states "others (events) generate such mainstream coverage that the key people, or companies, or products, or places, or other names become separately notable, as almost household names for the general public.". However, it also states "some highly publicized events have made the key participants instantly notable, due to having a major role or impact in the event." I'm yet to see the major role or impact of the wedding dress alone to this wedding. Nimuaq (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Wedding dress of..." as an article in an encyclopaedia? Exactly the sort of thing that made me all but quit as an active user on this project.--Kalsermar (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding you, you think that it's not possible for a garment/article of clothing to be an encyclopedic topic? Do you think you could expand on that? Thanks for your time. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the AfD arguments make sense. The dress has been extensively discussed in reliable sources. A lot of the argument seems to boil down to "I don't think this ought to be notable." But notability isn't some kind of reward Wikipedia gives to its subjects. It's an objective determination. We should give this article time to evolve. If it's still a stub in a few weeks, then deleting would make sense. Binarybits (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain how NOTNEWS applies? Is the royal wedding and the events which go with it considered routine news reporting now? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." Do you still need additional explanation? Many things that are "newsworthy" and get multiple instances of news coverage as part of a major event are not encyclopedic. The wedding itself is encyclopedic, since it has political and dynastic implications. The dress itself does not. Can you tell the difference between the enduring importance of the wedding and the lesser importance of the wedding dress, or the uniform the groom wore, or the three vintage airplanes which flew overhead, all of which also got multiple instances of press coverage? Should the Royal Wedding Cake which also got lots of news coverage, have its own article? The Royal Luncheon Menu also got lots of instances of news coverage. Many minor aspects of a major event get incidental spinoff news coverage, but are better mentioned in the article about the main event. They do not need coverage in the main article which rambles on and on so as to have undue weight, either. See also Wikipedia:News articles, an essay reflecting the views of a number of editors that things in the news are not necessarily encyclopedic. Edison (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep basically per what Kingpin said. It is clearly notable and has a lot of coverage in reliable online sources, and I'm ready to bet that there will be much more coverage on it. Perhaps we should give this article a chance to improve rather than attempting to delete it? I don't see how NOTNEWS is applicable here: does the article cover a news story? I disagree with the statement that the article cannot be expanded beyond a stub; perhaps we could give the community a fair chance to expand it? I'm quite sure that there will be enough information to expand the article considering the number of sources covering it. I have rarely seen an FA being written in a single day and I'm sure others will agree on this point at least. The argument that there is no article about a wedding dress is very surprising to be honest; I always thought that there would be a first for everything! If we had followed this rule, then the number of articles would have been 0, not 6,820,529. Regards, Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've seen some pretty retarded articles around here over the years, from Michelle Obama's arms to Yul Brynner's bald pate, but this tripe gives them a run for their money. Simply being "in the news" is not the only criteria to create a wikipedia article, that is why we have safeguards such as WP:NOTNEWS. A notable event of this magnitude is bound to have many side stories of quirky/irrelevant interest as the 24/7 drive-by media begins to run out of things to talk about and they cast about for some filler. This reminds me of every Thanksgiving when we get a full rundown...in many, many media outlets...of what is on the White House dinner table. Reliably sourced? Sure. Encyclopedic? Not so much. Mention it in the main article, but there's no call to devote encyclopedia treatment to a flippin dress. Tarc (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly abundantly notable, and quite ridiculous to claim otherwise. Chzz ► 16:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Kingpin's arguments are persuasive for me. The article about the wedding is already a long one and even after further editing will remain so. The sort of article that I think might develop on the dress might not even fit well into there. Let's see. As a man I have to admit that Wikipedia's coverage of topics like women's clothing is pitifully inadequate in comparison to what would be described as boy's toys, sport and so forth (as well as less gendered areas such as popular music or television characters). Having had to mug up on a particular area of historical costume I have to say that quite a lot of explanation is needed before I grasp the point whilst a simple description passes me by, and that is what lifts an article into the encyclopedic. To those who say I just don't get it I'm afraid that is rather the point. --AJHingston (talk) 16:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The irony of this article is that the main wedding article already has more written about the dress, and the truth is, there is not much more that needs to be written. There is nothing to merge, and no reason for a standalone article to exist. Reso lute 16:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the article has been expanded in the last few minutes. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Resolute above. I was editing the wedding article during the event, since the dress section needed reformatting, and I don't see how this needs its own article. So it gets lots of hits? So does anything recent. Ask yourself, what will Wikipedia need to say about her dress a year from now? When William's parents were married certainly there would have been as much to say. But all we have thirty years later is one short graf.
I suggest we can have a simple section in this article, to cover the dress, Princess Beatrice's hat, William's outfit and anything else sartorially of note from today's festivities. Daniel Case (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have just one paragraph, simply because no one has gotten around to writing an article about Diana's dress. The fact that it's still remembered, referenced, and relevant just proves that it too is a viable topic. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I eagerly await the article Wedding dress of Katie Price, a complementary piece about the enormous influence of this wedding dress on the British national consciousness. -Kez (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the 10+ years that Wikipedia has been around, there's been ample opportunity to write a standalone article on Diana's wedding dress, or at least expand the coverage we have in the article. Yet no one's done it. Perhaps there's a reason better than "we never got around to it"? Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge - I'd accept coverage Diana's wedding dress too. They have enough sources... This is notable for British fashion as one BBC commentator pointed out earlier. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This debate will have encouraged editors to look at how other wedding dresses are covered and probably concluded that there is very little about them. Queen Victoria's wedding, including her dress, gets scant attention; rather more interest is shown in her wedding night. Yet it is acknowledged as marking an important point in the development of wedding ritual. I would not make the same claim for this, but I still do not think that the article on the wedding itself offers scope for the article that is developing on this topic. --AJHingston (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I know is that the fashion guru on the BBC said the dress was a monumental moment in British fashion history...♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, almost all Western wedding dresses will be influenced by this one, for quite a while, according to various sources I've started quoting in the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, I don't think anyone here's making the argument that the dress is unworthy of any mention on Wikipedia at all as many of the keep votes are imputing in a too-transparent effort to manipulate the delete proponents into getting all defensive. Let us all remember that, at core, any deletion discussion is really about whether the subject in question deserves a standalone article. The dress can be discussed in not only the wedding article but the Sarah Burton article. Or, perhaps, a list article on notable wedding dresses, a suggestion I may elaborate on later. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as I absolutely don't care about it, I'm not about to impose how I feel about what is important and what isn't on others. Media attention on the dress has been intense (baffling to me), therefore it should count as notable. As long as the article is well-written, well-sourced, and there are people who want to know about it, why not? - Yk (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
have the decency to keep her clothes. So the folk on the BBC spoke highly of Kate's dress. Over on CTV they could not shut up about it and for the first two hours it was mostly about the anticipation of what her dress would be like and why it was expected to be from Alexander McQueen. Her dress is not just influential in the UK but in Canada too. I do believe that Daniel there makes the perfect reason to not remove her dress from the wonderful world of Wikipedia because all that would remain is a pitiful passing mention of one of the most influential fashion creations of a generation. Just because her late mother-in-law's dress is relegated to the back of the closet is no reason to do so again. There is something about it being a bad argument to do things because 'other stuff exists' and well if those who apply that have integrity they would agree that it is bad to refuse things because 'other stuff doesn't exist'. I watched a little of the coverage on Global and just happened to tune in to a discussion about the dresses of Kate & Diana.
Also, the reasons given in the unsigned nomination are at best tossing whatever seems remotely possible out there and seeing who bites on it. When looking past the key words that trigger almost inherent responses from some people one finds it is just bitterness, possibly born of the declined CSD tagging earlier in the day. "VfD completely non-notable unexpandable stub article". A score and a half edits and 7 hours later shows the article is indeed expandable and as a result i question the accuracy of all claims from the one making this nomination. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 19:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that the single graf in the original Royal Wedding article is limiting. Certainly that could be expanded. I'm just pointing out that time gives you considerable perspective.

Speaking of wedding dresses, let me give you an example. Seven years ago there was this guy in Seattle who, after getting divorced, found his ex-wife had left behind her wedding dress. He had originally planned to burn it, but his sister talked him out of it. So, he put up this ad on eBay to sell it, posing for photos of him wearing the dress.

The hits on the page mounted, it became an Internet phenomenon that people linked to, emailed to huge cc lists and such. It got news coverage. It got more than two non-trivial mentions in reliable independent third-party sources. Eventually, Wedding Dress Guy set up his own website.

Snopes has a page on him. But we never even started one. He's not even listed here. I'm not sure how many people remembered him before I brought this old story up. And that's why we have the recentism page.

Now, I allow that Kate Middleton's wedding dress will be longer remembered than Wedding Dress Guy's. But the wedding is not going to be the single defining event of her life (in fact, I think that treating it as if it were, in particular by devoting an article to her dress, is somewhat sexist), anymore than Diana's was (and face it, we don't have an article on the Up Yours dress, so who are we to talk about not having an article about her wedding dress?)). Eventually there will be other articles to write concerning Kate Middleton, most likely about further extensions of the Windsor line, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the loudest keep voices today are a little "OK, you had a point" by then (Because I've been there). Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the proper question is whether it should be merged, not whether it should be deleted. Brandmeister t 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The wedding dress was about as significant as the wedding itself! There's enough content and I'm sure more information will come in the future. I'd almost definitely keep it. StephenBHedges (talk) 20:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't give a monkey's about a frock, but I can recognise when other people do. Besides which, 3rd party dress-specific coverage is enormous. Big trout to the nom. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I find this nomination bizarre to say the least, a clearly notable topic with a vast quantity of third party coverage. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the main article on the wedding per WP:NOTNEWS. High profile events like this one will necessarily result in extensive news coverage of details. This doesn't mean those details are encyclopedic, as they don't have any long term notability. What needs to be said about the dress can be said in the main article on the wedding. Hut 8.5 21:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly pro-monarchist, personally, and neither am I interested in wedding dresses. But, this dress is the fashion equivalent of a major work of art. I can see the argument that doesn't have the historic aspects of the Sword of Mercy or the Koh-i-Noor, but things don't have to be historic to be notable. They just have to generate coverage in reliable sources, and this dress has generated a really enormous amount of coverage.
The article should probably be renamed, though. She's not Kate Middleton any more...—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all of the above. I have to say thought that I think this is all a bit too sudden; the article was only created 11 hours ago. We should give it time to develop before making a final decision. CJ ^{Drop me a line! • Contribs} 22:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:NOTE, this topic is notable, since it "has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." There is too much information here to merge it into the other articles (and it will get longer), although they can and do summarize it. This seems to be using WP:summary style the way Wikipedia is intended to be used. Further, this topic is appropriate for coverage in this encyclopedia because the dress has had an impact on the fashion industry and is the subject of much analysis and commentary. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a new (and therefore inexperienced) contributor I'm not going to express an opinion (I can see both points of view and find the discussion interesting). Rather it seems to me that there might be another option: create a new article entitled "Notable wedding dresses" or "Wedding dresses of celebrities and notable persons" or some such, which this content would form a part of. That would contextualise what could otherwise be criticised as one-off, recentist, marginal etc. while perhaps giving a more focussed and proportional option than an entire series of separate articles on separate dresses. Thoughts anyone? Counterbalanced (talk) 23:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your suggestion is well founded. Many !voters here are quite enthralled by the Royal Wedding and full of recentism. A little Google News Archive searching would establish that the wedding dresses of many princesses and brides of princes, as well as daughters of US Presidents, got just as much newspaper coverage back in the day. Take the wedding dresses of Luci Johnson, Julie Nixon Eisenhower, or that of Alice Roosevelt, for instance. This one is not at all remarkable in the number of news articles. It is just the one "in the news," right now. An encyclopedia is not a newspaper. Edison (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic clearly has enormous notability and so our editing policy is to keep this material. Note also the Foundation's concern that there is insufficient participation by women in Wikipedia. We have here a computer gamer - creator of articles such as List of Dungeons & Dragons deities - trying to delete a fashion article which is of great interest to millions of women.^{[citation needed]} This seems to be a case of improper bias. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I wrote those articles when I was 14 and am in no way, almost 7 years later "a computer gamer," additionally, I am now a feminist academic. But my personal life shouldn't be the thing under discussion here at all. Way to make tone-lowering assumptions extraneous to the debate. -Kez (talk) 14:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ... my ... God! I just knew someone was going to try to play this card; I didn't expect they would do it from the bottom of the deck.

First off, this is coming from a user who seems to be, as far as I can tell, male. OK, not fatal to the argument in and of itself. But then to say it in such a clichéd manner: "... of great interest to millions of women." Leaving aside the {{fact}} tag I added, I can't help but be reminded of that episode of the original version of The Office where Ricky Gervais wants the unseen unflatteringly Photoshopped image of that everyone's gotten forwarded around deleted because "it insults women".

