< 13 August 15 August >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. The main point of concern was whether Mr Roche played in a fully professional league, and hence passes WP:ATHLETE. The votes for deletion focused upon this point, explained various reasons why the subject failed WP:ATHLETE. Those arguments were not adequately answered by the keepers. (pun intended :) ) \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Roche (football)[edit]

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

I contested this as a speedy, but looking into it I don't really see where this player passes WP:N currently. He's basically a college footballer, that doesn't seem notable in and of itself. Wizardman 23:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to agree, but the general consensus on here is that youth football isn't notable at all. Jhealy (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
World University Games or FAI First Division isnt "youth football".--Vintagekits (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree on the former. On the latter, we've hardly established that Premier division football is notable, much less one appearance a division down. As I say, I think there's merit in keeping the article, but it doesn't meet wikipedia's guidelines.Jhealy (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems to play at a low level in Ireland and the Student Games appearances don't satisfy WP:N or WP:ATHLETE. Tricky finding sources for him as even with a more refined search you end up with as many results for the 1987 Tour de France winner. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely non-notable subject, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 12:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Your arguments are flawed because the rest of the UCD squad all have pages. Whats more the fact that he has captained his country places him at a higher level of importance than the rest of the squad. The page should remain. 13.44, 17 August 2009 -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.207.58.11 (talk • contribs)
    • Actually, only 12 players out of 28 listed in the "current squad" section of the club's article seem to have articles of their own, not all as you state -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Probably the most pedantic comment I've seen in this whole attack on Irish football. That's world-class pedantry right there. Dahamsta (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in AfD's - the UCD players that do have articles would probably fail Wikipedia guidelines anyway. This player fails WP:ATHLETE due to him never playing at a professional level, and fails general notability guidelines due to a lack of published third-party sources. Anything Google gives us is about the other (and much more notable) Stephen Roche. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable. Appearances at a non professional level do not make him notable in a sport whose pinnacle is professional. --Dweller (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Whilst the bulk of the UCD squad are based on players who attend UCD as students they are a professional football team who also sign external players. Stephen Roche gets paid for playing and is therefore playing at a professional level. Their players get payed and they also have players who don't and never have attended UCD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.107.17 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable football player, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Carioca (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if you look at every irish league club on wikipedia you will see that most squads have many players with wikipedia pages. does he not deserve a page the same as his team mates and fellow irish league players just because he shares a name with an extremely famous irish athlete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucdafc (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, article significantly improved and multiple sources now added.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've done a great job - congratulations - but all of the sources provided are trivial, which means he won't meet WP:GNG I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Read GNG "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" - describing a players participation in the world student games and in Ireland 2nd highest league is more than a trivial mention. Now if he was only English!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a bit hypocritical, especially as you argued WP:NTEMP in the aforementioned AfD. --Jimbo[online] 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my argument was the he was playing in the 104th level of English football.--Vintagekits (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you went wrong, he plays fourth. --Jimbo[online] 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the time of the nomination he didnt!--Vintagekits (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still 99 tiers off. --Jimbo[online] 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still proves the British bias of the FOOTY Cabal members.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has represented and captained his country at the World Student Games and now is playing in a professional football division. Multiple sources go beyong trivial mentions. Growing concensus that these players are notable.--Vintagekits (talk) 16:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've been arguing the professional status of the League of Ireland Premier Division. This player only seems to have played in the First Division, which has no fully professional clubs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bray were in the Premier division when he was with them.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But do you have a source that he actually played for Bray? Or is the figure in the infobox incorrect? GiantSnowman 14:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can see there is a source already actually. The source given confirms he played in the League Cup for Bray, not the league - I have adjusted the article accordingly. GiantSnowman 14:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The league cup is a notable competition with professional teams.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, There's a serious lack of understanding of the League of Ireland going on here. While not all teams are full time only two sides in the league, including the first division, are amateur; Wexford Youths and Mervue United, the others are all professional, including UCD. Also Sporting Fingal playing in the First Division are a full time professional outfit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.42.32 (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this report in the Independant, there are only three professional teams in Ireland at the moment (Bohemians, Derry and Sligo). Also, I would find it highly doubtful that UCD (or any university team in the entire world) would be fully professional. Indeed, if you look at that source, you'll see UCD and Bray are both mentioned as one of last year's part-time teams. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clearly when the IP refers to teams as being "professional", he/she is using it in the sense of "not totally amateur" and therefore including semi-pro teams..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The date of that article is January 2009. There is now a fully-professional Premier Division, the clubs not stated in that article are Dundalk, St Patrick's Athletic, Cork City, Galway United, who, according to Wikipedia itself, are professional.--86.41.68.222 (talk) 12:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You may want to read that article properly, as it refers to the upcoming season - "Next year's Premier Division will have just three completely full-time clubs..." Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but the season starts in March, and by that time four other clubs had gone professional, and in a ten team league, that's a lot.--86.41.68.222 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Refer to my previous comments on the nasty little spackers running this attack on Irish football. Dahamsta (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be easier to remain civil if there wasnt such an overwhelming Anglo-bias on here!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know how GiantSnowman is even qualified to be talking about these articles, since you are from Britain, I mean I've never heard of any of the players playing for Milton Keynes Dons but I don't delete them because people from England would know them. And of course Irish players would fail WP:N for you, for me all the Mk Dons players fail WP:N, but the people in Milton Keynes and in England might know them so I leave them alone.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 13:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does where I come from, or any other editor for that matter, actually matter? An article should meet notability guidelines regardless of geography. GiantSnowman 13:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does because you have never heard of almost every player playing in the League of Ireland, likewise I have never heard of any of the players playing for Aberdeen and a quick google search doesn't help me either.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 13:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can you determine whether another user has "heard of" a player or not? --Jimbo[online] 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is a AfD and its a discussion so everyone opinion is valid. Granted most novice editors are not so cynical to nimbly skip from one policy to another to protect "their articles" as the FOOTY Cabal are but that doesnt make their opinion less valid - in fact it probably makes it more valid because they dont hunt in a pack and are less biased.
FiftyDeadMenWalking, if you think the article should be kept then you should !vote "Keep" and dont be bullied otherwise.--Vintagekits (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He passes WP:N, and he has played for Bray Wanderers in the Premier Division who are professional and despite only playing in a league cup game, he has played in a professional team so I don't see why there's any problem in the first place with this article.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only 'problem' is that the LoI isn't a fully-professional league, something which WP:ATHLETE stipulates. I've nothing against Irish players at all; but I do have a problem with players who don't meet notability. GiantSnowman 14:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There should be an exception in all fairness to leagues such as the League of Ireland, as the top level in a country of 6 million, despite not being fully-pro. It's as close as you can get to a fully professional league, eight out of ten clubs are professional. I know Roche doesn't play in a fully professional league, but the fact that he has done so on two occasions for a sustained period of time should be enough to keep him.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More of an effort should be made to keep these articles, improve them as much as possible like I have done to Gary Hamilton which has a never-ending line of external links. And everyone else, try and find sources and references instead of deciding to delete them first.--FiftyDeadMenWalking (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete footballer fails criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATH as he has not played in a fully-professional tournament (league or cup). Also fails WP:GNG criteria due to lack of independent source coverage, refs regarding match reports/call-ups etc fail WP:NTEMP. --Jimbo[online] 14:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, another British editor that is completely biased and absolutely hypocritical. Here is his !vote last week for a player that played non-league football and had weaker references. What a load of bollocks!--Vintagekits (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what exactly is hypocritical about Jimbo's comments? GiantSnowman 15:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My vote was based on the multiple references that passed WP:GNG. Vintagekits seems to miss the numerous delete !votes on other English players I've made/nominated. PS - please remain civil. --Jimbo[online] 15:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it fuck! In my opinion you both !vote to keep a player in an English semi professional league who was less notable and had weaker references then this Irish player this week. Its a fuckin load of bollocks and ye both as biased as fuck.--Vintagekits (talk) 15:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is ridiculous, I look around the site and see GAA players added to the site when they are not even professional and a professional league, even if the teams in it are not all professional are still part of it, in this case all GAA players should be deleted from the site aswell, as they have never played in a Professional GAA match as all matches are Amateur. (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • GAA is the top level of the sport and receives substantial coverage in Ireland and some coverage outside. A delete argument on established GAA players would be similar to arguing that rugby union players pre-1995 were not notable, because that sport wasn't professional either. The subject here is a young Irish footballer who has made the odd appearance at a semi-professional level, and has only received a small amount of coverage in relation to his participation in student tournaments. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's very confusing to follow this discussion but to clarify, UCD AFC have been involved in senior Irish football since the 1979. As Ireland only has two small divisions in senior football there isn't a huge distinction between playing in the First and Premier. Many clubs and players will drift between the two. UCD have won the FAI Senior Cup and participated in both the European Cup Winners Cup and Inter Toto Cup. UCD have also produced numerous Irish U-21, U-19 and U 18 internationals. Its players are professional in that they are paid to play football for the club. This quest to delete one of its players pages is very bizarre and an exercise in pedantry at its worst.
  • Keep Recent additions by VK have established notability. BigDunc 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Player is notable and plays in a professional league, just because it's not a fully full time league does not mean it's not a professional league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patricksinnotts (talk • contribs) 18:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the recent improvements made to the article ensure that it passes WP:GNG. 86.45.144.215 (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC). A significant improvement has been made since this Afd was first nominated, and is now worthy of a place on Wikipedia.--Umberside (talk) 20:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Life As A Teenage Robot: The Movie[edit]

My Life As A Teenage Robot: The Movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "maybe upcoming movie" fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. According to the article, it is unknown whether this film will be made. No WP:RS coverage found in search. Disputed prod. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peewee Moke[edit]

Peewee Moke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not played in the highest professional level in Australia, the NRL. still a junior. LibStar (talk) 13:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Article claims that he played for Samoa - if true then this means he will meet WP:ATHLETE. Is there a source? Mattlore (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meldrum Nonsense[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about a possibly non-notable event about which I can't seem to find any sources via Google. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ssnɔsıp 23:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cheers, I'mperator 18:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Abu Masood camp[edit]

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

Fails WP:N. A single internal document states this camp exists - that isn't enough to justify an article. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Expand - military facilities are not an automatic pass. They must pass WP:N, which requires reliable, third-party sources giving significant coverage. The only sources provided are mentioning it in relation to something else, NOT covering it in any proper detail. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, a terrorist training camp is notable, and the fact that so far the creator has only had the time to detail one source talking about the camp, does not merit deletion. It merits patience in waiting for future revelations about the camp. For brief example, ten seconds with Google showed me "In or about early October 2001, at LeT's Ibn Masood camp near Muzafrabad, Pakistan, Muhammed Aatique fired an AntiAircraft gun and an RPG"[1] and "As he explains, he was recruited by the Lashar-e-Taiba from Multan a couple of months ago and sent for a 21-day preliminary course at the Abdullah bin Masood camp, located near the Chalabndi bridge in the Sirkot area of Muzaffarabad."[2]Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 06:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The second link doesn't work for me, the first is a skeleton argument for a court case. If that's the best google-scouring can find that really adds weight to my argument and doesn't detract from it. "Ibn Masood" and "Abdullah Abu Masood" are different things, and a terrorist training camp is not inherently notable, so simply stating that it is notable is worth nothing. Ironholds (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have 35 Marine Corps training centres, and none of them were listed as justification for a military invasion. On the other hand, the 40 terrorist training camps in Afg/Pak were listed, and thus are notable. And that's hardly the best "Google-scouring" can find, it's from the first page of hits for a very simple search of the title of the article. And I highly doubt LeT maintained three different camps named Ibn Masood, Abu Masood and bin Masood, realistically...especially when all three are listed as being in the same village. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, neither is "listed as justification for a military invasion". Were they listed in independent, reliable sources? Did those sources cover this camp in some detail? Ironholds (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason you gave for deletion was "A single internal document states this camp exists - that isn't enough to justify an article.", I have proven that wrong - come up with a new reason, or withdraw the nomination. It is clear there are, at least, several sources for the existence of the camp, including a PBS documentary which mentions it. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There you go - given. "mentions" is exactly the problem. Ironholds (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep adequately sourced. Military bases are notable, provided there is reliable information. DGG ( talk ) 08:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Enough sources exist to write a decent verified article (even if a stub), so it is notable.YobMod 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reading the nomination I never imagined that this "single internet document" would prove to be an official Dep of Defense report. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bek Ofis[edit]

Bek Ofis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources cited, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 21:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can't find reliable independent sources that discuss the band. There is discussion in passing but no in-depth coverage. No indication the band meets inclusion criteria. --A new name 2008 (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Jclemens (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Bentson[edit]

Mickey Bentson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources cited, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "keep" opinions are unconvincing because they do not address the sourcing requirement of WP:BIO (all we have are primary US government sources of obscure provenance) and the WP:BLP problems inherent in listing an allegedly living person as a terrorist leader solely on the basis of such sources.  Sandstein  07:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001)[edit]

Abdul Salam (Taliban leader, Karabak front, 2001) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable person. If the best thing we can say about someone is that American intelligence are sure they exist then we don't have enough material for an article, and it fails WP:BIO at the first hurdle. Ironholds (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no credible sources say this person even exists. The only information we have comes from someone detained in Guantanamo Bay not a real reliable source. --A new name 2008 (talk) 23:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A point of clarification -- this comment is based on a misunderstanding of what the article says. The article, and the underlying references, do not say that the information the American intelligence establishment has on Abdul Salam was based on Guantanamo interrogations. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I did misunderstand the article. I am striking my comment for now. At this point after re-reading the article again, I am not even sure what the article is saying. The first line is not even a complete sentence and still trying to figure out the rest of the article. --A new name 2008 (talk) 01:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It seems to me that this nomination is based on a misunderstanding of the wikipedia's policy on verifiability. The nomination asserts that we don't even know whether Abdul Salam exists. Well, the very first sentence of WP:VER says we should aim for "verifiability, not truth". Basing a nomination for deletion on the question whether we know whether Abdul Salam really exists lapses from WP:VER, because, without regard to whether we know he really exists, the American intelligence asserts he exists. It is verifiable. I suggest there is nothing exceptional about having articles on topics that may not exist. We cover theoretical sub-atomic particles, which may or may not exist. We cover the gods and supernatural beings from across the religious spectrum. We cover the 20th hijacker -- an individual who may not have existed. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You've completely misunderstood what I wrote. I wrote that according to American intelligence, we do know he exists, but that's the most we know. There is no misunderstanding going on here other than your misunderstanding of what I wrote. Ironholds (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The nomination asserts that Abdul Salam was "not notable". He is described as a deputy to Abdul Hadi Al Iraqi -- number three in Al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. That is an important position. We may not know as much about him as we would like. But, I suggest this is not a good reason to delete an article we have good, verifiable references for. I have addressed this in more detail here. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Further "Abdul Salam" is a very common name in the Muslim world. Abdul Salam Rocketti and Abdul Salam Zaeff are two other senior figures who were Taliban leaders. Without having a separate article on Abdul Salam the Al Qaeda leader, it would be easy to mistake him for one of the other Abdul Salam who American intelligence were interested in. In addition Guantanamo held half a dozen other individuals who might have their name shortened to Abdul Salam. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- for the reasons I offered above. Geo Swan (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article needs a good spit and polish, more info would be nice, but it does seem to meet WP:V, albeit barely. WP:NOTABILITY, on the other hand, is also a factor here and this article asserts no notability whatsoever. I am open to revisiting my delete comment, but in the absence of any proof that he's done something notable I feel we would be better off without him here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable as a military leader of internationally known stature. DGG ( talk ) 08:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Delete - I went back through and reviewed this article again, the supporting documentation and the notability guidelines. I also searched for addition sources to verify the information in the article. The current sourcing for this article is two primary sources. (I could not retrieve the first one for some reason, but will assume that the article accurately relates what the document says.) As Geo Swan says above "Abdul Salam" is a very common name in the Muslim world and there is no verifiable connection that these two documents are talking about the same person. They could be or it could be two different people. I found zero reliable secondary sources that discuss this person in passing or in depth. According to the notability guideline for people the basic criteria is that a person is presumed to be notable if he has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. We do not have that in this article. All we have are primary sources that mention this common name in passing. Again from the notability guideline for people the basic criteria goes on to say, primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. At this point we have nothing to establish notability according to wikipedia guidelines. --A new name 2008 (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep obviously notable irregular military/terrorist leader. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bandito Records[edit]

Bandito Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources cited, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bini[edit]

Joe Bini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources, probably doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Noisalt (talk) 22:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - According to IMDB, the subject has won a film editting award at Sundance. The article needs work, and some sourcing, but the award establishes notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:58, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Editor on multiple notable films, was on the Jury for the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and won a Sundance Film Festival award for editing another notable film. This is a notable person. --A new name 2008 (talk) 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RealWorld Icon Editor[edit]

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

DELETE. I don't believe that a one off review from CNET and a few trivial never-heard-of websites is enough to substantiate an encyclopedia article here, nor do I believe it is an indicator of notability. I am recommending deletion on the basis of this being a non-notable software product and I hope you will agree. JBsupreme (talk) 22:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Weakly sourced and non-notable. One of the three listed "reviews" was an advertisement and said so on the page. Some guy (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Open Organization[edit]

Open Organization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This appears to be a non-notable neologism. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Fields[edit]

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

Non-notable. No BLP compliant reliable sources and no matches in google news make the article unlikely to be improved to demonstrate notability. Ash (talk) 22:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of the Quicksilver (Episode)[edit]

The Tale of the Quicksilver (Episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:IINFO #1 as this is entirely a plot summary. There is already coverage of this tv programme at List of Are You Afraid of the Dark? episodes. I42 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following pages for the same reason:

The Tale of the Phantom Cab (Episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The tale of the phantom cab episode (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Tale of the Lonely Ghost (Episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Delete No independent notability established. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it is just because of WP:PLOT, then you should give it some time. Same perhaps for notability. Debresser (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no way to establish notability, then these articles need to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upside Down (2010 film)[edit]

Upside Down (2010 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monster, Monster[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Incorrectly deleted as an A9 article, the article was restored after I notified the admin. The article does not merit an article yet, but probably will be notable enough when released. ceranthor 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I had to modify the rationale because I said "meets", while meaning the opposite (does not meet). Sorry, ceranthor 01:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced speculation about an as-yet-unreleased album. No opposition to re-creation when/if the album is released and some sources to verify the content can be provided. -- saberwyn 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources and no album...I don't even know who the publisher is going to be. Coffeepusher (talk) 02:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes: Even if it will be deleted, it does not have the correct title, which only further's my suspicion given that erector has used at least two other IPs. For the article, move again to erector's userspace as a draft until release. For Monster,Monster, however, a redounding
  • Delete: an implausible typo.--Launchballer (talk) 20:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've gone ahead with moving the article to erectors userspace. Please, can someone delete the other redirects, and also show me how to close one of these things?--Launchballer (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing (film)[edit]

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

Explicitly fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of music releases from British reality television stars[edit]

List of music releases from British reality television stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person who created this was obviously hoping for a complete list of albums and singles released by contestants in the show Popstars, Pop Idol, Fame Academy and The X Factor, but there are much better articles now for three of those shows and I'm sure the fourth is planned. In addition to this, it hasn't taken into account music releases by contestants who appeared in British reality TV shows like Big Brother, Celebrity Big Brother, I'm a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here!, Reborn in the USA, Britain's Got Talent and all the other British reality TV shows in Category:British reality television series, many of which are not music-based shows but feature celebrities who are already famous for releasing music, or unknown people who go on to start a music career. And for that reason I think it would be better to delete this article. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble of 56[edit]

Rumble of 56 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

per WP:NALBUMS, no independent coverage in reliable sources Dlabtot (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the Music[edit]

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

fails WP:notability (music) as the song did not chart nor has it been covered lots nor did it receive critical acclaim. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, (or merge) per nom and because it would be easy to cover it in an album's article.--The LegendarySky Attacker 21:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Money As Energy[edit]

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

Originally tagged as a G11 speedy advert, I took a chainsaw to the article to remove the non-encyclopedic bits. However, I'm striking out when it comes to finding notability for this e-book. Lots of PR pieces, but a shortage of independent, reliable sources showing notability. (Since this is an e-book, I'm not sure if the notability guide for books or web applies, fwiw.) Since the speedy was contested, I assume a prod will be too. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with the nominator that it's difficult to tell whether the notability guide for books or web applies, and thus it's difficult to find a reasonable speedy category; this seems like a good way of proceeding in case someone can find more notability than I could in a brief search. Whatever the medium, self-publication attracts no notability. The closing administrator should also check the author's name, John Rocco Savalli, which is currently listed for speedy deletion but might still be present when this is closed. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It would be notable if passed either web or book, but AFAICT, it doesn't. Thanks for the cleanup, Fabrictramp, and for the AFD. Keeps the wheels turning. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dominique Dane[edit]

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

The subject of this 27-word stub fails utterly to meet any of the WP:Pornbio criteria, in addition to the fact that she has no demonstrable Notability what-so-ever. She has appeared in a grand total of three (3) films, and has never been so much as nominated for an award. Her two sources are both porn industry-related (nothing from AVN, by the way, just a profile at IAFD, and her name included in a list of former Penthouse centerfolds). She had a very brief career beginning in 2002, and ending in 2003. This article is pretty close to being a sort of avatar of unNotability. If this woman is deemed Notable, its difficult to imagine how anyone who has ever appeared in a single adult film (or three of them, anyway) could ever be deemed unNotable. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Its been relisted and swe seem no further forward... Spartaz Humbug! 07:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leon S. Talaska[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG: doctor did not receive any notable honor or award and did not make any significant contribution to obstetrics as can be verified by publications from the relevant field. Of the sources provided:

  • one is from a family/personal website on a domain name maintained by the author of the article (Talaska's great-grandson)
  • another is a short death notice about the topic's son from a local newspaper
  • one other is Talaska's obituary, and
  • the others (Memoirs of Lucas County and the City of Toledo and Toledo and Lucas County Ohio 1623 - 1923, a scan of which is displayed in the article) are just a short biological pieces that refer to him as "successful" and a "good citizen" with a "large private practice", but nothing suggesting that he made major contributions to his field or was the recipient of any major award or recognition.

