< 1 February	3 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Malformed nom, no deletion rationale provided, meets WP:ATHLETE at any rate as a former ice hockey player at the highest professional level in the world. Reso lute 23:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Dorion[edit]

Keep. Subject played in the NHL, which satisfies WP:ATHLETE. Patken4 (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I'm all for good faith, but I get the feeling the AfD tag was placed on the article under bad faith. Regardless, subject easily passes notability standards based on professional play. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:34, 2 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rudrabhayananda[edit]

Bio of a non-notable guru with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability, no reliable sources. Subject listed as learning from Gurus who had died prior to birth. Guess he reads a lot? -Vritti (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Namaskar Dear friend you have read clearly he never learned from people who were dead, rather his father had and such Guru's did exist 50 years back. He is not a non existant Guru rather he is known to many and he is known on youtube also —Preceding unsigned comment added by RASMIGUPTA (talk • contribs) 08:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Probably exists, but has done nothing notable. Anyone can make up a philospohy and teach it, but until multiple independant reliable sources take note of them, they do not need an encyclopedia article.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG. The only half-credible source is the personality interview in The Hindu newspaper's regional supplement, which makes extremely credulous and dubious claims ("translate the 5000-year-old vigyan tantra scripture into English, available only in Sanskrit so far."). He seems to have published some books on fringe subjects, but the publishers are non-reputed AFAIK and no one seems to have independently reviewed any of the books. Apart from that, the internet guru's reputation seems to rest on youtube videos, blogs etc, which fail the multiple reliable secondary sources requirements. Abecedare (talk) 19:19, 4 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Allen's 10 Best of British[edit]

DELETE: One-off TV special which is not worthy of note. Fails WP:NOTE and there are no reliable, secondary sources (WP:RS). Not much else to say really.... Dalejenkins | 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ¨¨ victor falk 08:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. British TV is constantly doing such lists, unless sources show a particular one is notable (rather than just mentioning its existance, TV guide style), then this is nothing special. This did not get similar attention to notable lists (eg The Greatest Briton, 100 top books, etc)Yobmod (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: a one-off tv event, non-notable. JamesBurns (talk) 01:30, 6 February 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. Canley (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Kenlock[edit]

Non notable footballer who has never played professionally. I prodded the article but author removed PROD with this comment:- Due to be called up to the reserves team. however, Crystal Palace has not released this information as of now. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom for failing WP:ATHLETE. ArcAngel (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. How can he be notable if he hasn't been called up for the reserves yet? Also, the part which says "In January 2009, former Crystal Palace Manager, Peter Taylor, predicted that Kieran would make his debut for the England national football team by 2010" made me smile - is Cappello really so short of players that he's raiding the Palace academy now? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE, WP:N, basically all policies going. If it's true that Peter Taylor said that a kid who has never even played for the reserve team at his club will win an England cap inside two years (which can't be verified), then I suspect he must have been drunk..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not done anything of note in football world, and since that is the supposed claim to fame, not made it, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN--ClubOranje^Talk 09:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 11:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a little suspect! Recreate if he does get first team football. Govvy (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. (Quentin X (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per nom. Camw (talk) 11:39, 5 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates[edit]

This is a list of radio stations that air the show "Coast to Coast AM". It's incomplete and I wonder how long even a complete list can remain accurate. There's a complete and much more detailed list that can be found at the radio show's webite.[3] Honestly, besides practical issues, I simply don't see the use of having these kind of articles. I think this a good example of where we should apply the "Wikipedia is not a directory" policy (WP:NOT#DIR). Peephole (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--I agree with nominator; this is nothing more than a directory. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, "this content is available elsewhere" is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to delete Wikipedia content — if we applied that kind of rationale, every single thing on Wikipedia would be deletable. Secondly, the nominator previously tried to have this speedied on the false pretense that it constituted a copyright violation (as if a simple list of radio call signs could possibly be copyrightable.) Thirdly, it was a CFD discussion that listified this from a miscreated category in the first place. And fourthly, being a directory would entail including radio stations' mailing addresses, phone numbers, staff lists, etc., not just listing them — there's no policy that prevents or prohibits simply listing radio stations by geographic or programming associations. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Thanks for assuming good faith, I put the list up for speedy deletion because I honestly thought it might have been a copyright violation. I was reading some talk pages and other people had that same concern. And in fact, the admin who reviewed the speedy deletion agreed with me and deleted the article. Now, you disagreed and I've read some other comments on talk page that make me think you're probably right. Still, I don't think a list of radio stations that air a radio show should get its own article. Maybe I should have been more clear, but one of the things WP:NOT says, wikipedia isn't, is an "electronic program guide". And this is in fact a sort of a reverse electronic program guide. Instead of listing all the radio shows for one radio station, we list all the radio stations for one radio show. Can I ask you a question, do you think every single radio and TV show should get a list of all the TV and radio stations that air it? Would you think it'd be appropriate if we made lists like "list of tv stations airing Lost" or "list of radio stations airing Rush Limbaugh"? Also, the reason I said, "this content is available elsewhere" was to make clear that the article wasn't of much practical use either and that the world could do without it.--Peephole (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a very clear example of a list that is totally redundant and superfluous to the category; category:Coast to Coast AM.¨¨ victor falk 08:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't superfluous or redundant to that category, because the category isn't for radio stations. There was a separate subcategory for radio affiliates, but CFD explicitly established a consensus to replace that category with this list. And even if a category were permitted, categories and lists don't duplicate each other, per WP:CLN, because they organize and present the information in different ways. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as excessively narrow list; a category would be fine. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:OCAT, a category is not fine; radio stations are not categorized by individual syndicated programs that they carry because that would lead to extreme category bloat. CFD has a standing rule that any category of that type gets replaced by a list of this type. Bearcat (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTGUIDE. JamesBurns (talk) 01:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per Bearcat; this is a perfectly legitimate "See also" link from the main Coast to Coast AM article. Mlaffs (talk) 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems encylopedic to have a list of real-life information that could be useful. Category is not appropriate as some affiliates do not have articles (and don't warrant them). A radio program listing the stations that air it would be fine on the article on the programm, hence should also be fine as a seperate article if space considerations make that needed. List also allows extra info to be added, which might be useful in the future, Yobmod (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list created after previous discussion, categorizing by show is strongly deprecated, and how can a list of one kind of thing be "excessively narrow"? This list organizes data in a way no category can or should, allows listings for stations that do not or will not have independent articles, and while there is room for improvement in the list that's never a reason to call for its deletion (especially not twice in one day). - Dravecky (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Bearcat and Dravecky. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 21:48
Note: This debate has been included on User:Peephole/911TMCruft#Conspiracy_AfD.27s. Ikip (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. This list is not redundant to Category:Coast to Coast AM, as that category does not contain radio station articles, nor should it. A category for this is not fine per WP:OCAT. It's bad enough that people ignore WP:CLN in using the existence of categories as a reason to delete lists. But when the argument is used when the category was specifically deleted per a CFD discussion, which was clearly pointed out in the very first "keep" argument, it is very difficult to assume good faith. I also agree that this is not a "directory" in the sense that WP:NOT#DIR was meant to prohibit. DHowell (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as per editors above. The above Acronym soup sounds impressive, until editors actually read those sections, WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply, this list is not a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", neither does WP:NOTGUIDE. Ikip (talk) 04:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: As I said above, WP:NOTDIRECTORY is not just about "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics", it also clearly states Wikipedia isn't meant to be an "electronic program guide". Same question for all who think we should keep this: "do you think we should make these kinds of lists for every radio and TV show?" --Peephole (talk) 14:24, 5 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kapo-n! Hacchake Onsen Love-come[edit]

Unnotable short unlicensed manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources, no awards, no high sales, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching for sources is complicated by the fact that the article gets the title wrong. The official title really seems to be either Kapo~n (>_<)! or Kapo-n (>_<)! (かぽーん（＞＿＜）！) (see publisher's site), with Onsen Love Comedy being either the subtitle or tag line. Any way you spell it, though, I'm not finding much. That the original English scanlation group dropped it for lack of interest says a lot, though. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm finding in Japanese is sellers, some of whom have the drama CD -- the existence of which is the first indication of notability I've found. In English, there's scanlations generating even less buzz than ye average Sho-Comi series (and there's a lot of really average Sho-Comi series). Author is, as well, not notable, so there's no merge target. All that adds up to not meeting WP:BK = delete.