And as I said in a parenthetical above, is it not arguably just as sexist to assume that deleting an article like this would alienate potential female editors? On the gendergap mailing list a couple of months ago, I brought up the minimal participation in WP:FASH as a symptom of our gender inequity, citing a diff in which a female editor had made a similar complaint about an article she was trying to keep from deletion. In later responses on the same and other threads, several female editors made it quite clear without referencing my post directly that they resented the insinuation that they in particular, or women in general, would flock to editing Wikipedia in droves if we just let them write more articles about make-up tips and such. Fine. I stood rebuked. I note also that the only editor whom I know to be female to have contributed to this discussion has not resorted to this sort of argument.

It crosses the line from clumsy to insulting with its last bit. First, I seem to have missed the deletion criterion where it says the other articles created by the nominator are in any way relevant to the AfD at hand. Second, as I have learned on further reflection on another incident that arose from the gendergap list, you're not going to solve that problem by singling people out and stereotyping them. Your last sentence, with an explicit mention of D&D, amounts to little more than taunting "Geekboy! See you in the locker room with the tape! I get more chicks than you!" Did you stop to think before you typed that that behavior might be just as alienating to prospective editors? It is conduct unbecoming a Wikipedian, and you owe the nominator an apology whether he's asked for one or not. Daniel Case (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second the observations of Colonel Warden, above.--Brian Dell (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then I include you as the target of my response as well. Daniel Case (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The dress has made news.1 Portillo (talk) 00:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge. The one article on the wedding is enough. Yes, the wedding is notable but we don't need to be splitting aspects off into separate articles such as the dress. This article and issue applies in ways to WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The dress is of significance to both fashion and the textile arts. - PKM (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The world will little note nor long remember the dress, but it will always remember the canceled TV shows that seem to have inspired more articles than the numer of episodes the shows themselves had. And I apologize for referencing The Orator and then getting so clumsy with my syntax. Cardiffman (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Has to be a keep, clearly notable, the only other alternative is merge, but give the size of Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Kate Middleton (at the time of posting this ~80k) and consulting WP:SIZERULE it would require hefty editing down or would just end up being split back off again. As for claims of WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS; on more than one occasion on the telecast did observers say that the dress will shape wedding dresses for the years to come, so lets review this in 1 years time. Mtking (talk) 05:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:recentism warns against creating articles which do not have 'long-term, historical view'. Given that fragments of articles worn by the British Royal family are still preserved, the dresses of Diana, Princess of Wales were the subject of their own exhibition and that the dress worn by Catherine Middleton is of equal historical significance I'd say this article was well worth keeping. As an aside I'd also guess that if the internet had been up and running when Diana or The Queen married that there would be articles on their dresses too.--Egghead06 (talk) 05:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The dress already has nothing to do with the wedding itself. One time dress for one day wedding. But it is so strong trend setter that it will dictate girlie's wishes for years. Every bride wants to have awesome dress, preferably princess' one. Kudos to Burton. --Petar Petrov (talk) 06:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many of the comments that have been posted already just seem to be trying to make notability assumptions and judgements about something related to a current event that happened less than 24 hours ago. That is not sufficient time. IMO. I suggest that this discussion be tabled and closed to a Keep, and as per WP:RECENT#Suggestions for dealing with recentism we wait until a later date when the editing on all these articles about the wedding have calmed down and the number of edits per day has dropped to a minimum. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Although I think that Edison is right when mentioning other wedding gowns of prominent brides that changed fashion history (and what about Grace Kelly's wedding gown?), I also believe that these dresses -- not just the Duchess of Cambridge's -- deserve at least an article with photograph to show the dress and bride. If that is not the consensus, then expand and merge. A single paragraph in the main wedding article is not enough. Diamantina (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment a quick decision would be very helpful, yes - because, I have nominated it for "Did you know..." and lots of details appear in every single major UK newspaper this morning (and presumably, based on what Google shows me, all over the world) - so a rapid DYK would help build it and potentially encourage new editors. Chzz ► 07:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I do wish people would stop suggesting 'merge'. Have a look on Google; there are entire articles about the dress, in several countries. There are already enough RS to write an entire book about it - and that's just a few hours after the event. Chzz ► 07:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot argue with the quantity of RS, but quality is an entire different matter. Just because you can include anything and everything that has been written about the event does not necessarily mean you could write a good article about it, or completely follow either the good article or featured article criteria, especially the "well-written" or "clear and concise" guidelines. One or two sections that purely consists of quotes[8] without providing prose and historical context could be cleaned up or removed IMO. As it currently stands, the second half of the article is becoming a list of quotes. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Give an article a chance. If I wasn't farting around here in AfD, I'd have more time to develop it. There's plenty of quality RS out there - Times, Telegraph, New York Times, etc. etc. - as I keep pointing out, there are quite literally tens of thousands of RS. Plus, if it wasn't going through AfD, I'd be pushing for DYK as soon as possible - because, right now, millions of Brits (and I assume millions more around the world) are reading all about this dress in our morning papers. Sadly, this AfD holds that back, preventing the huge potential here for attracting new users to expand it. Chzz ► 09:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the wedding dress has been the subject of much discussion on Italian talk shows this morning. The sources provided establish notability. I'd say it's a definite keep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - totally absurd article. Snap out of the hypnotism. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 07:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the IP, you have not given any reasons why the article is absurd. Just your personal opinion will not suffice here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I agree. At least merge the whole article with the Wedding article. Single wedding dress is not worth it to be a separate article. There is nothing to talk about. Dress is made, he/she made it, people thought nice/bad. That is it. Not a lot of content. Merge the whole content to the "wedding of kate middleton and william." Don't take nothing out. 67.177.203.207 (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - dress has generated quite a lot of discussion around the world (WP:N), and I'm sure this could probably end up as quite a good article given the coverage and wealth of references. The main wedding article is already quite long, so I don't see the harm this article can do. Once the coverage has died down we can see if it deserves to stay then. Bob talk 08:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - how pathetically stupid is this? And how pathetically stupid will WP look if we're the only people who don't think the dress is a 'notable subject'? And how much more sensible to give it an article of its own than to make the Wedding article clunkily long by having all the dress reference in that? The wedding is not the dress, and the dress is not the wedding. And yes, articles could (and probably should) be done on other 'notable' Royal Wedding dresses - the Queen's, Diana's and so on. Pesky (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I hope someone will create lots of articles about lots of famous dresses. I believe that our systemic bias caused by being a predominantly male geek community is worth some reflection in this context. Consider Category:Linux distribution stubs - we have nearly 90 articles about Linux distrubtions, counting only the stubs. With the major distros included, we're well over a hundred. One hundred different Linux distributions. One hundred. I think we can have an article about this dress. We should have articles about one hundred famous dresses.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I think you have something there, I think royal dresses certainly cut the mustard in terms of sources. I actually think it is a very poorly developed part of wikipedia and we could easily have articles for notable individual famous dresses and things like that. Obviously a line has to be drawn with what is included, which is dictated by sources which exist,. I think I'll start the Wedding dress of Princess Diana... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really distressing to see so many Wikipedians, in the name of redressing gender imbalance (a phenomenon we have only begun to analyze, to the point that we are far short of being able to state so categorically that not having separate articles on individual garments is directly contributory to the problem), indulge themselves in all this counter-stereotyping and otherwise engaging in the sort of behavior which makes editors quit. It's doubly distressing to see this from Wikipedia's founder.

And it is an, ahem, apples and oranges comparison and the most vulgar logical fallacy to suggest that 100 Linux distros = 100 dresses.

As I noted below, a wedding dress is a garment intended to be worn once by a single individual as part of an event which may or may not be notable. It can be, and in this case certainly is, an aspect of an event's notability. But it is notable for being part of that event, not in itself. I'm sure there were other marriages in the world, or even Britain, yesterday. Would the dress have been notable if it was worn by Sue Higginsbotham on her way to the chapel at St.-Weston's-on-the-Avon?

We do not have, and did not have until some editors decided to make a point re this AfD, articles on other dresses worn to notable weddings. As I noted below we do not have articles on other dresses worn once by a single person (I say this to include that pink dress Gwyneth Paltrow wore to the Oscars that one year, it or a copy of which was then worn by one of the creators of South Park to next year's ceremony), no matter how much contemporaneous news coverage they got, whether Lizzy Gardiner's credit-card dress, that Bob Mackie dress worn by Cher to the Oscars in the early 1980s, or Lady Gaga's raw-steak dress. Maybe we could, but I'm not sure they wouldn't be bundled into list articles eventually.

And I really see this idea that keeping this article does something to remedy the gender imbalance here to be facile at best and insulting at worst, as I have explained below. Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that article. Incidentally, it does create a naming question - Diana's dress is named by her married title, instead of "Lady Diana Spencer", so what should this be - Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, or Kate/Catherine Middleton? Also, can I propose that we conclude this discussion fairly soon, as it probably doesn't reflect very well on Wikipedia to have the deletion notice stuck on it when so many people are probably looking at the page. Bob talk 09:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, Wedding dress of Lady Diana Spencer would be right I think. OK I'll move it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - To me, if a subject is covered by sufficiant notable sources and meets WP:GNG then theres nothing wrong with having a page on it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since some of us with lots of experience can see that this will eventually wind up being merged back into the article anyway, all we're asking is that we spare ourselves the additional work (fully aware of the irony of this with all the effort being devoted to this AfD.) Daniel Case (talk) 14:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bring it on I say, Wedding dress of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Wedding dress of Princess Elizabeth.. Plenty of sources for Coronation gown of Elizabeth II. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the Victoria and Albert Museum, not to mention the Times Digital Archive, can provide RS on many, many other examples of 'notable Royal attire' - wedding and coronation dresses of Queen Victoria - and how many others? Excellent opportunity for a whole range of similar articles. Pesky (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Famous dress. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now at least - and I'll point out once again that there is a third, arguably compromise, option: merge into a new Famous wedding dresses article (mind you, I guess that could easily get very image-heavy and therefore too large). (BTW I agree 100% that if we do have individual articles then they should be under maiden name, though obviously cross-referenced.) Counterbalanced (talk) 10:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC) - Edit: I'd also quite strongly vote for "Catherine" in the title rather than "Kate", at the very least for consistency with the main wedding page (though obviously cross-referenced from the version with "Kate"). Counterbalanced (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request per WP:SNOW this is a polite request not to waste everyone's time. There is, now, no realistic chance of this AfD resulting in deletion; especially in consideration of WP:HEY. I believe it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to allow this to appear on DYK as soon as possible, to encourage further development. Therefore, I am kindly asking if this could be closed early. Thanks to all who participated (oppose and support alike) - I mean that; input is great; AfD only fails when we don't get input. I just hope, now, we've demonstrated notability, and we can all get on with editing it, instead of further debate here (which, at this stage, I really think is clearly pointless). Chzz ► 11:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets the WP:GNG. Indications (from reliable sources) are that the dress will have lasting coverage (also see Category:Royal wedding dresses). At this point in time, how ca we know if the topic won't having lasting notability (although the indications are that it will). In any case, this can be revisited in a few months, in the unlikely event that the coverage isn't lasting. I second Chzz's call for a SNOW keep closure. Jenks24 (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, for Heaven's sake SNOW-keep this! Anyone clicking on the AfD link from that page is immediately going to see how bl**dy stupid this entire discussion is! It this the 'face of Wikipedia' that we really, truly want people to be seeing? Pesky (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
and I have just this moment noticed that according to the nominator's user page, they self-identify as .... an inclusionist! Seriously? Pesky (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your continued personal attacks have been noted. -Kez (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is seriously not intended as any kind of 'personal attack' - I just find it honestly completely incomprehensible that an inclusionist should nominate this for deletion. A deletionist - yes, that I might be able to understand. Pesky (talk) 13:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so disingenuous; you just called me stupid on my talk page. How is that not personal? -Kez (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't. Quite. And it wasn't an 'attack', either. But I do seriously think your wisest course of action would have been to withdraw the nomination very quickly. Pesky (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, in other words, it's all Kez's fault that people are attacking him? Daniel Case (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that, Daniel. Did you really interpret it that way? Pesky (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hilarious thing is that somebody once tried to delete the article about Kate Middleton itself!!!]♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we should have a separate category for 'Articles nominated for deletion by inclusionists'? Pesky (talk) 12:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That AfD was six years ago, when she was just another girlfriend. It was kept at the time, but I don't see that nomination as somehow evincing bad faith. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, after all. Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Honestly, this isn't notable? There are dozens of mentions about it all over the net. Almost every newspaper which reported on the wedding has something in it about the dress. How is this not notable? Sources like BBC, New York Times, Al Jazeera, etc. etc. have mentions about the dress. OK, let's look at it from this perspective. We are telling some article creators (in AFC cases, for example) that their article subjects are not notable enough for an article because there are no reliable sources for them. How are you going to explain why a topic, which has plenty of reliable sources, is not notable? Bejinhan talks 12:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been plenty of reliable-source coverage of all sorts of transitory Internet memes and viral videos at the time they were new. We started articles about them. AfDs were started almost immediately thereafter. The keep voters (usually newer users; I should know as I was sometimes one of those myself) pointed to the existence of multiple sources with non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. The delete voters asked whether we were so sure these things would be so interesting a year from now.
At first we often won keeps outright or through "no consensus". But after a while, cooler heads prevailed and articles like Dog poop girl and Brian Chase (hoaxer) were merged back in and redirected to the articles about the larger news event. I fail to see why we have any expectations of anything turning out differently here.
As one of the early members of WikiProject Fashion, I totally agree with you about our lack of coverage in that area. However, I do not believe it means we automatically need articles about individual garments to be worn a single time by one individual. Did we have an article about Lady Gaga's raw-steak dress? Lizzy Gardiner's American-Express-gold-card dress (Those of you claiming this is an instance of systemic bias might want to take note of the fact that we have no article about Ms. Gardiner herself, even though she won an Oscar, which makes her indisputably notable).
We could certainly have a list article about notable wedding dresses. We could certainly mention the dress in an expansion to wedding dress. But I don't see why it automatically deserves its own article just because there's lots of news coverage. There's been a fair amount of coverage of the cake, too. Yet no one's started an article about it. Daniel Case (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody seriously needs to Snow keep this asap. It doesn't that a chance in being deleted..I've created Category:British royal attire, probably one could write about those posh uniforms the royal males wear from time to time too, especially going back in time.. I'm sure the museums in London and books have coverage of them..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources. What this debate has usefully demonstrated is that Wikipedia has been seriously lacking in coverage of matters of costume. It is an enormous topic with museums devoted to it and a great many books. Topics such as court dress in individual countries and periods require articles in themselves. And there has been much on the BBC comparing this dress with Grace Kelly's, but you would look in vain in Wikipedia for any enlightenment on that. If any evidence were needed of the bias in Wikipedia coverage and participation it is here. --AJHingston (talk) 13:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- "If any evidence were needed of the bias in Wikipedia coverage and participation it is here." See my comments above regarding this specious argument. Daniel Case (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable dress with plenty of reliable sources. mgiganteus1 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed "Royal tailory" is a vastly underdeveloped topic and one with a lot of information available on. If you broaden the scope and go back further in time or venture into other countries then it becomes vast. I for one remember being in a museum in Bangkok and seeing detailed displays about items of clothing worn by the Thai royal family, special silks and weaving and all that. Its not just British royal family.. At the very least we should have overviews of royal/court dress for every country... Can I interest anybody in venturing into this? Wedding dress of Princess Alexandra coming... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to related wedding article. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have no interest in becoming embroiled in this discussion - there are much more important things in life than Wikipedia and certainly much more important things than royal dresses; all I did was nominate what I thought was a ridiculous article for deletion, as per admin suggestion. Clearly, I am not alone in the opinion that this is not notable enough a subject for Wikipedia (Google not being the authority on notability), although the majority support a Keep. That's fine - I'm glad that consensus is being reached, even if I don't agree with it. I can even appreciate some of the arguments - i.e. that Wikipedia's traditional bias against fashion as a credible topic is perhaps not neutral (AJHingston), and am interested to see that because of this discussion articles for other royal dresses have now been created (thereby demonstrating that my point about there being no other such articles was valid when I nominated it).