I can't tell the quality of the other reference because I don't have a copy of the book and I can't find an electronic copy, but I wouldn't expect "History of St. Anthony's Parish" (a book about the church where Talaska was the choir director) to provide notability-giving coverage of an OB-GYN. Google web and scholar searches for "Leon Talaska Obstetrician" yield no results. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Keep This biography should not be deleted because: The not notable claim conflicts with five reputable independent references that cite Leon as the equivalent of notable. The citations are substantial for that time period of the late 1800's and very early 1900s. There is nothing wrong with providing additional references to a personal website by family of the subject so long as there are other reputable independent references of which are a sufficient supply of them for that time period. Additionally, the family website passes the test of being quite unbiased, neutral and factual. Information in Google is scarce regarding this because the references are very old and not archived online yet by their source. However there is one notable reference online with the Toledo Blade as referenced. -Unbiassed (talk) 16:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the existing sources are high-quality enough to establish notability. The fact that a few sources call him a "prominent doctor" means very little, especially since it seems that only Toledo-related sources seem to think so. His other claim to notability is the fact that he was the first Polish doctor in Toledo, which is thus far only supported in passing by an appositive statement in a short article in a local paper (an article which wasn't even about Leon S. Talaska), and which seems somewhat trivial to me. Should we likewise have an article for whoever was the first Italian doctor in Scranton or the first Catholic lawyer in Tallahassee? Maybe if he was the first Polish doctor in the United States, or even in Ohio, but not Toledo. As far as I can tell he wasn't a groundbreaking figure of medicine or in breaking down anti-Polish prejudice, so he remains non-notable.
(Regarding the family website, assuming it is reliable, it does nothing to establish notability since it's just used to provide evidence of a medical degree, which isn't in and of itself notable, and isn't independent of the topic. Also, just as a note, in AfD discussions it's customary to precede your "vote" with '''Keep''', '''Delete''', etc. and a bullet point.)— DroEsperanto (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This point is well received. However I leave it up to medical experts in Wikipedia to contribute their opinions on whether delivering over 5,000 babies in the late 1800s and early 1900s without a single loss of child or mother is notable or not as the main notability theme. Not all facts need to be notable. There are many non-notable facts all throughout by far most notable persons' biographies on Wikipedia. This is no different. The personal website made by a family member is not provided to establish notability, but rather provide images, etc. that would otherwise clutter the biography.--Unbiassed (talk) 03:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course articles can include facts that don't make the subject notable; it would be ridiculously incomplete without them ("Sonia Sotomayor is the first Hispanic Supreme Court Judge" would be a terrible article). I was just stating that that particular reference (as well as the other references listed) didn't establish notability, which is the case I'm making. I apologize if I was unclear. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should also be noted that the 5,500 babies/no deaths claim is cited to an obituary, which doesn't seem like a particularly reliable source for such a grandiose claim, especially considering that obituaries are often written by the family/friends of the deceased (although I can't tell since there's no info about authorship in the citation). It would also seem to me if the claim were true and truly notable and important in the field of medicine, he would have garnered additional coverage or would be recognized as a major contributor to his field, which doesn't seem to be the case. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reference of the 5,000+ babies/no death fact is written in: History of St. Anthony's Parish, Toledo, Ohio Anno Domini, Diamond Jubilee of St. Anthony's Parish 1882 to 1957, not the obituary. As stated, it is not necessary to provide a large amount of references for a notable fact of this time frame being the turn of the second to last century particularly for something notable, but not highly notable. Perhaps there should be a voting system on how notable a fact is such as on a scale of one to ten or "completely not notable, somewhat notable, notable, very notable". This could be on the article where users/visitors can vote once based on IP address. In this case, I would say this would be a 4.5 on a scale of one to ten with 10 being most notable, and a 4.5 being the minimum qualifier for Wikipedia, so, this means "barely notable", but nonetheless, notable. As state, I'm most interested in those with relevant medical backgrounds to sound their opinion on this. --Unbiassed (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) On the contrary, statements that that are challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to reliable sources as per WP:ATTRIBUTION, especially facts upon which an article's notability are based. In the article, the 5k babies statement is attached to a reference pointing to the obituary, which is why I thought that. The source you now say wrote the statement still doesn't seem reliable to me for what you are citing it for: how likely is it that the authors of a book on the history of a church went to great lengths to verify the number of charity births their choir director had administered, and that none of those 11,000 mothers/babies died, especially considering the book was written decades after Talaska had already died? I think it is more likely that the number came from his estimates/stories, and the book just reported that. — DroEsperanto (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely unlikely the source referring to is inaccurate. The source is third party / independent and credible. Nobody should come to the conclusion that it is unreliable without facts. This is a contradiction to say the source is unreliable without pointing to some source that proves it is unreliable. The statement it's unreliable is speculative and speculation has no place in Wikipedia. However, it is true the source is not very specific and it would help if there were more sources, but as stated, due to the time frame it is normal not to have ten major sources particularly regarding nobility that merely meets minimum requirements. So I would say the sources and nobility are not strong, but rather just meet minimum standards to qualify. Here are some more details about the source: "St. Anthony's Parish history is the story of an oppressed, immigrant people building a new life of freedom; of a church preserving and embellishing a Christian heritage; of a school training an industrious, thrifty, and self-sacrificing citizenry. It is, in miniature, the story of the building of America". --Unbiassed (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of that source (about whose reliability I still have doubts, but which I don't want to discuss anymore), the fact that he has not received any attention from the relevant field, and only from his family, town, and church, indicate that he is not notable for his work as an OB-GYN. Doctors who make breakthroughs or discoveries in medicine publish papers and are cited heavily, or have their work written about later by people in their field. Talaska has none of these things: he is reported on by his family, his local newspaper/archives, and in his relationship to his church. — DroEsperanto (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Google search which excluded Wikipedia returned exactly one hit: genealogical material on a broken website. Mangoe (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep In current terms, he would probably have been Chief of Obstetrics at a major hospital, and thus probably qualified. In extending our view of what we consider notability to times before the professions had their current degree of organization, we have to take into account what the standards were at the time. Whether he had received recognition from the professional field can be determined only after making a search through the appropriate paper journals and indexes. And in any case, whether or not he achieved professional notability, he still could attain notability under the BIO guidelines for civic notability in general. This is a nice example of the inherent problem with the GNG--there is no real question he meets that rule as written , but the difficulty is that this gives a degree of inclusiveness at which many of us are very uncomfortable, so we increase the requirements for what we wish to call significant coverage and reliable sources on an ad hoc basis for that particular article. (I have used similar arguments when I did not think a local figure ought to be considered notable, even though there were sources). The argument for whether the sources are in fact significant will succeed or not depending upon whether people like the overall result. Regardless of what we say we do, in practice we almost always use GNG as an excuse, not a reason. The GNG goes by sources, but that was really intended as a surrogate for the only actual meaning of notability that makes sense, one that would by the subject itself. I give the GNG another year before we realise its contradiction to the actual meaning of suitable for encyclopedic coverage. DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The GNG ensures a criteria for notability that is neither based on original research ("I think this guy sounds important/I find his work to be really interesting, so we should have an article on him") or unverifiable or doubtful claims (e.g., "so-and-so was the first person to invent X") or hoaxes. If a person is truly important, then several reliable third-party sources will have written about their accomplishments. Regardless, the GNG is accepted consensus for now, so we should go by that. That being said, as far as any of us can tell, Talaska does not pass the GNG. The one claim to notability he has (having delivered 5500 babies as charity cases with no fatalities, which could confer notability either as a doctor or as a philanthropist/humanitarian of sorts), as succinctly stated by User:Abductive, is insufficiently substantiated, and that he might have been more notable in today's day and age is therefore irrelevant. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This case saddens me, because delivering 5,500 babies without any deaths would be a remarkable achievement. Taking Singapore's modern infant mortality rate of 2.31 per 1000, the odds of this happening now are 1 in 334,267. Since the source is not contemporaneous, it is likely to be a family legend, and an untrue one. One would think that the other doctors would have noticed after a while, and given him an award or some other mention in sources at the time. His 1935 obituary would have mentioned it. All other claims to notability in the article are not enough. Abductive (reasoning) 03:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Using today's US infant mortality rate of 6.31 deaths for every 1,000 live births (which is probably lower than it was in the early 1900s), the chances come out to about 1 in 1,469,774,150,000,000 (about 1.5 quadrillion, calculation). — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the article "Soft-spoken doctor made house calls", that wasn't about Leon Talaska (the topic of this AFD), it was about his son Frank. Leon was just mentioned in passing in it ("Son of Leon Talaska, Toledo's first doctor of Polish descent...") — DroEsperanto (talk) 19:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that the "Soft-spoken doctor" was Leon's son, Frank. I'm referring to the obituary from 1935. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An obituary may be reliable for some facts (e.g., date of birth, occupation, date of death, etc.), but I don't think they can be used to establish notability. An obituary in a local paper doesn't mean that they were important, it means that they lived there and that they died. Most likely, the obituary was written by the family or a staff writer who got all their facts from the family, which doesn't seem to confer notability to me. — DroEsperanto (talk) 20:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your opinion on the use of an obituary to establish notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the mere presence of an an obit ,unless in a very selective source like the NYT does not itself establish notability, though the information it provides may do so. We routinely use ithem for uncontested information. I agree that the no. of successful births seems a little high for the period, and I can not see accepting that without some collaboration. DGG ( talk ) 08:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point is to ask whether he is notable or not according to the mentioned references. When I read "General notability guideline" in WP:GNG ("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.") and in WP:BIO "Basic criteria - A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."I draw the conclusion, that the article does - so there is no reason to delete (according to the rules). Greetings Redlinux (talk) 13:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus is that one of these sources is not reliable, and the obituary is not independent, as it had family input. Here's what probably happened; dad comes home from work every day, having delivered 98% living babies and preserving the lives of 99% of the mothers. Over dinner, he is not going to tell his children that a little baby died, nor that a first-time mother bled to death while her husband wept. He lied, said everything went fine. Abductive (reasoning) 13:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be grasping at straws to look at the sources and say he has "substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources". Of the six, two are self-published, two just give basic biographical details (in a book that seems to just be a collection of genealogical/biographical info about Toledo, Ohio families, perhaps also self-published/self-derived), one barely mentions him, and one is non-authoritative and unreliable for what it is claiming. So what we're left with is three very local sources verifying that he was, in fact, a doctor, and a family legend saying he did something that is fantastically unlikely. Disregarding that last fact, we have someone who two local sources verify was a doctor. Not notable. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references are not linked, that's true, and no ISBN-Number is listed, hmm. - That also holds true for the "non-article" Bernhard Göpel. - The "advertisement-link" to [3] (under "relatives") I personally think, should be removed. But according to the rules here it's IMHO hard to find a reason. Greetings Redlinux···→ 11:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Wanna Be the Guy[edit]

I Wanna Be the Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the reviews cited seem to be personal websites or possibly unreliable sources. I don't see much, if anything, in the way of notability here; no non-trivial coverage to be found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough hits in gNews to establish notability, if only by the skin of its teeth. Lithorien (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homorazzi[edit]

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

Non-notable website with no GNEWS and lacking GHits of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb1 (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite thoughts on the website being unnotable, as a vancouverite, homorazzi's pivitol involvement in giving vancouver's LGBT community a public voice has been invaluable. As Vancouver's first LGBT blog and public forum, it truly deserves a spot on wiki as part of vancouver queer history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.0.216 (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Lebanese language[edit]

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

I don't think that this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and reliable sources are very hard to find to support it. There is already an article on the Lebanese Arabic dialect, and the nationalist aspects of the topic of this article are already covered in the dialect article. This should likely become a redirect to the existing Lebanese Arabic article. ← George [talk] 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Lebanese Arabic seems to me as the best course of action. It's not even clear from the article whether these are in fact two different things or the same thing, in any case they must be too related to have distinct articles. Greenleaf (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really know enough about Semitic languages to able to address this topic very intelligently, but are we really certain this article is about the Lebanese dialect of Arabic, as opposed to some other tongue with roots in ancient Phoenicia, and whatnot? Because I'm rather getting the impression it may be. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CIA world fact book says :
Languages: Arabic (official), French, English, Armenian
Wikipedia article seems to agree.
Nothing wrong with this, but I have the feeling that the site mentioned has a rather nationalistic tone. Given all evidence, I'd wager a guess that what we deal with is just another name for Lebanese Arabic. Greenleaf (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My best understanding of the situation is that there exists a nationalist, political movement within Lebanon, that considers Lebanese to not be an Arabic dialect, but to instead be a language of its own. Scholars and linguists, on the other hand, consider it to just be another dialect of Arabic. The Lebanese language article is written from that (non-neutral) nationalistic point of view, describing the Lebanese dialect as its own language, while the Lebanese Arabic article is about the dialect. I think that the nationalistic idea of Lebanese as a language is mentioned elsewhere on Wikipedia, and that it represents too much of a non-notable, minority view to warrant an article of its own. ← George [talk] 23:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep under WP:SK ground 1: the nominator does not think this article should be deleted.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where can I nominate an article to be turned into a redirect then? I thought it should be deleted, then a redirect page created in its place. I don't view any of the unsourced material in the article to be worthy of merging. ← George [talk] 22:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, sorry—you're quite right that I should have pointed you to the correct venue rather than just saying "not here". That's entirely my fault and I apologise profusely.

    You don't need to discuss a redirect. Per WP:BRD, you just do it.

    It may be that someone reverts you, in which case you should discuss the matter with them on the article's talk page in order to seek a consensus.

    Deleting the article is not done unless it should be a redlink. That's because of Wikipedia's copyright licensing provisions rather than for any internal reason, so "delete and redirect" is simply not a possible outcome; but the only difference in practice is that the previous content will be visible in the redirect's history page.

    If you would like to go this route, this debate can be closed under the aforementioned speedy keep ground.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's the best course of action then. This page really should be a redirect to Lebanese Arabic. Thanks for explaining the next steps to me, and feel free to close this at will. Cheers. ← George [talk] 22:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Brother 11 episodes[edit]

List of Big Brother 11 episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Orphaned page that isn't even being updated/transcluded. All the information in the article can be found on Big Brother 11 (U.S.). –Turiantalk 11:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Bollinger[edit]

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

Prod was contested, so I'm bringing this here. Minor roles in TV movies, audiobooks... this man is just not notable. POKERdance talk/contribs 17:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are book titles and many other numerous entries. A lot of reference exist to this performer / writer on wikepedia already, but no simple article to record existence of this name —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdsabooks (talk • contribs) 17:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Book titles? Well, he fails WP:AUTHOR as well. He has not had a major role in any significant production, and until he has, he is not worthy of an article here. POKERdance talk/contribs 17:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete wiki-ised IMDB entry. Artw (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a waste of time.

I will leave this to someone else. Never going to use this as a source of info either.

Does not make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdsabooks (talk • contribs)

  • Delete Has had roles in major stuff, however not major roles, per WP:ENT. Triplestop x3 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep, since the extra added parts show more notability. Triplestop x3 01:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've flagged this for rescue; I've spent a bit of time looking for sources, with little success; I flagged it because I wonder if other sources might show the credits and things. At this stage though, I think it's unlikely.  Chzz  ►  18:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep After doing research on Max as an author, it seems he may have more note as an author than as an actor... taking advantage of his multiple language skills. Time to look and see if his books have received favorable reviews. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (pending outcome of rescue attempt). An extensive list of productions and books he's been involved in, but I can't pin down any particular roles of significance, nor can I find anything on GNews. But if someone finds something I didn't I'll look again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Voice actor should be treated as regular actors are. This person has been a key part in many notable series, and therefore is notable enough to have his own article. Dream Focus 00:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a reasonably notable voice actor - especially for documentaries. Needs more cites. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotta say Delete. I honestly can't see much evidence of notability. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. S. Mnatsakanian[edit]

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

Hmm... From a quick search, there appears to be little to no references regarding this historian. He may not meet WP:NOTE. The information section uses phrases such as "It is quite possible..." and "exceptional." I would have to guess that this article is taken from a portion of the book listed as a reference. BrianY (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete can find nothing on him both under this spelling and the other possibility (Mnatsakanyan). There are two other academics with similar names -- an engineer and a biologist; nothing for an historian though. If someone can read Armenian and finds sources in that language (or Russian which he might have written in) that might do it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of notability the article is so incoherent that it not worth a place in WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
It is a mess but that could be fixed iff the man could be shown to be notable. I cannot see that he can be. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the article was a copyvio; I removed it, but that leaves essentially nothing. There's a little about him in Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan through peace and war, De Waal 2004, p. 153 — he was apparently central to an academic controversy with Ziya Bunyadov involving the historical connection between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh, later to become a very important cultural issue in that area. And in Nation-building in the post-Soviet borderlands, Smith and Law 1998, p. 51, he's mentioned as the promoter of a nationalist theory that the rulers of Urartu (9th to 7th centuries BC) were ethnic Armenians. But I can't find enough to base an article on. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PS If anyone else wants to try searching more: there was apparently an art historian named Asatour Sh. Mnatsakanian (or Mnatsakanyan) who published in the 1950s. The incomprehensible copyvio paragraph I removed was about art history, so likely relates to this person. I'm not convinced that he is the same person as the historian. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To add to the confusion, there was apparently a historian named A. N. Mnatsakanian who co-authored a history of the Armenian SSR in 1957 with A. M. Hakobian. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had missed these Mnatsakanians -- I think you are correct and our Mnatsakanian is the art historian. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My impression is that the nationalist historian is more notable — at least, I can find published references saying something about what he did rather than merely citing one of his works. But I'm still not convinced there's enough about either of them for an article here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the nat. historian might warrant a mention in the Nagorny-Karabahk article if nothing more. The engineer and the biologist don't seem notable. I tried to find the online searchable Great Soviet Encyclopedia that used to be hosted out of Russia --- its gone now; I thought if the art Mnatsakanian is notable he'll be in there. Not in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia either. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging is an editorial decision. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fireside Publishing[edit]

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

Article about a publishing company; does not have reputable, third-party sources to verify the information claimed makes it "notable." Seems to be only a way to advertise; no real information —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 15:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article does assert their notability as a leading publisher of Catholic Bibles. I have heard of them and I am not even Catholic. The article itself could be improved and better sources found. Borock (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you counter the argument that no such sources exist? Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Give it some time, it's been up for just a few days. Re-visit in a few months. Re-nominate if no-one's worked on it since. Seb az86556 (talk) 22:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If no sources exist, giving more time won't help. Show that sources exist. Vague handwaving about revisiting doesn't help. That's just prevarication. Citing sources is what helps. Cite multiple independent reliable sources that cover this subject in depth, and make an argument that actually holds water. Uncle G (talk) 11:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Why Mr E. Sanchez is bent on deleting this article is beyond me - firstly a request for a speedy deletion, that was downgraded by someone else. Then after I have improved it and added other references, he has requested its deletion again. They are one of the largest members of the Catholic publishers association, one of the biggest Catholic Bible publishers and they were the first publisher of the New American Edition. If this is still not satisfactory to constitute what is notable for Mr. Sanchez, please kindly explain why. Hans1964 (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Because the article has no sources. I executed a Google search of the subject, using -Wikipedia, and no good, reliable sources come up. You have one usable website as a source, but it doesn't really cover the importance of the company. Now, yes, I may have come across a book published by them, but I have no sources backing up the "fact" that it's [one of] the largest bible publishers out there. All your so-called "references" point to sites written or owned by the company (which cannot be used under WP:SOURCES). And, finally, if we're going to start taking in articles with no sources just because "we've heard of the company," I can start pushing up some good articles with no sources, since, after all, we just need a few people to have heard of the company, add a few links to unusable sources, and call it a day.

      Of course, I am not one to try to be rude or bitey, but the whole "asserts notability" here is just tied in with the "fact" that others have heard of it. That whole clause is wacko, because anyone could write an article about "X-Thing" and say it's the 2nd fastest thing to do y-action in the world, and that asserts notability in and of itself, but there's no reliable source to back that statement up. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 06:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment The article has 3 external sources - I did add additional text to improve the article after Mr. Sanchez wanted to 'speed delete' the article. Yes, a very quick google search doesn't bring up anything, although a longer search shows an interesting court case (which I added as a reference) - doubtless other information can be found with deeper searches. Delete if you wish Mr. Sanchez, but I think you'd be acting more impartially if you tried to improve the article insteadHans1964 (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        • Reply/Comment No, it has a series of external links that point to the following websites:
        • Now, the Google Books book you have there is that source for your Minnesota court case, but it just basically says, "these guys publish bibles, they got sued, now they'll publish different bibles." My final point is that the Google search should bring up relevant articles within the first two pages, but it's just mentions of "oooh! Bibles!" and other non-encyclopedic or non-informative stuff. I did try to look for sources to expand the article, but I couldn't find anything to start me off. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 15:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trim heavily and merge to DeVore & Sons Inc., on grounds that there are sufficient sources to make it verifiable that this publisher exists, but not sufficient to demonstrate notability that would establish that it merits a separate article. But I do expect DeVore & Sons Inc. to be nominated for deletion if it isn't sourced PDQ.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus indicates that the origanization is sufficiently notable for inclusion. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer Association[edit]

Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomer Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability for this Association not established with any reliable sources and so fails WP:ORG. The article has been tagged as needing re-write for two years with no signs of progress. As the article is rambling with the majority of text off-topic or generic it seems sensible to delete this article and let an editor start afresh if there is any demand for information here about the "CIAA". Ash (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I can't remember how it is that I'm watching this article, but anyway... The organisation does exist and seems to be notable; although it's called the "Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomers" (no redundant 'Association'). It's referred to in news sources, book sources, even a couple of academic papers. "Article is badly written" is for discussion on the talk page, not deletion, is it? Shreevatsa (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The guidance of WP:BEFORE applies. As the article has been tagged as suggested in that guidance and two years then pass with no interest and no one is bothered enough to add a source in order to demonstrate notability; there must be a time where the guidance of WP:BEFORE is satisfied and we are ready to go to deletion. If you think two years may not be long enough for a response to a clean-up template, what other criteria would you recommend?—Ash (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BEFORE is not about you doing nothing but waiting on the sidelines for some (non-existent) time limit to expire. It is about you searching for sources yourself, before nominating articles for deletion. What effort did you put into doing that? There's no mention of your doing any searching for sources yourself in either your nomination or what you write above. Don't sit on the sidelines doing nothing. This is a collaboratively written encyclopaedia. See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do for the long-standing procedures in this regard. If you think that something lacks sources, your first response should be to try to find them yourself. It should not be yet more tag-and-wait-on-the-sidelines-doing-nothing, with a deletion nomination. "no signs of progress" is everyone's responsibility, including yours. Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This has been much debated on the pages of WT:AFD and I do not see much that specific in the guidance. In order to make your point, could you please direct me to some authoritative guidance with respect to AFD rather than part of your own user pages?—Ash (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The user page shows you where in policy the procedure comes from, as well as for how many years this has been expected practice of Wikipedia editors. Read. Learn. Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Stop repeating yourself when all it does is harass Ash. Read. Learn. Joe Chill (talk) 02:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 18:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Someone here has asserted that references establishing notability exist but no one has bothered to insert them into article with even sekeleton refs ( "notability is established from [1,2,3,]"). I guess you could leave tagged stuff in a state of limbo since eventually someone will fix it or require that the person asserting that refs exist to make it notable just go ahead and insert 1 or 2 of them into the article. 67.166.244.55 (talk) 22:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As far as I can see, the association fails WP:ORG. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How far is that? (I mean, what was your judgement based on?) Shreevatsa (talk) 04:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Organization definitely exists and a quick google book/scholar search demonstrates there are sufficient sources available to establish notability. National amateur astronomy organizations are certainly worthy of retention. The article can be cleaned up, so I suggest a copy edit rather than deletion.—RJH (talk) 22:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but move to correct name of the organization, Confederation of Indian Amateur Astronomers. I have added a lede and two more references to the article; several other references are also available (as pointed above) that clearly establish the organization's notability. Any remaining article issues can be discussed on talk page. Abecedare (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  : Is this group practicing a static art something like European Astrology, only culturally Indian, or are they contributing to the science of astronomy? There are numerous groups of amateur astronomers around the world that do all kinds of research that would not qualify for professional funding. Also there is an astronomy conference once every three years just ended. They may not have many free leaders to defend this for a week or so. --Dgroseth (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Astronomy is one of the few scentific fields where amateurs still make major contributions, so I would accept a national organization of this sort as likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic of amateur astronomy may be notable but this fails WP:ORG. While there are some google hits in news, web, and scholar, there aren't many and all appear to be passing mentions rather than ones where the organization is the subject of the article. In most cases it appears that they are articles about people who identify themselves as part of this organization. These articles are great for demonstrating the notability of those individuals but do little to demonstrate the notability of this organization. RadioFan (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Counting hits isn't the best indication of notability. Of the hits you mention above, which ones do you feel could be used to demonstrate notability here? Is the organization the primary subject of any of those hits? Could you expand on how you feel those hits help this article meet general notability guidelines? --RadioFan (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course number of hits doesn't matter, but if you read the Gbooks hits, it provides in depth coverage sufficient to write an article. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 17:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific about the news articles you see as establishing notability here?--RadioFan (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] all work for me. There are more. Even articles which quote the organization's general secretary as an authority show notability for the org, since he is being quoted as representing the org. This book mention[11] (New trends in astronomy teaching published by Cambridge University Press) only confirms what frequent press reports do - the organization is a very notable amateur astronomer and teaching association. Priyanath talk 01:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. Notability has certainly been proven. Priyanath talk 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Hope[edit]

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

Contested prod. An attempt to source this article has been reverted by XLinkBot (talk · contribs). Band with unclear notability. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating:

Repulsive Conception (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
That's a keep on the band only. The album should be redirected (or deleted if you don't like redirects with dabs) unless sourced. Allmusic link doesn't have a review. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Article does not espouse any notability claim. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy declined. The article clearly "indicate[s] why its subject is important or significant". Splash - tk 14:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Cybercobra. wp:music includes in it's "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" one that says "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels". The article as it currently stands suggests multiple albums on Metal Blade Records. The onformation shown on the allmusic link I provided includes a discography that shows multiple albums on Metal Blade. The article on metal blade shows a good number on independently notable bands, which appears to satisfy the "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" section. That, to my eyes, is a clear claim of notability. And is a claim that satifies wp:music, justifying the existance of an article for Broken Hope. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, wasn't familiar with the intricacies of the music SNG. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Broken Hope per Duffbeerforme. Probably merge the album to the group. Rlendog (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Deutrom[edit]