Arguments that the series is notable for having (one of) the first title with an emoticon in it will be met with a :-P —Quasirandom (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. No licensor in France & Germany KrebMarkt 07:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability shown above.Yobmod (talk) 15:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A general search for reliable sources isn't turning up anything substantial. All we can really do is write plot and character summaries, but that would be in violation of WP:NOT. --Farix (Talk) 23:50, 6 February 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. Needs cleanup and additional references, but DE references=OK (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CUTExGUY[edit]

Unnotable manga series. Completely fails WP:N with no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, no licensing, and no ANN entry. Nothing to merge to author's article as it already has the year/title. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, ANN entry. Also, licensed in German, so German review sources should also be checked. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird...when I searched it came back no results. Odd...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm betting it's because that's a times sign (×) and not the letter x. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, a quick search in German finds this PDF of a magazine issue (autotranslation), which includes a review of the German volume 3. My German's a bit rusty, but they look like a reliable source -- a legitamate online magazine that reviews novels and DVDs as well as manga. Will look for more later. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Searching in general for this series is wonky because of the whole times/x thing -- gotta search on both spellings, with and without spaces between. Oy. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review by AnimePro, the German equivalent of ANN. Also, it sells well -- for ex, volume 4 reached #8 on the Germany manga sales chart. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, the above were found without digging very hard. The series has gotten not much notice in English, but even without sifting through the other German hits, I'm convinced that the series passes WP:BK based on coverage in other languages. Keep and clean up, including incorporate German reception info. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~bows to superior German google-fu~ -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no excuse for my German being as rusty as it is. This is good practice. (I've now picked out that that earlier volumes sold well, but not as well as volume 4. Still, a definite hit, competing with all the usual shounen blockbusters.) —Quasirandom (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Anime News Network and other sites like it were invalid as references, since anyone can upload whatever information they want. And the German site is a blog isn't it? It isn't printed anywhere, since they don't sell subscriptions. Dream Focus (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANN is a reliable source (see the project page for the specifics on what parts can and can't be used but short answer is News and Reviews are considered completely usable, and core bits of the encyclopedia which are not user edited. ANN is industry recognized and a notable anime website. No idea on whether that site is a blog or really RS since I don't read German, but not being printed and not selling subscriptions is irrelevant. There are several RS newspapers and magazines that are purely online media. I know you don't care about those "silly" policies and guidelines, but if you read WP:RS it discusses the criteria for what is and what is not RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the editable parts of the encylopedia are vetted by a staff member, you can't simply change things on a whim - it has to be processed and checked where possible. I looked into it recently as some of their episode titles will need changing as official english language titles are released by people like Toei as previously unsubtitled shows get released on crunchyroll (Galaxy Express 999 and Space Pirate Captain Harlock spring to mind ) Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the two German reviews found by Quasirandom. While I really can't fully evaluate the reliability of the reviews, I rather side with caution. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are more reviews in the German g-hits, but I haven't had the time (darn that pesky real life thing) to evaluate their reliability so haven't brought them up here. I'm pretty sure some will be, though, amid the usual blog & forum posts. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:34, 7 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marija Jelizaveta Yusupova[edit]

The article is a likely hoax. It was created by User:Visa boscono, an editor who created Gabriel Constantin von Kasa-Hunyady (previously determined a hoax: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel Constantin von Kasa-Hunyady)—while Google and Google News find no results outside of Wikipedia. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hoax. Based on edit history of article creator, I suspect this is the same serial hoaxer I reported a month ago [4] only with a new nick and a new variable IP. Edward321 (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoaxalicious and block author per Edward321. Hoaxes should not be tolerated. JuJube (talk) 08:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a disruptive hoax. I'm reasonably familiar with the life of Felix Yusupov, and although his patronymic was Felixovich, I'm reasonably sure he did not in turn have a son called Felix Felixovich - or any son at all, in fact. This strongly suggests that the person who is the subject of this article does not, in any meaningful sense, exist. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:44, 3 February 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. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Chicken (bar)[edit]

No notability, no relevence, and almost no information of any sort, now that the unverifiable stuff has been deleted. There has also been absolutely no improvement, or apparent capacity for improvement, since the last cleanup. LSD (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable and not something to even merge to the CS article as it isn't a tax district or the like. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in agreement with the nominator. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article which uses Playboy magazine as a reference fails notability, I think. Not enough WP:RS --Artene50 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 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. If one wishes a userfication, a request can be left at my talk page. — Aitias // discussion 13:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Portland (2008 film)[edit]

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFF. I can't find any sources that show that it's in production and I also can't find significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 00:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
USERFY back to author. His article is a tad too soon, as even that poor ol' beaten up IMDB has it marked as pre-production 3 months ago. No prejudice toward returning it once filming has commenced and notability can be show. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't appear to be filming, fails WP:NFF. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or userfy if desired. Too early for an article, and may never exist, but work so far may be useful later.Yobmod (talk) 12:42, 4 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cara[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Does not meet WP:BIO standards. Content is not verifiable and may reflect original research.Geesbart (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bunch of mildly interesting career facts, with questionable verifiability (most or all are sourced to company/personal web pages or the subject's web site) do not add up to notability. --MCB (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claims in the article are not supported by the resources and links provided by editors with a vested interest in keeping the article. This article is over one year old and in this amount of time no one can provide reputable online or offline references to back up the presumed "facts" in this article about someone who is presumably so notable (and would therefore be "newsworthy", meaning that it should be very easy to find reputable publications mentioning this person)? What exactly is the difference between this article and a self-generated press release? This is the kind of situation (the prolonged tolerance of articles grossly lacking verifiability) that hurts Wikipedia's credibility tremendously. Please check the article's "Talk" page for a more thorough dissection of the resources cited in this article. I will quote this editing page again "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable".Geesbart (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as CV of non-notable person. Even if all of it becomes verified as true, this does not make the person notable unless sources discus him specifically.Yobmod (talk) 15:40, 4 February 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.

Ronald L. McDonald[edit]

The result was Delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

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

The result was Transwiki/merge. This is tricky. First, throw out the "it's not encyclopedic/its useful" arguments. There are valid concerns that it fails DICT (from my perspective, I believe they have provided adequate evidence of this), and it is an inherently subjective and worldview biased scope. The general kernel of distinction this list is based on *is* encyclopedic, but the presentation doesn't meet our criteria. To Wiktionary, or better served as a summarized part of a larger topic, I leave to editor discretion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article is not encyclopedic. The article is just a list. The list is subjective. There are no reliable sources for the article (Common words may be found in a dictionary, but even that isn't a reliable source for uncommon words. Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why I propose deletion

Firstly, modern British culture is to a large extent American culture. Of course there are many differences, but the movies are largely American, the TV shows are mainly American, the shoes are American, the soft drinks are American etc etc. Youth culture is particularly Americanized.

Secondly, there are always a lot more young people than old.

Thirdly, language changes very quickly, even within a generation let alone between generations.

Fourthly, language use differs widely between "speech communities" (A term used in Socio-Linguistics. Definitions of the boundaries of these include, but are certainly not exclusive to, age and region). [Part of Socio-Linguistics 101]

Because of all the above, there is no reliable source. Lists printed in books are necessarily out of date, no one person is representative of the language as a whole, and so there is no expert opinion. Only the negative is possible: "I know those words, I hear them often, so they are not uncommon (to my own Speech Community)." Or, much out of date, sources for the use of those terms in British books and/or British TV shows becomes available.