This is the last thing I will say on the matter, as I have much better things to be doing with my time. But I want to make three points:

1) Is this dress more notable a garment than Prince William's suit? If so, why?

2) Are royal dresses intrinsically more notable than other celebrity wedding dresses observed by the fashion media? If so, why? It smacks of classism to me, hence my point about the Wedding dress of Katie Price.

3) I was glad to see that Daniel Case was injecting some sanity into the proceedings, since a small minority of the Keep users have been incredibly vitriolic and over-invested. I didn't nominate the article out of maliciousness, I was just following a process laid out by Wikipedia. Yet some of the responses have been calling the nomination - me as nominator, and anyone who agrees with me - "stupid" or implying that. I couldn't believe that Pesky and Colonel Warden decided to publicly mock me by using my user page as a weapon against the nomination. If that's the standard of these debates then I can appreciate that after 6 years on Wikipedia (the articles on D&D and my user page itself, should anyone be at all interested, written originally when Wikipedia was 3 years old and had NONE of the regulations it does now, and I myself was FOURTEEN - so congrats, you successfully poked fun at a teenager's interests - you must feel so big) there is little reason for me to continue editing.

-Kez (talk) 14:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kez, I think it's really the apparent inconsistency of your approach that has people drawing the comparisons here. And you must remember that nobody knows/knew how old you are/were unless/until you say so. Surely you can see the inconsistencies, though? And it really is hard to see how 'The Dress' is less notable than the comparison drawn (and therefore either CSD or AfD material), and surely (again) you must see that it does seem just a bit strange for an inclusionist to suggest this (as opposed to various others) for deletion? Pesky (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is really going to have to be the last thing I say on the matter: first, I'm in my 20s now, so let's not make my age an issue - the point was (and those comments were aimed more at Colonel Warden than you) that the articles referred to - and my user page label of "inclusionist" were SIX YEARS OLD so of course there was an "inconsistency" in my approach - 6 years is a long time! But this is a digression about me, which leads to the second matter: my point was that my user page/personal history bears no relation on THIS DEBATE - even if I had "I LOATHE WEDDING DRESSES" in big letters on my user page, the AfD discussion is not about the nominator (nor anyone else's) bias (everyone has one), but about the matter at hand - whether the article is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia and why. -Kez (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nono, I'm sure you nominated it in good faith. The topic does initially seem one to scoff at, because, well its a wedding dress!! I personally don't anything against articles on individual pieces of clothing which are widely covered in sources and books. Of course it would be ridiculous to have an article on every dress or wedding dress worn by a celebrity but some are likely notable at least.. Grace Kelly's is. As for individual famous celebrity dresses, one thinks of Liz Hurley's famous dress or eh Lady Gaga's meat costume LOL... Maybe Liz Hurley's dress is notable, dunno, sources would dictate that. But royal wedding dresses are certainly higher status than celebrity.. Royal dresses and items of attire which are found in royal and national museums and are covered in detail in multiple credible sources are the criteria for notability in this subject I think, which immediately rules out the vast majority of celebrity dresses...♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William's suit was the full dress uniform of the Irish Guards. The uniform choice (he had multiple options) is discussed in the main wedding article, but further at Irish Guards#Uniform. As for notability, Katie Price is not in waiting to become the consort to a head of state, her wedding was not broadcast (domestically, let alone internationally), and it is unlikely to become an artifact at a British museum. This is only speculation, as I haven't searched for articles about Ms. Price's dress, but I doubt it was said to influence Western wedding wear for the next few years. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But just how will Kate's dress "influence Western wedding wear for the next few years"? My wife commented when we all finally saw it that it was an excellent dress for her body type, that she knew Kate would choose a neckline like that and that it was nice to see long sleeves were back (although given the weather, I can't blame her). Certainly a lot of other women will Say Yes to A Similar Dress. But is that just because of who wore it and to what wedding, or because of the dress itself? None of its design elements are new to wedding dresses. They were certainly well-chosen, and the dress itself was as high-end as you can get, but the dress design was not some sort of groundbreaking advance in wedding dresses (As if at this point there could be, but anything's possible). Simply because a lot of hyperbole-plagued commentators say so does not make it so (I remember reading some online commentary once about a similar BBC sports announcer who said, before the start of one particularly important but not final soccer match, that "matches don't come much bigger than an FA Cup quarterfinal" ... well, I can think of at least three other matches that do. I suggest we take these comments in that spirit).

As for your other arguments, they are solid for the notability of the wedding itself, which is not in doubt here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding dress of Princess Alexandra of Denmark looks pretty encyclopedic to me. There is a line to be drawn I think. Which wedding are we talking about now with Jordan LOL. I think Peter Andre's dodgy hair do in the first one is more worthy of coverage!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This particular dress has recieved significant and in depth coverage in serious, respected, sources, extending to its long term and cultural impact. The ommission of other such articles in Wikipedia, or certain people's personal dislike of dresses being treated as a non-trivial topic, are frankly not factors at all in this case. Less important, but worth noting, the level of less serious coverage of this particular dress is astronomical, way beyond any of the supposed other examples of non-notability. Ironically, had this Afd not been kicked off leading to massive improvements to what was initially just a cut and paste stub, it's likely it could have been quietly merged some time down the line. Ho hum. And no, I do not consider this vote an endorsement of the 'all royal wedding dresses are automatically notable' viewpoint. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it probably eventually will be merged into the main article (as we eventually did with Daniel Brandt after over a dozen AfDs, although those circumstances were very, very different, which is why I think this AfD is a grand waste of time because we'll do it anyway, as we have done with so many other such articles in the past.

And I do consider the omission of other such articles very telling, given the amount of time and editors who could have done something about it. Also, as I've noted, if this is about remedying gender bias, there are more obvious but less glamorous places to start. ~

Keep. See Wedding dress of Lady Diana Spencer ~~ Pandawelch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.211.48 (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article, as noted above, was started in response to comments I and others made above during this AfD, an action which IMO is a clear violation of WP:POINT. Daniel Case (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, although I disagree with you and have voted keep, a lot of what you have said in this AfD has been sensible. Therefore it was quite surprising to see you accuse Dr. Blofeld of violating WP:POINT when he has actually gone to the effort of creating an article that clearly passes the GNG. I urge you to retract your comment. Jenks24 (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think what the IP is trying to say is that, if Diana's dress has had significant and lasting coverage, then there is no reason to assume that Kate's wouldn't (especially considering the coverage it's already received). Jenks24 (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree, the topic of that article is highly notable as well. The creation of this article has clearly given editors the idea to create similar ones on other notable topics, but there's nothing wrong with that. Clearly 'other similar articles exist' is a poor argument in this particular case, but that's another point.Rangoon11 (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe it was simply a this subject is clearly notable and this is a poorly covered area of wikipedia which we should have coverage on... You may have your opinions about wedding dresses but there are entire books covering royal clothing in detail like this and museum sections dedicated to them. If reputable institutions such as the Museum of London deem royal fashion worthy of such detailed books and museum coverage then wikipedia should too. Articles like Coronation gown of Elizabeth II and Wedding dress of Princess Elizabeth clearly meet guidlelines. Do you think they don't Daniel Case? Give it a few years and this dress will also have wide coverage in books... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When people are beginning to wonder if there are 'any more articles to write', a whole new doorway opening up to a big string of 'potential articles' like this has got to be a good thing :o) Pesky (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge. My rationale is that basically you have "Speculation", "Design" and "Reception" and that is all this page will ever be, nothing more. All of the information can be easily put into the Wedding page. This page has produced a plague of Royal Wedding dress pages now - even this: Coronation gown of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. The precedent will be set if this page is kept and ultimately where will it stop? Stevo1000 (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It will stop at articles that do not pass the general notability guideline. Jenks24 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hang on a minute, surely "and that is all this page will ever be, nothing more." is a weird rationale which could apply to thousands of articles on here? I mean, this article is already longer than some of our featured articles about minor tropical storms, for example. Presumably there was no more to say about those storms, but they're still considered notable and complete in their coverage. Bob talk 16:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - To clarify my view, the page to me is as far as it can go and is are quite short, therefore it be quite easily merged into the Royal Wedding page. I'm just concerned this will set a precedent for all wedding dresses and even famous dresses or clothes worn by a notable individual. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK try Wedding dress of Queen Victoria. It is claimed that this very dress even started the modern day trend of white weddings. Read the white wedding article. That is extremely notable. Her wedding apparel has an entire section dedicated to it in one of the world's finest museums. Are you going to claim that they are wrong to think it notable? Read this Washington Post article which draws comparisons betweem Kate and Victoria]. We've clearly shown that royal wedding dresses are notable, as if the sources didn't already show that.... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:20, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're here, I don't think the bold page move that's just happened is strictly correct, as it's arguable that it was commissioned for her while she was still Catherine/Kate Middleton. While it's under contention, though - should it be moved back to Kate or Catherine? (may need an admin to move) Bob talk 16:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely it should be Wedding dress of Kate Middleton, the name prior to marriage.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the world most famous wedding dress. might sound silly but it is true.. thats why it should be kept on wikipedia.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding dress of Grace Kelly started, will be expanded further later. Wedding dress of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis also notable according to sources, but I'm off for some fresh air! Articles will stop where sources don't exist, pretty simple really.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am delighted to see the new articles springing up as a result of this discussion, and I hope someone has the references to start an article on the collection of inaugural gowns of the first ladies of the United States in the Smithsonian. (And the wedding suit of James II is in the V&A (image in Commons)...) - PKM (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received significant coverage from reliable sources. Lasting notability cannot be determined now, unless we have a psychic, but watching CBS/ABC last night, I did hear them call the dress an "instant classic" and something that will be copied endlessly. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 2 billion people saw Kate get married in it, imitations came out days later - I think its notable. Diana's dress has lasted, their is no reason why Kate's wont be. Prior to the wedding, its all people could talk about. Alexsau1991 (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wedding dresses are clearly big business. Royal wedding dresses, including that of Lady Diana Spencer are on exhibition in a museum in, I think, Bath. Anything that is big business and which is retained for permanent exhibition is clearly notable. Two further points:

The section entitled "Speculation" should be renamed "Pre-wedding speculation". Provided that it is written in an encyclopeadic manner, I believe that given the amount of business associated with such matter makes this section sufficiently notable for retention.
It is interesting that the article Wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton was nominated for deletion shortly after its creation. It had a 134,000 hits on the wedding day and its successor article Wedding_of_Prince_William,_Duke_of_Cambridge,_and_Catherine_Middleton had a quarter of a million hits on the same day.