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

Non notable person - owner of a minor (failed) record label and a bass guitarist, article has been heavily "fattened up", with zero references, by an author with a very large WP:COI who has already removed the "BLPunsourced" and "COI" templates a few times (currently blocked for 24h for 3RR). More "fattening up" has since occurred (and reverted) with a new editor (created 5min after the first one was blocked...). Suggest merge any useful data about the failed record label with Alchemy Records (U.S.)  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - There are many articles in Google News about his work with The Melvins and also some on Sunn O))). Much of the material is behind pay walls but it certainly looks like there is enough to establish notability with news sources. -- Whpq (talk) 14:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TiK ToK[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONG non notable future release. BigDunc 21:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: non-notable release, has not charted. No covers or awards. talkingbirds 00:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Morris[edit]

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

Fails WP:Bio and WP:Athlete — Preceding unsigned comment added by RM-Taylor (talk • contribs) 2009-08-07 23:44:35

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - player fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Recreate when/if he becomes notable in the future. GiantSnowman 17:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - much like other articles created by this user Spiderone (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Is the level immediately below Premier League really not fully professional? Nyttend (talk) 13:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability at WP:ATH as he has not actually made an appearance in a fully-professional league. Lack of significant third-party coverage means he also fails WP:GNG. Recreate if and when he makes his debut for Newcastle or any other team in a fully-pro league. --Jimbo[online] 21:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seville Acoustic Guitar S-13[edit]

Seville Acoustic Guitar S-13 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence this particular brand meets WP:GNG. It also smells like an advertisement. Triplestop x3 21:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. The article is much improved, and as the proposer I am prepared to withdraw the nomination; since the Afd has run its full course I see no possible conflict of interest in doing this as nobody else has argued for deletion. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Rafferty[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability within WP:CREATIVE; one cult film is inadequate for this, and article lacks reliable sources per WP:BLP. Half the article is about his famous relatives, not himself, and notability is not inherited, even if it were sourced. Rodhullandemu 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:CREATIVE, he is the creator of a well known work. "atomic cafe" was well known in its time, recieving significant coverage, which im pretty sure i can find. the article does need to be massively trimmed back, and should only list other significant movies directed by him.If kept, i will trim the article, but wont bother until decision is made. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and send to cleanup for expansion and sourcing as subject easily meets the governing criteria of WP:GNG [13]. No reason to delete if an article can be improved through normal editing. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Mercurywoodrose. He created several notable works, they blue links after all. Dream Focus 21:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a sidenote: Not wishing to wait for an AfD to finish judgement of an article that can so easily be improved, and even though AFD is not supposed to be for forcing cleanup, I have begun doing just that. There is much available in multiple reliable sources for this subject to meet WP:GNG and the subordinant WP:BIO. All additional assistance is welcome, and this article will be a worthy contibution to Wikpedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bodhi Green[edit]

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

There is no indication in the article, and I have found none by searching, e.g. Google Scholar, that this University lecturer is notable to the standard of WP:PROF, or anything like it. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. What the hell, he has a Bachelors and two Masters, all of them from ASU... that's academic career suicide. Yet another prof entry for someone who doesn't even have a doctorate. Five of the seven items in his bibliography were published in the same ASU publication, another is from a magazine. One actually does seem to be from a literary journal, although he has appears to have zero hits in Google scholar. Not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 21:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Expanding on Hairhorn's observation, Marginalia, the venue of most of his publications, is not actually an archival journal, but rather a "magazine that features news about Piper Center for Creative Writing programs, items that promote the ASU MFA program and alumni, and community engagement" (from the Arizona State University website). In other words, it's a standard university public relations circular. His book is "in its final stages of revision..." (from the article), i.e. it's not published. The article is essentially all WP:PUFF. A no-brainer delete, I'm afraid. Could have just gone directly to prod. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see even a claim to notability here (phrases like "gives a yearly talk to the local film club" don't exactly help). Wouldn't this qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#A7 as "an article about a real person… that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant"? Qwfp (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I agree with Hairhorn to some extent on the problematic nature of his lack of connection with anywhere but ASU, an MFA is a terminal degree that can be an appropriate substitute for a doctorate in a performance-based field. Since his work is on film-making rather than film criticism, that would fit. The same reasoning would imply that we should be using WP:CREATIVE rather than WP:PROF to evaluate his case, and ask: how famous is he for his writing? Is he notable as a screenwriter or novelist? The answer appears to be no. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that MFAs can be terminal degrees in fine arts fields, although that is less and less true. There are more and more PhD programs in Fine Arts ( and even more in Communications, which is where he's working). Many of his departmental colleagues have doctorates. Hairhorn (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The_Masque-_An_Erotic_Renaissance[edit]

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

Not sure what the article is even about. It appears to be about a webpage with forums, chat, ect. Makes no claim to notability. A google search shows several sites called The Masque but I cannot find one that is similar to what is described in this article. TParis00ap (talk) 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with salt - I agree with the nominator. Furthermore, googling for the beginning of the article ("After leaving your gondola with the aid of a uniformed servant,"), to locate this "Masque" thing and also to ascertain whether it might be a copyvio, I have been redirected to some kind of finance website. Goochelaar (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. I'm pretty sure this meets the criteria of WP:CSD_A7 and WP:CSD_G11. — Rankiri (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Public Housing Estates in Kwai Chung. Looks like we have a satisfactory external solution. Thanks WP:HK Spartaz Humbug! 07:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shek Yam East Estate[edit]

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

Non-notable apartment buildings. Three Google News in Chinese are bus plunge articles on petty crimes that occurred there. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 17:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added more English links to support its existance. I know that reference articles rather than English are allowed in English Wikipedia. They are not bus plunge articles. If you don't know Chinese language, please let me know. Ricky@36 (talk) 23:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tagging history of the article is confusing: is there still a request for deletion, or simply a request for improvement? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 04:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prod-tagged this a while ago, and User:Ricky@36, the article's creator, deprodded it. After it became apparent that no further improvement was possible or forthcoming, I nominated it for deletion. Ricky@36 added the expand tag. Ricky@36 has created many articles on these housing developments, some of which are notable and some of which I suspect are not. Abductive (reasoning) 04:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have added several links to support the article. Now only you are not satified with the condition. I don't know why you chase to delete the article. My final plan is to finish all the public housing estates of Hong Kong, no matter big or small to show the integrity of the category of "Category:Public housing estates in Hong Kong. You will destroy the plan if you asked deletions. Ricky@36 (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaged in a project to add every single public housing estate in Hong Kong, a "completionist" agenda. According to this there are 196 estates operated by the Hong Kong Housing Authority, and 20 estates by the Hong Kong Housing Society. Now, I have sampled some of the articles on these estates, and most of them are notable, but some are not. Notability is a special term on Wikipedia which mean more than just proving it exists, which we call "verifiability". Please see WP:N and WP:V for a fuller discussion of these ideas. The way the Article for Deletion process works is that other people comment here until consensus is reached on whether or not the topic of the article is appropriate for Wikipedia. You and I have said what we think, and now it is the turn of other members of the community to weigh in. Abductive (reasoning) 05:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I write every article, I provide enough sources and reference which shows their existance. Notability is very subjective. Once you don't know the articles, you could say "notiability". I challenged with so many Wiki users on that. Fortunately, most of my articles could be reserved finally. If you tag more articles, I am so sorry that I don't know have time to comment with you on every article. Ricky@36 (talk)
The reason you often are challenged is that there are something like 135,800 high-rise apartment buildings in the world. I get this figure by assuming there is one such building for every 25,000 people living in urban areas, which are home to about half the world's 6.79 billion people. That is, high-rise buildings hold 20% of the population of the Earth. Abductive (reasoning) 09:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep this article and the others for Hong Kong. While I am in no way linked to Ricky@36, I have followed his very good work on Hong Kong related articles, and I tend to support his "completionist" agenda for public housing estates. Public housing estates play a major role in Hong Kong society, history, culture, and even economy. I believe that if we end up having an article for the ~200 of them, these articles will definitely have an important "group value". On a different level, think of the groups of buildings bundled together for the recent UNESCO world heritage sites declarations. Also, in the very dense urban planning of Hong Kong , these housing estates essentially play the roles of villages or towns in other locations: they typically have several thousands inhabitants, shopping centers, schools, elderly homes, bus terminuses, etc. Finally, information on these public housing estates are scattered across various websites, and it is a valuable work to gather this information in individual articles.Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If these estates are as important as you say, then you should have no trouble finding sources that say this one is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 09:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I talked about "group value", not about this specific one.Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If no third party sources exist for an estate, it can still be listed, but not redlinked, in List of public housing estates in Hong Kong. Abductive (reasoning) 09:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is very unlikely that no third party source exist for any given estate in Hong Kong, since 1) most of them are listed on emporis.com 2) there are always governement (LegCo) discussions and information about estates posted on the Hong Kong governement websites, in addition to 3) the website of the Hong Kong Housing Authority itself.Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think your criticisms are useless. The housing estates are developed by the Hong Kong Government. It is reasonable that I use sources from the government. Besides the government sources, I also put links from several private websites (some are in Chinese) to verify their existance. If you are free to challange people, I am sorry that I don't have time to deal with you. Ricky@36 (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Emporis is a wiki, and given that emporis tries to list all the multi-story buildings in the world, a listing there does nothing to establish notability. Government of HK and HKHA websites aren't third-party, and even if they were, they don't say anything about this project to convince me that it is notable. Abductive (reasoning) 11:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I could provide enough sources to support the articles, but you said the sources are not reliable. It is just your thought, not fair. Please help find your "reliable" sources. No one could reach your "ideal" target. Ricky@36 (talk) 16:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abductive, what do you want, really? Establish the notability of Shek Yam East Estate? what about the widely used rule that every human settlement deserves an entry in Wikipedia? French communes, all 36,000 of them are considered as Wikipedia worthy, so why not a 6,500 people estate in Hong Kong? and after all why not all 135,800 high-rise apartment buildings in the world? added to the 2,983,962 existing Wikipedia articles, that's not much, for places that are central to people's lives. Besides, your arguments are confusing: are you trying to 1) request reliable sources evidencing the mere existence of Shek Yam East Estate, or 2) push us to prove its notability (I have already mentioned that it is not notable per se but as part of a group, but I am not sure that you got this point, unless this is what you are calling "project", but again this point of yours was not clear), or 3) just willing to chat with people? Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, Abductive is a very ideal person. He/she needs us to reach his/her ideal requirements to fit his/her "notiblity" target. Ricky@36 (talk) 07:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a fair characterization. I have even added a reference establishing notability to the article on Telford Garden and removed the notability tag placed there by another user as a demonstration. Abductive (reasoning) 07:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is because Telford Garden is not written by me. You are now only concerned about my articles, and try to find ways to suggest deletions to fit your "deletion" aims. Is it right, isn't it? Previously, I met some editors who are trying to delete the articles, but I explained to them and they finally accepted my explanation and gave up deletions. However, although you do it in a wrong way, you still think that you are right to do it. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to Henrik's tool, Shek Yam East Estate gets 6.2 page views a day. That does not convince me that this housing project is of broad, encyclopedic interest. Abductive (reasoning) 09:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a good reason to explain your point? Don't give any excuses to support your point, since many people, besides me, disagreed with your point. Ricky@36 (talk) 09:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, only one person, oliver/UnderwaterBuffalo, agrees with you. Abductive (reasoning) 09:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I am the only vocal one does not really prove that no other people agree. Anyway this discussion is going nowhere, and I would appreciate to know what Abductive suggests to do with the content of the article. Just wipe it out from the servers? olivier (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. It isn't like the data doesn't appear on the Hong Kong Housing Authority's website. They have a very nice page devoted to Shek Yam East, with a street map, and photos. Abductive (reasoning) 10:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, lifebaka++ 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Bottom section moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public housing in Hong Kong. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as for other large housing projects/estates/complexes of this kind. As for page views, anything that gets 6 a day = 2000 a year. Two thousand people reading an article is way enough. I wouldn't even say that something that got 6 views a year should be deleted on such a basis--if I can write an article and help 6 people find information they need, I'd think my time very well spent. Wikipedia is not an abridged encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Verified. Seems a suitable topic for the encyclopedia. Does not seem prone to promotion problems that require WP:N compliance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What sources attest the the notability of this particular project? What is the project notable for? Here is what the article says "Shek Yam East Estate is a comparatively small public housing estate for Hong Kong standards, comprising three 39-floor residential buildings, without market and shopping centre;. It comprises a total of 2,500 apartments, with sizes ranging from 13.6 to 49 m2. The authorized population was 6,500 at the end of 2007." (Emphasis mine).
    • Why is this sort of article suitable for an encyclopedia? In the rest of the world there are tens of thousands of similar apartment complexes. And how about all the suburban subdivisions? If I created an article on Pine Glade subdivision (there's one in Colorado and one in Maryland), what could I say? "Some developer built a subdivision in such-and-so neighborhood of such-and-so town, which has 410 ranch style houses. The population of the subdivision is 1,209." Abductive (reasoning) 08:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I think housing estates should be part of the encyclopedia on everything. However, articles need secondary sources to attest to someone else being interested. I just examined 6/7 of the references, and I find them all to be primary source material. I could find no secondary source material on the web before coming up with mirrored wikipedia content. I think secondary sources for these estates must surely exist, but in their absence, we shouldn't have the article because we have no secondary sources to guide the content. Perhaps if there was a standard for articles covering housing estates, then it could be justified by arguing "comprehensibility of coverage". undecided --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(This is not really part of the discussion) Pine Glade subdivision might not deserve an article, according to the current inclusion criteria of Wikipedia, but "410 ranch style houses" sparks my interest. Is there any place in Wikipedia where one can read about such developments? olivier (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean in general? Subdivision (land) is the article. Creating an article on an individual subdivision is nigh on impossible; they are generally so un-noteworthy that one can't even find out who built them or when they were built without going to the county archives in person. Back when I was tagging places in WikiMapia (which has no notability requirements) I dabbled in labeling subdivisions, but could rarely find trustworthy data. Abductive (reasoning) 10:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to efforts at improvement and persuasive arguments that subject is verifiable. If it is not a hoax and is important to some segment of our readers and can be presented coherently then that is good enough for our purposes. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging can be dealt with on the respective talk pages. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isola (fictional island)[edit]

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

As the prod was writing "Fictional location with no assertion of notability.". This is just a fictional island in a video game series. The possibility that this thing was covered by any third party source should be 0. Magioladitis (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - My default position for these types of article is "merge to more general article." However, in this case the fictional island is the setting of multiple notable games and as such I feel the best way to handle the material is via a stand alone article. Otherwise the same info - i.e. background on the game's setting - has to be covered in multiple articles where one should be sufficient. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say that this could all be covered in one sentence on each article. It's not like the name of the island has a terribly significant impact on the gameplay. The "story" is clearly not the focus of the games. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is a good case to merge and redirect without deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see how it might have real world notability. Goochelaar (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that it is a good idea to keep this more so that it can merge many games together, and seeing that the Island is the setting of multiple games, because if you delete it, the same information would, as said above, be put in multiple different articles. PlyPlay665 (Blah) 15:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or, this information could just be expunged. After all, most of the article contains separate data about different games anyhow, and as for the "Magic Fish" table, Wikipedia is not a game guide. Goochelaar (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia is a reference guide. The article is not presented as a how to which is what "not" prescribes against. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my opinion, the tables are a perfect example of "how to", as demonstrated by the fact that if you do not know anything about the games, you do not even understand what this data are about. Saying what has which effect on "all fish in the same tank" does not add anything to one's comprehension of the game, unless you are already playing. Goochelaar (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • They do not say anything about "how to" do anything. They merely tabulate a major element of the games in an organized manner akin to a table of the elements relevant to an article on elements, table of casualties relevant to an article on award, table of winners relevant to an article on award show, etc. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't assert notability and there is nothing worth merging, so there is no reason to keep it around. TTN (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • By being in multiple games it asserts notability. The referenced information is worth merging. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Calling this "non-notable" is real stretch and there is no real reason to delete it per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. The first line of the article, right off the bat, contains out of universe context and asserts notability: "Isola is the fictional island that is the setting for Fish Tycoon, Plant Tycoon, and the Virtual Villagers series, created by Last Day of Work(LDW)." The article therefore informs readers who created the fictinal location, but getting back to the whole subjective "notability" context, any reasonable understanding of that term would agree that something that appears in THREE different series is "notable." But we do not simply base inclusion on subjectivity. So, let us consider WP:V and WP:RS. Rather than do a standard google search, let's try Google News for Isola and Fish Tycoon (28 results), Isola and Plant Tycoon (10 results), Isola and Virtual Villagers (26 results), and Isola and Last Day of Work (19 hits). We even get a Google Books hit. So, collectively over seventy-five reliable sources such as FOX and USA Today confirm the content of this article, beyond just who created it and what games it appears in to include actual discussion of the fictional island that can be used to write a Reception section of the article and because the island appears across three different franchises, the article serves a navigational purposes and a comparative purpose that conveniently allows readers to see how this fictional location is both depicted in the games and received by critics in these different venues. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all seventy-five, of course, as several of the items you mention, which are mostly just press releases anyhow, are counted separately in two or more lists. Goochelaar (talk) 19:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still multiple reliable sources in any event. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have my doubts about the "reliable" part as wel as about their relevance to Isola per se, as opposed to the games themselves it appears in. Goochelaar (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • While news is not always reliable, for Wikipedic purposes, USA Today, FOX, etc. count as reliable sources, because they reflect mainstream coverage. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is a completely nondescript setting which has no real world significance, nor does it have a significant impact on gameplay. Outside of the first sentence, the article is a completely in-universe description. Looking at the Google News hits, they basically all say "Yes, this game is set on an island called Isola" with nothing beyond that. There's no development info (the quote currently in the article has nothing to do with development, just one developer's opinion); there's no reception; there's no info on subsequent works it may have influenced; there's no real world significance at all. There's nothing about this fictional place that makes it notable. The developers could have just made all those games set in differently named places and it would be functionally identical; they are all on Isola solely out of convenience, not some grand plan. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Article has been dramaticlaly improved since nomination and now meets WP:WAF thereby negating any reason to redlink. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has markedly improved during the course of this AfD. Though AfD is supposedly not for cleanup, that's exactly what happened. Good job. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly has the article been improved? All that has been added is a single quote that probably belongs in Last Day of Work or one of the game articles. This article still fails to actually assert notability. TTN (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a call for a merge and as far as this nonsense about "asserting notability"...anything that appears in multiple game series and is verified through multiple reliable sources meets the common sense standard of notability. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 18:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, nothing needs to be merged. The quote should be independently added to another article. Seriously, you can disagree with notability being a defining piece of criteria for inclusion and you can try to change that all you want, but to ignore it or pass it off as something that it is not (verifiability and the number of appearances do not equal notability) is just silly. TTN (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, nothing here needs to be deleted. It is not libelous, not a hoax, etc. It is a "notable" aspect of THREE different game series and is verifiable in reliable sources. And as far as merging goes, the main articles actually could benefit by using the reviews/previews cited in this article. Why not help to improve them? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's like taking the position of forcing someone to disprove something; it just doesn't make logical sense. As I said, you can disagree with notability, but please do not ignore it. Go ahead and get the guideline demoted if you can, but until that point notability equals "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." TTN (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it has one source that does not qualify as signifcant coverage. The others deal with the games, not this topic directly (though if this does survive the AfD, I'll use those to turn this into a series article), and the rest are primary. TTN (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please be honest. It has at least a half dozen sources, which qualifies as significant coverage and as they are not put out by the game itself, they are secondary. That you could admittedly turn it into a series article is admission per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE that other options exist beyond the extreme last resort of deletion. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the wording is "signifcant coverage in reliable secondary sources." Those sources do not cover this topic, only the games, so they don't count. I don't really believe the "series" needs an article, so it is simply an alternative to keeping an even worse topic. TTN (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Isola" appears in every one of those sources, i.e. they in covering the games, they also cover the elements of the games, of which the setting is a major element. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said, you are free to disagree with notability, but do not ignore it or attempt to make it into something that it is not. The actual usage of "significant coverage" is shown in our good and featured articles on fictional topics. Being mentioned over and over within the context of the series is not coverage; it is simply name-dropping as Axem Titanium describes. TTN (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It clearly meets WP:N due to significant coverage, i.e. description of the island and what happens on the island, the setting of three game series as reviewed and previewed in multiple reliable sources. Yes, they mention the name, but they go beyond that when describes what happens on the island, its elements. etc. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (kickback indent) A name drop in 70+ news articles is still a name drop. That does not constitute "significant" coverage. The article has not improved. In fact, the addition of those game-guide tables tells me that it's actually gotten worse. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Following the improvements to the article we see that in so many different sources does constitute significant coverage, because they address the events that happen on island, the main setting of several notables games. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed the game-guide tables which, if anything, harm the article. The only, pale claim to notability would be the interview relating Isola to "Lost", but it does not seem by far enough to extract a single element of a game series and consider it a noteworthy subject for an article. Goochelaar (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • They still meet the common sense standard of notability: main setting of several notable games and verifiable through multiple reliable sources. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The news articles do mention the place and what goes on there, and it is an important location, fictional or not, for several notable games. Dream Focus 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The references of USA Today talk about the games and of course they mention an element of them. The "island" is not discussed separately. The other reference to Last Day of Work Official Forums is just some kind of game manual. We have some games and of course fictional names are mentioned. This doesn't mean we have to create an article for every fictional word appereaing in every book, film, video game about fiction. Maybe a redirect would be a solution. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because the island is not a subordinate element of an individual game, but the overall setting for multiple notable games, it is a more plausible search term. In the absence of a suitable merge or redirect target, it would therefore be better to keep the article (which needs cleanup) than to delete it entirely. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well researched article now, I say strong keep Ikip (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator please note the article has had signifigant improvements since it was first put up for deletion.[14] thank you Ikip (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed, if by "significant improvements" one means "adding references that, at most, mention fleetingly the article's subject rather than address the subject directly in detail". Goochelaar (talk) 22:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When nominated, the article had no references and only some out of universe context. Now, the article has been put on a path of improvement including references from reviews in such reliable sources as USA Today that discuss this notable element of three notable series as well as an out of universe interview that, while briefly, nevertheless touches upon a potential comparison with another notable fictional island. Any time we go from no references to multiple references, that in it of itself is a signifcant start in the right direction. Besides as the setting of the six games are the island, much of the reviews' touching upon the various aspects of the game are in a sense direct and detailed coverage of the island as after all all the events are taking place on or around this island. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, I am not able to convey my point. Goochelaar (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try one last time. There are two USA Today articles quoted. In the first one the unique mention of the word "Isola" is in the sentence "While running a plant nursery, you learn about genetics as you crossbreed plants in hopes of discovering the six Magic Plants of Isola." Hardly a way of "addressing the subject directly in detail." In the second one, the only mention is in the single sentence "The game starts with a small tribe of seven people arriving on the island of Isola, the only survivors of a volcanic eruption." Again, not precisely an in-depth treatment of Isola island. So, these are not sources about Isola, they just mention it. And this is not what is requested by WP policy. I know my English leaves much to be desired, it not being my first language, but I hope to have made myself clear enough. Happy editing, Goochelaar (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, it really is pointless to argue with him. He'll never change his opinion, and even if you prove him wrong, like I did several times during my pointless discussion with him, he just slightly changes his argument to get around it. TTN (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When they discuss what happens on Isola and the people, magical items, etc. that are on it they are in effect also discussing the island. They do not need to say "Isola" in every sentence to still be discussing the nature and aspects of it. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 23:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some more things that maybe usefull for this discussion: The link from MacWorld adresses to the "Magic Fish of Isola" only once exactly as the other ones. No other references to the island exist there. I think it's more like a press release or something and the subject is not discussed at all.
  • And something meaningless probably: I haven't play the game and the phrase "Many magical force are on the island. From fish to plants" makes no sense to me. Fishes and plants are not "magical forces". Moreover, they are 6 magic fishes in the list. Why is this "many"? What is the normal amount of magical forces? :) There is no irony in my questions. I am just pointing out that there some parts that are original research and they can be improved.
  • To return to the main subject: The links provided are really helpful but for the main articles. Secondary references should be added in the main articles to reference parts of them. If we delete the article I think we have to use these references in other places. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References or not, this is one more trivial article of interest only to marginalized gamers. Ghosts&empties 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. One could say an article on any random plant is only of interest to botanists, but so long as it is verfiable, it still worth covering. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say delete as well, personally. We should avoid creating numerous articles about minutiae in games/films/&c. Irbisgreif (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:PERNOM is not a compelling reason for deletion, especially when the nomination said no sources and the article now has sources. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody, you are aware that administrators can read and are knowledgeable about WP policies, aren't you? Goochelaar (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I really can't do more than simply repeat the nomination rationale given I agree with it, which would be a waste of time. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If the nomination were factually correct okay, but it contains a number of factual errors:
          • "This is just a fictional island in a video game series." Actually, it is part of three series, not "a" series.
          • "The possibility that this thing was covered by any third party source should be 0." Well, as we have shown, it is not "0", because it is covered in third-party previews and reviews in usch publications as USA Today by name. We can reasonable debate and disagree on the nature and scope of that coverage, but that statement that the coverage does not exist at all has been disproven.
        • Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing here but a bit of minutiae that can be covered in the main article in about two lines.--Cameron Scott (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a reason to merge, not delete. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sometimes a reason to delete. If the 1-2 line information is "The game is taking place in a fictional island called Isola, which is also the stting for two more games of the same company". In fact that's what I would write. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Merged. Following WP:PRESERVE, some of the suggestions above, and in keeping with the GFDL, I have merged ([15], [16], and [17]) the content accordingly. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, despite your statement "in keeping with the GFDL" you have actually broke the license in the first edit by merging it text without any documentation. Whenever you do a merge, you must state where the text came from in your editing summary ("merging in text from [[source]]"). If the source isn't being turned into a redirect to the destination (which is obviously the case here), both talk pages must also received a ((copied)) tag. See WP:MERGE and Help:Merge for more information.
    Since the outcome of this AfD isn't clear at this time, I have undone the edit that broke attribution (the first one). The second one is simply adding a reference which is not GFDL significant. I went ahead and added the required ((copied)) tag to the third. If the outcome of this AfD is to merge the first edit should be redone properly. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you mean. My edit summary says: "merged from Isola (fictional island)" and links to that page? Thus, I have restored the merge. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake - I didn't realize the diff linked to above incorporated multiple edits. It only showed the first edit summary & thus looked like attribution was broken. However, that wasn't actually the case. My apologies. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries and anyway, you were right about the talk pages as I was not aware of that template and as I indicated on your talk page, I have corrected my error there a few moments ago. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep, it is linked t other articles, better to have here, than the same repeated in mutiple articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somehow -- but I am not sure how to handle this. There are three related games that take place in a common setting. We would normally have an article on the games individually, but a good deal of it would duplicate. The island itself is just the background, with a remarkably non-specific name. The first two games have a common general theme, not depending upon the specifics of the island. The third game, published as three sub-games or episodes, has a different general theme, but uses the setting from the earlier two gamers. There is nothing obviously noteworthy about the setting in its own right. I am not sure why the games are so popular, and if it can be shown to be the visual or other attractiveness of the setting, there might be a point. But at present, I do not see it. DGG ( talk ) 20:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per improvements. Nice little article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all the delete !votes. Really, when someone puts this much work into an article, there should be an auto-keep function, since the nominated article is not the same article as the one which will be evaluated at close. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even after all that work, including adding a PRNewswire as a "source", all of the other sources are the slimmest of mentions while the source talks about the games, except an interview in gametunnel in which the Virtual Village game developer says, "We are also very excited about the story behind the game, the story of this magic island called Isola, which permeates all of our recent releases," and "and we feel compelled to continue telling the story of Isola in an interactive and dynamic way", and when the interviewer as him if the island in Lost is an influence on Isola, says, "It is a great show, and I immediately saw things that seemed appealing for VV...". So, the best source is a Internet site, gametunnel, which isn't as strong a publisher as I would like to see, interviewing the game's designer, which makes it, to me, insufficiently independent to establish the notability of this fictional place. Where is the independent, third party analysis? Abductive (reasoning) 03:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the article has been merged, per the GFDL, the only path for this discussion is now a speedy keep as deletion is no longer an acceptable option. We can use talk pages to discuss redireting or renaming, but the article cannot be deleted per our attribvution policies. Moreover, please remember to be honest in these discussions. The subject's notability is undeniable. It is not merely covered in internet sites, but in USA Today, FOX, etc. How many fictional locations appear in three game series and are mentioned by name in such mainstream press? Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 04:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly disagree. Merger of two non-notable things into a single non-notable article is no reason to keep. This GFDL thing sounds like Wikilawyering to me. Abductive (reasoning) 05:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not something you can legitimately disagree on. It is notable by any sane standard and whether you wish it were so or not, the GFDL is what we go by. And we also go by such things as WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE. As such when we have logically and common sense standard notable material verified by reliable sources and other options then redlinking we go with these other options. We can disagree on whether to keep the article separate, whether to redirect, or whether to rename or merge further. But is objective fact that the subejct is covered in reliable source and so is not a hoax and it is objective fact that we must keep the attribution history public when we merge. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 05:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • So, one could prevent the deletion of any article by copying some text over to a different article, and calling that a merge? Then I merely request that the closing admin oversite/delete those additions (the ones you list above) to avoid violating the GFDL, should this article be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 21:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Usually they can delete an article, even one which was kept after an AFD, by copying over only a small token amount somewhere, and then destroying the rest, calling it a merge. Then after a month, when you think no one is watching, you can delete even that small amount, so there is nothing at all. Mergers are also a great way to destroy an article, while avoiding an AFD that might not go your way, you able to wipe out most of it. Plus you can take all the character articles you don't like, and replace all of them at once with a merge, shoving summaries of the information from their pages onto one page, thus keeping the Wikipedia from filling up with fancruft clutter. Dream Focus 21:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • We are here to build articles and so no reasonable admin would remove content merged to articles that actually improves those articles just to satisfy the usual baseless WP:IDONTLIKEIT non-argument. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 23:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I think you guys misunderstand me. I fail at communication a lot, but I don't argue from a LIKEIT/DONTLIKEIT perspective. If you look though my AfD notvotes, you'll see I always argue from a sourcing perspective. Abductive (reasoning) 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Information sourced in reliable sources from this article was added to previously insufficiently sourced articles on games that absolutely meet our much disputed notability guidelines. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to interfere with efforts to develop and improve such content by wanting to get rid of something that is not a copy vio, hoax, or libelous. There is no pressing need to remove the edit history of our article. We do not need to protect anyone from this verifiable content and certainly not when it can be used to develop and improve other articles. Thus, no matter what anyone tries to claim, there is no basis for outright deletion beyond just not liking it, because the content is useable in some fashion and not dangerous per WP:PRESERVE. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 01:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I stand by my assessment of the sources; they are insufficient. Abductive (reasoning) 02:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A dedicated article is the best way to convey information to our readers on themes like how the Island's role changes between different games. Noteability well established following excellent improvements by editor ANobody. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RSDRF[edit]