So,

The article is barely suitable for individual editing.
Consensus as to what *is* uncommon is never going to be reached.
Consensus as to what *isn't* uncommon is unlikely to be reached.
Where consensus is reached, the data will almost certainly be at least a generation and a half out of date.
Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And this page requires dictionary-level research.
A page for which individuals cannot hope to find anything close to up-to-date data has no place in an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia is not for keeping arbitrary lists with no basis in fact.
Hence this list is not informative.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability and verifiability can be established with dictionaries as reliable sources.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the points I made here a couple of nominations ago. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the nominator's points. Very subjective and not notable. Dalejenkins | 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (though I don't like disagreeing with S. Marshall!). I've read through all the other AfDs, besides the articles; some of those AfDs are more contentious than they should have been. I believe (as did many, many others before me) that this is not an encyclopedic list (and not just since maintenance is a drag) and might well find a place transwikied onto Wiktionary. I do believe that this kind of list is almost impossible to manage, but worse, the way I look at lists, they should be composed of entries that are individually notable (otherwise WP is a directory), and that can only happen on Wiktionary, since the entries are (for a large part, the most part) words that are in and of themselves not notable outside of a dictionary. No one in their right mind would deny that differences between AmE and BrE exist and are notable, but that is a matter to be dealt with on a higher level, in an article, not in a list, and that article exists: American and British English differences, with the associated Category:American and British English differences. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (though I often disagree with S. Marshall!) I agree with Marshall that this can be sourced; there have been reference books that "translate" American to English and vice-versa, in that it is a topic that people would consult a reference work for. I don't agree with the "it's subjective" argument that could be called the "define this, define that" school of thought (i.e., define "notable", define "widely used", etc.). Let's face, it Wikipedia is heavy on Brits and Yanks, and "en.wikipedia.org" is the English-language version of the encyclopedia where, regardless of what continent you're from, you'll encounter two versions of English. Our contributors don't have a consensus about whether they should write "humor" or "humour", and one can often tell the whether the writer is US or UK by what words are used in the article. Yes, we should strive to have a global outlook, but that doesn't mean that we have to apologize for having an article about American English and British English. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But dear Mandsford, the point I'm trying to make is that this is NOT "an article about American English and British English," as you called it--it's a list, not an article. The article already exists--this is at most an appendix, but really ought to be among other lists of words, such as found, well, on Wiktionary. While you say many a true and helpful thing, they're not to the point here. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is indeed not an article. As a list, it's even harder to maintain than a dictionary: it's a list of uncommon not common words. Those are the reasons I say it can't be reliably sourced. Nothing to do with pedantry re definition.Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I largely agree with Drmies, delete. If the only purpose of this article is to list words that happen to be Americanisms (or, weirdly, "American words" not used in the UK, as if those are the only two English dialectical regions), then it is nothing more than a dictionary. An aricle on the conceptual differences between the regions, even with ample examples, is fine, but a simple list of words specific to one dialect does not belong at Wikipedia. If I get a chance, I'll transwiki the article to Wiktionary, where I am an admin. Dmcdevit·t 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment. There's no need to transwiki the article to Wiktionary. On Wiktionary, words are appropriately defined and tagged at their respective entries, and lists of dialect-specific words can be automatically generated via categories. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- From a spelling point of view, there are only two dialects -- American and The Other Fifteen English-Speaking Countries. But I agree that spelling isn't everything and there would be a place for (for example) a List Of Words Not Commonly Used In Australia. -- I think "it's hard to maintain" is a rubbish reason for deletion, and untrue to boot when I have half a dozen sources on my bookshelves. But for me, the most important reason to keep lists like this is because we have policies like WP:ENGVAR that require editors to write in a dialect with which they're unfamiliar. So I feel that if the consensus is to delete this list from the main wikipedia space, it should be moved to a subpage of the WP:MOS.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While that's not precisely true about spelling (Canadian English differs from both British and American, for example), in any case the article at hand is a list of regionalisms, not a list of spelling variants. I sympathize with your point about WP:ENGVAR, but the mere fact that we have that rule does not mean we ought to be sticking non-encyclopedic content in the project. If someone needs to look up a word they are not familiar with, they should go to a dictionary, anyway (and not a manual of style). We even happen to have a dictionary handy, and one with a useful group of categories for all regional English words. Dmcdevit·t 09:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Impossible, not hard. But point taken re "rubbish reason". The other reasons I gave are plenty enough, but duly noted for the future with thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inherently POV; who is to decide whether the words are widely-used or not? Stifle (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is evidently encyclopaedic. As proof, please see the similar word list from the 1951 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica which I found in a minute of searching. There are numerous other sources for this and so the arguments above that the topic is subjective and impossible to maintain are clearly false. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A link to EB is not an argument in itself. Their standards are not ours. For example, you may not be aware, but it is common to find simple dictionary definitions as well: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Acatalepsy, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Accoutrement, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Accretion, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Ace. Dmcdevit·t 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so much making an argument as rebutting the argument of the nomination which starts by asserting "The article is not encyclopedic.". This assertion is clearly wrong. The rest of the nomination has a similar quality, making little reference to our standards. Your examples are likewise irrelevant since our article is not an entry of this sort. Here's another encyclopedia with a more relevant example. My opinion stands. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This vocabulary is not indiscriminately chosen, is all capable of proper citation and referencing, and reflects a notable aspect of Anglophone culture. Care should be taken to maintain a high standard of citation, and to prevent this becoming a mere colledtion of dictionary definitions. Moreover, I would comment that the remark by nominator Ddawkins63 that modern British culture is to a large extent American culture is substantially false, misleading, irrelevant to this discussion, and prejudicial to the conduct of the AfD. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I narrowly avoided taking umbrage at that myself, but it's not productive to raise it here.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information in this article is properly part of American and British English differences, but having a separate daughter article makes more sense. The parent article is more concerned with generalizations about the differences, not about specific words. The parent article has a section on Words mainly used in American English, which is short and cross-references this list; to delete the list article and pack all the specific differences into the parent article would make the parent article less valuable. The problem would be even worse if we were consistent and also deleted List of British words not widely used in the United States. JamesMLane t c 18:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why not delete nothing, but link to a Wiktionary appendix instead? It will be better maintained over there anyway. Dmcdevit·t 18:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (while for the moment I sit on the fence) - if this article is deleted, then List of British words not widely used in the United States must also go. These two articles need to be considered together. In favour of keeping them: There surely is a core of words that are distinctively American-and-not-British, and vice versa, and it is perfectly possible to back up a list of such words with reference to various sources. I utterly reject the nominator's ageist reasons for deleting, and the nonsense that British culture is American culture. And yet there are also reasons to delete: This pair of articles are extremely useful, utterly fascinating, and a great deal of work has gone into creating and maintaining them - but all our time would be better spent helping to improve the more general information at American and British English differences. The two lists are constantly liable to degrade into unreliable and misleading uselessness, attracting a fantastic quantity of original research and unfounded personal opinion. The problem is the list structure, which acts as an invitation to add "my two-cents-worth" or "my tuppence-worth". The more discursive article on American and British English differences is far more valuable. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The surprisingly-POV views expressed by Ddawkins73 can't detract from the point that, whilst Wikipedia articles should not simply comprise lists of facts (or assertions!), people nevertheless come here to be informed. By the very nature of this publication, not every article can be either exhaustive or even a proven fact. This is a valid article.Blitterbug (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page is not an article, it is a list. It is not an encyclopedic article. These are covered by WPs eg WP:NOTCATALOG. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

As for POV, let's use some common sense: I gave socio-linguistic reasons as to why there is no point looking for sources. To wit, linguistic researchers spend lots of resources, interviewing many subjects, to gather data that is far from exhaustive. There's POV and there's using knowledge to tell people not to make square wheels, or that building a jumbo jet requires expertise.

That's somewhat by the by, however. Ultimately, the relevant point is that if there were or are reliable sources that could be used, they would be dictionaries. wikipedia is not a dictionary.

WP:INTERESTING is overridden by "wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "What wikipedia is not", as per the Five Pillars. There are lots of interesting things on the web. Common sense, let alone WPs: Don't try to keep or include everything that may be interesting. The difference between an encyclopedic article and a list or a dictionary entry is that an encyclopedia article tries to encompass the topic. It gives information in a context whereby the reader can make general inferences. If our heads were a bunch of lists rather than general rules and examples, we would be incapable of learning. An encylopedia is a learning tool, it is educational. WP - wikipedia is not a repository of information. What do you think the WPs exist for? "wikipedia is an encyclopedia". If you can't find WPs to support that (you can), then it is IAR anyhow. Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the nominators reasons:
- "not suitable for individual editing" whatever it means, does not seem reason for deletion. And why isn't it suitable?
- "consensus as to what is uncommon" is difficult.--That's for the talk p. of the article.
- "consensus as to what isn't uncommon" is difficult --also for the article talk p.
- "the data will inevitable be a generation and a half out of date" -- but even if this were so, what of it? We carry historical topics also.
- "not dictionary", the functions overlap--articles with encyclopedic information about words are suitable for both.
- "individuals wont find up to date data" but WP is not a textbook, this is not the place to learn the idiom of the language.
- "arbitrary list with no basis in fact" there are many potential references--people have been writing books and articles on this subject since at least Noah Webster.
- "therefore not informative" -- but it gives the information it says it does.

therefore, no valid reason given for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re point on "barely suitable for individual editing" - What I mean is, for the reasons given in the nom, no one individual :::knows. I concede this comes down to the fact that an individual shouldn't add anything without sources. So the issue here is :::Reliable Sources and using them.

re point on "The data will inevitably be a generation and a half out of date" - Wikipedia does carry historical topics, but then :::the name of the article should be changed. eg to "Historical list of American words supposedly uncommon in the UK, as per :::wikipedia Feb 2009"

Which makes it spurious. And so strong candidate for deletion.

re point on "not dictionary" - Granted, but this isn't an article describing the current state of human knowledge concerning :::UK-US word usage. I'm not putting anything like that up for deletion. This page is purely a dictionary effort.

"it gives the information it says it does" - Well, no, it doesn't. It gives unsourced incorrect information.

Response to all - I concede that lack of sources is not reason to delete the whole page. However, I will note that unsourced entries should be aggressively deleted. Which leaves "AMBER alert", which I'm pretty sure is out of date.

Who is going to go through and check the sources, every time either one of a reputable new US or UK dictionary comes out? The thing with dictionaries is that they are highly unstable sources.

The only alternative is a dictionary of US words which are uncommon in the UK.

If such a source is found then delete/keep rests on "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" alone.

As the sources are highly unstable, if the page were kept it must have, in order to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia, "All words verified as of [Date]" at the top of the page. And that must be true.

Otherwise wikipedia is peddling unverified information.

Simply put, maintaining this page, unless a "dictionary of US words which are uncommon in the UK" exists, is beyond the scope of wikipedia. The pace at which language changes it would be like maintaining a fortnightly weather report: The knowledge gained is not in the least sense enduring, so is of trivial value as encyclopedic knowledge.

If not one single reliable source exists then the IAR is that this page necessarily degrades the accuracy of wikipedia. That's not POV, it's common sense based on knowledge of linguistic change: We are going through a similar rate of change to that of England during the Renaissance. This is in basic Linguistics course books. Other than the Norman Invasion, British English is changing as fast now as it has ever done. Not all of that, but a significant part of it, is down to globalization. Look, even the OED team can't keep up: [[5]]

I appeal to common sense: wikipedia cannot maintain US-UK dictionary pages. It isn't set up to do it.

I would update the page myself now, removing the unsourced words, but it would be regarded as uncivil, since there would only be one entry left. I should overrule that on the basis of the WPs re reliable sources, but I will at least wait until the deletion issue is resolved.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "widely used" is wholly subjective, and the list is unsourced. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as simply too subjective and often wrong. A similar article with sources would be useful, and there is nothing wrong with sourced lists, but this is not that article. Starting from scratch (in userspace?) is preferable to keeping a page of 99.9% OR.Yobmod (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (still fence-sitting) - There are clearly words that are distinctively American rather than British, such as elevator and faucet, and distinctively American variants, like airplane. Maybe this is a historical fact rather than a reflection of all current usage, and there is more mixing and cross-fertilisation today, but it is nonetheless a fact, and is surely worth documenting. Edits like this one do not help at all, merely imposing one editor's impression, based on no adequate data, on the article. If that sort of biased opinion-pushing is what the article is doomed to suffer, then we'd best delete. But I still think there is a core of well-sourced (or sourceable) matter here. Still unsure. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is worth documenting, I agree. Has a natural link to a discursive article too. The scope and subjectivity (and verifiability) of "words not widely used" is something completely different, though. Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that an article discussing the differences is useful (and surely already exists?), just an unsourced list is not.