Martinvl (talk) 19:38, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a good article, that can do absolutely no harm in just being there. 90.36.109.187 (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There have been 10 more "keep"s and 2 more "delete"s added since a WP:SNOW request was last posted. Could an uninvolved admin perhaps make a decision, please? Bob talk 21:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stronger than Chuck Norris keep - This is an extremely notable dress, the article is actually quite interesting (for some at least) and it worth being an addition to the encyclopedia.
Keep My mom loves this stuff.--Nowa (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rees (racing driver)[edit]

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

Barely notable driver, appears to have signed with a Formula Renault team, but no real evidence he competed - and is competing at that level enough anyway? Previously nominated and kept with the emphasis on satisfying the professional sportsman requirement. The-Pope (talk) 13:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- The-Pope (talk) 13:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see WP:NSPORT, the motor-racing section - if he hasn't driven in a 'fully professional series' then not notable. Nothing seems to have happened since 2006 to change this - Google search for "Peter Rees" racing does not yield anything of use.Asnac (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someshow shows evidence that the Formula Renault appearance was a fully professional appearance. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen pages of people with less notability than this man. - Jake Talley (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or send me a list those pages and I'll nominate them for deletion too. Note that there appears to be another racing driver in Australia with the same name, but older. The-Pope (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, User:Jake Talley is a sockpuppet of an indefinitely blocked user. Gnome de plume (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of clear notability. Usual Caveats apply, though - if he races in a top series, we might be revisiting this one. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Allen[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 02:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1992. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crista Nicole[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming of You (film)[edit]

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

Unsourced article on future film. No sources provided or found. Not notable. Prod removed by IP without comment. SummerPhD (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to say it is being screened at the TIFF, let alone it's completed. No problem with it being recreated if sources can be found. Lugnuts (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Personally I think it's a hoax and have marked the page accordingly and advised the author. I'm not really up to speed with celebrities but I have heard of two of the actors named, Rachel Weisz and Kate Winslet, and a search for their names coupled with the film name yields nothing on Google, also tried it with the director's name.Asnac (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the best it is WP:TOOSOON... at the worst it's a hoax. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Elke Jeinsen[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1986. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

German and Jewish settlement in Poland (966–1385)[edit]

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

POV fork of History of Poland during the Piast dynasty from which it was removed [9] for being unsourced (and undue) [10]. There might be some useful text there but it can be merged to Ostsiedlung and History of Jews in Poland (though actually I think the relevant text is already in those article). Also not sure why German and Jewish settlement needs to be considered together here. For German settlement we already have the Ostsiedlung article. I can see a point in an article on Jewish settlement in Poland (and I'm a bit surprised that such an article has not been created already) but this ain't it - in fact, out of 9850 characters only about 1100 (or 11%) is about Jewish settlement, apparently thrown in there as an afterthought. Note also the article is pretty much unsourced, except for just that one short paragraph on Jewish settlement.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can the nominator explain us, why's it a POV fork, rather than just a content fork, that could/would be legitimate? I couldn't find an explanation in the diffs you provided above, concerning the deletion of those paragraphs from the original article. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because it's totally unsourced (aside from the short paragraph on Jewish settlement) and I can spot quite a number of dubious claims in that text. But if you want it to be just a content fork (of text in Ostiedlung and HoJiP, synthesized together), that'll work too. I should add that it's also a synthesis of two distinct phenomenon.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At first sight it seemed to be a reasonable content fork, however after further expanation by Volunteer Marek I agree this is a sythesis of two distinct phenomenon which is already covered in Ostsiedlung and History of Jews in Poland. --Martin (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a peculiar joining of two distinct subjects in one article. The two phenomena are dealt with in other articles and the material here is mostly unsourced. Would it make sense to have several other "German and Jewish settlement in Poland" articles covering other periods, or may be one "German and Jewish settlement in Poland" article for all of Polish history? Orczar (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into History of Poland during the Piast dynasty if anything mergable. The article, as its stand with a single reference, is not worthy of a separate encyclopedic article. --Reference Desker (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Incubate the article in search of further sources, and give it a direction of expansion ("German and Jewish settlement in Poland", for example). Reliance on a single source isn't a reason for deletion. And the synthesis issue doesn't hold water for me: we're talking about historical patterns of settlement that became highly relevant in Poland later (and became highly relevant across multiple places because of the rise of the ethnicized nation-state).--Carwil (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with that is that "German and Jewish settlement in Poland" would still be SYNTH. Why not "German, Jewish, Flemish, Armenian and Czech settlement in Poland" article? Wouldn't it make much more sense to split it up? Also, it's not really "reliance on a single source" - it's more like no sources at all except for one short paragraph which "relies on a single source".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article doesn't make an attempt to demonstrate what connects both aspects of this topic. The section on Jewish settlement, as mentioned above, already fits within the scope of an existing article. The section on German settlement remains completely unsourced, so I can't find any justification for keeping this in its current state. Kansan (talk) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topics are better covered by each having its own article, rather than the two together within a seemingly arbitrary time.Borock (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it appears to be original work on a number of topics with few references. Split-merge it into a number or existing articles so long as sourcing is found for statements. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and rewrite to include additional sources. Major related topics, about which there is enormous literature. That there are more specific topics also does not invalidate this one. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an enormous literature on each topic separately. I am not aware of any sources which treat the two phenomenon together - I'm guessing at best you can find one or two which mention it in passing, probably ones which are just about the general ethnic composition and demographics of Poland and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. As I said above, one of these topics (German settlement) already has extensive coverage on Wikipedia. The other (Jewish settlement) if anything, deserves an article of its own. Not this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Revising my opinion: there would be so much to do that it isn't worth rewriting from the present article as a start. And I agree that one of the Jewish settlement has a considerably higher priority DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Would like to see the it referenced and merged, per comments above, but as it stands now, it seems to be rather problematic, per the nom. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kalin Olson[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1997. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Morrison (model)[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 1978. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Holland[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2001. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly McArthur[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. How many minor actors & actresses have pages? Hell, when there are pages on Pokemon characters, how is this a big deal? As for Playmates not being notable in their own right, I'd disagree (& not only because I like having pages about Playmates). How many people can name Miss October '75? Quite a few, I'll bet. Moreover, without a page on her, I'd never have learned she was the cover model for the Christina novels. There is value being lost if this is deleted. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 07:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually oppose our inclusion criteria, and not this specific afd. --Damiens.rf 13:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A regular role ~~for multiple seasons~~ on a network TV show plus multiple nontrivial movie credits means she satisfies WP:ENT independently of her Playboy work. Still enough nonPlayboy work to support an independent article. otherwise redirect to list article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with being a Playboy Playmate no longer an automatic inclusion criterion these Playmates need to satisfy other criteria. She doesn't based on coverage in reliable sources appear to meet general notability. As an actress her resume appears to have fewer than ten entries, the last of which was over 20 years ago. Her only role that could be considered significant was a recurring role on the soap opera Santa Barbara. She appeared in 47 episodes out of 1,315 broadcast and they were all broadcast over a span of four months, not "multiple seasons". I don't believe she qualifies for an article under guidelines for entertainers. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like what for instance? Harley Hudson (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, elaborate so that it's not just a vote. --Damiens.rf 21:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She satisfies criteria 4 of PORNBIO. She was a prominent character on Santa Barbara. [11] and has guest starred on several popular 80s shows. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Ramos[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 03:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Should sufficient sourcing and claim of notability later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Dekkappai (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google News search reveals she has at least 3 different newspapers that have an article about her satisfying WP:BASIC. Fort Worth Star-Telegram Dec 12, 2002; Dallas Morning News December 13, 2002; San Antonio Express-News - Nov 26, 2002; San Antonio Express-News Jun 2, 2000; San Antonio Express-News Jan 28, 2004. No playmatehood exception in the GNG. Nominator is confusing trivia as in depth of coverage for importance of the subject Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How am I confusing that? Educate me. WP:BASIC says Non-triviality is a measure of the depth of content of a published work...". --Damiens.rf 20:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are confusing the depth of coverage for the importance of the subject. You think playmatehood is fluff so any coverage on it must be fluff. Clear enough for you? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - You should feel less confident in guessing what I think. Trivial coverage about a person is one that does not goes in depth about this person biography, work, influence, or focuses only on basic facts about a small piece of this person's life. Non-trivial coverage about someone is the kind of coverage that make us know why is this person non-average, and what makes this person non-standard / outstanding. There are clear cases of outstanding actress / models that are playmates. But must of playmates are just playmates, and news-articles about they doing playmate-stuff do not establish this person as notable, otherwise, all playmates would be notable (what was once defended by members of the relevant wikiproject, but defied by the community). --Damiens.rf 20:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Using the spectrum described by note 6 of WP:BASIC on what I consider trivia and not.

1. Articles about playmate autograph signing, trivia.

2. Articles about playmate appearances, trivia.

3. Articles about Hef and mention that she one of the many girls that happens to be around him, trivia.

4. Article about playmate, including some background. Not trivia.

If different reliable sources satisfy 4. That's enough for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There will always be some level of "4. Article about playmate". But Local papers, for instance, love to cover how the towngirl turn into a playboy girl. But that's simply not outstanding (in a very loose sense of outstanding, indeed). --Damiens.rf 21:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's my review process. I don't require outstanding. I require multiple coverage that adds up to beyond trivia. The multiple requirement avoids issue of the solo hicktown newspaper coverage (even though I don't discriminate against hicktown). Not all local papers cover their hometown girls. Otherwise they would be in every single playmate article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I think these nominations may have been made without sufficient individual consideration, this particular one does not seem to have any thing that could represent significant notability . DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serria Tawan[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe there has been general consensus that Playmates of the Month are notable and that if you add on some modest acting credits, it is a no brainer. She has modest acting credits and a decent rewrite of her bio would make her notability more clear. Check out the IMDb link. 3 eps of Everybody Hates Chris and one of CSI: Miami. Nothing to sweep under the rug.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2002. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Her acting credits do not appear to include any substantial roles sufficient to infer independent notability, although this is a closer case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Where can we find such coverage? Is it substantial or just trivial, as expected for most playmates? Please, elaborate to support your view, otherwise it's just a vote. --Damiens.rf 21:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you just vote when you mass nominated all these articles for deletion without following WP:BEFORE? Click the Google archives news search at the top of the AFD. Sort through the results by entering in "Playboy". Notice the book she published gets reviews in various places, and she is interviewed about it? Dream Focus 09:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on her film and television career [12]. Plus coverage of her book. [13] Also note the two saying delete both stamped the same thing on a dozens of different articles, one after the other, without even looking at them. Dream Focus 09:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Dream Focus. -- œ ^™ 09:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same as Dream Focus & OlEnglish noted above. Validays (talk) 10:29,30 April 2011(UTC)
Keep - For her playmatehood, book, and acting credits satisfying WP:PORNBIO criteria 4. No playmatehood exception in GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per her fairly substantial acting career. Epbr123 (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverage, and no indication that she's known for anything other than Playboy. (And if this !vote seems very generic, its because so is the article.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article appears to have fallen victim to a series of mass nominations which were not vetted before listing. :( coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you be capable of supporting your vote with a policy-relevant comment instead of a guessed opinion about my behaviour? --Damiens.rf 23:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I felt it necessary, perhaps. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 00:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, it's up to you. Come back if you change your mind. --Damiens.rf 03:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Coccyx. Trolling and timewasting nom. --212.137.70.194 (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:GNG which states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The only independent and reliable source (that lacks significant coverage) is the review (here) of the book she co-authored with two other playmates in 2007. This source doesn't actually look like a review -or even an interview in that manner- since it seems to be written to illustrate a point. The book itself is not notable and no other review of it can be found. I cant find any other sources. Nimuaq (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even a negative review is still a review. And they thought her notable enough to call her and publish a quote from her. That's coverage enough. "People underestimate the power of stuffing a bra," one of the book's authors, Serria Tawan (aka Miss November 2002), said in a phone interview. "Stuffing bras is the norm out here" — Los Angeles — and all you need is some tissue. "I love making boobs look good and I don't see any point in not making them stand out." Dream Focus 16:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that coverage, alone, is not enough and can not be considered as significant coverage. I think the article needs multiple independent and reliable sources on the subject per WP:GNG which states "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic" (footnote #3). I will be more than happy to change my vote if there is a single reliable and independent source out there that covers the subject directly in detail. Nimuaq (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tailor James[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability guideline. Damiens.rf 02:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Playboy Playmates of 2003. Does not appear to be enough nontrivial reliably sourced content to justify an independent article. This has been the outcome of most recent AFD discussions for less prominent Playmates as well the way most recently named Playmates have been handled. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is fine Not enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - Does not meet standard of notability for porno actors.--Burkina Faso (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Welles[edit]