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

I simply don't understand what this article is doing here. Speedy and Prod declined. This is an utterly trivial fee paid by students at a school so non-notable that the school itself has no wiki entry. It's also clearly a cut and paste copyright violation, although I can't find a page with the exact text. Delete, delete, delete. Hairhorn (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Parts of the lead are a close copy of this page, not sure if that's enough for speedy. Hairhorn (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I went through the sole reference and finally managed to understand what this page is trying to do - explain what one particular institute does to collect statistical data. Fails notability criteria for the term, so apply common sense and do an early snow close. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 20:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Snow etc. Goochelaar (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a piece of administrative bureaucracy at one particular college. It is of no general interest and is not an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I removed the speedy delete tag, not because I thought the article belonged, but because it was tagged as an A1 and there was plenty of info to identify the subject of the article. After looking i was going to add a PROD tag, but it was already Prod'd. This article does not belong and snow closed. --A new name 2008 (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know the speedy nom wasn't perfect, I understand why it was declined. But - rightly or wrongly - CSDs often get stretched to fit blatantly unsuitable articles. G1 is probably the most liberally interpreted. Hairhorn (talk) 21:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not wanting to pile on, but the topic is not encyclopaedic. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • it's good to have this post. I heard about this and couldn't find an explanation. good page. let it be 64.71.16.202 (talk)

Comment copied here from article talk page by Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unencyclopedic. Astronaut (talk) 05:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete No reliable sources to verify that this process is in any way, shape or form recognized or discussed as something specific, unique or remarkable (in particular since the school it belongs to hasn't passed the WP:GNG itself so far).MLauba (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The copyvio / close paraphrase as well as most of the non-encyclopedic material has been removed pending AfD closure. MLauba (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Delete: A non-notable fee. Joe Chill (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modeling site[edit]

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

As a user said in the previous AfD: There's nothing special or notable with such sites to deserve an article and the text is pretty uninformative - models have websites, suprise, suprise. A few "keep" users asserted the article simply lacks sources, but since that Oct. 2007 discussion, no refs have surfaced, and I doubt there are any to be found to assert that this topic is really notable, especially since there don't seem to be any individually notable examples of such sites to warrant Wikipedia articles of their own. Not to mention, this article's only real use seems to be as a center for promotion judging from how many edits deal with reverting spam ELs.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As noted by the nominator, what little content there is here doesn't amount to anything (other than being a spam target). Completely unreferenced as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I was expecting a directory, but instead I got a long list of tautologies: A portfolio hosting site is a site that hosts portfolios, tribute modeling sites are sites that are tributes to models, etc. Too vacuous for my taste. Hairhorn (talk) 21:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What isn't a WP:DICDEF is entirely unsourced. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Think[edit]

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

"Most likely true", according to the article. Delete, per WP:V. I42 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Informative article. Fails WP:NSONGS Nouse4aname (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete...WP:CRYSTAL. If it can be reliably sourced (which, I can't find any), then it, uh, most likely can be mentioned in the artist's article. talkingbirds 00:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete Doesn't actually exist yet, entirely promotional. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to have this but speedy delete declined as it is not promotional, if it was it could confirm and justify having an article! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lennox Sisters[edit]

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

Delete. These ladies had no notability in their own right; no citations; the article has been created as a very messy spin-off from the one about their father. --Jack | talk page 20:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No independent notability even asserted. Resolute 03:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Noblewomen of this stature played a sufficient role in society to be notable. The article has a good source: Stella Tillyard (1994). Aristocrats. Caroline, Emily, Louise, and Sarah Lennox 1740–1832. London: Chatto and Windus. This is a reputable publisher, not a mere reprinter of family genealogies . The book is in most large university libraries. [18]. A book specifically about someone is a very good indication of notability. The article is undoubtedly expandable from the book, which will have sources listed. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Still spinning from the 180 turn. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whassup?[edit]

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

This article is filled with unverified claims about some commerical. It is not notable either. Much of the article is just a collection of random facts. Edward130603 (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I agree that the article is a sorry mess and should be heavily refurbished. And I must admit that for once my vote (yes, I know, it's not actually a vote) is not perfectly acceptable by WP policy. The reason I'd be inclined to keep the article is that, as an Italian who does not follow US television, even less football, nor especially into American beers, even so I know about this commercial, and about its 2008 version. So, in an unofficial, unprovable way, I feel it to be somewhat notable. Goochelaar (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article probably needs some cleanup, but this is, arguably, one of the best-known American TV commercials of all time. Sources are trivially easy to find: [19], [20] Zagalejo^^^ 23:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zagalejo. This was not just "some commercial" as the nom states, it was a very famous and highly influencial commercial. Rlendog (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ambar (online game)[edit]

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

fails notability guidelines. "regularly played by 150-200 people" is impressive now? No reliable sources to pass WP:N, delete and move on. Ironholds (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. As many participants have pointed out, individual state highway articles have generally been considered worthy of inclusion in prior consensus. This specific road is a more notable one at that, and there are sources which discuss the topic. The point is, however, an individual AfD is not the place to discuss road notability as a whole – instead, it should be taken at a more global level. JamieS93 be kind to newcomers 20:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Route 140[edit]

Connecticut Route 140 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:USRD/NT as that defines what is notability for rorads, and compared to some articles, this isn't non-notable.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 19:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:USRD/NT has no standing as guideline or policy and is contrary to WP:NRVE, "it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim.". Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most road articles haven't been fully expanded, but there are fully verifiable sources. :| - Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, USRT/NT says essentially the same thing, they are not contradictory. Both say that each article must stand on its own merits. Dave (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please explain why you believe it's non-notable? It is a state highway—which are almost always considered notable—and a quite significant one at that. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked for independent sources which specifically discuss the topic and there didn't seem to be any. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a road atlas. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [21] Not that this would be the best article for encyclopedic information, but it is a RS and an independent source found in <5 minutes. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is an announcement of routine road maintenance. Per WP:NOTNEWS, "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements ... are not sufficient basis for an article.". Colonel Warden (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I looked at it more closely... a realignment of a road is not routine. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I beg to differ - the source supplied seems insufficient to establish notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article may lack WP:RS at the moment, this article can be saved from the chopping block. And I happen to agree with Juliancolton and CG on this issue. And if a road less than 1/4 mile can be notable (Utah State Route 103) then this article sure can be too. Admrboltz (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Significant radial from an important city to surroundings Fg2 (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your position on the notability of road articles in general? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're discussing weather the road is notable enough to justify an article, not weather the article has content that is not keeping with wikipedia's goals and policies. As such news articles and travel guides are a start to show notability.Dave (talk) 07:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm trying to determine if he is opposed to all road articles or to just this one in particular. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a general position. Notability considers each case on its merits, depending upon the quality of the sources available. Roads seem similar to bacteria, fungi, genes, asteroids, people and the like - items which can be catalogued by the million. This is contrary to our policy that Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of indiscriminate information. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, you do not support the deletion of all (or the vast majority of) road articles? I want to make sure I understand your position before I go making arguments that don't even apply. (And we have had several users try to get all road articles deleted in the past). --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to discuss this particular article (which I found by patrolling random articles). Arguments based upon other road articles are to be avoided per WP:WAX. As for general principles, we should not be trying to reproduce mapping information as our text article format is not suitable for this. People will generally prefer to consult sources such as Google Maps for navigation and routing information as they are more accurate and better constructed for the purpose with zoom, scroll and other appropriate interface options. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the point of a route description is to provide other information that is not evident from the map; i.e. scenery, road features such as number of lanes, interchange details. --Rschen7754 (T C) 08:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not entirely sure why this was nominated in the first place? Jeni (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If the notability of roads in general is to be questioned, nominating one random article is not the right way forward; this needs to be discussed at a meta-level. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am neutral, but think that there should be a decision on deleting or merging individual roads before deleting this article. Dogposter 15:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see WP:ALLORNOTHING. Most topics form a spectrum in which there are notable cases and then a tail of non-notable cases. Roads seem to be much the same and I have seen numerous road articles brought to AFD with varying results. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and Keep Colonel Warden first put this up for deletion by PROD, and I removed the prod with this edit summary: "rm PROD for now. I have no position on merits, but Polaron, the original and prncipal author, is off-wiki recently. Request wait until he is back on." Polaron is a regular editor, and I think he is probably off on a trip for a week or two. I don't see what is the urgency for this now to be AfD'd, why my request could not be honored. Put me down for Keep vote. doncram (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is not a vote and particular editors do not own articles so there is no concept of a proxy vote. If you have no position on the merits of this article then your opinion is not helpful to the discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you are the one to say when opinions about your behavior in wikipedia are helpful or not. I happen to think it is often helpful to point out when someone is behaving in ways that tend to cut off productive discussion, as when you put forward an AFD deliberately in the temporary absence of a person who could probably edit the article to address the specific concerns you have. That seems pointless to me, and unproductive on the merits of developing the wikipedia. Also, it is not for you to judge whether others' choice to mix various factors in their views is right or not. Anyhow, at first I stated i did not have an opinion, now I do. My position on the merits of the article: Keep. doncram (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does this !vote differ from your earlier one? Your comments all seem ad hominem rather than addressing the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It differs from my earlier vote in which i did not take a position is that in my last post, I said, clearly, "My position on the merits of the article: Keep. I don't really care to spell out the merits in more detail for u: your nomination to delete this article is clearly failing. doncram (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still seem to think this is a vote. Please see WP:DGFA, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." Colonel Warden (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your search is a good one - thank you for engaging with the topic. I have been through a couple of hundred of the hits but haven't noticed any which pass our policies, WP:NOTDIR or WP:NOTNEWS, as they all seem to be either addresses (usually the Trolley Museum) or routine news - traffic accidents, road closures, etc. Have you seen a case where the road is discussed in a more significant way? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, WP:USRD/NT is not policy and topics are not notable just because some editor asserts that they are. Where is the evidence of notability? Colonel Warden (talk) 06:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The road is several miles long and links multiple towns. If this road was a short connector, it may be better suited to a list but in this case, it is not. Many roads of similar length and importance have individual articles. This article just needs improvements and it can potentially become a GA someday. Dough4872 (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For comparison, I looked up a similar GA and found Connecticut Route 190. That seems to have some significant history as a turnpike but its GA status is in doubt - see the talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that GA thing was a failed effort by it :| - Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 21:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This was an internal audit by a USRD editor (myself). This article never went to GAR, so its status as GA was never truly in doubt. --Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep There are many sources about this obviously notable topic. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take into consideration that the article hasn't been expanded. And here look: "Begin demolition of old bridge." Hartford Courant, Apr. 6, 1924.
Sources off the top
  1. "Begin demolition of old bridge." Hartford Courant, Apr. 6, 1924.
  2. Connecticut State Highway Department. Routes and Road Numbers on the State Highway System, Showing Control Numbers and Sections. Dated Jan. 1, 1942.
  3. "State To Change Numbered Routes." Hartford Courant, June 14, 1961.
  4. Connecticut State Highway Department. "A Report to the Highway Users of Connecticut: 1960-1961."
  5. "155 Miles of Superhighways Projected." Hartford Times, June 1, 1967.
  6. "U.S. Aid Sought To Fix Rts. 83, 140." Hartford Courant, Mar. 13, 1977.

These are several.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 22:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the old bridge item help us as that seems to be an article about the bridge, not the highway? The Highway Department sources are not independent as they are paid to make a show of looking after this road and so their reports do not establish third-party notability. The other Hartford Courant items seem to be routine local news. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have really no idea what your saying do you? :| - These come from here. Read this up :| - Also you are saying the opposite of what is truth on CDOT - as CDOT would be a primary first-party source, sad to say. The Hartford Courant is one the biggest newspapers in the entire state of connecticut. More sources: Ready, here's 1, 2, 3 (note is abstract, Google News abstract mentions 140), 4 (same situation as #3), 5 (same situation), 6, and so on. You get my point.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The website to which you refer, www.kurumi.com, describes itself as the work of "roadgeeks". Such self-published, hobbyist works are not usually considered acceptable evidence of notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No duh. I am one I should know that. You also should get the point that there are sourced articles and reliable ones out there, because above I've just listed 12 newspapers and ConnDOT items.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'd consider a slab of asphalt that cuts through three counties pretty notable. Maybe not to someone who lives in say, Oregon, but it's still a state highway in Connecticut. If one uses this AFD as a precedent, one could probably nominate a large number of state highway articles on Wikipedia for deletion. And that's not exactly a precedent that I'd like to be set. Wikipedia may not be purposed as a travel guide per-say, but there's a lot of miscellaneous knowledge compacted in it, a lot of which probably classifies as being "non-notable" to someone, somewhere. Does that mean it all should be purged? I wouldn't think so, as long as the articles are well written and have sources to back them up and which are credible. Kumba42 (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment towards Colonel Warden Your constant badgering of people who make !votes is now becoming disruptive, and I strongly suggest you stop. Its blatantly obvious you know nothing about this topic, and anyone can tell that this doesn't have a chance of closing as anything other than keep. Move on to your next project. Jeni (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a discussion not a vote. As editors like yourself seem unaware of this, it seems necessary to point out the weakness of your arguments. Your keep rationale is quite inadequate as it does not address the particulars and merits of the article nor our policies. The closing admin is likely to disregard such empty votes completely and so you may wish to add to your observations. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing the point. You're going after almost everyone who posts something you don't like. And these keeps aren't going to be ignored as most have value to the situation.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 10:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is normal in a discussion or debate to respond to the points made by the opposing side. Your response in particular has been illuminating as it seems that you are a road hobbyist who sees Wikipedia as a suitable vehicle for your enthusiasm. My impression is that many of the respondents here are like minded and so naturally find deletion of an article about a road to be unacceptable. But is this consistent with our general policies? The matter seems worthy of proper discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is not normal is the level of harassment within the AfD you are partaking in. A large chunk of the people voting here certainly do not fall within the "roadgeek" clique, your argument is flawed. If you continue to post in such a disruptive manner, I shall take this matter further. Jeni (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As notable as most other state highways; having decided to cover them, we should cover them all above a certain level. I don't always agree with the level individual wikiprojects set, and I think the general community has the right to decide whether or not to accept them--but in this case I think they've set it right, and they do have general acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 08:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to be begging the question. Where has it been decided that we must cover each and every highway, regardless of sourcing? Do we have a policy or guideline which says this? You do realise that there must at least 100,000 roads of this sort worldwide? By creating lots of stubby articles from large geographic databases we are able to boast of having 3 million articles now but is this really what we are supposed to be creating? Our policy WP:NOT says otherwise. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think its pretty clear what the communities opinion is from this AfD! Jeni (talk) 11:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deleted under A7 by User:Splash (non-admin closure) — Jake Wartenberg 23:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RAm (band)[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No assertion of notability. No major tours or chart success. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Why can't this be speedied under criteria A7? Dismas|(talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete So tagged, under A7. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Playmate Model Mom[edit]

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

Non-notable film that went straight to DVD. So far it is the only film by the production company that made it. The director is non-notable as well. His article is currently up for speedy deletion. I didn't see any criteria for that that fit films, so here we are. Dismas|(talk) 19:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, and delete the director's page as well. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The only source that I found for this is Amazon. Fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Title is actually Kathy Shower: Playmate Model Mom. Amazon is out of stock. No reviews. No press. Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NF. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No clear claim to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the creator of this DVd I would just like to add a few points that may and I think should make this a notable entry into wikipedia. 1. This is Kathy Showers first movie in 8 years, and perhaps her last, as she has retired from movie making. 2. This dvd was only ever available on DVD so saying it went straight to dvd makes no sense really. It is available on Ebay, my site and Amazon for sale. Regarding Amazon and following their guidelines, it is only ordered from them when ordered by a customer. 4. I would also consider this DVD notable as it is the first dvd of its type made in Ireland by an Irish Production company. 5. Regarding Kathy Shower, The DVD is perhaps her most explicit dvd ever. 6. This is the first Playboy style DVD ever made by a fan of a playmate. There is no other of it's type - this is the first. I have also received a letter of receipt from Hugh Hefner personally regarding this DVD. I would suggest nearly all of the above points give this DVD notable warant for retention on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgi417 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please have a look at WP:NF. Those are the guidelines against which this article is being considered. If you can meet those criteria, then the article can be kept. Dismas|(talk) 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you point, and agree. If you wish to delete this page, I understand. I would ask that any unlinked reference to this DVD found on wikipedia be respected where possible however. One such reference currently licked to this page located on Kathy Shower page. I have since unlinked this reference to this and any other page. Kindest regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgi417 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four Seasons Resort Jackson Hole[edit]

Four Seasons Resort Jackson Hole (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No establishemnet of notability, no RS, no reason for this to be in Wikipedia Jezhotwells (talk) 14:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Seasons Hotel Riyadh: What disturbs me is the navbox at the bottom of the page--looks like someone is trying to get some free advertising here. Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an advertisement, though not enough to invoke WP:CSD#G11. --Tckma (talk) 18:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am not convinced that this article fails WP:N. Being badly written so that it reeks of advertising is not a reason to delete. However if the facts are correct that could well mean that the sources support notability. I'm surprised that we don't have more articles on these since many are truly notable. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well the article makes no claims of notability and I can find none. Lots of passing references in leisure and travel sections of the press, but that doesn't establish notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete reads as an ad, not especially notable. Resolute 03:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrianne Ahern[edit]

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

Promotional article about a non-notable psychologist. The article was written by the publisher of her book, who has been blocked for spamming. Google News searches do not confirm notability, as per WP:BIO requirements. Pastor Theo (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per pastor. Google News, Book, and Scholar prove that this person exists--that's it. BTW, pastor, congrats on your mop. Drmies (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incredibly spammy article. I would think publishing 2 books would make you notable, but I won't lose any sleep if this bit of bio-fluff disappears. Hairhorn (talk) 03:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. WuhWuzDat 19:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Branded environments[edit]