How is adding fact tags not useful? I am from the UK and dispute that the words i tagged are not widely used. "Adequate data" should be provided by whoever added it. It is not POv pushing to challenge original research to be verifed with sources. I am from the UK and say "Lift", but i also would say "elevator music" and have read Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, a famous book by a famous Welsh author. Is wales no longer in the UK? Saying "elevator" is not used is simply subjective and demonstrably untrue, unless sources can be found for the "not widely" part. Yobmod (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - in essence the page is unsourced, inaccurate, original research. As it is this list could not be cleaned up, it would have to be started again from scratch even if a suitable article on the topic could be possible. There are so many problems it is difficult to list them all. For a start most of the items listed are not even words, if you can list something like AMBER Alert you might as well list University of Virginia. On top of that a lot of the words listed are widely used in the UK due to the expanding influence of American culture. More than any of these problems with the content I think the underlying principle of Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies. American and British English spelling differences treats the subject matter in an encyclopaedic fashion, currently the only salvageable (and sourcable) items on this list would be "translations" from US to UK English. Are we going to have lists translations between English and other languages? Or between the different dialects of Chinese and Portuguese? I do not believe that such lists are the function of Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Merge to Differences between American and British English (vocabulary), User:JackLumber makes a good point about my mixing up of vocabulary and spelling but I don't see there being enough appropriate entries on the list justify a standalone articles. If a list like this is to exist all entries should be sourced before inclusion or it will descend into the kind of mess we have here. Guest9999 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. The article we're talking about is about vocabulary; American and British English spelling differences is about spelling. If this article is deleted, we're going to have to start all over again and take a different approach to the subject matter, i.e. American and British English vocabulary differences, which by the way is intrinsically encyclopedic, since countless books have been written about it. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Encyclopaedic, and in fact surprisingly useful. And entirely suited to collaborative editing. We have lots of list articles, and this one is well worth keeping. Jheald (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I reject the nominator's implication that there are no differences between British English and American English vocabulary. There are real differences, and there is a subject here that needs an article - but the problem is the list structure. Put the effort into a thoroughly encyclopaedic, sourceable and useful article on American and British English vocabulary differences instead, per JackLumber. And we must also delete List of British words not widely used in the United States. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 23:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Nominator doesn't contend there are no differences. Nominator wouldn't contend such patent nonsense. Nominator contends there are no reliable sources for such a subjective list as "words not widely used".

Helpful Suggestion - Delete this list. I will start a new one (or revise it, if one already exists) on "Variation between British English and American English", containing the proper provisos and accurate characterization, thoroughly sourced from reliable texts, with evidence for regional variation. The nature of this evidence being etymological and extensive field-study research.

How's that? Can people please reconsider in the light of this?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep developments in the English language including its divergence across the pond is encyclopedic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. The topic is encyclopedic, no doubt about that. It's just that the article doesn't work; it just doesn't serve the purpose. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The topic is clearly "encyclopedic", as its appearance in traditional encyclopedias attest to. There are reliable sources documenting this, therefore it doesn't take original research to create a list such as this. If there are specific items not supported by reliable sources, that is solved by editing, not by deleting the whole list. Finally, if you think the subject is better covered in an article called "Variation between British English and American English", then that is a rationale for a merge, not deletion, and it should be discussed on appropriate article talk pages. All other concerns have been adequately addressed by the "keep" arguments above. DHowell (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 1951 EB notwithstanding, unsourceable hearsay is unencyclopedic in 2009. Nominator still contends there are no reliable sources for "words not widely used" and wishes people would stop saying there are without providing those sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Here's a source for some words. Here's another. Here's one from the LA Times. This New York Times article from 1956 has many examples of both American words and British words which were relatively unknown across the pond back then. (I realize these last two articles are pay-per-view, but if you have a library card, you can probably find access to them for free). And don't you think the Encyclopaedia Britannica itself is a reliable source? Yes some of those articles are old, but an encyclopedia should cover topics in a historical as well as in a present sense. And have you checked to see if a newer edition of EB has a similar list that is more up-to-date? DHowell (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree it should cover topics in a historical sense. Hence: page name "list of words not widely used" (implying "now") is misleading, it should be made clear that the sense is historical, the entries are unsourced. Also why I ended up writing a new page as an article which makes all those things clear.

I do recognize the historical fact of two separate dialects, funnily enough. I even recognize two dialects today, now! Proposal says "Of course there are many differences..."

Existence of different dialects is not disputed. The point re Americanization of BrE was an effort to point out the futility of trying to maintain a list of what words BrE users don't widely use.

I'm not going to labour that point. Simply, whatever the topic, unsourced material shouldn't be added or deletions of unsourced material reverted. Concentrating on the non-authority of individual "common" knowledge on the matter, while a genuinely sensible reason to delete (we can't hope to independently teach all editors that is a matter of Linguistic analysis, i.e sources), has just inflamed the issue, so I'll move on.

I haven't checked the EB, no. Are you telling me or asking?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Page - I have created a page for Differences between American and British English (vocabulary). Category : Linguistics. There is a word list on the page.

Differences between American and British English can link to that. Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- You don't need to go through the AfD process to do that. What'll happen is, the closing admin for this AfD will decide that it's a "keep" or a "no consensus" (which is a de facto keep) and close the debate. But afterwards you can just make whatever changes you want to to the new page and redirect the old one to it on your own authority (WP:BRD). AfD's only for when you want a discussion about whether the article should be deleted, you don't need it for a merge.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I'm confused. I wasn't planning to write a whole new page myself when I started the AfD process, and a major problem with the page up for deletion is the name. Could I have renamed it myself? Either way, the inaccurate page up for deletion should be redundant now.

I wrote the page because, if a list of vocab differences is wanted (and Jack Lumber wants it, for one - for a legitimate reason), that's how it should be. Sourced and with provisos - and no subjective nonsense like "not widely used". Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We actually need more than just one or more lists of words. More often than not, different words or usages cannot be simply pigeonholed or compartmentalized. Way back when, I did try to figure out a different approach: See User:JackLumber/The Sucker. We can use that as a starting point, or a stepping stone. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't try to re-name the page, I'd simply create a page with the new name and redirect the old one to the new one. You can do that without invokin g AfD. AfD is really for when (a) the material needs to be deleted rather than moved (e.g. attack pages, content that fails a core policy like WP:N or WP:V, etc.) and (b) you've tried a ((subst:prod|reason)) or similar and the prod is removed or contested.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can work together on this, Jack. Obviously I've got an interest in tidying up the lexis section of your page now (It's not yours, but you know what I mean). Anyway, shall we take this part of the discussion to Talk on the AmE/BrE Differences page? ('san edit: I read "can use as a stepping stone" as "can't"- if anyone read the first version) Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content on "my" page can be properly sourced (see also under "References" at the bottom of the page); some example footnotes are already in place. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only mentioned that page as in "what shall we do about the 'see also' link to the AfD'd article?" Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the key issue here is, if we are to work on a new article on vocabulary, what are we going to do with List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom and its siblings, i.e. List of British words not widely used in the United States and List of words having different meanings in British and American English? These three articles originated as spinoffs of American and British English differences--the main article in our little series--and were supposed to cover the whole vocabulary topic. However, this approach was flawed from the very beginning, as I showed when I nominated the threesome for deletion for the first time (see the relevant link at the top of this page). And, since this is not the first time we are discussing this, it may be helpful to review some past discussions here. I'm Jack^(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:53, 6 February 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. Tracklist valid, needs more refs, album to be released this month so all should be proven (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despues de Todo[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL violation. Only reliable source I could find was this, and it doesn't mention tracklists or release dates. Everything else appears to have been constructed from blogs. —Kww(talk) 20:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A reliable source for the tracklisting and title has been found. I will contact the sole delete voter and ask him to withdraw, and then withdraw the AFD.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CBALL --Artene50 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Merge or userfy If sources cannot be found, userfy to creator's user page, so when album is released, editors don't have to reinvent the wheel. If sources can be found (all I can find are in spanish, keep.[6] Ikip (talk) 14:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that none of the information in the article is derived from a reliable source, what will merging accomplish? You are right that all the sources are in Spanish, but that isn't a problem ... if there was reliable information to be derived from them, the translation isn't an issue. The problem is that a Spanish blog is still a blog, and a Spanish fansite is still a fansite.—Kww(talk) 14:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the information was not from a reliable source? Have you spoken with Theco0lezt, the creator of the article. Actually the article is very specific? Maybe the limits of our Spanish ability makes it hard to find sources. This page is hardly a blog or fansite, it is lacking sources, which can be remedied, but all of the necessary formatting is there to make it look like an encyclopedic article. That is why I suggest merging. Ikip (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read Spanish pretty well, actually ... I have to deal with Spanish and Papiamentu (a Portuguese/Dutch/West African creole with a lot of similarities to Spanish) every day of my life. This article is a very typical WP:CRYSTAL violating article ... not about something that is false, but about something that there isn't enough detailed information to base an article on yet. These articles are routinely deleted every day, and kept once WP:HAMMER is satisfied: Title, release date, and tracklist.—Kww(talk) 16:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note ~~the name of the fifth album is "Para Olvidarte De Mí" (To Forget Me) not "Despues de Todo" ("After All" in spanish).~~ Ikip (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the name of the first single from the album, not the album.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the clarification. Ikip (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. That it is a non-English release doesn't mean it should not be held to the same standards as US albums, articles for which should not be created if no reliable sources to make a decent stub exist. Userfying seems to now be the standard approach to these crystall balled things.Yobmod (talk) 07:45, 5 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

XManager[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Contested PROD, Non-notable software, Searched for references on google and could not find any reliable sources. The only information I could find is from the developer (which the text in the first paragraph is almost the same as the what the developer has on webpage) and an entry on Microsoft saying it is compatible with Windows and finally download sites. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure whether this article should be kept or not, but whatever happens to this one, I think we should have a List of X Window System implementations for Microsoft Windows, which would feature this software along with a few others (including some we have articles for and some we don't). JulesH (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete X manager is a generic term in X. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've been using X11 systems since X11R5, and haven't come across the term "X manager" before. Even if this were true, I'm not sure why it would have any effect on whether we should have an article about this specific item of software that uses the name. JulesH (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Fails WP:V. -Atmoz (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Anaxial (talk) 17:00, 6 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attribute sequence[edit]