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

Being a Playboy playmate does not make you notable. Being chosen Playmate of the Month or Playmate of the Year is not an award: It's a strategic commercial decision made by Playboy Corporation about how to better commercialize it products. Regardless of how much some Wikipedians love Playmates, we should write articles about them only when they were covered by independent third part sources. Also, texts solely related to their playmatehood are not the kind non-trivial coverage asked by the general notability criteria. Damiens.rf 01:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should have been done after consensus determined Playmate-hood's non-notability. Other projects can cover this material, Wikipedia consensus has determined that Wikipedia is not that project. Should sourcing and claim of notability sufficient for Wikipedia later be found, the article can be re-started. Do NOT redirect. Redirecting non-notable articles to Listings of a subject which has been found to be non-notable is absurd. Playmate-hood, being inherently non-notable, does not prop up this article, nor can it prop up a List of playmates. Redirecting to non-notable lists only makes work for Admins who will have to delete these redirects later. Also, significantly, this is an inadequately-sourced BLP in a controversial area. Dekkappai (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As long as her court case against Playboy is treated as notable, it's enough, together with her less substantial nonPlayboy credits, to justify an independent article. But not by very much. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - being a party to a notable lawsuit (assuming that the suit is indeed notable) does not automatically confer notability. Acting resume and available sources do not support notability. Harley Hudson (talk) 19:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough coverage for a stand alone article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as...? Harley Hudson (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where can we find such coverage? Is it substantial or just trivial, as expected for most playmates? Please, elaborate to support your view, otherwise it's just a vote. --Damiens.rf 21:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you actually clicked on the google links above. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't suggest didn't. --Damiens.rf 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Google news search show multiple news stories in 1981 and 1998 about Welle's playmate status and subsequent lawsuit satisfies WP:BASIC. Unlike nominator's suggestion, there is no playmatehood exception to WP:BASIC or GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is someone who made legal history when she won her case to describe herself as playmate of the year.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In such cases, we write an article covering the case, not a bio. --Damiens.rf 01:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is someone who was not only Playmate of the Year, but also made legal history. The whole person is therefore of interest, not merely one thing or another thing.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense to the nom's logic. Just because most models or "playmates" are not notable, does not mean that she is not notable. It's sort of like, "If it's bad for you, it must taste good." Being a named party in a major lawsuit can add to notability. Keep. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, WP has many articles about named parties in lawsuits, and those that generate ongoing media coverage or appeals to the Supreme Court are usually kept, contrary to what is suggested above by Hudson. WP:LAW has loads of such articles. Bearian (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 15:10, 1 May 2011 Jimfbleak (talk | contribs | block) deleted "Poleball" ‎ (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (real person, animal, organization, or web content): Unreferenced. Possibly a hoax,) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poleball[edit]

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

PROD removed, non-notable invented 'sport' of which I find no relevant sources or coverage. Jebus989 ^✰ 11:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This sport seems to be unknown to everyone except the contributor (who is also called 'poleball!).Asnac (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find any sources--either a hoax or something made up one day. Blueboy 96 22:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clear delete as above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Ludtke[edit]

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

CSD declined, but I fail to see her notability in the article. delete - UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC) UtherSRG (talk) 11:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was the first female sports reporter in locker rooms and involved in a famous law suit, notability confirmed by a number of independent third party sources such as this. Always remember WP:BEFORE. Also, the nomination is technically defective because the link here on the article page is a redlink. Jonathanwallace (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jonathanwallace. Despite the current quality of this article, the subject is notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It looks to me like she certainly has received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Iiyama Vision Master Pro 17 computer monitor[edit]

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

Lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, required per WP:GNG.I really don't think an article is needed for every single monitor, especially not for ones with such low coverage. Notability was established, and the proposal is withdrawn. Muhandes (talk) 10:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is top of the chart for a year equate to "low coverage"? What monitor are you going to list for 1997-1998 if you don't list this one? Unscintillating (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The VisionMaster product line appears notable, but this particular model does not. I could find no coverage in reliable sources with Google Web, News or Books using "VisionMaster" OR "Vision Master" +"Pro 17" as the query. Rilak (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC) I concur with the nominator that notability has been established. Rilak (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep PCWorld is as authoritative as you can get, and is already listed in the references section. Unscintillating (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being "Best buy" in PCWorld is far from having "significant coverage". --Muhandes (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says not only that it was a Best Buy but that it was the top of the chart for a year. How much more significant coverage does the nominator want? Front page coverage in the NYT with a title, "Iiyama produced a WP:RS monitor in 1997-98"? I don't think that pointing to two words in an article and saying that those two words don't constitute "significant coverage" is a useful discussion. IMO the claim that PCWorld is not independent is argumentative and incompetent. IMO, the claim that PCWorld is not a reliable source is argumentative and incompetent. Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ask that you remain civil and avoid ad hominem arguments (not to speak of name calling as you did below). I apologize if quoting WP:GNG as it is, with the wikilinks, made the wrong impression, but I never claimed PCWorld is not independent nor did I say it is not reliable. The claim (I thought) I specifically made is that having being covered by PCWorld is not significant coverage. Significant coverage is when multiple sources cover a subject in a through way. To quote WP:GNG "Multiple sources are generally expected", and "Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic." --Muhandes (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accusation of "name calling <below>", please provide diffs. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have used softening words, but not doing so does not open the door to suggestions of incivility and ad hominem, which are uncalled for. "The statement is incompetent and argumentative" is not an ad hominem, and any suggestion that it might be is an escalation. The PCWorld article is reliable and authoritative and satisfies WP:GNG by itself. Not only was the monitor in the top ten, it reached the top of the chart. Not only was it at the top of the chart, it stayed there for a year. "Multiple sources are generally expected" is a paraphrase for "multiple sources are not needed with a strong source". Monitor manufacturers such as Dell bring out new models every few months–this monitor stayed at the top of the chart for a year. Does this mean nothing to you? If you still believe that this monitor is not notable, please name five monitors that are more notable. Unscintillating (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

incompetent is by definition ad hominem. And calling someone a deletionist is by definition name calling (OK, I admit to over-sensitivity on the second one, but I though I'd warn before it becomes one). If you want to make an argument, please avoid them.

So that is the previous respondent's objection, that I made an ad hominem against an argument? Why are we going down this path unless it is to draw attention away from the discussion? The root of "hominem" means "man". An argument is not a man. So by definition, it is not possible to make an ad hominem against an argument, in fact, raising such an issue should be seen as counter-productive to advancing the argument. If the argument is incompetent and cannot be rehabilitated, it may be the reasonable thing to withdraw it or abandon it. Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the accusatory language that I have engaged in "name calling", I had actually hoped that the previous respondent would ignore my request for diffs and say nothing more, which would have ended the discussion. Instead, the accusatory language has been escalated to the assertion that I have called "someone" a name, still without evidence. I will again ask for diffs. Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I never claimed other monitors are more notable, so I'm not sure what you are arguing. As I said very clearly, individual models are usually not notable enough, which is why articles usually deal with lines of products. --Muhandes (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) From the nominator's opening statement, "I...don't think an article is needed for every...monitor...", we see an implication that some monitors should be in the encyclopedia, just not all of them. What are some of these monitors that are ok to be in the encyclopedia, when the claim is made that the Iiyama VisionMaster Pro 17 is not ok? (2) If "individual models are usually not notable enough", then there is a standard that separates models that are notable enough from those that are not notable enough–what are five that are notable and five that weren't quite notable? (3) By another standard nominator has listed, "very rare" monitors get coverage in the encyclopedia–what are some that made the cut as being "very rare" and what are some that came close? Unscintillating (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of other monitor models which were found notable enough, but I was being careful not to make that as a statement because 1. I did not research the subject, nor do I intend to. 2. other articles are a weak argument anyway. The standard for inclusion is WP:GNG, which we don't seem to agree on how to apply in this case, which is fine. --Muhandes (talk) 06:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Something that has millions of them sold, make it fairly significant. Even if most of them are in landfills. Just because its not popular now ('no coverage in reliable sources') does not have a baring on its significance. PS. PCWorld is a published magazine, so its immortalized, unlike the daily google results. ZyMOS (talk) 06:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. i added reliable sources. and i dont see the harm in having an article for every monitor that has ever existed. If its info is correct it can only help to educate. By thats my opinion ZyMOS (talk) 06:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You both seem to be missing the point, and none of you answered the original concern. "Significant" (having sold many units) has little to do with "notable", as per the requirements of WP:GNG. Notability is defined by having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Having been reviewed once by PCWorld is far from significant coverage, even if the unit was best buy. It is very rare to have significant coverage of one model of a product line, which is why we usually have articles on product lines, rather than models. This case is no different. --Muhandes (talk) 07:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So then merge it into a product line, but dont delete it. ZyMOS (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merging could be used by a deletionist to delete the material after the merge, this monitor is individually notable. Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your right ZyMOS (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A monitor that came out in 1997 is not going to have as much online coverage as modern products. The PC World review is undoubtedly significant coverage as it is a review focused specifically on that particular monitor. And PC World is considered a reliable source. We do, though, look for multiple sources to establish notability. This PC Pro review is about a different monitor, but is does point out that "Almost every winning system reviewed by PC Pro included an Iiyama monitor, more often than not the Vision Master 17 or its more advanced brother the Pro 17." which indicates that the monitor is being noted, and also indicates that there are ohter reviews out there, probably in print form, that would establish the notability of this computer monitor. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Personally, I'd prefer to see a good article about the line of products than a mediocre one about a single model. At the least, I'd say the Pro 17 model should be mentioned. But I admit notability, which was not evident when I proposed the deletion, has now been established, so I withdraw the proposal. --Muhandes (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G5 - created in violation of block by a user with a history of adding factual inaccuracies to articles —SpacemanSpiff 04:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Madukkarai wall[edit]

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

This article is complete original research. The article creator is a POV pushing sockmaster who has been indef blocked. He has filled this with conjectures and OR. There is no mention of any sort in any reliable source about the subject Sodabottle (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Sodabottle (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per consensus and per CSD A7. I'm sorry Sandpirate07, he sounds like an amazing person but the world is full of amazing people. There's nothing here that makes him stand out from the millions of other amazing people in the world and he's not notable by WP standards. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Daniel Smith[edit]

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

Fails general notability guideline. No substantive coverage by reliable third party sources - sources provided are self published, fails WP:RS/and doesn't specifically mention the subject. Cntras (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No relevant GNews hits as far as I could tell. This page was created with the best of intentions (Edit summary: Created a page as a gift to show all that my great friend Brian has done before he goes off to war.), but that is unfortunately not relevant to this discussion. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 09:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - {{db-bio}}: biographical article lacking plausible assertion of notability. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly the 'friend' knows the subject very well, to the extent that it sounds like self-promotion! In any case patently not notable, I have tried searching - nothing.Asnac (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all of the above. WP is not for commemorative pages. --Crusio (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. what a mess. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zachtronics Industries[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Zachtronics Industries" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

(Note: Nomination took place under Zachtronics Industries title) Does not pass WP:GNG -- no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Some 10 min of searching returns only a couple very brief mentions about the company itself. Majority of sources discuss the SpaceChem video game. Since the article is asserting notability via a WP:NOTINHERITED argument, bringing to AfD instead of PROD. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Do as search for the individual games that Zachtronics Industries has made instead of just "Zachtronics Industries" and you will find much more coverage and notability. -Object404 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As already said, notability is not inherited. This article is about the company and not its games. I did a search and came up almost empty; feel free to provide links to significant third-party reliable coverage about the company. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 19:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A 10-minute Google search is lazy searching. Please check the article now if it is more acceptable in its current state. -Object404 (talk) 22:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this article/AfD are about the company (and/or Barth) and not the games. Of the 10 sources in the article, 2 are about Minecraft, 3 are about SpaceChem, 2 are about Infiniminer, 1 is a directory entry for the company, and 2 are Zachary Barth's interviews. The former 8 do not constitute to significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources (WP:GNG) for the company, as there is no significant mention of it. The latter 2 are good sources -- both significant coverage and reliable. But notability is not established when "the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." (WP:CORPDEPTH). Interviews are not secondary sources, as the information comes from the subject itself, often without analytic or evaluative claims by the interviewer. The podcast interview is a little about Barth, mostly about SpaceChem and its development, and a bit about Infiniminer. The RPS interview has essentially the same layout. I'm afraid this is not significant, independent coverage of the company itself, even if you consider Barth to be synonymous with the Zach. Ind. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 08:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you personally cannot find reliable sources on the internet does not make Zachtronics Industries "not-notable". Zachtronics has made games that have been enjoyed by thousands of users, one of which has created a new gameplay type/genre that has become influential in the industry and a growing number of developers/companies are building games in the same vein:

“Minecraft” Lookalike “FortressCraft” Sells 16K On Xbox Live Marketplace Launch Day
CraftWorld Announcement Trailer

This kneejerk reaction of yours is indicative of the deletion-happy disease of Wikipedia editors. People put painstaking hours, a resource that is significant, to contribute to the project and here you go declaring something "insignificant" because of certain rules. What is the spirit of Wikipedia? Wikipedia is here to provide information. This disease has caused a massive exodus of sincere volunteers out of sheer frustration.