Branded environments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Article has not been cleaned-up or had any significant strides towards cleanup since 2007. From what I can see, this article is an ad, but has failed a prod.keystoneridin! (talk) 03:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That isn't a reason to delete. Gbooks seach clearly shows that the subject is notable and a well sourced article can be written, the article as it is today is a valid stub. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 04:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agree that it's a poor AFD rationale, but not knowing what "Branded environments" are and not really learning much from the article says to me that cleanup/wikification and context improvement by someone who knows what they're writing about needs to be done sooner rather than later. It's kind of hard to vote keep or delete when it's hard to tell if the subject is notable.Nosleep break my slumber 09:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are scores of Google Scholar hits for "Branded environments" and for "Branded environment". If article is kept it should be moved to Branded environment. Abductive (reasoning) 10:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would very rarely say to delete an article because of low quality, but this is almost useless. i think I can guess what is intended, but it really should be done over. DGG (talk) 23:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: And I would recommend that those who are suggesting to delete it instead put effort into making it better Billbowery (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article is in dire need of a tidy up, but I don't think it meets the requirements to be deleted. I know nothing about this area, so I would be unable to tidy it - but it definitely needs work, so that it makes sense to an everyday Joe like myself! -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was SNOW delete. Creator admits WP:MADEUP. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gift sex[edit]

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

Creator admits it is a neoligism. No references found other than a forum post at RichardDawkins.net -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the creator's response when I PROD'd this article was left on the talk page: Why does an article need references, it's a concept that I've coined . All concepts start somewhere. You would really delete an article because there are no other references for it on the internet? Again, this isn't factual information like population genetics. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - neologism. Not used by anyone but the author (as unfortunate as that is :-) Dismas|(talk) 19:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is sort of a neologism, but really, this is more something that belongs in the Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable neologism. Edward321 (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article creator admits its a neologism he's made up. Urban Dictionary is this way, please. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 01:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Andipatti. The merging is clearly a satisfactory outcome for everyone Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahatma Gandhi's visit to Andipatti in 1934[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mahatma Gandhi's visit to Andipatti in 1934 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about one of Mahatma Gandhi's many visits to over a 1000 towns and villages. This isn't as notable as his visit to Champaran and even in that case, the visit is included in Champaran and not as a separate article. The source for this visit is one book (ref 2, 3 are the same book in two different languages. I would have suggested merging to the place, but the content is more like a journal entry, so decided against it. Don't think this is a candidate for merge/redirect. PROD was contested. Delete -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As strange as it sounds for a article based on a 1934 event, I think the most applicable policy here is WP:NOTNEWS. Gandhi is obviously a figure of immense importance. As such, nearly every event in his entire life has been covered by multiple reliable sources. That doesn't mean we should have separate articles about every event in his life. I would support moving the content to a more general article like Mahatma Gandhi's visits of 1934 if anyone is willing to write such an article. Otherwise, it comes down to a personal reflection on news-like coverage of a single event and should be deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies, and there is no indication that this trip was individually of historical importance. Incidentally, I could not locate any sign of the cited Ramasamy books either online, in Worldcat, or in A Comprehensive, Annotated Bibliography on Mahatma Gandhi (volume 1, or volume 2, which list over 6000 sources related to MKG); I am not suggesting that the books do not exist, only that they are really obscure. Given the amount of literature on Gandhi's life, unless an event is marked out in one of the mainstream histories or biographies, or in several other non-contemporaneous accounts, it is unlikely to be notable for an article in itself or even due to be mentioned in broader wikipedia articles. Abecedare (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Andipatti. Agree with User:Priyanath that Gandhi's trip is notable in that town's history. Abecedare (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have due regards for the comments made by the administrators. Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that their proposal to delete the article has a bias. They are viewing the article as the one pertaining to Mahatma Gandhi whereas the article is presented under the category: Memorabilia having relevance to Gandhi's period. When such an article like Barry Halper (whose baseball memorabilia's theft, sale and auction have been described in the said-article) is allowed to exist in Wikipedia, deleting the article: Mahatma Gandhi's visit to Andipatti in 1934 which details about an object - Welcome Address printed on 'kadhi' cloth in native language about 75 years ago - which is treasured for its connection to a historical event, is not justifiable. If it is necessary, the title of the article could be suitably changed after a discussion. Now the decision is yours and that of the Wikipedia users!--Chinnottakaran (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)--Chinnottakaran (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Moved comment here from the AFD talk page. Abecedare (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No prejudice against recreation once RS establish this title--drop me a note if anyone wants this userified until that happens. Jclemens (talk) 01:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Verses[edit]

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

WP:HAMMER WP:NALBUMS says "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." Only the first has been confirmed. All that is confirmed is one track and the title. User deleted PROD notice, so now it's an AFD. TheWeakWilled 20:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no tracklisting or release date --T-rex 15:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search shows no coverage in reliable sources. The fact that it has no release date does not in itself make the album unworthy of an article, but it makes notability very unlikely. The lack of sources confirms its lack of notability. It can be recreated when it recieves some coverage. Right now, the article's all speculation, and the sources currently cited are not reliable. Timmeh (review me) 23:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - Now that you've switched your argument to NALBUMS, it makes more sense. However, since this is Switchfoot we're talking about, there will be more leaked-out information shortly... Free (talk) (HRWiki) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The band Switchfoot is notable, and albums of notable bands are generally considered notable. --Pink Bull (talk) 23:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited, and the album hasn't been released yet, so the WP:MUSIC criterion you're referring to doesn't apply. Even if it did, the fact that there is a lack of reliable sources covering the album overrides it. Timmeh (review me) 01:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 overwhelming consensus that this is completely unverifiable leads to an early closure under the snowball clause. ~ mazca talk 20:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Action Scandal[edit]

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

It's not a scandal if fans are upset. No references. ArglebargleIV (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tosh.0[edit]

Tosh.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ok. I just read the article on Daniel Tosh, then checked this article expecting to be redirected to the above article. This show, while on television, doesn't need its own article. Daniel Tosh is an unknown that is only getting "famous" this summer because of the Tosh.0 show. Bottom line, we should have one article or the other, but we sure as shit don't need both. I chose to Nom. this article since it's the lesser of the two in expansion possibility. Torkmann (talk) 17:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep- unless the nominator can explain why a regularly airing series on a major cable network is somehow not notable. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and in case you need more sourcing: [25], [26], and [27]. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep we need this article, it keeps me alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.84.198 (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite Keep - plenty of mainstream coverage of this show, certainly notable enough for its own article. Will add a few links.Little Professor (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soverns' Law[edit]

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

Article seems to be about a recent (August 14) in-forum joke. Non-notable and definitely not encyclopaedic. XXX antiuser 17:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't, the only "reference" in the article is a link to a password-protected forum. The "Law" was created today, this can't possibly be notable. XXX antiuser 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- Last I checked, we're still not for stuff made up one day. Given that the article cites today (8-14-09) as the the day it was first used, I have a hard time believing this is anything else. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:MADEUP. Bearian (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is WP:MADEUP a criterion for speedy deletion? I looked at WP:CSD and couldn't find something that matched, hence the AfD. Do let me know if this could've been handled differently. XXX antiuser 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Made-up stuff counts as hoax/vandalism, as far as I'm concerned, and should be speediable as G-3. (Antiuser, I'm interested in these procedural matters also.) Drmies (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkin Green Frog[edit]

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

No reliable sources, recommend moving content to Encyclopedia Dramatica or some other meme hole Shii (tock) 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability has been established and the arguments for deletion have been refuted. NAC—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Five themes of geography[edit]

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

There is no indication that this method of teaching is notable. This is not an encyclopedia article. This is a textbook. ÷seresin 01:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom., or merge with Outline of geography. JJL (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a textbook, it is an encyclopaedia article about a model used by teachers to teach geography, that is widely documented in many places, from page 127 of ISBN 9781599424057 through page 259 of ISBN 9780805855364 to the whole of chapter 5 of ISBN 9781593857158. There's also Salvatore J. Natoli's article "Guidelines for Geographic Education and the Fundamental Themes in Geography" in volume 93 of the Journal of Geography.

    This is an encyclopaedia for readers who want to know about educational models and standards as much as it is an encyclopaedia for readers who want to know about The Simpsons. There is no reason not to serve such readers. Nor are we short of sources documenting the subject to use in writing an article for the benefit of those readers. The PNC appears to be satisfied even for this sub-topic alone, let alone for the umbrella topic. Seresin and JJL, you clearly didn't use that new "find sources" link that is being added nowadays to AFD nominations. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I see you've ruled out the possibility that I might simply disagree with you. I searched and saw that most of the links were about lesson plans. While it's been a widely used approach, being in Guidelines for Geographic Education doesn't clearly rise to the level of independent notability for me. Looking at what little links to the page, a merge seems quite reasonable. JJL (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You ruled out that particular possibility yourself, with a simple echoing "per nom" rationale. I'm not buying that you "saw that most of the links were lesson plans" for two simple reasons: First, you wrote no such thing at the time, but only now, retrospectively, when your "per nom" rationale is pointed out as faulty. Second, actually searching reveals no such thing. I suggest that you actually do the research and read the results that come up. Here's a hint: It didn't take long, or a great deal of imagination, to turn up the three books cited above, and they aren't the only book sources in existence. And that's just one possible search to run. Uncle G (talk) 14:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a legitimate article about a method of teaching that had been recommended by the Joint Committee on Geographic Education of the National Council for Geographic Education (NCGE). Not surprisingly, there are geography textbooks that follow these recommendations. A simple Google book search demonstrates that this method of teaching is notable "five+themes"&btnG=Search+Books. Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This appears to be an extremely notable pedagogic concept.
http://books.google.com/books?id=DlSquDMlf18C&pg=PA265&dq=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22
http://books.google.com/books?id=NR9m_fRkNEYC&q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/16/1d/3d.pdf
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22+site%3A*.gov
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22+site%3A*.edu
http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Five+themes+of+geography%22&cf=all — Rankiri (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arsenal and Manchester United football rivalry[edit]

Arsenal and Manchester United football rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom after contested PROD. Reason for prod was "The "rivalry" between Arsenal and Manchester United is not a major rivalry akin to the rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester United or between Celtic and Rangers." Prod removed with the reason that the two teams sometimes have a "perceived rivalry". – PeeJay 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although there was some rivalry between Wenger and Ferguson and some between Vieira and Keane I don't think it's enough for this article to avoid deletion. Spiderone (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a source from The Independent states that this is a "bitter rivalry that has existed between the two sides for decades" - and yet there is a distinct lack of sources, so perhaps it's not as notable as the paper makes out. Can anyone find any more sources to attest to this supposed rivalry? GiantSnowman 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it has been widely commented on and therefore satisfies WP:N and WP:V, eg 1, eg 2, eg 3, eg 4, eg 5. It is mostly to do with Wenger v Ferguson, but there are examples from further back, particularly a notorious match in 1990. I would class it as being similar to Aberdeen F.C. v Rangers F.C. (which curiously doesn't have an article on wikipedia) - not a local geographic rivalry, but a match that became increasingly heated over a period of time primarily due to on-field incidents. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced that a few heated matches between 1998 and 2006 and another in 1990 amount to a rivalry on the scale of the Old Firm, Liverpool v United or Arsenal v Spurs. – PeeJay 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not every rivalry is of that scale or longevity. Like I said earlier, Aberdeen v Rangers was a very heated rivalry for a while in the 1980s (funny how these rivalries seem to follow Ferguson around!), but nobody would rank it as being anywhere near the Old Firm game now. Similarly, Arsenal v Man Utd was the key rivalry in English football from approximately 1998-2004, as either team won the Premier League each year, with no other team really challenging for the title. I think WP:NTEMP applies. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it can be expanded a bit then I'll change my vote. Spiderone (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there's enough sources out there to confirm notability. I myself remember a famous heated 0-0 a few years back that got ridiculous coverage, plus a brawl in a tunnel that was dissected the same way. Managers have commented and rebutted extensively especially when it was just those two challenging for the league. It's a 90s-00s rivalry, but nonetheless it has coverage depth and verifiability. Also I don't think it's wise to compare it to other articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS works both ways. Rafablu88 19:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepAs long as it gets cleaned up with verifiable sources there should be no problem. Go ahead and meniton in the article that it is not historicaly as prevelant as others but it still exists.Cptnono (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly Keep If it can be expanded and properly referenced then keep it, in it's current state I would say delete. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Provided it gets a few more references. Spiderone (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets the general notability guideline, as the rivalry has received significant coverage in reliable sources. (See Google News and JMorrison230582's links above.) Jafeluv (talk) 08:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The problem is that people are likely to nominate this page again since it doesn't look like there's enough on there for it to pass. Spiderone (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Jmorrison230582 and Jafeluv have shown, this meets WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 08:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm surprised if this is not considered a rivalry, since Manchester United and Arsenal have accounted for so many Premier League championships (first place finish) since the PL was founded. In some years, particularly at the turn of the century, it was a case of the teams finishing #1 and #2. In America, we tend to think of such #1 vs. #2 meetings as important, and if they've happened several times (Steelers-Cowboys, Celtics-Lakers, etc) they're considered rivalries. Maybe that's not as big a deal in England, and since I'm not a Brit, I can't see voting. Mandsford (talk) 22:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it might not be one of the classic rivalries, but it's still a significant part of football with substantive media coverage. Just because it's not the Old Firm doesn't mean we can't have an article on it too. matt91486 (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - worth a mention in passing on the club articles if you must, but there's really nothing special about this "rivalry" at all. - fchd (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets notability, see no valid reason to delete. Rlendog (talk) 18:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SeaChange. JForget 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonzo Dominico Jones[edit]

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

This is a minor character that doesn't establish any sort of notability. TTN (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entitlement eric[edit]

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

Attack page created to disparage Alan (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Urimai Kural[edit]

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

Severe crystal balling -- It is way too early to create an article on this film and all information on the article are POV and taken from fansites. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the use has been known for spamming and crystal balling. Moreover, the article itself is completely filled with pathetic and unreliable sources. Universal Hero (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NFF as there are not enough reliable sources discussing this future film. This article is one of the worst examples of reference-padding I have seen on wikipedia, as decent sources are mixed in with blogs and forums; unconnected details are added with attached references; and all this is mixed in with ample WP:OR and often incomprehensible prose. See for example how this paper on the recession in USA is inserted without any rational connection with the film!. Abecedare (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and return article to author with our thanks, as many new articles arrive with no attempt at sourcing... and at least he made the effort. When the film is made he can return a trimmer version of his article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF. The page has been deleted twice already, once under the current title and once under something else. Also, this title should belong to the 1970s film which was very notable but doesn't have an article yet.-SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 14:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and give the author a Creative Use of References Barnstar for the wall-o-references (but wait until 2010). Priyanath talk 03:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy or something. It ought to be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL, of course, but including all those references (which apparently actually check out!) must count as a minor achievement (as unreliable and pointless as they are) — this article deserves to be saved somewhere as a parody of Wikipedia :P Shreevatsa (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G10. SoWhy 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Entitlement eric[edit]

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

Article appears to be defamatory, is anything but neutral in POV, and has no merit for research. Alan (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily Delete: Article is a blatent attack and qualifies for speedy deletion.--TParis00ap (talk) 16:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rosenhan[edit]

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

Prod of "Being a sports announcer alone isn't enough for notability. No Google news nor books hits." removed with announcement that sources will be found. Have to add no Lexis nor Westlaw hits either. Ricky81682 (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: non notable vanity. Yes, BYU is ACHA division 2 club hockey. ccwaters (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vanity claims, unverifiable. Weak self promotion. Resolute 19:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Free Credit Report and Score Websites[edit]

Compare Free Credit Report and Score Websites (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:DIRECTORY. Barely any real content. Possibly an advert for Quizzle. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as original prodder. There seems to be a bit of OR as well, with the quotes around free in the chart's title. And also fails WP:NOTDIR. I don't think it's advert, though. As far as I can tell from the creator's comments and contribs, he did it in good faith. Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - for the sake of completeness, the creator's explanation for contesting the prod is: (verbatim quote follows)
It's material enough to have a section of the Credit score (United States) page and there's major confusion amongst consumers on this topic. There should be a trusted reference that people can turn to in order to understand what's the real scoop on these offers and websites. Wikipedia is that source for many people. Plus, many of these sites have their own Wikipedia page because they've been deemed relevant enough. It would be helpful to bring these pages together in one place for big picture and comparison purposes.
Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although it is good work by the editor, and useful, it is not really WP's mission to be a kind of Consumer Reports type guide. (I'm sure that's at least implied somewhere in the policies.) Another issue is that the prices and so forth of the websites listed could change at any time. Borock (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a directory (per WP:What Wikipedia is not) and as original research via synthesis. Cnilep (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I really don't understand why this reference chart is so controversial. Google "free credit report" or "free credit score" and you'll see all the confusion about what's really free, what's the officially sanctioned government site and what's the potential risk for consumers. This chart plainly spells out what consumers can expect from each of the sites. If the prices change, I'm sure evangelists from the respective companies will update them. The quotes have been removed from the "Free" in the title to alleviate any concerns about insinuations there. Anything else that can be done to save this reference? BamukaDelish (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Does not seem to be an obvious advertisement (Quizzle might legitimately be the only free site), and Wikipedia has many "Comparison of..." chart articles that deal with commercial products in an encyclopedic manner. A few examples: Comparison of file archivers, Comparison of wiki software, Comparison of portable media players etc. As long as this chart is well-sourced, I don't see why it should be treated any differently than the rest. I would recommend changing the name to Comparison of Free Credit Report Websites though. Amazinglarry (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Right now we don't even know if any of this information is correct, we are assuming that the original author has provided accurate information but I don't like the idea of having to constantly check sites to see if they have changed rates/policies. Furthermore this page could become a magnet for competitors editing each other's site information in an attempt to promote their site. This type of page would be okay as a reference for Wikipedia but its not encyclopedic. Boston2austin (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This logic doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. You're essentially arguing that wikipedia should not have articles on anything that changes rapidly because it's too hard to keep the page updated, and anything that is a commercial product or service because of vandalism by competitors. I still don't see how this article is any different than the other examples I linked to above except that it needs to be sourced better, which is not a valid argument for deletion. Amazinglarry (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 07:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gulverd Tomashvili[edit]

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

Plays in a league that isn't professional. There's also a lack of good sources available. Spiderone (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article now improved to show he has played in Europe, and in the Final of a National Cup. Just about notable enough for me. GiantSnowman 08:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm reluctant to say delete on a Dinamo Tbilisi player without further investigation. Dinamo are historically the dominant Georgian team, having won 13 of the 20 league titles since Georgian independence. Tomashvili played on the winning side in this year's Georgian Cup final for instance [28]. Most sources are likely to be in non-Roman scripts, which makes searching difficult, but it'd be worth checking recent editions of the UEFA European Football Yearbook and the like. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A standard google search shows that he has played for Dinamo Tbilisi in league play and European club cup play. Sources are required to clean the article up but that does not mean it should be deleted. Hopefully someone speaks Georgian.Cptnono (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete never played in a fully professional level, therefore he is a non-notable subject. Really nothing else to say. --Angelo (talk) 07:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plays for the top side in Georgia and has played in European Competition. Agree with oldelpaso re Tblisi players and the script problem. Have added a few quick references from a very quick Google search. 8lgm (talk) 08:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I guess playing in European competition is enough even if it is just qualifying. Spiderone (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be happy to withdraw once the delete votes are also withdrawn. Spiderone (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment playing in the final of a National Cup in a country where there is no proof the top flight is fully professional is absolutely unrelevant. In addition, it seems like the subject himself played only in the qualifying rounds of a continental competition, which is unrelevant as well (such rounds are competed by terribly low-level teams from very minor footballing countries like San Marino, Andorra and Moldova). --Angelo (talk) 09:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but this guy played in games between Dinamo Tblisi and Panathinaikos (just balancing the argument..). 8lgm (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And so? Notability does not depend by the opponent you're playing against, but the football level you're playing at. The club was seeded with Panathinaikos, but it could have also been technically seeded with FC Sheriff Tiraspol. --Angelo (talk) 10:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My point was to balance your argument. In saying that rounds are competed by terrible low-level teams, you conviently missed out the fact that bigger teams are also in this draw, such as the two sides I mentionned. Just wanted to make sure that you're misleading comment didn't mislead anyone who didn't already know this. 8lgm (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Never played in a fully pro league or cup so fails ATHLETE. Sources have nothing more than routine mentions e.g. games played, match line-ups, so these don't really pass WP:SBST. Recreate if he ever plays at a fully-pro level. BigDom 14:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It would be best to gather consensus on whether Umaglesi Liga is fully professional, as it was the main cause for concern. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoloz Phirtskhalava[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as there's no evidence that the Georgian league is pro Spiderone (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it can't be proved then we can't assume that it's true. Spiderone (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the above wikilinked league and the FC Dinamo Tbilisi article. If you can honestly argue that the players do not play as professionals for a professional team in a professional league we can discuss it further.Cptnono (talk) 08:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Umaglesi Liga is not listed here and the Dinamo Tbilisi article says nothing about being professional Spiderone (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing this discussion came up then. Per Umaglesi Liga (the top flight in Georgia): "it has been organized by the Professional Football League of Georgia and Georgian Football Federation". So what is not professional about it? The guys are paid profesionals in the sport and Georgian soccer has some level of notability per UEFA and FIFA. Fix the article but it meets notability requirements. Cptnono (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see a reliable source for the Umaglesi Liga being professional other than an unsourced line on a Wikipedia page. Spiderone (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete never played in a fully professional level, therefore he is a non-notable subject. Really nothing else to say. --Angelo (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plays for the top team in Georgia, and if Umaglesi Liga is professional, then it's a no-brainer. 8lgm (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There's no evidence that it's professional. I don't understand how this article is of any benefit to Wikipedia. Spiderone (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is evidence that it is professional. Make your argument based on it not being any benift to Wikipeida instead if that is your primary concern. The player meets WP:ATHLETE requirments but may not meet signifigant coverage requirments.Cptnono (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence. Your only proof is an unsourced statement on the Umaglesi Liga page. Not good enough. Spiderone (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Use more italics if it makes you happy. the subject matter meets inclusion and you are simply unhappy about a poor article. Ask the creator to move it into a subpage for clean up but don't diminish notability that is clearly met through WP:ATHLETE. It is a professional player in a professional league. It is also a poor article and someone should fix it before being acceptable.12:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read this before you embarrass yourself again Spiderone (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, you've just quoted an essay that, assuming Dinamo Tblisi are a fully professional side, would mean this player passes as he played against Panathinaikos in the Champions league qualifyers. Re embarrassment - what goes around comes around springs to mind. 8lgm (talk) 12:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done: "All leagues whose members are eligible for national cups are assumed notable. All leagues that are a country's highest level are assumed notable. All other leagues are assumed non-notable unless they can be shown to meet broader". If the guy is realy a roofer instead of a footballer you might have a point but in all reality primary sources and Wikipeida guidelines say it is notable. Instead of trying to "win" you should be focused on improving content that has already been judged acceptable. Don't be a jerk about it and just fix it.Cptnono (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done- You are all looking at league notability. This is a player so you should look at player notability. Here is the quote:"Have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. This must be supported by evidence from a reliable source on a club by club basis for teams playing in leagues that are not recognised as being fully professional" and since we can't be sure the Umaglesi Liga is professional then we can't be sure this player is notable. You see? Spiderone (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. It is the top flight of the country's league and the guy isn't a roofer. He is a footballer. He is notable. If we focus on improving the article instead of complaining about its inclusion it could go much better. By the way, 8lgm, I love the term "oh dear" as a nonEnglishman. It is not said that often in the States and when it is you know something has gone terribly wrong. I'll try to find some sources on this guy that the original creator of the article should have found already. Maybe it will be of some use.Cptnono (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiderone - you're misreading the essay. If footyn had been adopted, all that would have mattered would be that the CLUB would be fully professional (not the league) and as Tbilisi are the top team in Georgia they easily pass the next bit re playing at the national lavel of the league structure. Please do not come on here accusing people of being 'embarrassing' when you clearly do not understand what you are talking about yourself. 8lgm (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not get into the "embarrassing" discussion. It is a great laugh but doesn't fix anything. Good times and now it is time to fix some stubs. : ) Cptnono (talk) 13:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to follow-up. The official website calls the league professional. [29] I'm still poking around for English sources on the player since google translate doesn't do Georgian to English.Cptnono (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up, I am opening discussion on the player winning team honours with Tbilisi when they won the league, Georgian Cup, and Georgian Super Cup here.Cptnono (talk) 04:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a7, fantasy league (i.e., two kids playing with toys), no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Action Figure Wrestling[edit]