No context given, no references, definition does not appear to match article title. ←Spidern → 19:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Without understanding of the context of this definition, it's very hard to see whether it's important or not. Unfortunately, the words "attribute" and "sequence" are commonly used together in certain applications, so it's very hard to find sources relating to this. However, in regards to the nominator's comment "definition does not appear to match article title" I note that the article contains two definitions, the first one is apparently a subordinate definition to allow the reader to understand the second one, which is of an "attribute sequence". It may be that this usage of the term is unique to the theorem prover linked in the 'see also' section, at which point a merge would be appropriate. But I see no easy way of finding out. JulesH (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - However, I suggest notifying the author if possible. They may be able to provide context. At the moment it isn't clear what this refers to. Is it used in mathematics, linguistics (not that I know of), or even economics or biology? Or what? Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notified the page creator upon starting the AfD. It was an IP editor, so I doubt we'll get a response. ←Spidern → 23:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--there is no meaning outside of context. Drmies (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The context would appear to be supplied by the "see also" and external links - this is something that CARINE does. If CARINE is notable (which I very much doubt) then the article on it would seem to have enough room for this content, so merge. Otherwise delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this would appear to be somehow related to automated theorem proving, but provides absolutely no context whatsoever. -- Whpq (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless the author (or someone else) can provide a context to explain what the article is about. Anaxial (talk) 16:52, 6 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Marin School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Marin School

Page is continually vandalized with disparaging and unencyclopedic content, recently of a sexual nature by anonymous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs)

Keep. If the page is vandalized by anonymous users, consider asking for semiprotection at WP:AN/I. The school appears to be notabe to me (assuming at least that this article is about the same school), and therefore we should have an article about it. JulesH (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@JulesH - different school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs) 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Do not nominate an article for deletion because it is being vandalized. That's like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and simply encourages vandalism further." (WP:VAN) Ka renjc 21:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@all - folks, I've spent the last two years responding to vandalism on this article and I see that volunteers from the wikipedia community have actually reverted a lot more than even I have. Our organization sufferes damage, and our time is wasted every time the article is defaced.

Wikipedia frankly is not meeting it's directive if it can not protect the encylopedic and verifiable content on it's articles. Follow the history, since 2006 the Wikipedia community has failed to promote fact and neutrality on this article.

The article serves no real purpose to an audience at large and even the "encyclopedic" content in the article has NEVER been verified by citation to reference or sources. With no broad, intrinsic value this article only serves as a target by which to harm it's subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep vandalism is not solved by deletion of notable content. The article should be improved and perhaps protected. The current community consensus is that all high schools are notable. After looking into this a bit, it seems as if the nominator here is a one-issue account that has been trying to control the content on this particular article since ~~Summer~~ February 2008. I don't know anything about the disputes on content, but it should not be up to a school administrator to decide to remove an article because they do not have the last say on content. SMSpivey (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment also, the nom should keep in mind that many high school pages are vandalized by anonymous IP addresses because they are targets of disruptive high schoolers. Such disruption can be and is easily spotted and dealt with by Wikipedia editors (as you said, even "volunteers" from Wikipedia have been reverting vandalism). SMSpivey (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite even the volunteers' best efforts, we are frequently made aware fo vandalism by community members and prospective students. And volunteer Renaissancee

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Renaissancee) passed over a reference to "cutty bobs" (see The Urban Dictionary for a definition) so that now this school is the number one association with "cutty bobs" if one does a search for "cutty bobs" in Wikipedia.

That association will pass, but as Wikipedia grows as a "trusted source" it needs to consider the damage to it's subjects' reputations if their articles can't be protected. We are a private school, so we have undoubtedly suffered financial damage when prospective families researching our school have been confronted with "harmless" jokes about sex and drugs, or angrey tirades full of fallacies from disgruntled students.

>>”The current community consensus is that all high schools are notable." I can't honestly see what makes high schools notable. Is there a community discussion around this somewhere? But if there must be an article, it should contain only FACTS: name, location, enrolment, public/private, tuition, leadership, etc.

- note after looking at Urban Dictionary: a "cutty" is a "female vagina." You learn something new every day. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article can easily be protected from anonymous IP addresses through semiprotection at WP:AN/I. I never said these were harmless jokes, I said they were easily-corrected vandalism. Wikipedia is very conscious of potential damage to living persons, etc that comes from vandals. This is why ANI protection exists. It is also why we require references for articles. However, the lack of references on a notable subject is also not a legitimate reason for deletion. There is no specific policy or guideline on Wikipedia that concerns high schools. However, community consensus on notability has been built through multiple AfD discussions about various high schools, middle schools, primary schools, and school systems. This consensus (as of right now) is that the vast majority of high schools and school systems are notable while most middle and primary schools are not.SMSpivey (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High schools are not inherently notable. School fails WP:V and WP:N. No reliable, third-party sources can be found for this topic. -Atmoz (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:AN/I - This does not seem easy to me. Would one of you mind reporting this in the proper channel? Also, last year much of the vadalism was from named users! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing I briefly searched for sources on the school and found two here: one about a graduate and the school's climate and another mentioning a national merit finalist from the school. I'll go find some more. SMSpivey (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @ SOURCING (From the Notability guidelines.)

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbernardini (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - first of all the nomination contains no policy grounds for deletion. Secondly, this is not only a high school but searches on both the present and past title throw up enough sources to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We can and do deal with vandalism other than by deleting articles. Otherwise not only would we have no articles on schools, but on politicians and movie stars. High schools have always proven to have sourcing when investigated sufficiently,so the convention that its easier to keep them than argue should be maintained. DGG (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepVandalism is like "graffitti"...We don't remove the garage door because the local gangs continue to tag it! We remove the graffitti and remain vigilant for future acts of foolishness. Also, the article has been improved and copy edited since the initial request for deletion.--Buster7 (talk) 07:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here's plenty of refs from San Francisco Chronicle and the Marin Independent Journal. I'm sure there are plenty more. IMHO, the best way to curb vandalism here is to start devoting energy to NPOV writing and sourcing every sentence. In that way vandalism will be less fun and more easily spotted/reverted. This is a short article so several hours will do a world of good. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand and source. Maybe semi-protect? And to the nom, vandalism is the bane of wiki and is dealt with in ways other than deleting articles that draw such attention. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:02, 5 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sodukku[edit]

Per WP:DIC, unverifiable term, no sources, poorly written. PROD contested by article creator without reason. Jpeeling (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the author can provide sources, the entry could be added to the main gully cricket page anyhow. Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable gully cricket term. [7] There are no third-party reliable sources which verify this article. -Atmoz (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced, looks like something someone just made up. Edward321 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's not verifiable, let's make this an "all out" effort to delete it. Might be an unlikely redirect to Sudoku for someone unsure how to spell the game where you put numbers in squares. Mandsford (talk) 02:32, 3 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Trading[edit]

Blatant advertising, WP:CSD#G11 Spam Articles. Multiple Articles created as a marketing blitz, by WP:SPA PR account (user Consultright) with no other edits other than to seed wikipedia with articles related to Euromoney Institutional Investor, PLC.
I am also nominating the Additional Spam Journals Created by this users marketing blitz:

This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Euromoney_Institutional_Investor_PLC._Spam_abuse_2
Seems to be nothing more than clear cut abuse of Wikipedia for Self-promotion and product placement. wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising. Hu12 (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as yucky, mucky spam and ban the editor in question for using WP for advertising; if possible, ban him into a doorknob. Ironholds (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... it's not that simple. Google News finds legitimate citations (some better than others) from and references to The Journal of Wealth Management (Google search delivers, for instance, [8], [9], [10]) and The Journal of Trading (Google search finds, for instance, [11] and [12]), and I think we should keep those. Also a keep is Journal of Investing, see [13], a couple of good hits in the first 30 hits, and Journal of Fixed Income--a few hits, not totally impressive, but passable. Journal of Portfolio Management has been around for a long time and has received extensive citation in the NY Times, Washington Post, etc.--see this, so keep also. Nothing of note for the Journal of Structured Finance, nor for the Journal of Private Equity, so those can be deleted as far as I'm concerned. I agree that the tone of some of the entries is spammy, but that's a matter of editing, and I have a very blunt axe with which I am more than willing to do that. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my final assessment:

Journal of Trading - keep
Journal of Wealth Management - keep
Journal of Structured Finance - delete
Journal of Private Equity - delete
Journal of Investing - keep
Journal of Fixed Income - keep
Journal of Portfolio Management - keep Drmies (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- BTW, Hu12, I looked at the spam case, and I won't deny that you have a point; still, I'm at least in part in agreement with DGG, whose point (on the user's talk page) I interpret to be that spammers can produce steak also, if you'll pardon the stretched metaphor. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least some of them. Two reasons: first, I agree with Drmies, who's talking sense as usual, and second, I'm reluctant to endorse deletions of articles about specialist journals in any case. These journals could well be future reliable sources for other articles and Wikipedia should know about them. (I'd like to see a guideline, eventually, that there should be a presumption to keep articles about verifiable, specialist trade and academic journals.)--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a good idea--given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Black Psychology, for instance, which you witnessed closely also. My personal guideline is that the title of an academic journal ought to show up in Google Books, in some sort of relevant and notable form/citation; for this kind of trade journal, if some journal or article (esp. an editorial, such as one of the examples I found, above) is referenced in for instance the Washington Post, then that's notable. Esp. the suggestion of a 'presumption of notability' is well taken, S Marshall. Journals can't be speedied, can they? Drmies (talk) 15:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take that tangent to Drmies' talk page--it's well worth pursuing but here isn't the place. Sorry for the digression. --S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa. Drmies (talk) 15:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. The nominator has only made ad hominem arguments, without stating any valid reason for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep COI is not reason for deletion. I am slowly working through them properly. The first two I checked were clearly notable, and as for the others, if they';re not, I'll renominate them. There is a general point here.: many publishers have added articles on their journals. Many companies on their products. If they do it right, they can help build valid content. Sometimes they don't add the right content, and it needs to be fixed--this contributor came near, except he thought the list of all the editorial board would help the articles, and it doesn't. Sometimes they add total junk, and then we throw it out, no one faster than myself, but in general all peer reviewed journals that show up significantly in libraries and citations are appropriate for Wikipedia. These are however not exactly peer-reviewed academic journals in the usual sense, but practitioner oriented journals, a sort of cross between the ordinary journal and the professional magazine--this makes the citation criteria a little trickier. The best guide for dealing with this question in general is Durova's Business FAQ (which also applies to non-profit organisations). I have as little tolerance for spam as the nominator. I have almost as many unjustified complaints as he about what I've speedy deleted as G11. I've even had a few justified ones, where I've judged by the apparent nature of the contributor and not taken adequate account of whether there is an article behind the verbiage. I'm not criticizing him about this--I support his work, except when he gets too enthusiastic. I understand, though, why one would--I find that looking at newpages excessively or screening specifically for spam gets me also too enthusiastic a deletor. However, I do have a complaint about the nomination: I alerted Hu on his talk p. that I was working on these, and asked him to give me some time to fix the remaining articles, but instead he nominated them for deletion a few hours later & without notifying me. That's his right, but I would not treat him that way. DGG (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within minutes of these initialy being deleted, you pounced on the deleting Admin to undelete by using your standard "overenthusiastic" rhetoric^[14] (as above), and only upon his insistance did you notify on my talk page. While there are many, many things you and I agree on, it saddens me that you consistently choose to focus on the percieved differences. I digress. Wikipedia is not a junkyard for unverifiable, and unsourced "Journal" Spam. If you plan to work on these, perhaps your userspace is a more appropriate place for these.--Hu12 (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. --Crusio (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Such obvious abuse and exploitation of Wikipedia as illustrated on this large of a scale is in direct conflict of our Wikipedia:Five pillars and is subject to deletion as Blatant advertising. Euromoney Institutional Investor, PLC is using Wikipedia for Self-promotion and an an advertising platform. This entirely undermines wikipedias neutral point of view and suggesting that such non-organically created articles be kept damages the credibility and future success of Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The solution to any non-NPOV content is to edit articles to make them neutral, not, if they are about notable subjects, to delete the articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree when they are legitimate articles, however there is little evidence these journals are notable (other than a sockpuppet PR marketing account claiming they are).--Hu12 (talk) 21:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree--there is evidence for a number of these journals that they are notable, as I've suggested above in some detail. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The publisher, EII, is making up for our deficiencies. At least some of these journals are notable. There are thousands of notable peer-reviewed journals not yet in WP, and we need some help. Similar is true in most fields of serious (albeit commercial) endeavor. Only in popular culture and computers and a few things where there are hobbyists do we even come to half the number of articles we need. Yes, we must review the articles they or any other involved person submit. Obviously we will remove true spam, as when they start introducing external references to their stuff in all sorts of places (which this company has not done, though other publishers have; banning them stops them temporarily, but the way of stopping them permanently is to speak to someone there with enough authority.) There are much worse than this. For a journal to be present in hundreds of libraries is notable. Articles about notable products are not spam. They often contain spam, which can be removed. Spam and COI are never reasons for nominating for deletion, The intent for which an article is submitted is not relevant. We assume good faith--even with people who are paid money for what they do here.DGG (talk) 22:57, 4 February 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 based on Michig's extensive list of sources that confirms notability. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iestyn Edwards[edit]

Non-notable subject, written by subject. Iestyn Edwards appears to be a real performer who has insufficient notability for an article. Google shows only fleeting reliable references to performer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tznkai (talk • contribs)

Strong and obvious Keep. See these: [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and see WP:BEFORE. "Fleeting reliable references"? Don't think so. Article has issues, but there's no reason for deletion.--Michig (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the second one somehow - but my point I couldn't find substance beyond "There is a guy called Iestyn Edwards who has an act called Galina Ballerina, and its a big hit with overseas British troops." If you can rescue it, go for it.--Tznkai (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is clear given the amount of coverage he's had in reliable sources, not to mention his national TV and radio shows. I have already added sources to the article. What else is needed?--Michig (talk) 17:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously from the sources above. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I just looked at the first three sources provided by User:Michig, and they very clearly establish notability to the point that I didn't even bother looking at the rest of the sources provided. -- Whpq (talk) 14:24, 5 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jiang Li[edit]

Is this musician sufficiently notable? Nothing in the article showed as such, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: You do mean "sufficiently notable" outside of subject's community? Don't think that applies to the Internet, you should be basing any move to delete on reviews. Ottre 18:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:MUSIC. I don't think he fits. --Nlu (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. The only reliable, third-party, source I found was this one, but it's trivial. The only sources I could find to back up his claims were off his own site. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant independent 3rd party notability WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:57, 4 February 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. Interpol and validly-published book are clearcut keeps (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David "Race" Bannon[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/David "Race" Bannon

Delete. Sorry but I can't find anything to suggest that this person is notable per our own lax WP:BIO standards. This should be roundhouse, I mean round filed along with the Ashida Kim article. JBsupreme (talk) 15:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small-time crook with a big-time imagination. nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If Publishers Weekly decides to review someone's book, it's not something minor and all the other stuff is required, otherwise his book is left in a vacuum with no context. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has been arrested for potentially felonious misconduct, published a book through a reputable press, been reported upon by a reputable journalistic source, and is a notable figure in the martial arts community. --Scb steve (talk) 14:44, 3 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 13:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grha Widya Maranatha (Maranatha Christian University)[edit]

Non-notable lecture building at Maranatha Christian University. Jac16888 ^Talk 16:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The article doesn't even claim notability—it's just a building, at a university. 75% of the article talks about what the university does, not about the subject of the article. And it's written in Indonesian. TheFeds 00:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article is not in English. Based on a machine translation, the article does not assert notabilty for the building. It states that it is a lecture hall int he first sentence. And then rest of the article is not even about the lecture hall. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 5 February 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. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hunter Campbell[edit]

Delete: Only cited claim of notability is an at-one-time "record" (in 2006) of being the "youngest private art gallery owner" in the United States, which would be hard to actually verify. Plastikspork (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What do you mean "hard to verify"? You're getting the reference handed to you on a silver platter. Unless you have good reason to believe it's not accurate, you shouldn't dismiss an offline source, and if you do have good reason, you still need the proof. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reference is to "Ladue News Magazine, December 2006", is somewhat vague, considering the publication has 5 issues for December. I am in the process of trying to verify it, since thus far the only hit for "youngest private art gallery owner" is the Wikipedia article. With or without verification of the claim, it still doesn't seem like there are enough notable accomplishments (in my opinion) to establish notability, as this is the only accomplishment listed. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By the way, it is online, if you want to try to find the article and fix the reference: Ladue News 2006 Archive. Finding information in not trivial, as it's scanned page images, but I'm looking. I wouldn't call that a "silver platter". Plastikspork (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion yet on the disposition of this article, but I would point out that "youngest private art gallery owner" is a pretty meaningless statement. Are we really supposed to believe that anyone keeps track of the ages of all gallery owners? And how do we define a "private art gallery"? What about a talented kid who invites people to his home to look at his paintings? Doesn't that make his room a "private art gallery"? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It does, so that claim to notability is bogus. Why "youngest", not "closest to 30, without going over" like the price is right, or any other piece o' trivia published in some obscure magazine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 17:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even assuming the art gallery claim is verifiably true, non-notable. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single listed achievement (youngest private art gallery owner) is neither verifiable nor really all that notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:25, 2 February 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. Article is sourced, nom seems a little WP:POINTy. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Game (mind game)[edit]

Just because there are references doesn't mean the game is notable. I definitely think that it is a deltion policy violation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipotassitrimanganate (talk • contribs)

Keep. I think you're going to need a more specific deletion rationale to counter the arguments made at the last Deletion review for the article. My keep is per the arguments there. --Maxa megalon 2000 16:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Lots of people I know (including myself, thanks for making me lose;)) play this game, and and it is clearly notable. Jonathan321 (talk) 16:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established via the multiple reliable sources in the article. The nomination seems rather WP:IDONTLIKEITish. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to comfortably fulfil even a strict interpretation of our notability requirements. Substantial coverage in at least four major reliable-source newspapers seems ample, and the demonstrable pervasiveness of this game in youth culture certainly implies that our notability standards are doing their job well. I'd appreciate some elaboration from the nominator on what problems they see with this article's inclusion in the encyclopedia. ~ mazca ^t|c 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable cultural phenomenon. Last deletion review showed an overwhelming consensus to allow this article to exist, and I see no evidence that consensus has changed in the intervening 9 months. JulesH (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Agree that the nom smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:24, 2 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 00:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Gene Ware[edit]

Vanity autobiographical article. CSD#A7 was removed by another "new user". Lack of WP:RS refs and no ghits. Triwbe (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Triwbe (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to find any reliable sources to establish notability. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No verifiable sources. Publications listed refer to anthologies which cannot be verified to actually contain any writing by this author, and even if they do, they would not establish notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:36, 2 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da'Sean Butler[edit]