Please read this entire Slashdot thread to get a small feel of what I am saying:

Saving Geek Lore and Other Wikipedia Castoffs Read the discussion by the users. That's just one example and there are many more all over the internet which talk about this frustration.

What does Wikipedia lose by having the article on Zachtronics Exist? Moreover, Zachtronics is not being given credit for creating an entire sub-genre of gameplay.

You obviously know this by looking at the references contributed and the links above, and yet you delete this because of petty rules. Yes, articles have to be encyclopedic, yes they have to have reliable resources, but just because you can't find information on a person or entity does not make him insignificant. For example, little is known about Shakespeare and his actual life and most that have been written on him is speculation and extrapolation by researchers. At the end of the day, these are speculation, and you call that more reliable than what you can see in front of you. As much as possible I'm trying to find citations on everything I've put here in order to satisfy "no original research", but it's a simple fact that very little information can be found about video games and video game companies. That does not mean they are not notable. Zachtronics has created at least 2 influential games and has created a new genre/game template out of his unique fusion of ideas. Doesn't that mean that Zachtronics is notable? I'm sorry about this rant, but I am about to give up on contributing to Wikipedia out of sheer frustration because of people like you. Why are you so delete-happy on information??? -Object404 (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not make this a personal issue; I did not nominate this out of spite. Would you rather contribute to the article for a month before someone else proposes it for deletion? I am not the only editor on Wikipedia and the article will not be deleted just because I nominated it. Irrespective of the greater purpose or spirit of Wikipedia, the notability is governed by WP:NOTABILITY guideline. Not by a subjective interpretation of the word, but by the "petty rules [sic]" -- significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. I think I spent enough time writing the reply above basing my argument on WP:GNG as clearly as I could. Again, I am referring you to WP:NOTINHERITED regarding other games/genre. Sorry if I come of rude by not responding to all your arguments (and tell me if you want me to); but in interest of the AfD process I will mostly address policy/guideline/consensus-related issues. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am replying out of my general frustration on the general stance and reaction of "multi-wikipedia badge awarded" editors from the Video games WikiProject such as you as I have encountered this kind of behavior from other "established editors" and administrators from the Video games WikiProject multiple times. I would rather that you had helped flesh out the article than nominate it for deletion out of your laziness in doing 10 minute Google searches, and yes, it is better to wait for a month before nominating an article for deletion because what you did was to try to kill the article in its infancy. Notice the time difference from the creation of the article to the time you marked it for deletion. It is not personal, it is the general sentiment of other volunteers fed up with other wikipedians who do what you do, and subsequently leaving wikipedia and letting the quality and content stagnate for lack of information. Do you get what I say? Are my points valid? This is not a personal attack on you, it is a general sentiment. Next, I would like you to honestly answer the following four questions:

Is Zachtronics Industries a notable game company or not?
Is Zachary Barth a notable game developer or not?
What do you think of the quality of the article now that it's been more fleshed out?
If it is still lacking, is it worth contributing to and improving?

Thank you. -Object404 (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No matter how you see me or my contribution, I did not invent Notability, GNG, or AfD process and I am basing my arguments on these guidelines/policies. Of course, I do understand this is an indie company and I myself have previously argued for keeping indie material against strong opposition (e.g. AfD, me or AfD, me). But quality of an article is not related to the topic's notability. Whether we wait a day, a month, or a year. If sources appear that pass the article past GNG, then the article can be created and fleshed out.

Now about "honest answers". As per Wikipedia policies/guidelines: No, No, Start, N/A. My opinion: No, Yes, More or less okay for Start, Yes.

Now, I think Zachary Barth could have an article. In fact, you have pretty much rewritten this article into one about Barth. But that, of course, was not the nominated topic. Changes like yours is also a reason to delay nominating articles for AfD. But then again, this is the article space and not draft/userspace. But I digress. I think Barth would pass WP:BIO as major contributor to "blocky" genre with Infinminer and as the author of critically acclaimed SpaceChem (i.e. not WP:1EVENT). But that is very borderline, because he does not pass GNG per se (the two primary-source interviews are the only direct sources). If you want my subjective, biased (honest) answer: yeah, I think Barth should have a Wikipedia article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.".

How about merging the articles, retaining one of them: Either Zachtronics Industries or Zach Barth, then have the chosen one be something the other one will redirect to? Although I'm leaning towards Zach Barth as the main article because of the way the article has been written and Zachtronics is Zach Barth, it would be a bit unfair for the other developers of SpaceChem because they also worked on it under the Zachtronics banner. If you think about it and take a hard look, the situation is exactly the same as with Minecraft and Markus Persson aka Notch who was a lone developer and the company he formed to handle Minecraft better, Mojang AB which is essentially an empty article that only contains the list of employees and various side-box information + logo. The only difference is that Notch (and Mojang afterwards) got much more media coverage because of the unbelievably ridiculous and fantastic amount of sales that Minecraft has gotten (over 2 million now, and they're rolling in money), that's why Mojang has a separate article. Thoughts? -Object404 (talk) 14:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You better not check Mojang's history for me PRODding it then :) I wanted to make the comparison too in spite of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But Persson's article was first, then Mojang due to new employees. GNG/N is still concerned with sources and not with what's "fair". Other developers of SpaceChem should be mentioned in SpaceChem article anyway. There are only trivial sources for Zachtronics and two primary ones for Barth. Can we say Barth is notable? GNG says interviews are primary sources and we need secondary to establish notability. Should we WP:IAR because Barth contributed to "blocky" genre and made SpaceChem? I don't know. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.".

Jesus Christ. What is wrong with you and your delete-trigger-happiness? You've become too wrapped up in rules that you've lost perspective of what this website is for. It is to inform people in an encyclopedic manner. Using common sense is not ignoring all rules, it's just applying common sense. Who are you to say that these people and that the company they've put up are not notable when they and their companies have created things that hundreds of thousands to millions that people enjoy? Internet searchability for "reputable sources" is not the be all and end all of everything especially when dealing with this kind of subject matter. Jesus Christ man. Be more constructive instead of being more destructive. This entire thread occurred because of your biases and preconcieved notions - you made our decision to kill the article in its infancy on the basis of lazy google searching instead of letting it evolve organically into a proper article. And what the hell: interviews with a subject not acceptable as source material for an article? Jesus Christ man, I hope you don't take this personally but you are a prime example of what is wrong with Wikipedia and why so many contributors have become fed up and have simply stopped abandoned it. Good day, sir. -Object404 (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this suggestion and I'll leave it here: Wikipedia:Use common sense Please reflect on what it means and consider it for your future Wikipedia actions. -Object404 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are cases for allowing an article to develop over time, but only in situations where sources exist yet simply haven't been added to the article. WP:V is a core content policy. If you can suggest sources which meet WP:SOURCE, please do so. Wyatt Riot (talk) 01:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For any who have felt offended by my remarks, please give a long good read here so you can see what is seriously wrong going on here right now: http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+delete+happy. For those who have the attention span of a gnat and can't be bothered to read what Google is already spoonfeeding you (back in our day, we had to use the card catalogue in the library and books didn't have automated "search functions"), this blog post gives a good synthesis: Wikipedia in Trouble as Volunteers Leave. I've wasted too much of my energy (which could have been used more productively on other endeavers) on this ridiculous thread, so let me just say this before I go: If an article isn't up to your standards, improve it and do the required research instead of lazily marking or proposing it for deletion. As an independent game developer what you kids do here is an affront to who I am and the entire indie gamedev scene. H3llkn0wz, let me congratulate you for being a worthless power-tripping armchair nerd collecting Wikipedia badges like Pokemon, trapped in the rules of sinking ecosystem devouring itself and the epitome of the reason of such decline. Pardon me this breach of decorum folks as per "no personal attacks" rule. I hope you understand why I feel this way, and having expended so much of my energy, allow me that small parting shot as consolation so that I feel a little better about this sad situation. Nothing personal, I am simply being sincere in my words. TTFN and stop being a waste of other people's time. From the bottom of my heart, -Object404 (talk) 07:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never did I say primary sources are not allowed in an article. I very clearly said that GNG does not accept primary sources. As for the rest of the baseless personal attacks and accusations, I won't bother to comment on this thread further. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 07:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barth has authored at least 2 influential and notable games. Ergo he is notable. Stop nitpicking. Common Sense. End of story. -Object404 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, posted wrong link. Here it is so that you may understand "baseless" comments. http://www.google.com/search?q=wikipedia+delete+happy. Don't take it personally kid, my words aren't comments about you in particular, they're comment about all of the guys like you here. Enjoy collecting Wikipedia pokemon badges. May they bring you happiness and fulfillment in your life. TTFN -Object404 (talk) 07:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. Object404, I understand your position very well and I would imagine that the reviewing admin will too. Your comments, however, are likely not to be well-received and they endanger your argument because some editors are apt to vote for or against the individual and not for or against the article based on its own merits. Becoming overly indignant risks editors losing sight of the support for the article and focusing instead on your negative comments.
Hellknowz is not an unreasonable person. He has already stated that his honest opinion is that Barth should have a Wikipedia article. And making accusations that he is unfairly deletion-inclined would not bolster your argument even if it were true (NB: I am not adopting that position myself). Instead you should dwell on the positive aspects of the article and the positive potential that exists to improve the article. Several of the sources you have used are listed at WP:VG/RS as reliable secondary sources and because they demonstrate the notability of Zach Barth, the article as it stands, I think you have a strong argument that the article meets the threshold for inclusion. Please try to remain calm for the good of the article you are arguing in favor of. -Thibbs (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

" some editors are apt to vote for or against the individual and not for or against the article based on its own merits. Becoming overly indignant risks editors losing sight of the support for the article and focusing instead on your negative comments." --Thibbs (talk) Then you pretty much confirmed the childishness and pettiness of Wikipedia editors and how broken the Wikipedia system for voting on what articles get the axe or not then, causing the mass exodus of productive volunteers out of disgust and frustration.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] Thank you. To quote volunteers like User:Zaorish who have abandoned Wikipedia out of frustration, "I hereby delete my account because I am now sure Wikipedia is a group of self-congratulating 13 year old delete-happy administrators. I have felt this many times, and persevered, again and again, but it simply is not worth my time to manage these children." -Object404 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a perfect system, but that doesn't mean that all members of it are childish and petty. Wikipedia has many many editors who are jerks and who get off on making other editors lives painful. There are also many editors who are simply trying to make it a useful encyclopedia. Leaving in disgust may only increase the concentration of jerks. If User:Zaorish had decided to stick around, he might have come to realize that there are more good editors than he had thought. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails ~~WP:COMPANY~~ WP:CREATIVE. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you expand on this? What evidence do you have that the article is serving to overtly or covertly advertise? If there is no evidence then it might be a good idea to redact the comment as it treads close to WP:BITE. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he may have meant WP:CORP. WP:COMPANY is a little easter egg redirect. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, that makes much more sense. -Thibbs (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Heh, yeah, I indeed meant WP:CORP, sorry about that. "WP:COMPANY" was listed for some time as a shortcut for the page on notability of companies, when it really shouldn't have been. (H3llkn0wz has since fixed that, thank you.) However, since this page has been moved to a page on the individual rather than the company, I changed my edit to link to WP:CREATIVE. We still only have a few primary sources, plus other poor sources on the company, and some reliable sources about the game. Especially since this is now an article on a living person, we need high-quality sources about the man himself. As far as I'm concerned, nothing less than that is acceptable per our policies on WP:BLP. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Rename to "Zachary Barth" and expand~~ - Then redirect "Zachtronics Industries" to "Zachary Barth." The article meets the minimum requirement for notability via multiple secondary source RSes (Big Download, Rock Paper Shotgun, IndieGames, etc.). I see no sense whatsoever in simply deleting this information because it was poorly titled. -Thibbs (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed the page to "Zach Barth". Close this discussion and move on. -Object404 (talk) 04:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The renamed article meets the thresholds for inclusion via the RSes I listed above and Object404 has demonstrated that it is capable of expansion. -Thibbs (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Rock Paper Shotgun, IndieGames are not secondary sources (Wikipedia:No_original_research#cite_note-1). Big Download is about Infiniminer, not Barth. They are all great and reliable sources for content, but AfDs are about satisfying GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.".