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

Listing after contested prod (and removed DB tag). Subject seems to be primarily in-universe fiction (made up), and seems to fail notability. Zero references have been provided to establish notability or to even verify it really exists. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This seems to be a joke. As far as I can tell it is a couple of guys playing with action figures. Borock (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Kalaf[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played professional football Spiderone (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence he has played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mohammed Kalaf and his two brothers are regular starters for their teams and to make things clear Mohammed Kalaf is a big star in his club Peris (his club's name). Mussav (talk) 17:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "big star" (I won't even start with the WP:POV issues that phrase raises) isn't enough, I'm afraid. GiantSnowman 17:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay this is a source of Mohammed Kalaf being played in an official Tournamnet, he played for Najaf in the Arab Champions League in 2006 and even scored [30]. :) Mussav (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 This usually would be closed as no consensus or relisted, but, even though the vote's split 2 v 2, Mussav provided a source that he indeed did play in a pro league. The only delete !votes are saying that he's never played in a pro league, but the source clearly says that he did. Therefore, he meets WP:ATHLETE. Feel free to expand the article, though; it needs it! Cheers, I'mperator 19:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Karzan[edit]

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

Doesn't play in a league that's fully professional therefore failing WP:ATHLETE Spiderone (talk) 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Mussav has provided a source which shows this player played in a top-level, continent-wide professional comp - enough for me. GiantSnowman 09:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just because he is not playing in a fully-pro league that doesn't mean we should delete all the players because of that. Mussav (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it doesn't. ATHLETE says we should probably keep a player that plays in a FPL, not that we should delete those that don't. Of course, if they fail ATHLETE they need to pass other notability criteria, which this guy doesn't seem to.--ClubOranjeT 08:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then this rule needs to be changed because honestly this isn'r fair at all. Mussav (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I gave a source of Karzan being played in the Champions league but I think it was just my imagination, any way another source. Krazan Played in the Champions League with Arbil, this is Al-Sabah newspapers (Iraqi newspapers) and I used google translator, read the 7th paragraph, Arbil squad for the Champions Legate and Karzan was one of Arbil's players in that year. Mussav (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being in the squad isn't enough - we need a source to say he has actually played a game. GiantSnowman 16:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mussav, you are not that new to wikipedia so you know the guidelines. Instead of being pissed at the standards find some sources that show the player is noteworthy enough. I personally think it spits in the face of common sense that certain internet based porn girls are not allotted any space here but have to deal with it. Read WP:BIO very carefully and start googleing to find a good amount of coverage that meets WP:RELIABLE. If there is signifigant coverage out there it will make a better article that makes everyone happy and improves this project.Cptnono (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, his true name is Ahmad Mohammed while Karzan is just a nickname. try to type Ahmad Mohammed in google search engine and you will see millions of unrealted hits.Another problem, The AFC website is renewed and the newest version does not provide us about the previous tournaments details. Mussav (talk) 16:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Start doing the leg work then. Two other editors obviously disagrees so prove notability if you want to close the deletion discussion. I poked around and came up with nothing on the nick name. Is there signifigant coverage in the google hits or do you have other sources available?Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - which FC Ararat did he play for?The Hack 05:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete never played in a fully professional level, therefore he is a non-notable subject. Really nothing else to say. --Angelo (talk) 07:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not yet notable. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove provided He played in the AFC Champions League 2008 with Arbil (his number is 20) [31]. Mussav (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XAMPP[edit]

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

XAMPP is just one of many stand-alone WAMP packages, there is no assertion of notability in the article, nor do I see any reason for notability myself. - sorfane 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does a download link make something noteable? CNET/download.com offer hundreds of downloads, I'm sure that we would not create an article on each of them. Re. the comments below, all of the Google scholar references seem very trivial. However, I have found this book [34] and perhaps it is enough to assert notability. - sorfane 11:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, between the book and the NetworkWorld story, I think that's just enough to show notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the find sources links, there seems to be plenty of independent and non-trivial coverage in news articles. There seems to be some exclusive coverage in foreign language books & there is quite a few number of english books with some passing coverage. I was surprised that scholar had so many results, though many seem fairly trivial. There are articles that cite the XAMPP documentation and/or the foreign language books on the program. --Karnesky (talk) 19:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Tons of sources have this info (most are in German).--Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 19:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A cursory search of Google books for "XAMPP" [35] turns up significant coverage in numerous published works. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that significant coverage is based on the depth of the coverage, not on the volume of mere cursory mentions. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My cursory search turned up significant coverage in numerous published works. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just about everyone who's dealt with setting up a server in Linux knows about XAMPP. It is without question a very notable and important project. Nick Wilson (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:WAX, WP:ATHLETE. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qaed Sadir[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as the Iraqi Premier isn't fully professional Spiderone (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence he has played in a fully-pro league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Qaed Sadir was part of Iraq youth team in the 2008 AFC Youth Cup[36]. he is one of the players who represnted Iraq. Mussav (talk) 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if some one represnts his national teams he is not worth to be mentioned? Mussav (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a player was to play in a full, official international for the senior national team, then yes. Playing for an international team at youth level (i.e. under-19) is not notable. GiantSnowman 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If your gonna delete him then you might as well delete his brothers too,or just him and his brother who also has a stub.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Well Salih is notable because he is a full international, but Ayad is as equally un-notable as Qaed. GiantSnowman 20:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William M. Johnson[edit]

William M. Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Unremarkable soldier, notability not evident, fails WP:BIO. WWGB (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I need to take the time to look for indepedent sources, but it's not obvious to me why a command sergeant major (single highest enlisted person) for a 15,000 person (per our article) army divison doesn't have a reasonable claim to notability. Neutral for now; I'm making this edit a more of place holder to remind me to come back after I have time for a proper search. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks independent sources to meet WP:BIO and it can't be assumed that any are available. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Based on precedent. Clearly a career soldier deserving respect, however, the last time a Command Sgt Major article was up for deletion, the concensus was to delete (even though I voted keep that time). This individual has basically the same awards and very similar service history, and even less sourcing than the other article (other one had a couple of mentions from books about the Vietnam War). Indeed we consistently hold that recipients of the Silver Star are not notable based on that fact alone, and that award is higher than the Bronze Star that this subject has received. While I feel that the notability guidelines seem a bit inconsistent across Wikipedia as a whole (e.g. from what I can see reading other AFD debates, certain types of 'actors' for want of a better term seem to be notable just for receiving awards for taking their clothes off and doing other things...the bar, however, seems a lot higher for a military person), I feel that it is important to be consistent. Also, independent sourcing is not there, so it does not meet requirements for WP:BIO. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per AustralianRupert. Buckshot06(prof) 06:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AustralianRupert. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sadly, Delete. I've said the same thing as Rupert. Here is someone who is deserving of respect and he simply doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion. Meanwhile, a rapper who charted #199 out of 200 in between stints in prison does merit inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless they have done something pretty spectacular, NCOs are not generally notable enough for inclusion. Remember that despite his senior position as an NCO, he is still outranked by the most junior second lieutenant fresh out of West Point. Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant; it's still a fact. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Webster (footballer)[edit]

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

Unclear he passes WP:ATHLETE as there's no evidence he's played in a single notable (competitive adult) match, and even less clear he passes WP:N, which would require multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Dweller (talk) 15:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Webster is a crucial player for Mypa, in the Finnish league, and his article should thus be kept. He IS a an athlete who has played many games for Mypa. Seftinho (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that. The Finnish league is not fully professional, so playing there does not confer automatic notability per WP:ATHLETE. He doesn't seem to have played professionally in England either, yet. So he'll need to pass WP:BIO, ie be the subject of multiple, non-trivial references in RS. The local paper story about his trip to Finland is a good start. Can you find any others? If so, I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. (Btw non trivial mentions in Finnish RS is fine of course) --Dweller (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable subject, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE (and imho he would be non-notable regardless of the amount of local coverage he might receive). --Angelo (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable football player, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. --Carioca (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the verdict is that the article will be deleted ? Seftinho (talk) 08:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovan–Serbian relations[edit]

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

This article is essentially a WP:POVFORK of Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. As Kosovo is internationally recognised by the international community as being a part of Serbia, the reaction article is the best place for this article. It is akin to having Georgia-South Ossetia relations. Additionally, as the Republic of Kosovo is not recognised by Serbia, which still regards it as an integral part of Serbia, albeit under UN administration, relations between Serbia and its province are done via the UN level, not with the government of the Republic of Kosovo. The article has been redirected to the above article on a few occasions by a few editors, but this has been undone, so it is now time to discuss this issue here at AfD. Russavia Dialogue 15:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Your Kosovo is internationally recognised by the international community as being a part of Serbia is rather misleading. According to International recognition of Kosovo, 62 out of 192 United Nations members—including 22 out of 27 states in the European Union, 24 out of 28 NATO members and 3 out of 5 permanent members of the UN Security Council—have formally recognized the Republic of Kosovo as an independent state. — Rankiri (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Nominator seems only trying to prove his point, after getting into disagreement about South-Ossetia with another editor. Looking his latest contributions and edit summaries should be enough. Sorry, Russavia, but get a grip, you are outstanding contributor, there's no need for that kind of behavior. Põhja Konn (talk) 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- this is one of those X-Y relations articles where the two countries actually have relations, being neighbors and all. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They actually do not have relations. Serbia does not recognise the Republic of Kosovo, but rather deals with its province via UNMIK. So in fact, this would have to be renamed Serbia-UNMIK relations. --Russavia Dialogue 19:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

-Rastko Pocesta (15:45, January 4 2010): Serbia never indicted anyone of high treason. I know it the best because I live in Belgrade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rastko Pocesta (talk • contribs) 14:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Sanders (Missouri)[edit]

Mike Sanders (Missouri) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Non-notable local official, fails WP:POLITICIAN. WWGB (talk) 13:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY KEEP - Mike Sanders is the current chief executive of a county with more than 600,000 people. The county includes Kansas City, Missouri (Sanders was considered a possible candidate for KC Mayor) and among its assets is ownership of the Truman Sports Complex. Further Sanders was prosecuting attorney during several high profile cases in the city. This nomination occurred less than five minutes after the article's creation. I started the article as part of a list of chief executives of the county that includes Harry S. Truman. A simple google search shows numerous reliable third party sources about him and WP:NOTE sets a standard of third party sources being the prime consideration for notability. Item #2 of the quoted WP:POLITICIAN criteria is clearly met based on third party coverage. Americasroof (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since the nominator is not from the United States I believe that he may not have realized that county executive is the formal title of the chief executive of counties -- particularly counties with large populations -- in the United States. Without that knowledge the position may seem trivial Americasroof (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. I am not completely convinced that this meets #2 of WP:POLITICIAN, however, his county does contain a major US city. In good faith, I think the original author (above) should be given a bit more time to develop this article. Location (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But we need more WP:RSes or else this will likely go back to AFD in the future. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sorry, but I don't see him passing WP:POLITICIAN. A county of 600,000 isn't all that special. There are lots of them. Coverage of simply doing his job (ie "Sanders said this at the meeting") or just being around the community (ie "Sanders appeared at the Rotary Club breakfast") doesn't seem notable to me. It seems like the pedestrian, ordinary fuction of someone in that position. Notable doesn't mean ordinary, it means beyond ordinary. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. Many keep/merge arguments fall under WP:ATA. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Lithuania–Russia crisis[edit]

2009 Lithuania–Russia crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A couple of editors from Lithuanian Wikipedia proposed speedy, which was declined (no valid reason given), so I thought I should bring it here. The article is a rather minor news item that does not rise to the level of "crisis". There are issues with notablity, news-worthiness, neutrality. Maybe if it continues to grow into something bigger, it would become something more than a random news story, but that's crystalballing. Renata (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

150 Lithuanian trucks being delayed is "notable enough to be kept"? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the queue of 2,000 trucks, no? VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. I'll quote: "On August 13, 2009 there was a que of 2000 trucks". Now in the English language, the word "was" means that there were 2,000 trucks waiting on the Russo-Lithuanian border. That's all the sentence says. There's no drama. "was in que" means 2,000 trucks were waiting. So what? That means the Russian system of transportation isn't superbly efficient. And, this constitutes a crisis, how? Does Wikipedia get an article everyday when Russia's transportation authority messes up? Does Wikipedia get an article everyday when Lithuania has more then 2,000 trucks in que? This is a joke article, and it's being used in Wikipedia to get Russian Wiki Users and Lithuanian Wiki Users to go at it. I'm glad that's not happening. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was obviously not normal. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/ Merge into Lithuania–Russia relations Ijanderson (talk) 15:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This event doesn't make for an article in an encyclopedia. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough in economic impact. I'd rename to something more specific, 2009 isn't over yet, 2009 Lithuanian-Russia transit conflict for example. I fail to see what is "Russia bashing" here per HistoricWarrior007, if they have an article on Russian beneficence I'll be the first to support it. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  01:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One who bashes Russia fails to see that which is Russia bashing. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather uncivil if by that comment you state that I am a Russia basher. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd be open to what larger article we would consider this part of. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment. Hard to say what larger article this could be part of. Short version would be something like: "Policy of the open stretched-out palm" or "How to run a semi-privatized customs department", or perhaps just: "Corruption in the post-Soviet society" Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\Work 06:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THE HISTORY OF THE CYPRUS OLYMPIC COMMITTEE[edit]

THE HISTORY OF THE CYPRUS OLYMPIC COMMITTEE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Note to closing admin: The article has now been moved to History of the Cyprus Olympic Committee. I mention this because before I have known an AfD to result in "delete", but the article had been moved, with the result that the closing admin merely deleted a redirect, leaving the article intact: an easy mistake to make. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Seems to be original research and an essay. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Seems largely factual and referenced (although the references are going to be hard to check). With a name change and some copyediting this might be the foundation of a reasonable article. Being a badly written article has never been cause for deletion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I one hundred percent agree, that's why my rationale was it was An essay and seems to be original research. Out of curiousity do we allow a meeting register? I didn't include that but if you read it appears to be discussin one meeting vs. the history of an organization, I'm not sure on this poinit so if you can shed some light I'd appreciate.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 13:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that being a badly written article is not grounds for deletion, but that is irrelevant, as nobody has given that as a reason for deletion. However, the article largely consists of trivia of no particular noteworthiness. As for evidence of notability, of the 3 so-called "references" given, one consists of Minutes of meetings of the Cyprus Olympic Committee, which is not an independent, third party, source; one is simply "Cyprus Olympic Committee", which is not a reference to a document; and the third is "Articles from Cypriot Newspapers of the period 1974, 1975 and 1976", which is not specific enough to be a reference: are we supposed to check through every page of every Cypriot newspaper of those 3 years to find the references? In short, there are no meaningful citations given to any third party sources at all. Furthermore, even if better sources were produced, would there be any good reason to have an article History of the Cyprus Olympic Committee separate from Cyprus Olympic Committee? JamesBWatson (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appeal Please

I am a respectable Greek Cypriot journalist who has written thousands of articles in various newspapers and magazines during the last 50 years, and who gained a lot of prizes for his objective and well-written writing. It is not always necessary for one to mention all the sources one/he is based on writing an article. For a good writer the best documented evidence is the evidence accepted by courts, namely, evidence from written official filed documents, evidence from eyewitness evidence and evidence given by respectable interviewd people. Good evidence is also given by photographs, but courts don't accept them, unless direct evidence cannot be presented. For example, we cannot take the scene of an event and present it before court. In such a case, photographs of the scene are admissible. I have tried to write some articles in the "WIKIPEDIA", with a good faith, after I had noticed that many of the articles written in Wikipwedia about Cyprus and Cypriot People are erroneous or completely unnotable. For example, you edit stories about persons who were good football players in their village or town, but nothing more, and ignore noteable people who were or are very well-known by everybody in Cyprus, "even by our stones". All my articles in Wikipedia are labelled "not noteable", "badly written" etc. For example, my article about the most famous athlete of Cyprus, who is at the same time a recognized scientist and writer (far better than me or anybody else) was rejected as "not noteable" Not notable this person? [As far as I know, this person has ben nominated by University professors for a Nobel Prize - But, please ignore this because nominations are secret and I don't want to reveal my source]. Then who is noteable? Also, my last article "The History of the Cyprus Olympic Committee" was labelled, if I remember well, as "badly written". If you mean that I am not using effectively the English language, then you can feel free to rewrite it. English is not my native language. If you mean that the article does not meet the criteria of a good article,the only thing I can say is that two months ago I published the same article as part of a book titled "Medals won by the Cyprus Republic in important International Games". The book has sold till now 50000 copies. The sale of 50000 copies in a small island of 750000 population, such as Cyprus, shows that the book (and the articles in it were good to read. Last night I noticed in the Greek Wikipedia an article about the Geography of cyprus. It was only a few lines, but completely erroneous. I sat about three or more hours writing a full version about the geography of Cyprus. By the way, let me later have a look in it. Have they deleted it too? The question is. "To write for Wikipedia or not to write".I'll decide very soon. I would like to co-operate, but I seee that I am not welcome. Meanwhile have a good day! Sorry for being tiring!!! ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by EGGLI ANDREOU (talk • contribs) 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Watson. Article is nothing but a few lists (not a "history") that appear to have no encyclopedic value at all. Even if they were properly referenced, what is the point? What is the notability? Drmies (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see why the history of this committee might not be one day the subject for an article, but this isn't it. As remarked above, this is little more than a list of names. Moreover, if what the unsigned EGGLI ANDREOU writes above is correct, this article has already appeared in a published book, and so there might be a copyvio too. Goochelaar (talk) 21:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps EGGLI ANDREOU or somebody else might want to add some few relevant data from this article to Cyprus Olympic Committee (a kind of partial merge). Goochelaar (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe one day there will be an acceptable article on this topic. This is simply not it. Totally unsalvagable lists with little to no encyclopedic value, and a mess. Besides, I don't see a need for a standalone article. The article for the committee itself is very short. Tim Song (talk) 04:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could be just a section in the Cyprus Olympic Committee article. No reason to have a separate article about its history especially for an article that has no reliable citations. But I'm afraid there is another twist to this story. The arguments, patterns of writing etc. of user EGGLI ANDREOU follow the same pattern as User:Charls Andre who kept writing similar articles, all of which were deleted. I see this article also features Andreas Savvides, who coincidentally was also the subject of an article written by Charles Andre and was deleted. We may have a sockpuppet case here. That wouldn't be a shock to me. Dr.K. logos 05:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please also note EGGLI ANDREOU's comments from above:

For example, my article about the most famous athlete of Cyprus, who is at the same time a recognized scientist and writer (far better than me or anybody else) was rejected as "not noteable" Not notable this person? [As far as I know, this person has ben nominated by University professors for a Nobel Prize - But, please ignore this because nominations are secret and I don't want to reveal my source].

  • His contributions thus far do not include any articles about famous Cypriot athletes/Nobel Prize nominees. Except if this is an inadvertent acknowledgement that he wrote the deleted article "Andreas Savvides", under the Charls Andre username. Dr.K. logos 05:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hallo there. Let's put things in order. Evidence collected and published in our books and articles is not conducted by only one person. Specifically, the evidence collected and published is done by a group of researchers and journalists, consisting of the following persons who are using the main computer of our Agency: Charls Andre (manager), Eggli Andreou, Andreas Broccoli, Ahilleas Severis, Vironas Varnavas, Marinos Perseas, Ioannis Alexandrou, Isaak Neocleous, and Mattheos Lucas. Our Agency is registered with the Cyprus Ministry of Commerce, Industry, and Tourism (this Ministry is responsible for the copyrights also) and is called "Snooperscope Agency". Its Registration Number is A/A 18014a. The Agency is divided into Departments. The above persons and I belong to the Department "Antique & Modern Book Publishers", and some of us belong or head Departments, such as the "Police & Government Exams", which is responsible for publishing and keeping up-todate books used by canditates for police, government and other exams. By the way, one of the pages in our book "General Knowledge" refers to Wikipedia, a book which was originally written by A. Savvides, but since 2005 we have been revising it almost once a month to keep it abreast of the times. The article "Geography of Cyprus" written in Wikipedia by Eggli Andreou is from this book. Our main Office is in Grypari 7, Aglanjia, Third Roof. Andreas Savvides has nothing to do with us now, though we run to him for advice when needed. After all, most of us were students of him, and respect him a lot. Now he is a pensionist millionaire, who happens to live in the first and second floor of our building, which belongs to him. When we want to research something about his life, we often search his great number of files in which he keeps thousands of articles written in newspapers about him. Everybody knows him very well here in Cyprus, except perhaps some young persons below the age of 20 who do not know him personally. However, often young persons, who hear stories about him from their fathers and grandfathers visit him to see him and his personal museum. About one month ago, a group of six young people visited him. To his surprise, one of them brought with him two steel, six-inch nail and asked him to bend them with his teeth. Andreas told him. "My young man, even though Jesus is very old, he is still stronger than all the saints. You must believe in him even though you have never seen his miracles or touched his wounds. Believe what your fathers saw by their own eyes and what they say to you", and grasping the nails from his hand he cut them into four pieces. The young man apologized for his rudeness to him. Note that A. Savvides has never liked publicity, and everything we do is known only to his sons.

Have a nice day. (We keep copies of what we write on Wikipedia.) Have a nice day. Written by Eggli Andreou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.247.76 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pare down and merge - This seems like a very easy solution. Cyprus Olympic Committee is not a terribly large article and the useful parts of this article can easily be incorporated into this main article. matt91486 (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This won't work. None of the sources in the article are verifiable. Also have you noticed that one of the seven founders is "Andreas Savvides", the subject of a now deleted article? How can we import any of this uncited and dubious info anywhere? Dr.K. logos 21:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have to remember that Wikipedia does not have an online sources requirement. In theory, they are verifiable with archival research. matt91486 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately if I have to remember something I remember the last time that user Charls Andre sent copies of his sources to user Yannismarou, an admin, with similar haughty claims and Yannismarou checked them and found nothing relevant to the claims that Andre was making in the now deleted Andreas Savvides article. So, if recent memory is any guide, how much do you want to bet that very little can be supported even by a tedious archival search. Also archival of old Greek newspapers is a tricky thing. Their archives may not even exist. Or the newspapers themselves may be extinct. Dr.K. logos 02:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have no objection in principle to the merge suggestion, but I can see two problems in practice. Firstly, most of the reasons advanced for deleting this article (poor sources, etc) would still apply to any material merged, and secondly why would anyone want to? Frankly, most of the material is of little interest, even if it can be sourced. Certainly there can be no justification for keeping both articles, and a "pare and merge" would be much better than the present situation, but simply deleting "this uncited and dubious info" as Tasoskessaris (signature Dr.K.) called it, would be better still. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last entry above is the best solution. Congradulations to this administrator. However, just for history, the names of the seven founders must also be included. Meanwhile, I have visited the main article "Cyprus Olympic Committee" and I have noticed that Kikis Lazarides is the President. Error!!! He was a President. Now the President is Uranios Ioannides. User Eggli Andreou —Preceding unsigned comment added by EGGLI ANDREOU (talk • contribs) 15:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 London Borough of Harrow. Nominator close. Speedy keep 1 SilkTork *YES! 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coat of arms of Harrow[edit]

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

A search for sources leads to Harrow School or the surname Harrow, but little for Harrow Council. The article doesn't assert notability for the coat of arms for Harrow Council. I'm aware that geographic places, such as Harrow, are automatically deemed notable, and that subpages of notable articles are granted some leniency, so is there a convention that articles on the coat of arms of a place are notable? SilkTork *YES! 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, I shouldn't think the coat of arms itself is notable. Personally, I recently considered writing an article on the considerably more notable Arms of Hertfordshire, which were granted in 1589, but I decided to leave them in history of Hertfordshire. The same idea would be optimal for this article, except that the London Borough of Harrow hasn't been around long enough to have a separate article on its history, and there doesn't seem to be a history of Harrow on the Hill.

    So overall, I think the best merge target would be London Borough of Harrow, which I note already records the coat of arms but lacks the helpful detail in the article we're considering.

    Short version: Merge to London Borough of Harrow.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a merge, and would have gone for it, but I wondered if there was a convention that said that coats of arms were notable. I'll leave this open another day, and if there are no disagreements, I'll close it under Wikipedia:Speedy keep 1, and merge to London Borough of Harrow. SilkTork *YES! 15:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdisalam Abdulkadir Ibrahim[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATH Steve-Ho (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Mooy[edit]

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

Non-notable football player. WP:ATHLETE states that an athlete must "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", and "competed" is a key word for this discussion. Even though he is contracted to a professional club, and even though he has been called up to represent Australia at full international level, he is yet to play for either club or country, and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG, as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." GiantSnowman 12:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can be recreated if he makes his debut which, if he is any good, should be soon. Spiderone (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - might become notable in a future date but isn't yet - has yet to make his senior debut. McMarcoP (talk) 13:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.