There is no notability for this athlete. The article's creator has a habit of creating lots of borderline-notable WVU athletes. I do not believe this guy is notable. If the article's description of the guy is a bunch of single-game descriptions, he is not notable. His stats were 12 points and 6 rebounds per game. Absolutely non-notable. Timneu22 (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets the basic criteria for WP:BIO. Butler is the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be anything particularly notable about this basketball player. Wizardman 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is that in your opinion or based on Wikipedia policy? 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 (from WP:BIO). Now see this [28] LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added a few references, if you want more there are several hundred here. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per LinguistAtLarge pointing out the large amount of hits, clearly passes WP:ATHLETE.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, it doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as far as I can tell, since he is a college player. But it does met WP:BIO by establishing notability via independent, reliable sources. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 23:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Looks like it now has plenty of sources to establish notability. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:01, 6 February 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. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hamnet Shakespeare[edit]

Procedural nomination. Was recently listed as a good article, but there's been some discussion as to whether the topic is notable for a stand alone article. I cast no !vote at the present time, but I'm leaning towards keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep- certainly looks like there's enough for a stand-alone article to me. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some people are notable only on account of their family connections, and Shakespeare's 11 year old son is one of them. I think there ought to be a per se rule: if you died more than 200 years ago, and your name is remembered well enough for there to be material for an article about you, you are notable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with William Shakespeare. Notability is not inherited. The example of Charles, Prince of Wales is a poor comparison with a subject about whom so little is known and will never be known. There may sufficient material available to refocus this article as an account of the speculation surrounding Hamnet's influence on his father over the naming of Hamlet, for instance, but it certainly does not stand up as a biography of a notable person. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Scholarly discussion of Hamnet Shakespeare is longstanding. By any normal standard, he is unquestionably notable. John M Baker (talk) 15:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep (procedural nom with no delete votes, per WP:SK #1)—Shakespeare's only son, whose untimely death cannot but have been an influence on the father (particularly a father that was very concerned with keeping his inheritance undivided for the future), must meet the standard for inclusion. Just look at the references; the article, short as it may be, still cites 8 different reliable sources, of which 4 are from academic journals or university presses (usually heralded as the gold standard for reliable sources on Wikipedia), and 2 of whom are from the most prominent and respected Shakespeare scholars of the twentieth century (Chambers and Schoenbaum). And since I've contributed to this article I can add that the choice of sources was selective; if needed to establish notability I could add a whole bunch more. As a reminder, WP:N says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.
In other words, it meets the standard for inclusion and the nom is purely procedural, so my !vote is an emphatic speedy keep. --Xover (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given Malleus's merge vote, and the concurring views of several of the people who commented at WT:GAR, I'd rather let this one run to term. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Well referenced, enough material for a stand-alone article. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Malleus; the notability claims seem to be based on two foundations: (1) that he was Shakespeare's son, and (2) that he may have inspired some of Shakespeare's work. For (1), notability is not inherited, and for (2), the notions are very speculative. The speculation is sourced and verifiable, so it really belongs in the appropriate play articles (Hamlet and Twelfth Night), and the remaining bio information could be merged into William Shakespeare. EyeSerene^talk 17:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, notability claims are based on the sheer volume of material written by scholars have written about him. The idea that the notions are speculative is your OR and your opinion. Stephen Greenblatt, one of the most famous contemporary scholars on Shakespeare, wrote a piece in which which he argues that Hamnet influenced Hamlet. Are you more qualified to judge speculation than him? This isn't just some fringe theory. Wrad (talk) 18:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  To be more precise, Greenblatt's essay argues that Hamnet's early death influenced the writing of Hamlet. He's apparently a primary source for that idea. For this to be any more than a viewpoint (no matter how scholarly), you need a secondary source. In particular, if the article is kept and such secondary sources are not available, attribution would be needed ("Shakespearean scholar Stephen Greenblatt has argued that...") Geometry guy 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Wrad, I obviously expressed myself badly. I meant Greenblatt's speculation, not yours (and no matter how well-regarded Greenblatt is, it is still speculation and as G'guy says, should be attributed as such). That there is a theory from a well-known scholar about the influence of Hamnet's death on his father is verifiably true; what I'm questioning is the use of this as the basis for the assertion of the subject's notability. EyeSerene^talk 21:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"should be attributed as such"? What part of "these ideas are still not mainstream" do is not being understood here? Could the article possible be any more clear? We say things along those lines several times in the article. Wrad (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"still not mainstream" (my emphasis) implies a certain pov, that they will or deserve to become mainstream in the future. Still, that's a discussion best kept for this article's inevitable WP:GAR. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to double check that. The article doesn't use the word "still" at all, so it would be no problem at GAR. Please keep comments here focused on the AfD. If you have any other suggestions, please post them on the article's talk page, preferably after you carefully read what the article really says. Wrad (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was quoting you, not the article. Please make at least an effort to keep your personal remarks to yourself; they're becoming tiresome. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Somebody who is documented by reliable sources to have influenced the writing of Shakespeare's plays is clearly worthy of an article. JulesH (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but that's not what we're talking about here. There is a complete lack of evidence beyond the tenuously circumstantial to support the thesis that Hamnet had any influence at all on Shakespeare's plays. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge not feasible. Type this guy's name into a scholarly database and you will get many, many articles about him. Merging him with William Shakespeare is absolutely unfeasible. There is far, far too much information in the article to totally merge without violating undue weight. Wrad (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, of course. Easily satisfies WP:GNG. Significant non-trivial coverage about him in his own right. AndyJones (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. While at first glance it might seem to contain enough for a standalone article, on closer inspection it does not.

Para 1 (after lead) is vague with so many qualifiers: Relatively little is known...might have...had he...were likely named after...is very little information...was likely raised principally by...x thinks it unlikely that .. proposing instead the possibility .. or even. Example: "might have carried on the Shakespeare family name had he survived to adulthood" Quite.

Para 2: Almost in its entirety covers how he didn't influence the name of the character in Hamlet.

Para 3: Small paragraph outlining couple've academic's speculative suggestions other Shakespeare plays in which any minor/sibling happened to've died was inspired by Hamnet.

(Also, the reviewer made clear the promotion to GA was under protest.) There is difference between laying out theories, that were developed based on analysis of data and put forth by academics/experts, and perhaps contrasting one academic theory to another's, versus, a list of academic's guesses who - seemingly - made the capital mistake of theorizing before one has data. Most content is already in Hamlet#Sources. We don't even know when he was born (not baptised), or what he died of. Merging useful content followed by suitable redirecting, complying with WP:PRESERVE, seems sensible. Whitehorse1 18:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could make many of those arguments about the William Shakespeare article! It's just as full of "might have"s and "maybe"s, and we don't know his birthdate, just his baptism. Some of this information is in Hamlet, but nothing biographical. The reader is left to wonder just exactly who this Hamnet really was. This kid has sparked enough scholarly debate to merit his own article, and that's all there is to it. Type his name into any database and you'll see. Wrad (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (e/c) Tangentially, I was surprised the birth date wasn't known. I'd have thought the birthdate for a child in England (even that early) would be in Parish records. Re your last sentence, that...was kinda my point. :\ Whitehorse1 18:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well then apparently you haven't searched his name at all. He's everywhere. (And if you really know Yorick so well, you should be able to spell his name right). Wrad (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The birthdate is not in your article. That was the point I was making there. (For benefit of anyone else his last sentence is a reference a spelling error I made in my edit summary.)
      - My searches are showing solid, print sources in the several hundreds at least. Wrad (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        For the final time on that point: despite your myriad of sources you have not included his date of birth (it apparently is not known). Nobody has suggested he wasn't born. Whitehorse1 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        William Shakespeare's birthdate is not known. Only his baptism date is. No scholar knows it. Why should you then demand that this kid's birthdate be known, or else? Wrad (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Going by your article, no scholar knows anything on Hamnet besides a baptism date and a date of death. If it were different, say if Shakespeare had kept a diary and wrote of the pain of his loss, or we had letters to his wife in which he spoke of Hamnet saying he impacted his works (just illustrative examples), that would form a basis for an - albeit short - standalone article. Whitehorse1 18:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Weak keep - this kid, while he doesn't inherit notability from Dad, will be a search topic from confused kids in English/Literature class who think that he was an inspiration for Hamlet. Why not have a separate article? With them separate, we will not inconvenience a reader by forcing them to read through the entire William Shakespeare and Hamlet articles, keeping within WP:SS? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The debate surrounding this kid's influence is significant enough that we need to have one place where a reader can easily see what the debate was and what is generally thought about it. Wrad (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (e/c) The last para of the Sources section in the Hamlet article, which I linked in my first comment, basically does that already though. Post-merge the name can easily be redirected to that article or another. Well, that's my view on this anyhow. Whitehorse1 18:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that case the article has the wrong name, and should be moved. It's not a biography of Hamnet at all, but an account of some half-cooked academic speculation. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is interested in the scholarly sources, not whether or not individual editors think they are half-cooked. Who's more authoritative, a Wikieditor, or Stephen Greenblatt? Wrad (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Analogies aren't my strong point but I'll give one a whirl. It's one thing to theorize (educated 'guess' - sort've) on, say, narrative themes in a play — you have something substantial there; things like analysis in terms of political climate, and other works by the artist are fair game. It's another to simply know something existed and speculate from that. If the play Hamlet had never been found barring a title page, and no descriptions on its plot existed, then speculating what the other pages might have said is, well, waffle. Whitehorse1 18:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What you just said is your own opinion. WP:OR. That's all it is. Even if we grant that this is all speculation, the scholarly debate is significant enough that people need to have a separate place to read about the kid and his influence as a whole on the plays. Wrad (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your article claims near-universal academic agreement his influence as a whole on the plays is zero. I don't see having a separate (key word) place to read about the kid (about whom we know, apparently, almost nothing) is needed at all. Please, don't get me wrong. I agree having no mention of him anywhere onsite would be a clear mistake. Whitehorse1 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - But those sources are not about Hamnet Shakespeare at all, as almost nothing is known about him. As for Greenblatt, I can smell bullshit a mile away. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 18:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Well then I guess you're better than all the people who peer review his work, then? And please, please actually read the sources before saying they don't say anything about the kid. They do. Wrad (talk) 18:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess you're right, I am. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess that's that then :P Wrad (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being a likely search term is an argument for keeping a redirect, not an article. Geometry guy 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - okay, I was leaning keep before, but this debate has convinced me that there's no way to merge this information while still keeping it centralized, and that centralization is desirable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 4,820 hits on Google for "Hamnet Shakespeare" —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But how many of those hits actually provide anything other than very fragmentary information about Hamnet? None. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The article itself has several sources. Check them yourself. And I highly doubt your assessment of the google search is accurate. Wrad (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If that were true, then it begs the question why this article doesn't include the information about Hamnet that you appear to believe is so abundantly available even on Google. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sources provided. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is (I suspect) plenty of scholarly speculation that has been written and sufficient to justify a page Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - but not into Shakespeare's article. There could be a new article (if there isn't one already) devoted to Shakespeare's family members (parentage, spouses, relationships, children, etc), and this information can form one component of it. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - I'm surprised by the element of certainty in some of the !voting here. On the one hand, "notability is not inherited" is part of an essay on arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. What it really means is "notability is not automatically inherited" and hence is a weak argument on its own. Wikipedia at least tolerates many articles on family members who wouldn't be notable were it not for the family connection. The Shakespeare family has a whole tree containing over 10 people whose lives are known and researched primarily because of the link with WS himself. Of course "other stuff exists" is not an argument on its own either.