I'm not sure. To me it looks like RPS and IndieGames establish notability. They are secondary sources insofar as Barth didn't have any influence on their decisions to interview him. Why would an independent organization interview a non-notable person? The interviews aren't billed as "common man on the street" interviews, instead both of them start by describing Barth's notability presumably to explain to the audience why they are interviewing him. The Big Download piece covers one of Barth's creations so it is entirely reasonable to include it in an article on Barth. If we're talking about a merged article that redirects Zachtronic Industries into Zach Barth then the notability isn't considered inherited, it simply relates to a broader topic (Barth + Zachtronic Industries). -Thibbs (talk) 17:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do not delete this page. Infiniminer is important game, a starting point of a genre. The Infniminer was linked and crated many times in WP. --Kirov Airship (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Infiniminer was deleted because it could not pass GNG (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiniminer). The following re-creation of the page against consensus was by you. "a starting point of a genre" is so far original research, and while I am not necessarily disputing this, I am waiting for reliable sources to confirm it (WP:VERIFIABILITY). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I want to say "keep" since the topic of the page is now "Zachary Barth" (the page should not have been moved mid-AfD though). However, as far as WP:GNG is concerned, there are two direct sources: RPS interview and IG interview, both primary sources, but from a reliable publisher (WP:VG/RS). The indirect sources are for Infiniminer, the game as inspiration and the contribution to the "blocky" genre. As I said above "Should we WP:IAR because Barth contributed to "blocky" genre and made SpaceChem? I don't know." That said, it's still days until Friday and I am open to (constructive, policy/guideline addressing) opinions. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.". Again, Common Sense principle. Published interviews are acceptable sources for Wikipedia. Let's close the book on this now as the article in its current state is a far cry from the one you wanted to kill. -Object404 (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have said very clearly before that primary sources are not acceptable for general notability guideline criteria. I have never said that primary sources are not acceptable in an article at all.

Quote ""Sources", for notability purposes, should be secondary sources". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COMPANY#Commercial_organizations:

"When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."

Stop goddam eradicating useful information and wasting people's time by being a delete-troll.

10 of Wikipedia's wackiest arguments - In Depth: Behind every page there's a battle raging for control See #4. You already have Google and are very lazy in searching. Just Google "Zachary Barth" and see the first 20 pages of entries. You have wasted enough of my time. -Object404 (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have already said "I think Barth should have a Wikipedia article" and "I want to say "keep" since the topic of the page is now "Zachary Barth"". What more do you want of me? Do you think your personal attacks will lead anywhere? I know what GNG requirements are. And any Wikipedia sysop closing this AfD will know what GNG is. Do you believe that if I said "very strong keep" and did not give any secondary sources that would have an effect on the strength of my arguments? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps WP:CREATIVE "2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique." and "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work.." might be applicable? It would require sources discussion that he originated "blocky" genre though. I am also not sure if SpaceChem and Infiniminer on their own are "significant or well-known" works (excluding genre innovation). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Google search results on amount of users frustrated with Wikipedia editors' article deletion zealotry".
^ "Wikipedia in Trouble as Volunteers Leave". November 23, 2009.
^ Seraphina Brennan (Jan 6, 2009). "MUD history dissolving into the waters of time". Joystiq.
^ Report: Wikipedia losing volunteers http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10403467-93.html
^ "Slashdot: Contributors Leaving Wikipedia In Record Numbers".

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Wahab (detainee)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject of the article appears to lack "significant independent coverage" in reliable sources and is therefore not notable under WP:GNG. Other concerns include WP:BLP1E and WP:V. Anotherclown (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Anotherclown (talk) 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Transparent attempt at censorship by the usual trolls who seem to follow GeoSwan around. But if you think that the role of the project is to just delete anything that embarrasses the U.S. government, go right ahead. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You surprise me. 1) Could you please explain how the article "embarrasses the U.S. government"? 2) Well you are free to accuse other editors of bad faith but i do not think that an Afd would be the right place to discuss this? How about ANI or RFC/U? 3} Just to remind you, accusation of bad faith does not invalid the arguments the nominator gave for deletion so any uninvolved admin would closes this debate here as "delete" as he/she would ignore your !vote? As it looks like you want to keep the article wouldn't it better to address the policy based arguments the nominator gave for deletion? - IQinn (talk) 11:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the original prodder. Just being detained doesn't make a person notable unless it's backed up by significant coverage in reliable sources. I'd probably be happy to go along with redirecting this to a list (if one exists) of the detainees, but I can't see that this guy warrants his own article. All of that notwithstanding, Kendrick7 shows a shocking display of bad faith - I'm not a troll, and I've had very few, if any dealings with User:Geo Swan. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject does not appear to pass WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'as not notable.Asnac (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: in my opinion, the subject lacks significant coverage as set out in the general notability guideline. The subject could possibly be mentioned in an overarching article on detainees or something similar, but I don't believe that there is enough for an independent biographical article. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable about this particular person.--Dmol (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of dog hybrids. no clear consensus for merge target so that's open to editorial discretion Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miniature Golden Retriever[edit]

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

Article would require a rewrite to read like an encyclopedia entry -- check history to see the worst of it -- and no reliable sources could be found. Designer breed registries have very few restrictions and aren't a true measure of notability. — anndelion ※ 22:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. — anndelion ※ 04:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the list at List of dog hybrids. Miyagawa (talk) 18:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a very large number of possible combinations, and the following table only lists those most often bred deliberately." -- do you think this should be reworded (I'd personally be in favor of a somewhat more inclusive list), or does the Mini Golden apply here? More out of curiosity/a desire for consistency than anything. — anndelion ❋ 19:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. That list does need a clearer set of parameters and some specific referencing. In which case I'd simply change my vote to Redirect to Golden Retriever (without merging any of the information in the article). Regards the dog hybrid list - I think it needs to be completely overhauled and I can't say I even agree with the title, as they're not a hybrid, they're a crossbreed. But this is getting off topic for this discussion. :) Miyagawa (talk) 09:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Golden Retriever. Lack of reliable sources on this designer breed, seems to be mainly one person's personal breeding program that they are trying to market as a new "breed". Dana boomer (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Merge To Golden Retriever or list of dog hybrids. The lack of sources that are reliable and make this seem more like an advertisement than a meaningful encyclopedia article. i kan reed (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Congratulations on your shiny new mop Jim but unfortunately this one's a draw. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Carney[edit]

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

Does not appear to satisfy WP:MUS or WP:GNG. General lack of sources both in article and when searching outside of wikipedia. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 23:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. -- AllyD (talk) 18:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I've added reviews from several sources including All About Jazz (though not the most positive) relating to CDs and performances from Chicago to Aberdeen, which I think amount to just about enough for a keep. AllyD (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on festival appearances. I wonder if this Pete Carney could be the same person? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. Keb25 (talk) 07:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of those "when in doubt, keep" due to the multiple appearances and limited coverage I feel this one skirts by WP:MUSIC, but just barely so. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Fairman[edit]

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

Articles does not establish notability--one ref in alumni magazine is not enough. Appears to be autobiographical. Google search, google books, google scholar, google news reveal little, e.g., a press release. Fails WP:BASIC and WP:PROF. Logical Cowboy (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not attained. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The detail in the article can be adequately sourced to the alumni mag piece. And if there were multiple articles like that, then there would be a good chance of passing WP:GNG. But the article only lists the one, and I couldn't find any others. A very similar article Gabriel fairman (note capitalization) was deleted via prod in 2008; an archived copy can be seen here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Casamassima[edit]

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

Not notable. A long list of sub-notable achievements (teacher, graduate student, "delegation leader" for the "Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area chapter of Amnesty International") do not sum up to one notable one. There is some third party coverage of this person (for having walked from Pennsylvania to the West Coast) but not enough to make him notable. The entry is almost entirely the work of a long list of SPA accounts, the latest one created today to remove the {notability} and {orphan} tags on the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another new account deleted the AFD tag; I have started a sock investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OhioSarah. Hairhorn (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although I respect long distance hikers who raise money for worthy causes, I don't think that the routine newspaper coverage that such ventures garner is sufficient to show notability. Cullen328 (talk) 02:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cullen328. Keb25 (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete the whole shebang Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Muay Thai (Human Weapon episode)[edit]

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

Delete all - none of these episodes is notable. There are no reliable sources that discuss these episodes in any detail, significant or otherwise. They will never be notable. No one will ever search for things like "Eskrima (episode)" or "Human Weapon Episode 9 (Mixed Martial Arts)" so these have no value as redirects. Episodes are listed at the lead article and the unverified and possibly unverifiable information included in these articles falls for the most part into the realm of trivia. All PRODs declined with an identical canned response from the same editor. Harley Hudson (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or merge with Human Weapon these articles don't deserve solo articles there is a lack of third person information. Dwanyewest (talk) 10:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Dwanyewest (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all- none of these articles is sourced and it is clear from an editorial standpoint that they should not be standalone articles even if they were. Since we do not merge unsourced content none of this is salvageable. I've done a few searches for sources and come up with not much useful material; maybe small parts of some of the articles can be sourced but this is insufficient to justify all these standalone articles. Reyk _YO! 03:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all- None of these articles have sources or give any reasons why that episode is notable. I found nothing to show these episodes are notable by themselves. Papaursa (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all--I liked the show, but none of the individual episodes seem to meet the notability standards with independent and reliable coverage. Astudent0 (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who Says (Selena Gomez & the Scene album)[edit]

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

Apparently false, WP:CRYSTAL at best. While there are many rumors of an imminent album release, no reliable sources give this as a name. It's pure speculation that the album will be named after the lead single. —Kww(talk) 00:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - WP:CRYSTAL and also violates WP:HAMMER. CycloneGU (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, could be hoax. Unfortunately, WP:HAMMER ≠ speedy. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:47, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL seems to sum it up, as a simple Google News search says that the album is untitled; in addition, I cannot find a tracklisting anywhere. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 04:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 12:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 03:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is obvious, WP:CRYSTAL×º°”˜`”°º×ηυηzια×º°”˜`”°º× 19:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 14:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I Help, When I Can. ^[12] 12:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL.—Iknow23 (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simone Bienne[edit]

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

Nominated for deletion on the grounds of notability, which seems to rest on several talking head appearances in her capacity as a sex/relationship therapist and being the first wife of Simon Monjack (who himself was most famous as the widower of Brittany Murphy). There seems to be nothing in her career or life that makes her notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia Eliahna (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep After researching her appearances, I think she squeaks by on "has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" WP:ENT. She may be primarily seen as a spouse of a spouse of a notable person, but her multiple and continuing appearances on television (including but not limited to her hosting role on "A Place in the Sun") I think barely crosses the line into notability. Wickedjacob (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - doesn't appear to be notable, her "fame" such as it is seems to be through her association with Monjack. Harley Hudson (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - She was once married to someone, who was once married to someone else, who was famous - too many degrees of separation. --Burkina Faso (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Dreams[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK redirect to Janet Morris reverted hence this AFD. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as recommended with previous titles in series. Article needs more data added, but is relevant. I will try to add some and to advise page starter.Mzmadmike (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Book search for "Earth Dreams" janet morris gives multiple hits. The book has been mentioned in other sources. The article just needs proper references added (and expansion into being more than a blurb). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google Books turns up what looks like a number of reviews. Qrsdogg (talk) 20:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has room for improvement, as Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus stated. Give it time. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable book based on reviews, one written about one of the books in this 3-book series by the very person calling for deletion. Notable sci-fi, fantasy and non-fiction author. Admin requesting deletion has not specified an argument for why he thinks the book non-notable, which is insufficient according to WP guidelines. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions Yes its a stub. Yes it needs more attention.Cthu-Lou (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC) — Cthu-Lou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Strong Keep As mentioned above multiple reviews and other mentions found in Google Books, including reviews in Analog Science Fiction/Science Fact Jacob and Apple's "The Annotated Guide to Sequels" and Kirkus Reviews. ColdServings talk 04:00 7 May 2011 (UTC)— ColdServings (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cruiser Dreams[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK redirect to Janet Morris reverted hence this AFD. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - non-notable book by non-major author. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep see references on first book in series. Notable critical reviews, multiple print runs, very notable author.Mzmadmike (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- reply :Nope. Notability is not inherited; not everything written by a notable author is notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Book search for "Cruiser Dreams" janet morris gives multiple hits. The book has been mentioned in other sources. The article just needs proper references added (and expansion into being more than a blurb). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable book based on reviews, one written about one of the books in this 3-book series by the very person calling for deletion. Notable sci-fi, fantasy and non-fiction author. Admin requesting deletion has not specified an argument for why he thinks the book non-notable, which is insufficient according to WP guidelines. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions Yes its a stub. Yes it needs more attention.Cthu-Lou (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)— Cthu-Lou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Dancer[edit]