Scored a goal in U-20 World Cup... Is he real yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoccerOnly (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Hammer time, indeed Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sum 41's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sum 41's fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMERTIME - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nordbib[edit]

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

Delete, seems to be spam. Has some notability but would take a rewrite to get it close to a nuetral status. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me how you find it spammy or not neutral? I'd love to change it, but I don't find anything biased about it. thanks in advance. MikkelChr (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like...."The future of Nordbib

"Based on the positive evaluation of Nordbib and the challenges ahead with regards to Open Access, Nordbib is applying for a continuation of the programme. The application is backed by a unanimous NORON group." just my opinion but sections 6-8 cam be completely removed as well. There is also a need for more sources. Just a couple of issues from the top of the page.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might also help to read wp:rs, wp:notable and wp:corp.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and removed the adjective "positive." I've also added the European Commission's 2832nd conclusions to back the claim that Open Access presents challenges ahead. I'd also like to add that a movement to or away from Open Access publishing determines the fate of an insane amount of money for research institutions everywhere as well as deciding the fate of the nature of the science communication system itself (see a.o. the so-called Houghton reports by economist John Houghton and his team).[1]. Hence, organisations with some impact on all this is worthy of notability in my view. I thank you for your helpful comments so far, but I do feel that calling it 'advertising' is a little unfair. MikkelChr (talk) 13:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unsure that it meets guidlines, I do think the improbvements so far really hel[p but there is still a lot of work to do. This however is why I opened this as a discussion so not just my opinion is takaen into account. Keep up your work on it.

That's absolutely fair. Thanks. We'll keep working on it and await feedbacks. MikkelChr (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (and not in any sense a !vote): I think the criterion that applies here is WP:NOBLECAUSE.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly. An article about an umbrella organization that sponsors a variety of computer science projects is probably preferable to having articles on the individual projects. This text could use some pruning; "information science" people seem to have trouble communicating with concrete, informative prose. This text does its cause no favors by including opinionated vaporings of a kind that make it read like spam, so the test surely could use some pruning: ... Challenges in Open access are many and wide-ranging. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the Cause factor. I've read through it carefully and I believe the article adheres to all the points (except no. 4, which is moot anyway). As for the vaporings, yes it does sound kinda yucky. I'll fix it asap. 77.212.2.11 (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appropriate combination article for a multi-national regional part of a world-wide movement. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Large-scale umbrella project funded by the Nordic Council. I agree that the individual sub-projects are probably not notable. The article needs work and more references but after a bit of rummaging I've found several more refs which I'll add later today (no time right now). Incidentally, I found the part about the budget hard to understand - the aggregate worth is 22.5 million Danish Krona, is that correct? (That's about US$ 4.2 million.) Of course the amount of money in the project isn't a good measure of its notability, but at least it shows that it's not just some minor undertaking in a remote corner of the world. --bonadea contributions talk 08:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance. You got the budget part exactly right by the way. I'll try and compare to similar entries when I have a little breathing room and see if I can come closer to that standard prose- and otherwise. MikkelChr (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Tourism Queen International[edit]

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

non-notable beauty contest - all of the sources (those available, not in the article, as that does not seem to have any 3rd party sources) seem to be rehashed press releases and blogs. Cameron Scott (talk) 11:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable title, awarded by a non-notable company to non-notable women. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The vast majority of the contestants did not come from a national competition unlike the contestants of other international pageants like Miss World or Miss Universe. The pageant pays contestants’ airfare just to participate in the event (e.g. http://www.criticalbeauty.com/Journal_Jan_2008.html ). International involvement isn't having an important effect for notability unless the pageant gets some international notice. There are no third party references; the article should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The pageant has no any mainstream news agency (like Associated Press or Reuters) that picks up the story. If there's any publicity or promotion, it is done mostly through blogs, paid advertisements, and non-notable websites. The pageant world is so saturated with innumerable "tourism pageants" that a non- pageant enthusiast cannot tell the difference among them like Miss Tourism International, Miss Tourism World, International Miss Tourism, Miss Tourism Pageant, Miss Tourism Queen, and etc., so be careful in google or yahoo search, you might be looking the wrong pageant. Additionally, you do not see the titleholder of this pageant making the news, because the cause (promoting tourism) is dime a dozen and is not really interesting. The pageant has several contestants because a single country can have multiple contestant entries. Aside from the “appointed national contestants,” which are non-national winners, cities/provinces from the same country can also participate, since the pageant has "special tourism regions and areas" as participants (such as Bali, Phuket, Borneo, Hawaii, etc.) - which is absurd because practically any place or region on earth could be a potential tourist spot. Unlike Miss Universe, Miss World or Miss Earth, Miss Tourism Queen International still has a way to go to prove itself worthy of global news and be included in an online encyclopedia.--Ped Admi (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Anderson (footballer born 1990)[edit]

Chris Anderson (footballer born 1990) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Player fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't "competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and WP:GNG (as he hasn't "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"). I believe the page should therefore be deleted, but raise no objection for it to be recreated if he becomes notable in the future. GiantSnowman 11:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although a reminder to any unfamiliar editors that using sockpuppets to affect the result is more likely to result in the opposite closure than you wanted. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Taggart[edit]

Bob Taggart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO; longevity cannot be equated to notability. A long-lived but unremarkable life. WWGB (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being the oldest person in Scotland is notable. BBC News reports that he was the oldest person in the UK, after the death of Harry Patch. Lugnuts (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Taggart was never the oldest person in Scotland, nor the oldest person in the UK. WWGB (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Mentioned in multiple notable news sources; and being the oldest person in the UK is very notable. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - He was the 23rd oldest person in the UK when he died. SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Correction, he was never the oldest person in Scotland. However, I stand by my position, as Taggart's multiple mentions in non-trivial publications meets WP:NOTE. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 04:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of what reports say, research has shown that he was 'only' the second-oldest man in the UK.[37] Unfortunately in the field of longevity, there are a lot of claims flying around, and there is also a lot of mis-reporting. I don't think it's a coincidence that Bob Taggart died a day after this article - his family probably wanted him to know he was the oldest in Britain before he died (but that does not mean to say he was). He was not the oldest person in Scotland, he was the oldest man in Scotland. Is being the oldest man in Scotland notable? The oldest man in Wales is 'only' 105. We should reserve articles for: 1. Men over the age of 110 - as they are validated by the Gerontology Research Group. 2. At a push, for the oldest man from Scotland ever (Bob Taggart wasn't even the second oldest Scottish man ever). 3. For the oldest living man in the UK - The oldest man lives in England and keeps himself to himself and does not want attention, so there is not enough information to warrant an article for him. Once we start making articles for 'oldest men', where do we stop? As I said earlier, the oldest man in Wales is 105. 110 is a clear cut off point we need to adhere to for those only famous for their longevity.SiameseTurtle (talk) 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:BIO, WP:NOTNEWS. Didn't even reach 110. Not notable enough for a biography here and notable simply for his age, which in itself isn't even all that exceptional.--Ελληνικά (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThe article WAS sourced and it is correct and deleting the article would be disrespectful to Bon Taggart, he never did anything to you.(70.153.167.98 (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) — 70.153.167.98 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Haha, I'm changing my vote to delete now. Lugnuts (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If all we can say about the notability of someone is "he lived a long life", he doesn't need his own article. Easy to merge to Oldest_people. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - everyone seems to be wrapped up in the philosophical debate about whether being old is enough to establish notability. Notability for the very old is established the same way as for everyone else: non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Mr. Taggart is the subject of several news stories such as: Daily Record, The Independent, Daily Record 2, Rutherglen Reporter, and Daily Record 3. His obit was published in at least 5 reliable sources including the BBC, which is a strong demonstration of notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about WP:NOT#NEWS? I really don't see how this person can be considered to be historically notable. — Rankiri (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTNEWS is not intended to mean nothing in the news gets a page. It is meant to say, something that is in the news for a few days usually isn't notable. However, Taggart was been in the news for at least 5 years - the coverage is not just related to his death --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per thaddeusB.--Judo112 (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't want to comment on the subject's notability but if the only thing that is notable about a person is his age, does he really need a separate article? Kotiwalo (talk) 15:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - While I'm no authority on longevity, it's well-known that women, as a group, outlive men. As an example, on the Oldest People from Britain page [38], also listed above,there are only five men listed as being over 107 years of age, as opposed to 101 women. Perhaps the age standard for men should be lower than that for women, i.e. 110 and 105 (or whatever ages the longevity experts here might deem fit). At the time of his death, Mr. Taggart was the oldest man in Scotland, a country with over 5 million people (about half of these people being male), which provides an additional qualification for notability. Tombarrister (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - be that as it may, men still remain less notable. In addition female supercentenarians tend not to get their own article until around 113 (unless they are the oldest in their country, or notable for some other reason). There is about a 3 year gap and most men reaching 110 will get their own article. I can see this article becoming orphaned if it does get kept - no pages dedicated to the oldest people would be able to link to it as he did not reach 110. SiameseTurtle (talk) 15:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepBeing Scotland's oldest man IS notable just because he isn't a supercentenarian doesn't mean he isn't important.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • — 74.249.134.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep being the oldest man in Scotland is worthy of an article, besides it breaks no rules,it has a source and citations.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • — 74.249.134.59 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Please stop repeating that, it won't help at all. Kotiwalo (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepWell my vote is keep, how can you delete his article, just because he isnt a supercentenarian doesnt mean his accomplishment as Scotland's oldest man doesnt mean anything,what rule does the artticle violate, does it not have a source thats reliable and it even has a citation.(Kingcouey (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep please be considerate of his friends and family,deleting his article would be disrespectful not only to him but to his friends and family and whoever made the article(Kingcouey (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Repeating things over and over won't help. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepthen what will help, how do i even vote for keep, by just typing keep?what would help keep the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcouey (talk • contribs) 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • These are not votes, these are supposed to be arguments. Kotiwalo (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm trying to think if there's an appropriate longevity article that he could be merged into, but I don't think there is because, philosophically, I don't see much notability here but, as ThaddeusB has pointed out, he does meet the basic requirements of WP:N. Just because he meets, WP:N, however, does not mean that he needs his own article - if, however, there is no better place to put him for now, then he does satisfy the requirements for being on Wikipedia. So my ideal suggestion would be merge but, if that's not possible, then it's a keep. Cheers, CP 16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its not possible so i guess it is keep(74.249.134.59 (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep according to the rules articles must have sources, which the article has,and they must also have citations,which the article has.The source listed is reliable and besides there isn't anything in the article that isn't accurate.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete - I fail to see how living to an old age automatically imparts notability. That's not to say that no centenarians merit inclusion, but each needs to be evaluated against WP:Notability standards. --ponyo (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Old age does not impart notability. Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources soes, and the source in the article is one of many directly about the subject that establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage in reliable and verifiable sources is indeed important/necessary in determining notability, however WP:BLP1E states that "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them." Taggart should be included in the Oldest people article, but does not merit his own article. Of course this is just my opinion and I'm happy to let the cards fall on whichever side consensus lies. --ponyo (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The oldest people is specifically for the validated oldest living and the oldest ever. He was neither the oldest man from his country, nor over 110. There's simply nowhere on that page for him to be placed. Even Harry Patch, 2 years older, is too young to be listed there (when deceased). SiameseTurtle (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see; I misinterpreted the "Oldest living people since 1955" table. Honestly though, that just makes me more certain that he doesn't merit a stand alone article. It appears I'm in the minority though (even discounting 74.249.134.59s disruptive keep !votes). --ponyo (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article isn't because of age, its because He was Scotland's oldest man,isn't being the oldest notable.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep If age didn't matter then why delete the article just because he didn't reach 110.his record,not his age is what merits the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.134.59 (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep it wasn't a small accomplishment,like getting an a on a test,it was a big accomplishment,like being the oldest in a country.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keepif he was one of the oldest living men in Scotland then i would agree with deletion but he was THE oldest living man in Scotland that's the reason hes worth being noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.134.59 (talk)
  • Delete - I suggested on the talk page of this article that Mr. Taggart would be eligible to have an article at age 110, since Wikipedia has had a tradition of listing people who have lived to that age at the Oldest people article. My condolences to his family and friends, but it appears that he has passed away before that time. ThaddeusB makes a good point that significant coverage in reliable sources is the basic threshold for notability in WP:N, but has failed to address WP:BLP1E which suggests that a person's biography is not notable if coverage of them is for a an event they were part of, and not the person specifically. I believe that the curiosity of his age was a singular event that was covered. All of these policy arguments aside, from a WP:IAR approach, let's look at this logically. Mr. Taggart's biography is a stub and is likely to remain so permanently. Meaning no offense, but if a person's sole legacy is being old, and not even breaking any records in the process, how do we build an article? He worked on railways from age 14 until retirement. There's nothing to add that wouldn't be trivial in a biographical article. -- Atamachat 17:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would it take for you to keep the article(74.249.134.59 (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Keep stubs get to stay on Wikipedia but you people wanna delete an article with a decent amount of information.(Kingcouey (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Kingcouey and the anonymous user that Bob Taggart earned an article.one thing i noticed is you people say age doesnt matter yet because he isn't a supercentenarian you wont give him an article, if he was Scotland's oldest man then does it matter if he made it to 110 or not.(Longevitydude (talk) 17:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingcouey. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im not kingcouey, we just share the same computer.(Longevitydude (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • We just share the same computer,that doesn't mean we share an account,we each have our own account, why cant you accept that.(Longevitydude (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Because I have every right to be suspicious. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And im just letting you know that were not the same person,we take turns on the computer.(Longevitydude (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

  • Remember that meatpuppetry is also forbidden. In any case, it doesn't matter how many users support anything, but what their arguments are. Kotiwalo (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not puppeting anything,and im sorry about all the keep votes, but i really like the article and i don't want it deleted.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC))He claimed to be a world war one veteran, that's notable, the article could talk about him claiming to be in world war one and then talk about how his claim was debunked.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)) Wilfred Baker was one day younger than Bob Taggart, but no one has a problem with him having an article.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)):Comment - Wilfred Baker was a WWI veteran. Bob Taggart never claimed to be a WWI veteran, and was therefore never debunked. SiameseTurtle (talk) 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC) World war one ERA veteran,jozef kowalski is a world war one ERA veteran and he doesnt have an article.(Longevitydude (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC))*Dude. WP:WAX. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC) like i know the rules.(Longevitydude (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Weak keep. I have some issues with arguments made by others:

A. "longevity does not, in itself, confer notability". Not true, longevity confers exceptionalism and when a person reaches a certain threshold, they become notable for their uniqueness. Whether Mr. Taggart lived long enough to reach the "notability" threshold is another issue. He did not reach age 110, but it could be argued that he was notable as the "oldest man in Scotland." In this case, ordinal position may help his case.

B. "One event" rule. I believe this is made so that, for example, a witness to a fire is not notable, even if mentioned in multiple reliable sources. In this case, Mr. Taggart was noted prior to his death (the already existed) and most of the coverage occurred prior to death. Therefore, it cannot be said to be "one event".

C. "there are no links to other articles." Actually, there are. Click on British centenarians and there are similar articles such as Alfred Anderson, Wilfred Baker, and the like.Ryoung122 23:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Robert i know we usually dont see eye to eye but thanks for trying to help save the article.Longevitydude (talk) 13:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete.(see below) From WP:ONEEVENT: when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Today, there are about 74,000 centenarians in the United States alone, and this number is estimated to surge 600,000 by 2050.[39] I don't see what makes this individual more notable than the rest of them. — Rankiri (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you aren't suggesting we change the article to "109 year old man dies (Scotland, 2009)" but that is what the portion of 1E you quoted is saying. Clearly, in this case, the man's name is the appropriate place to have the article. Secondly, he has been covered on his birthday regularly for at least the past 5 years - that isn't 1 event, but rather several closely related events.
In response to the 2nd part "I don't see what makes this individual more notable than the rest of them": he is notable because multiple reliable sources independent of the subject have covered him. That is the same criteria all subjects are deemed notable. If reliable sources choose to cover all 74,000 centenarians (which isn't the case, obviously.) then all 74,000 could have pages. Thankfully we aren't going to run out of paper, so having many articles on centenarians won't hurt anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:BLP1E:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted
From WP:NOT#NEWS: Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article.
I mean, if you look at your own sources, they are filled with similarly trivial "news" stories like "Great Train Robber Ronnie Biggs not faking illness, insists son", "The 50 best womenswear" or "Exclusive: I can't stay in same place for more than 20 minutes because of Twitter girls, reveals Twilight star Robert Pattinson". I think Wikipedia content should be held to higher standards and the above policies seem to back up my view. — Rankiri (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia has articles on Ronnie Biggs and Robert Pattinson.76.17.118.157 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to BLP1E: Please explain why you feel that Taggart's coverage only stems from some larger event he was a part of. The intent of this policy is protect people who are merely mentioned in the news, but aren't the news themselves, from getting pages. It is not intended to say people known for only 1 thing aren't notable.
In regards to NOTNEWS: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" - so which describes the sources for this article - announcements, sports coverage, or tabloid journalism? The idea of this policy is to prevent every "news of the day" item from getting a page, not to say nothing covered primarily by newspapers is notable.
Your examples of other stories in newspapers in irrelevant unless you are trying to say newspapers in general aren't serious sources. Notability isn't supposed to be a judgment call according to current guidelines - if multiple RS cover it, it is notable. If it is notable, it gets an article unless it fails under "What Wikipedia is not". You may think the news media covers many trivial topics that don't belong in the encyclopedia - and many would agree with that - but current policy doesn't say "something is notable if the consensus of Wikipedians who show up to its deletion discussion think it is." It says "something is notable if is cover by multiple reliable sources and doesn't fit into WP:NOT." --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I already explained my position. The newspaper examples merely illustrate that the bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Please use common sense and tell me why you think this person is notable without relying on the phrase "significant coverage in reliable sources", which I think can be disputed under WP:NOT#NEWS. — Rankiri (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I don't think this fails under NOTNEWS, you do. I don't think notability should be subjective, you do. My position is be is notable for being really old because multiple reliable sources felt he was notable enough to be covered, you don't. As such, there is nothing else to say really. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respect your opinion put please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that notability should be subjective. I said that Wikipedia's entries should be suitable for an encyclopedia and that I see no reason to put every single trivial news story on a Wikipedia page. My position, therefore, is fully consistent with WP:NOT#NEWS: slow news days shouldn't affect the quality of Wikipedia. — Rankiri (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, that certainly wasn't my intention. I guess I misinterpreted something you said. For the record, I do not believe there is anything wrong with that position even if it is not one you hold. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More trivia. According to this, there were over 9,000 centenarians in Britain—including 680 in Scotland—back in 2008. The article also says that the UK's population of centenarians is forecast to soar to as many as 1.2 million by 2074. — Rankiri (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. All that means is that reaching age 100 is not in itself notable. However, being the #1, oldest-man in Scotland may be notable. There may be 74,000 or even 1 million centenarians, but only ONE can be oldest man. That, in itself, means that articles created on this basis are self-limiting. Also, Bob Taggart may not have been the UK's oldest man after all, but he was the oldest man in Scotland for about two years (since the 2007 death of Wilfred Baker). Might I ask how many tennis grand slam titles have been played since then? Clearly, the coverage of "oldest persons" is far more sparse than SPORTS coverage, where even college football players and individual high schools have their own articles. How many high schools are there in the U.S.? How many college football players are there in the U.S.? If you're not interested in this subject, then don't read the article. It seems this subject is far more sparing and self-limiting than many, many others topics. When a mountain expedition climbs a major mountain, there's more than one person involved. When Robert Peary went to the North Pole, he had several people going with him. Here, we have a sort of limitation of just the first position. Not the top 100, at least on a national level.76.17.118.157 (talk) 04:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many times must it be said, hes more notable for being Scotland's oldest man.67.33.105.219 (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Its been pointed out a lot and I agree that age plays a major role in notability.67.33.105.219 (talk) 16:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC) — 67.33.105.219 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :*Pardon my straightforwardness, but I just don't see how a 109-year-old outliving a 113-year-old for 20 days is an encyclopedically notable subject. If any of the above forecasts are true, about half of Wikipedia will soon be filled with similar articles about otherwise non-notable elderly persons. — Rankiri (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you at least get the facts right? Harry Patch was 111 when he died July 25. Also, Taggart was not the oldest man in the UK so the '20-day' comment is off. He was, however, the oldest man in Scotland for approximately two years, following the death of Wilfred Baker in 2007. Your fears of "half of Wikipedia" filled with articles about "elderly persons" is a joke. Let us compare, for just a moment, the number of articles on college football players (all youngsters) verus the number on very aged persons. It is clear that the youth are far overrepresented on Wikipedia, sometimes for doing nothing more than appearing in a few college games. Regardless of what others think about this article, your arguments seem very biased, off-putting, and cynical. You also fail to comprehend that creating articles based on ordinal position (#1) are self-limiting: it doesn't matter if there are 1 million centenarians, only ONE could be the oldest man, and ONE could be the oldest woman. So that's two out of 1 million, minimum. Also, the average length of time one holds the world title has been 9 months, but for a smaller nation the average is even longer, due to a smaller sample size. Mr. Taggart was the oldest male in Scotland for about 2 years. That's two World Series or 8 tennis or golf grand slam championships. I hardly see that as a daily event, whether or not this article is needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.118.157 (talk • contribs)
At the risk of sounding flippant, at least football/tennis/golf players train and perform to achieve notability. (Super)centenarians just manage to stay alive longer than their contemporaries. A notable achievement or just a quirk of nature? WWGB (talk) 05:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, individual articles provide a level of human interest, such as oral historians seek to record. Someone who is 109 can tell us, firsthand, what the world was like before even WWI started. Biographies, even if brief, go beyond the temptation to simply turn people into stats alone, and also provide the basis for further research (should a case be extraordinary). No one is going to argue that Jeanne Calment is not notable or a "one event" person. The question is, where do we draw the line? Let's suppose we generally use the idea of 110+ worldwide, with sufficient media coverage. That could be augmented for situtations such as "oldest twin" or, in this case, oldest man or woman of a particular country/nation. Of course that gets into the argument about whether Scotland is just a sub-unit of the UK, but it is obvious that the UK is a special case: the United Kingdom was created by a personal union, where the monarch of Scotland was also the monarch of England, and so the two became fused into one entity. The recent re-creation of a Scottish parliament, however, suggests devolution (the USSR and Yugoslavia broke up along ethnic lines). Any nation organized with ethnic sub-units, rather than geographic subunits, is at risk of breakup. That makes Scotland a special case.76.17.118.157 (talk) 04:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The same arguments are being repeated all over and over again, it won't help. It's not about how many times something is told, but how well and by what arguments. Cite a policy that warrants notability for the subject, or something like that. Kotiwalo (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correction. Bob Taggart was born one day BEFORE Wilfred Baker, so there is an issue of how long Mr. Taggart was, in fact, the oldest man in Scotland. It seems that, in any case, it was well in excess of two years. One possible solution is to create an article, list of the oldest persons in Scotland and then merge Mr. Taggart into that.76.17.118.157 (talk) 05:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above suggestion. We already have pages for different nations. See List of British supercentenarians for example. I really don't think we need an article specifically about a handful of Scottish people. When you start going down to such low denominations, reporting gets a lot poorer. Sure, we might have known who the oldest Scottish man is now, but as you mentioned - it's not very clear when he actually became the oldest Scottish man, so it would be difficult to create a list of people who were the oldest man in Scotland. The same goes for the oldest Scottish person. I have considered changing List of British supercentenarians to List of the oldest people from Britain to be able to encompass a list of the oldest men, but even then, Bob Taggart would not make the list. SiameseTurtle (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After taking a closer look at the subject, I realized that I'd completely misread the news article. Not only was Bob Taggard the oldest man (male) in Scotland for several years, he was also named the oldest man (male) in the UK several weeks before his death. You can blame the news article for its confusing use of the language (apparently, in BBC's world, "man" means "male" and "person" means "female"), or you can blame my inattentiveness and my apparent dislike of old people and/or gerontologists. Either way, I'll just apologize for wasting your time and change my earlier suggestion to keep as I no longer believe that my objections were valid. We can argue about the exceptional value of longevity all we want but ThaddeusB was right: none of this changes the fact that the person is passably notable to satisfy the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. — Rankiri (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, please. I know this may not be important to most Americans - but as a second generation American (from Ireland) married to a Scottish immegrant, is is important to some of us. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triste Tierra (talk • contribs) 03:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he lived to a grand old age but so did a lot of other people. If he was a supercentenarian then it may be notable.

Zerbey (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Really nothing more than WP:NOTNEWS. Simply outlasting other people doesn't mean notable, not matter how many papers mention it. And a WP:TROUT for all the sockpuppets that made this more tedious to follow. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you outlast enough people, you;re notable, and the exgtent of sources is sufficient to show he is so regarded. We follow the sources in things like this. DGG ( talk ) 08:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the sockpuppet flood has ceased, I'll be glad to announce my wish to keep the article for now, with the following things that should be noted: First, he is notable because he has had a lot of media coverage. I would personally see him as a one-eventer, but he does meet the notability guideline. Secondly, we absolutely positively need to establish a consensus whether longevity warrants notability, simply to help with similar cases to come. Thirdly, we must consider whether other people outliving him (very likely in the near future) are notable as well and do they take away mr Taggart's notability. I personally would see little point in having an article about some guy who had the longevity record twenty years ago, if there is nothing else notable about the person. On the other hand, notability is not temporary... confusing. We need to establish a common set of rules for cases like this. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoodak[edit]

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

A company/website with no sources, reliable or otherwise, as far as I can see. The article was created by a user who has the same name as the company's "CMO" (chief marketing officer?). An identical posting was made on the Techcrunch user-generated database at the same time ([40]). Looking for sources, I find lots of promotional activity, and some likely astroturfing ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45]), but no-one is writing about this company in any significant way ☇Kateshortforbob talk☄ 11:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, blatant advertising: But what makes Zoodak unique is the integration of stock trading, market analysis and social networking in a very simple and intuitive format. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 YAGO (ontology). Cannot be deleted per WP:MAD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fabian Martin Suchanek[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability criteria. Rd232 talk 10:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete non-notable academic - fails WP:PROF by a country mile... --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep his article "Yago: a core of semantic knowledge" appears to be widely cited. Need more references to support an article of this length, but subject is notable. Dhaluza (talk) 13:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. He seems to be on his way to the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1, but with a Google scholar h-index of only 6 I don't think he's there yet. What's the hurry to add articles for junior researchers? —David Eppstein (talk) 15:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a small part to YAGO (Ontology). Agree he doesn't (as yet) appear to meet the criteria of WP:PROF. The limited notability he has at present is mainly due to his work on YAGO, and the refs and some of the text about YAGO in the first para of the "Projects" section seem worth moving to YAGO (Ontology), currently an unreferenced stub. My understanding is that the WP license would require a redirect be left to preserve the edit history of the moved material (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Of course there's then the question of whether YAGO is itself notable (personally I'd probably favour merging it into ontology (computer science)) but that's getting beyond the scope of this discussion. In general I'd rather see researchers contributing to articles about their areas of expertise rather than articles about themselves or each other. Qwfp (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that merge of the referenced content only to one of the YAGO articles is appropriate if no more supporting refs are found (and the two YAGO articles probably also need to be merged). But the redirect should remain, as his papers have been widely cited, and so his name would be a logical search target. Also GFDL licensing for the merge content is another reason deletion is not appropriate. Dhaluza (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is essentially a post-doc and seems to be a ways from clearing WP:PROF. I suspect the rush for junior researchers is related to the looming tenure/promotion milestone that many will face in the next leg of their careers. These cases certainly do seem to burn much of our collective time here. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Seems non-notable. --Robin (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capstone Right[edit]

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

Tax dodger original research, as Google searching shows. Article has languished for two years unchallenged; bringing this to AfD rather than Prod-tagging to prevent recreation without proper sourcing. Abductive (reasoning) 07:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lee Woods got deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genetic Zoo[edit]

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

non-notable artist: series of paintings shown in one exhibition, in the artist's own studio, fails notability. Articles mentioned are local Plymouth press. Deadchildstar (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. The artist's notability is debatable (and under discussion), his self-sponsored exhibition is definitely not notable. Local papers will print any local news. Wider sources are needed, but are unlikely to be found. McMarcoP (talk) 08:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC) Tyrenius's point makes sense. Changing my opinion to merge to Lee Woods and let it follow the artist's page's destiny. McMarcoP (talk) 12:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Lee Woods. There are wider sources per Associated Press syndicated material to e.g. The Washington Post. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lee Woods. But we certainly don't need an article on the artist and also on this work. Ty 11:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Delete, unless worthwhile sources are demonstrated. Ty 23:03, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article - Lee Woods...Modernist (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Change per below - Lee Woods...Modernist (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not saying to delete or keep this article, yet. But the suggestions to Merge are premature as there is an older AfD continuing for the other article. What if consensus emerges to merge this article to Lee Woods, but that article is deleted per the other discussion? I believe that would result in the deletion of both articles, so keep that in mind when making your suggestions. -- Atamachat 16:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G7FEK Nested Marconi Antenna[edit]

G7FEK Nested Marconi Antenna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I stumbled upon this article which was blanked by its own author, but for unclear reasons. I've reverted because I though this was notable and could be turned into a solid start/C-class article, but upon further reading, this turns out to be an amateur project which admitedly gathered little attention, probably written by the guy who made the page. It's a very interesting project, and I liked reading the links given. However, with little-to-no coverage by external sources, it unfortunetaly does not meet WP:N. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Odd I guess if the original author can't find sources fine as I didn't either on a quick google check. However, while there did seem to be some model/simulations published, I would think most of the initial publications would be blog or forum posts from DX'ers in urban areas who got some specific results to report. Presumably this would at some point translate into more journal coverage(CQ magazine for example or maybe various popular press accounts ) but that doesn't seem to be there yet. I used to have an Advanced license but I wasn't aware they lifted morse requirement- too bad since that is still hard to beat for bandwidth and actually introduces people to the idea of data compression. I'm still not sure why a licensed amateur radio shack is not inherently less notable than another version of 2 guys telling jokes during drive time but I've always been a bit odd myself. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explanation I published this article in order to share the history of the antenna and make it generally available for the Amateur Radio Community. I later blanked the article when WP automatically flagged as possible conflict of interest. I assumed the article did not meet guidelines even though it is non commercial and talks about the antenna rather than me!! I therefore blanked the article. I am new to wikipedia and am not 100% sure how best to use the system and this is my first attempt at adding content. Like many in the scientific community I am a geek and spend most of my life hidden away in a workshop. Publishing any of my work is new to me. I would like to see more Radio Amateurs with small gardens try versions of this antenna, as it has proved to work better than some other similar sized antennas and has good multiband properties. I have used it for 20 years and it works. Others have asked me why I don't publish it, so here it is. It is entirely an Amateur and non commercial project and all the tests and validations of the design will most likely be carried out by other Amateurs and published in blogs, online forums and Amateur Radio Journals etc. A search will reveal both users and some articles. Please publish this article or delete it as you feel fit. --G7fek (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the main concern here is notability, the rest is simple cleanup. If you can find us sources mentioning this antenna has made an impact in the amateur radio community, at least at the regional/national level (aka bigger than just Devon county), perhaps like having an article in print media (for instance in an amateur radio magazine), etc... Your own website can be used for technical details, and events that happened, but notability and importance have to be established externally. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if no third party sources are found and Keep if found. I respect the article and the author, but WP is not a right place for original research, for so many obvious reasons.. Even if it is deleted here, I encourage the author to publish it somewhere else (wikibooks .. don't know) Materialscientist (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ERF Damper[edit]

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

While ERF dampers could have their own article, this is nothing more than an advertisement disguised as an article. Rescue could be possible, albeit challenging. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit, screw this, I'll re-write it. Withdrawn.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Recreation of an article previously deleted by AfD discussion. Fribbler (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Hobden (porn star)[edit]

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO. "Presenter" referred to appears to be a phone sex operator. Fails WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Request for creation of article was denied because of prior deletion. See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nikki Hobden. ttonyb1 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - I own some of the channels and know she is very real and the girls on there along with others girls that have pages on here are all classed as presenters even by Ofcom. To add that if you look at other girls on here who have worked for me they claim there presenters which they are as they do the same job as nikki but there profiles remain, her page is also more detailed than most others here.Plus she is up for some very big awards in November which is more than other have on here 82.132.139.9 (talk) 13:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The above comment appears to confirm the channel "Presenter" telly time is little more than a solicitation for phone sex and not a major program presenter in the traditional sense. ttonyb1 (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Qwfp has shown insufficient coverage to meet WP:GNG, and consensus is that her post does not qualify under WP:POLITICIAN. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Barratt[edit]

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

non-notable, possible COI page VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The originator of this page, user:Wycombe92, along with blocked user User:Hennyxlb, are possible relations of the article subject, having added material about her and her family to various pages. See here. In addition, Betty Barratt herself may not be notable enough to have her own article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probable keep. I don't know anything about the position of "Mayor of High Wycombe", but WP:POLITICIAN would lead me to initially presume that she meets WP:N.
Now that's not to deny that the article is complete crap; it is. It's written in a non-encyclopedic, fawning fashion. But that's not grounds for deletion. I'd like to hear more from people who know more. Unschool 03:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not a political position; follow the link - it's an odd old curiousity position. The position is notable, but a person is not necc notable by holding the pos (IMHO); this person does not meet WP:GNG (as far as I can tell) - thus, delete.  Chzz  ►  03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reduce to stub. Mayors may or may not be notable depending on the circumstances, but heads of County Councils certainly are. However, the article is so blatantly promotional there only things worth keeping are the first twenty-six words. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Although the article itself is at present confused about whether she was "Chairman of Buckinghamshire council" (first sentence) or "Chairman of High Wycombe" (Chairman section), its last reference makes clear that she was chairman of Wycombe District Council 1996/7, which doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN criterion 1 as it is not a "first-level sub-national political office". A search of Google News archive does not find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources sufficient to meet WP:BIO#Basic (nor does Google Books or Scholar). --Qwfp (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I was just coming here to post that I can find no evidence of Barratt ever being chair of Bucks County Council - I see Qwfp got here before me.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. She doesn't appear to meet the GNG, and certainly not WP:POLITICIAN - Mayor of a town, and Chairman of a District Council don't qualify. Chris Neville-Smith says leaders of County Councils are notable, whilst that is the case, even if this had been a CC, she wasn't its leader, she was its Chairman, which may be a notable position, but occupants I don't think would be. So, for so many reasons, delete. --Saalstin (talk) 10:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know High Wycombe well, it being a half hour's drive or so from my house. It's hardly a major metropolis, and its mayor wields virtually no power. Were this the mayor of a European town, which in most cases is a position of real responsibility, I would !vote otherwise, but the English system is different. I'm positive the Mayor of High Wycome is not a notable position.

    Betty Barratt could, potentially, be notable for other reasons if she had received significant coverage in reliable sources. But she has not and is not, and her name is not a plausible search term.

    After due consideration, I can see no basis on which this article can be saved, so I must go with delete.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 13:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • But...S Marshall, she has her own parade! Do I detect jealousy here? Drmies (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T.O.B[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria, self-published sources and likely autobiographical (due to creators account name) — raeky (talk | edits) 02:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOW Hits 2010[edit]

WOW Hits 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:CRYSTAL. Secondly, no signs this subject is at all notable. — Dædαlus Contribs 02:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and because the album might fail to be notable even after having been released. McMarcoP (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteIts nothing but a stub.(74.249.134.59 (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete This is a very good example of WP:CRYSTAL. Free (talk) (HRWiki) 20:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I'm familiar with the WOW series; the album probably will be notable when it's released, so no prejudice against recreation once it comes out and is reviewed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete maybe notable one day, that day is not today. Lacks 3rd party references RadioFan (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic Static[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable artist, signed to a label which is itself currently the subject of another AfD. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barratt Family[edit]

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

Started by a vandal, possible COI (relative?), non-notable. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this article when dealing with user:Hennyxlb, who has since been blocked indefinitely. I believe there may be a COI as evidenced here. In any case, this is a clear case of non-notability. I'm not sure even if Betty Barratt is notable.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - the family doesn't have any notability in itself. Notability is not inherited. The notability of the main family member is even in discussion. McMarcoP (talk) 08:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Even if Betty Barratt herself is notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Maybe early close as WP:SNOWBALL ? Qwfp (talk) 10:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. The article purports to be about a family, yet only one family member other than Betty Barratt is mentioned, and the coverage of him is less than one sentence long. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A non-notable family. Joe Chill (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Harwell[edit]

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

article is fictitious and is actually a joke; article should clearly be deleted from wikipedia; the article is not worthy of wikipedia Relax777 (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I'm not convinced that this is a hoax, but fails WP:AUTHOR anyway. Location (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm convinced that it is, since "Jim Harwell" + "Relevant Media" turns up nothing outside Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Lack of 3rd party sources to verify notaability. The only reason I removed the csd tag is because it claimed notability. That is all they have to do to pass csd but one or more delete votes could result in a wp:snow clauseHell In A Bucket (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hoax or not, still not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The "delete" !voters have not addressed the sources provided on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polka Floyd[edit]

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

Non-notable subject fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe mention them in the Pink Floyd article (that is, if they are even notable enough for that) but this page should not stay.--The LegendarySky Attacker 01:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to add that the Google News link provided above by the person moving to delete the page does NOT return all news articles on the topic, such as those on the Polka Floyd talk page. Hopefully, Wikipedia is based on what's encyclopedic, not on what's cataloged in Google's database, especially since Google admits to cataloging only one eighth of the Internet. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Not a horrible start. I tried to add an external link, but some character is messing it up. Please help. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Think I fixed it. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I admit I am from their local area, but the band has regional notoriaty and has been the feature of several regional news articles - several are noted on the talk page for the article. I believe they qualify under the first and potentially the seventh guideline - they are well known and representative of the Toledo area as being noted by several independent sources. Jmslagle (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:MUSIC. Not even notable as a novelty. GripTheHusk (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per all previous delete comments. Wether B (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK criterion 1—nomination withdrawn with no "delete" opinions having been offered. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Colja[edit]

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

Somewhat of a hoax: Non-notable. Colja's Fashion Model Directory profile is blank, Models.com has never heard of her, and GNews turns up nothing. "Catwalk Queens" ref is of possibly dubious nature, since I find nothing to suggest the subject has ever walked any runways at all; it's also used only to back up a trivial claim. Prod was removed by that wholesale de-prodder from several months ago, who added a "link2look.com" ref that's just a homepage for hosting copvio galleries of numerous models.  Mbinebri  talk ← 00:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn per Eleassar's keep.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doesn't look like a hoax at all. She certainly exists. The question is of notability. It seems she has appeared several times on the front cover of a bi-weekly German magazine article here) with a circulation of 750,000. I'm not interested enough to check out the other claims, but I suspect the claims made in the article may be perfectly true.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Poor choice of words on my part. I'll strike it out.  Mbinebri  talk ← 04:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. One of the most successful Slovenian models. The claims in the article and more about her may be verified in the articles [49][50][51][52] published by 24ur.com, a reliable Slovenian news site. They're unfortunately in Slovene, but may be put through Google Translate. Regards, --Eleassar my talk 07:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you say 24ur.com is a reliable source, that's good enough for me.  Mbinebri  talk ← 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King Britt[edit]

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

Not Notable Lattefever (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]

I created this page based on its contents. Upon doing some reaserch (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5157935), I noticed that he was affiliated with the group Digable Planets, which would meet the requirements for a musician. However, this was not stated on the page. Perhaps I should retract the nomination for deletion? Can someone advise me on the proper protocol? Lattefever (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever[reply]
I think you can remove the notability and AfD tags from the top of the article. King Britt has also lectured at the Red Bull Music Academy and appears on the website. He has had mainstream media coverage on MTV:[53] and worked with Ursula Rucker[54].
As an aside, you may want to check whether the following page meets the criteria for notability: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Nobody. Numerous edits have been made by single purpose accounts with conflict of interest and none of the information is verifiable from reputable secondary sources. Instead much of the second hand information is sourced from the subject's own website. WaltonSimons1 (talk) 10:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pot, Kettle, Black. Complaining about single purpose accounts while venue shopping for your own single purpose. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Duffbeerforme - WaltonSimons1 has some serious question marks regarding his motives in the matter of Little Nobody / IF? Records.DSK1984 (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is up to the article to establish notability, is it not? Thanks for adding the references. 15:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Lattefever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lattefever (talk • contribs)
I somehow missed that it was you who had added the note about researching and finding the NPR story. Sorry about that. But yes, WP:BEFORE suggests that we first attempt a search for sources before bringing an article to AfD. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jive Records discography[edit]

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

No chance of ever being complete, too rap-centric, precedent building against such discography pages. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per precedent: Rap centric, grossly inaccurate, and terminally incomplete. Imperatore (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Jujutacular talkcontribs 21:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Bsay@CSU[ π ] 22:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but limit to those releases actually on the Jive label. I'm not sure why we would want to delete an article because it's "too rap-centric" - this can be expanded to address concerns of inaccuracy or incompleteness. --Michig (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't either understand the "rap-centric" problem. This is a list, or a discography, like any other.--Pink Bull (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but limit to albums released by the label, removing those only distributed by them. Not a rap fan, but I don't see why a rap-focused label shouldn't have its own discography article. McMarcoP (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not sure why this article is problematic per Location's comment and because I don't understand the rap-centric concern. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However, this article needs some serious updating and it can done in a such that it can be a good article and list if someone would just have the patience and is willing to take the time to update it. Jeremy (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Will someone please close this debate, it's going on for 14 days now. More than enough time to make a decision. 4 to 3 keep. Jeremy (talk) 10:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Foyle[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE, having only played for Hednesford Town F.C. (and apparently only as a sub in a pre season game). Contested prod. Sixtysixstar (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That picture should also be deleted as well. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Three_Days_Grace#Life_Starts_Now_.282009_onward.29. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Life Starts Now[edit]

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

incomplete tracklist. Lacks reliable sources (the band's myspace page, official website and blogs are not reliable). May meet notability guidelines when released and reviewed in reliable sources but not today. RadioFan (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Three Days Grace for now as a viable search term. The only information published about it was retrieved from the band's own website, and the article looks horrible as it is now. A lack of reliable sources covering the album, in addition to a lack of available information on it other than what the band's website says, furthers the idea that the album doesn't deserve an article yet. Within a few weeks, there will be some coverage, and the article can be recreated without 90% of it being quotes from unreliable sources. Timmeh (review me) 15:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect - Certainly not notable in its own right. NBeale (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have completely redone this article to drop all quotations. This link [55] contains most of the information that was sourced from their official website. I do not understand why we cannot use the band's official website though. It would seem that the most official news possible would come from the band itself. All information is sourced directly from the webpage it came from now and I recommend dropping the deletion. Jaj43123 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment thats fine but the notability problems are still there. The band's webpage may be used as a reference but it does not establish notability though. That can only be done through 3rd party sources such as magazine or newspaper articles, particularly those that review the album.--RadioFan (talk) 20:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for closing admin I've just reworded the album's section at Three Days Grace, including all the notable information about the album that has been published by reliable sources. If the result is redirect, I suggest redirecting to that section. Timmeh (review me) 20:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Max Kreijn[edit]

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

Notability in accordance with WP:ARTIST is not established. In accordance with WP:BEFORE, the article has been tagged for re-write as well as a stub for over two years. This article is a one line statement with no sources or any potential claims that might meet the notability requirements. There is no evidence that this article will ever become more that a stub of no encyclopaedic value. Ash (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no assertion of notability. Johnbod (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the nominator has stated, the guidelines at WP:ARTIST have not been met. And as far as I can see, there's nothing to go on to even make this a borderline case. His name appears in innumerable Google searches, half of which appear to be "No mention of him here" and the other half are just his name on websites selling his paintings. Nothing here sets him or any of his work apart in any way. Unschool 03:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough, as the article stands. If references, and/or notability is established beyond an assertion, I will change to keep...Modernist (talk) 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Johnbod's comment Netalarmtalk 04:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, not sourced and not "sourceable". McMarcoP (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Rutigliano (disambiguation) has being deleted as there are only two entries left. Hatnotes have being added or fixed accordingly to Sam Rutigliano and the Italian town of Rutigliano. --JForget 22:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rutigliano[edit]

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

Police sergeant in Ontario that's been charged with various offenses in a corruption investigation. There are sources, but this is a textbook example of WP:BLP1E: no evidence of coverage other than what's directly related to this case, and police sergeants aren't inherently notable. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way — don't expect me to respond to any questions that you ask me; right now is likely to be the only time I'll be online for several days. Nyttend backup (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. Rutigliano has no significance outside of the context of this case, and as such clearly violates WP:BLP1E. Jujutacular talkcontribs 16:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naked News. Tone 21:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandrine Renard[edit]

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

Unnotable outside of Naked News. Notability is not inherited. No substantial coverage in reliable sources to satisfy WP:BIO. Doesn't satisfy WP:PORNBIO nor WP:ENTERTAINER either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. Just because she was on NN does not make her notable, she must have some notable achievement of her own. GreetingsEarthling (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Chandler[edit]

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

Non-notable adult film star. While Chandler certainly has a large body of work, her notability is not substantiated through third-party reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ace Combat X: Skies of Deception. (If you think the redirect should be deleted, feel free to nominate it at RfD.) King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Republic of Aurelia[edit]

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

Non-notable, unsourced, in-universe exposition about a fictional country that appeared in one video game. The content in the article isn't even worth merging to Ace Combat X because it has no bearing on the plot and fails several of the points under WP:GAMECRUFT. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the current image with a brief summary of the information on fictional country? To be honest, I just think whoever made the map has gone to a lot of effort, I've done a couple of maps myself and they're not easy :p JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 12:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jasen Walker[edit]

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

I left this one alone for quite a while hoping the tags would be addressed. The subject has a significant amount of published work but it does not appear to be at all covered outside of his small field. It is very much a resume and has no third party sourcing and appears to be an auto-bio. Beach drifter (talk) 03:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now: This person does appear to be notable in their particular field, and a look at the list of his published works includes reputable professional journals and at least one state Worker's Compensation Guide. The tags were only posted a little over a week ago, and a look at the main author's contributions shows that they haven't edited anything since the tags were posted. I agree with the statements that it appears to be a resume/CV and has some sourcing issues, but unsure about the auto-bio tag. Let's leave this a little longer and give the author more than a single week to fix the issues this article has been tagged with. Frmatt (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martha Stelloo[edit]

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

Long-orphaned, minimally-edited article created by her grandson. Fails V, N, and OR. Assumes inherited notability as well, and even the Guinness entry is dubious - at the least, it was subsequently withdrawn from their records, probably with good cause. Another editor's more copious research into the notability (or lack thereof) can be found on the article's talk page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I should have made an "articles for deletion" page myself instead of going on and on on the talk page, but it was meant as a short note and grew longer the more I learned about Lord Sydney. Afasmit (talk) 18:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete- this appears to be a hoax.--keystoneridin! (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Claims for notability are flimsy at best. McMarcoP (talk) 09:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unsourced article about actress and rewrite as article about the record-breaking documentary. Guinness World Records 2005‎ (page 175) confirms film as "longest film documentary" ISBN 1892051222, no matter that later versions removed the entry to add records about other items. Seattle Times confirms the Guiness entry. Suggest new article title of Grandmother Martha (1996 Dutch film), as the film has the sourcable record notability, not {apparently) the film's subject. I just sandboxed (above) my suggested alternate article. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guinness shelved the claim, and the Seattle Times article merely recapitulates what it was - it isn't independent coverage (not that this would be needed - the Guinness book itself is source enough that it was once a record). In any case, it's long-standing precedent that a Guinness record is not notable enough in and of itself. There is absolutely no record I can even find of this having played anywhere or received any reviews - essentially the only evidence that it exists is a Guinness record which the book's publishers have subsequently declined to reprint, mostly likely for a reason. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. When a record is broken, it is replaced by a new record. On a related sidebar, the filmmaker, Sydney Ling, himself set and kept for 23 years, the Guiness record for being the youngest youngest person (at 13) to direct a professional feature film. The record was broken in 2006 by a 10-year-old. Perhaps in not only honoring his grandmother, Ling wanted to set another guiness record, and this might well have received coverage unavailable to me. Perhaps French or Dutch Wikipedians will come forward with non-English sources. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/economicpublishingmodelsfinalreport.aspx
More