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

Fails WP:BK redirect to Janet Morris reverted hence this AFD. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom Sadads (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - non-notable book by non-major author. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Author is very notable, being the subject of chapter 15 in Alvin/Heidi Toffler's best-selling book, War and AntiWar, on non-lethal weapons, a hugely known name in SF, an apparently mid level or higher consultant to DoD on non-lethal weapons. While not one of her biggest books, certainly notable, including reviews in Booklist and Asimov's, and multiple prints both hardcover and paperback. Admin above is also on record in print with a personal grudge against said author. This is not the place for it. Strong keep article. Strong delete admin for unprofessional behavior.Mzmadmike (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

reply Nope. Notability is not inherited; not everything written by a notable author is notable. (And there is no such grudge on Janet or my parts.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The book is notable, although the current article does not make it clear and is unreferenced. However, Google Books search for "Dream Dancer"+Morris gives several hits for when this book is discussed. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The book is notable. Editors need to fill in more information though. Cordova829 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable book and I fail to see by what metric Janet Morris is a "non-major author." Luke Jaywalker (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable book based on reviews, one written about one of the books in this 3-book series by the very person calling for deletion. Notable sci-fi, fantasy and non-fiction author. Admin requesting deletion has not specified an argument for why he thinks the book non-notable, which is insufficient according to WP guidelines. Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions Yes its a stub. Yes it needs more attention.Cthu-Lou (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)— Cthu-Lou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:G12, article created as an unambiguous copyvio. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

North–South Center[edit]

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

This is a relatively non-notable division within the University of Miami. The article consists of only two references and the subject no longer exists. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources provide enough info for establishment of notaiblity.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete – as a copyvio of [20]. ttonyb (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A Schuman[edit]

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

No evidence that this author/journalist is notable per WP:CREATIVE. Only information found appears to be primary sources (e.g., newspaper articles by him). No book reviews or other information to base a WP:BLP article found in reliable sources. No indication that the awards won convey notability. Kinu ^t/_c 01:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He has been published extensively, so his name gets lots of Google hits. However, coverage of him in reliable sources consists mostly of one line identifiers of him as a freelance writer, but no in-depth coverage of him as the topic. Cullen328 (talk) 04:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. NATJA gives out an awful lot of awards and don't have a Wikipedia article so that doesn't exactly convey notability. Hut 8.5 14:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Mweisgerb/Detroit by Design - 2011 Symposium. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit by Design - 2011 Symposium[edit]

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

This symposium does not appear to be noteable, as no information from news articles or similar reliable sources could be found. Article is currently not much more than a directory with a lead section and a list of dates and times of the various events that are occuring at the symposium. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - advertising only - Sitush (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed for Your Approval - Spent time correcting your suggestions. Seems like a powerful impact on Detroit, using case studies from around the world. I've never uploaded a wiki page before, and obviously have some difficulties - Mweisgerb 10:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.90.17 (talk) [reply]

Comment Changes still don't establish notability. Sources must be able to show that out of the thousands of symposiums that take place every year, how is this one especially notable or more important. Most of the sources are simply information about the symposium's location, times, and events. None establish its notability. –Dream out loud (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to above - I've spoken with the originating contributor and he seems to think that a Detroit newspaper is going to be running a feature on the thing. Something to do with the AIA belatedly realising that they had got their PR wrong. I've offered to help the contributor if/when the info turns up, assuming it is useful info. Could I suggest that the article be moved into the originator's userspace until that time? - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wilhelmsen[edit]

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

Non-notable UFOlogist. This was speedied a couple of months back and has been rewritten to try to claim notability, which it probably does at least well enough to escape speedying again. Nonetheless, I can't find evidence of genuine notability in reliable sources. He was apparently once interviewed on a late night AM radio show about the paranormal, but I'm just not seeing any coverage of Wilhelmsen to establish notability at all. Oh, and his book was self-published through a vanity press. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appearance on Coast To Coast AM not enough to merit own article. Can't find the required multiple, independent reliable sources that would indicate notability. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Keb25 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cause For Revelation[edit]

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

The article fails to establish the notability by citing reliable sources. This band is not mention in Allmusic. Most sources in the article fail Reliable Sources criteria; the only sources that are anywhere near being reliable are "Possessed Magazin" and "Encyclopaedia Metallum", but the first looks to me like a non-notable blog and the second is a user-generated content site; but maybe metal experts will have a different opinion. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable band. Keb25 (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks coverage in reliable sources, nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birdeatsbaby[edit]

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

Band from Brighton. Speedy was contested on the grounds that the references do establish some importance, though very little of it, and only after no less than 12 IPs turned up to defend the article. The references are not exactly reliable. My own Google search turned up only this, not enough to solidly establish notability. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:12, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. LessHeard venU (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC) Comment restored after being removed by third party. turned out the deletion was legitimate, the comment was made by an indef-blocked impersonator. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of WP:MUSIC at this time. Maybe next year. No WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

A user not related to the arguement said it did have enough to establish notability. I have a screen shot and I've looked in my watchlist and I can't see the little note bit that said that anymore... As I said, I'm new.. Crystal Uzun (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I'm mistaken, I didn't take a screen shot. I copied and pasted the text:

22 April 2011 (diff | hist) . . Birdeatsbaby; 05:23 . . (-12) . . Melchoir (talk | contribs) (decline speedy; notability is asserted through (not exactly solid) sources)Crystal Uzun (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I've mannaged to find more articles than just that... Once you asked the question if it went with the guidelines I replied and gave you evidence that it did. In more than one external link seperate from the band themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Despicable-Hero (talk • contribs) 10:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a newbie here, and I created this page and gave you the evidence you needed when asked. I don't know how to refer you back to the discussion page because I am new but...

Response

Does this band meet our inclusion guidelines? Has it been the subject of reliable significant third-party coverage? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:05, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable and are independent from the musician or ensemble itself.

Yes it has.

http://www.live-music-scene.co.uk/cd-reviews-content.asp?id=54

http://popculturemonster.com/index.php/2010/birdeatsbaby-bigger-teeth-ep-review/

http://www.vanguard-online.co.uk/1011ABEB.htm

http://thefourohfive.com/reviews/64

http://www.bluesbunny.com/tabid/122/xmmid/474/xmid/1654/xmview/2/default.aspx Crystal Uzun (talk) 04:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)"[reply]

From the talk page of Birdeatsbaby...

And then there's the one you added.. So there is more than one, and they're from various time periods...

They've been mentioned on various websites so they've had an somewhat of an impact there.

http://steampunkopera.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/birdeatsbaby/

http://www.vutrailblazer.com/opinion/the-best-musicians-you-ve-never-heard-of-vol-7-1.2150420

http://www.theregoesthefear.com/2010/12/10-for-2011-interview-bird-eats-baby.php

Also, I don't understand how I Would Set Myself On Fire For You is able to stay, and this page cannot. They're both influencial bands.

Crystal Uzun (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A spot check of the sources you mentioned shows that at least some of them are blogs with no editorial oversight. For example, the about page of live-music-scene.co.uk uses the first person singular rather extensively, which makes it a personal blog, therefore inappropriate to use as a reference to establish notability even if it's third-party. See what we mean by reliable sources. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, arguments pertaining to what else exists on Wikipedia are never taken in consideration in deletion discussions, except where the other articles have themselves been subjected to a deletion process, which is not the case here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or re-source all citations. None of the currently used references show notability. If someone can find reliable sources with significant non-routine coverage, please do so and I'll change my vote. --Tathar (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They have been on BBC radio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00w4gm6

http://www.tastyfanzine.org.uk/singles103oct10.htm#Birdeatsbaby

http://www.metalteamuk.net/oct10reviews/cdreviews-beb.htm

http://popculturemonster.com/index.php/2010/birdeatsbaby-bigger-teeth-ep-review/

http://www.theregoesthefear.com/2010/12/10-for-2011-interview-bird-eats-baby.php

http://www.theregoesthefear.com/2010/12/10-for-2011-2-birdeatsbaby.php

http://redtrackmusic.blogspot.com/2010/11/ep-review-birdeatsbaby-bigger-teeth.html

http://www.blog.collectedsounds.com/?p=5093

http://thefourohfive.com/reviews/64

http://www.brightonsource.co.uk/bands/36-articles/1431-critic-november-2010-

http://www.brightonsource.co.uk/reviews/55-reviews/386-critic-demo-reviews-july-2009 http://hangout.altsounds.com/reviews/113269-belladonna-maleficent-birdeatsbaby-live-print.html

http://roar.onsugar.com/Introducing-Birdeatsbaby-14508621

http://tuned-out.com/?p=203 Crystal Uzun (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the Birdeatsbaby's article has fulfilled the requirements to at the least, a satisfactory degree and should not be deleted. Crystal Uzun (talk) 15:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability. Keb25 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have gone through the links; most of them are blogs or online music fanzines that don't appear to meet the reliable sources criteria. A few of them are reliable sources, but the problem is that those are trivial mentions rather than significant coverage.--bonadea contributions talk 17:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 7 Flowers. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Lai[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Searched using the English and Chinese spellings of her name without success. Considered redirecting to 7 Flowers but she is not mentioned there. J04n(talk page) 16:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 7 Flowers, along with the other poorly referenced members of the band. She is mentioned there as Doris Lai Wei Ru. Pburka (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 7 Flowers. This person is not independently notable. Tooga - BØRK! 22:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as nominator I agree with redirecting to 7 Flowers. J04n(talk page) 19:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mount&Musket: Battalion[edit]

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

Non-notable game mod. Disputed prod and I don't think A7 can apply to video games, so I figured I'd turf it here. Kevin (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could not verify through reliable secondary sources. If a source can be located, consider summarizing at Mount&Blade instead of a separate article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Kgorman, pardon? this mod is one of the most popular mods on mount and blade warband, oh and the mod is on mount and blade: WARBAND, not the first mount and blade— Preceding unsigned comment added by 33rd rec john (talk • contribs)
Thanks for clarifying. We can redirect and summarize at Mount&Blade: Warband, then, if someone can find one piece of verification from a reliable secondary source. Marasmusine (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy (Michael Jackson album)[edit]

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

Prod removed without comment by new editor. Unsourced alleged future album by Michael Jackson. No sources of any kind provided, none found. SummerPhD (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By "none found", I mean no reliable sources found. Various forums refer to it, often with a link to this very article. None of them seem to have any other sources. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. At this point, this article is speculative, with unsourced WP:BLP and statements that appear to have come from a fansite discussion board. Eauhomme (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. As stated above, this article is speculative. It's extremely likely this was created to further promote a falling fan forum. I have direct contact with The Michael Jackson Estate who have confirmed 99% of the article is untrue. KyleMJNA 21:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Just see above Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 05:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion Per G3 (Hoax). Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 22:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - While I agree that it seems to be a hoax, Speedy G3 is only for blatant hoaxes. If you have anything indicating this is clearly a hoax, that would be helpful. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sources, I see BLP issues and the title is purely fancruft. The only true in all of this is "Before Michael Jackson died, he was working on an album", all the rest is hoax. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 23:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[frustration-1] "Google search results on amount of users frustrated with Wikipedia editors' article deletion zealotry".

[exodus-2] "Wikipedia in Trouble as Volunteers Leave". November 23, 2009.

[deathMUD-3] Seraphina Brennan (Jan 6, 2009). "MUD history dissolving into the waters of time". Joystiq.

[4] Report: Wikipedia losing volunteers http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10403467-93.html

[5] "Slashdot: Contributors Leaving Wikipedia In Record Numbers".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]