So we actually have to read the relevant guidelines. WP:GNG makes it abundantly clear that having plenty of reliable secondary sources referring to a topic is not sufficient for notability. In particular, the "significant coverage" means that "sources address the subject directly in detail".If the subject here is "Hamnet Shakespeare", rather than the influence of his name on Hamlet or his death on his father's writing, then they don't. WP:PEOPLE specifically gives the examples of the Beckham and Spears children, which are redirects, despite the fact they have received plenty of coverage in reliable secondary news and media sources, and have surely influenced their parents lives and work. Ironically it refers back to "notability is not (automatically) inherited", so lets look at it once more. There we find "Ordinarily, the child of a celebrity parent should only have their own independent article if and when it can be reliably sourced that they have done something significant and notable in their own right, and would thereby merit an independent article even if they didn't have famous parents." It seems to me the only significant and notable thing that Hamnet did in his own right was die aged 11. Geometry guy 20:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I disagree with your assessment. The "sources address [Hamnet] directly in detail". The objections raised here are that the details the reliable secondary sources address are not sufficiently numerous, an issue which the guidelines do not put a number cap on. --Xover (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the issue is that the sources do not deal with Hamnet, but with speculation about the effect of his early death on his father. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then I must respectfully submit that you appear not to have actually studied the relevant sources, including the ones cited in the article, as they do deal with Hamnet directly. The fact that the book as a whole is about William Shakespeare does not invalidate it as a source on Hamnet Shakespeare. --Xover (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No amount of respectful submissions can alter the fact that there is almost nothing known about Hamnet Shakespeare, and a repetition of the same three of four facts any number of times doesn't change that. The topic of this article is quite clearly the speculation as to what, if any, effect Hamnet's early death had on his father's writing. Not even on his father, but on his father's writing. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Though, again, if the sources cited do deal with Hamnet directly then their depth of coverage and the sparseness of information given, based on the article, is negligible. The resultant content extends to statements he might or might not have had kids (carried on name) if he'd grown up; that his parents knew somebody of that name, but according to the Hamlet article (citing Saxo and Hansen) it was a common name then anyway; and, by near-universal acceptance he didn't inspire the authoring of Hamlet in any way. Whitehorse1 21:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you bring it up; the reason, the basis upon which, scholars speculate on the naming is William Shakespeare's friends Hamnet and Judith Sadler, and the Shakespeare twins being named Hamnet and Judith, and the fact that the Sadlers named one of their children William (and Judith's children were named Shakespeare Quiney, Richard Quiney, and Thomas Quiney; the latter two probably also named after relevant people, to illustrate that this was a common custom). Which nicely illustrates that what appears superficial and waffling speculation on first look is actually fairly well founded scholarly speculation (as opposed to "speculation perpetrated by scholars" as seems to be the going assumption here). --Xover (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I do not disagree that very little is known about Hamnet Shakespeare. In fact the article explicitly mentions this. I disagree with your assessment that the mere arbitrary number of facts known about Hamnet can disqualify the article from inclusion under the notability guidelines when there are numerous reliable secondary sources discussing—directly and specifically—the few facts that are known; and incidentally also a great number of reliable secondary sources dealing with various levels of scholarly speculation (where some here seem to prefer to put the emphasis on the latter word) about his life based on things like internal evidence in the plays, contextual data (geographic, social, economic, academic, etc.), and, yes, the possible connections between Hamnet, his death, and his father's life and works. --Xover (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The speculation has absolutely nothing to do with Hamnet though. It's speculation about the effect of Hamnet's early death on his father's writing, quite a different subject. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To turn your own edit comment around on you (an unsavoury rhetorical practice, I admit); merely repeating this assertion does not make it true. Scholars also speculate on Hamnet and his death's influence on his father's life and works, but, cf. the scholarly speculation about how Hamnet got his name, that does not contradict that they have (and do) speculate on Hamnet himself. I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not planning to argue that since the name came from friends of Hamnet's father—and not friends of the as-yet unborn Hamnet—the speculation is about William instead of Hamnet. :-) In any case, even were the only speculation on how and whether Hamnet influenced Shakespeare—which is not the case—then that only helps establishing notability (which is the criteria for a stand-alone article) as it would for the various sources for Shakespeare's plays (many of whom would be so hopelessly obscure that nobody had heard of them, much less had Wikipedia articles, were it not for Shakespeare scholars' interest in them because they influenced Shakespeare). --Xover (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Do you at least concede that that speculation is notable? Zagalejo^^^ 20:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have never claimed otherwise, which is why I voted for a merge. Do you agree that this an article about literary speculation centred on Hamnet Shakespeare, rather than about Hamnet Shakespeare? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I think that's a fair assessment. However, I don't think there's one appropriate merge target, since Hamnet has been connected to Twelfth Night and King John as well as Hamlet. (Also, it appears that some have associated Sonnet 37 with Hamnet [29], though I don't know much more about that.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Finding the appropriate target(s) needs thought yep. Much of the content is already repeated in the Hamlet and Sources of Hamlet articles. The 2 sentences saying Wheeler and Bryson suggest the loss may've prompted the writing of Twelfth Night & King John, respectively–since bereavement crops up in those, seem even more speculative. As information its small size allows that to be easily worked into any of the other articles, if need be. Whitehorse1 21:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        A combination of suggestions already made by Ottava Rima and Geometry guy seems perfectly reasonable to me. Start an article on Shakespeare's family (if one doesn't already exist), move this material into the article, and make Hamnet Shakespeare a redirect to the family article. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It doesn't seem we have that article yet. The closest is this section. Frankly, I'm still not convinced that this article needs to be part of a broader page. Outside observers can criticize Wikipedia for many things, but no one's going to fret over the fact that Hamnet Shakespeare has his own article. Zagalejo^^^ 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        But he doesn't have his own article, this is really an article about his Dad. How much of this article is actually about Hamnet? Hardly any of it; that's the issue that needs to be addressed. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I haven't yet come to a conclusion on what to do about this article, but we seem to disagree on what "directly in detail" means. Apparently for you (Xover), date and place of birth, baptism, likely abode and date of death suffice as "in detail" as they are details. In questioning this, I would note that WP:PEOPLE says: "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". Geometry guy 20:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That would seem a fair assessment. [inserted: But] a policy's invocation of "in detail" cannot conjure facts that are not in evidence; for a source to deal with a subject "in detail" must ipso facto refer to those details that exist. Would it help to think of the phrasing as "not superficially or in passing" rather than "in detail"? --Xover (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This is a topic many people would like to read about, and plenty of sources are available online and offline. We need to stop fixating on the "independent article" issue. Even if a topic can't support 30 KB of text, an independent article is warranted if it is the best way of organizing the information. Merging this into William Shakespeare would produce an awkward digression, and spreading it across multiple articles will just make things harder on the readers. Zagalejo^^^ 20:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Subject has been noted and analysed by a significant number of literary critics as a way of postulating influences upon Shakespeare's work. Perhaps move and recast article as "Influence of Hamnet Shakespeare" or similar? Either way, removal or splicing of information into other articles will only put the reader at a disadvantage. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable in its own right (I remember from 1st year BA Eng Lit, mountains of scholarly papers on the relationship between Hamlet the play and Hamnet the son. Also, there is a long "performance" by SD in Joyce's Ulysses on the same topic) and the Shakespeare page is long enough. Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I just came across that Ulysses bit and am about to add it. Wrad (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is notable is the relationship that some scholars have speculated might exist between Hamnet's early death and Shakespeare's subsequent writing. That has absolutely nothing to do with Hamnet Shakespeare himself, the purported subject of this article, about whom we learn very little indeed except that he was born, had a twin sister, and died at the age of 11. Hardly the stuff that biography's are made of. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is a benefit to Wikipedia. Applying notability guidelines according to the letter of the law might prevent Hamnet from having an article. However, I believe that this is a special case. I don't know if David Schwimmer, Hoyt Wilhelm, or Michael Dell have kids, but notability obviously wouldn't be inherited there. Hamnet Shakespeare is mentioned in just about every high school English course taught in English-speaking countries, though. If the rules say the article doesn't belong, this is a clear case for WP:IAR. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you also keep Susanna Shakespeare? Just curious. Geometry guy 00:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely significant enough to merit its own article. Valley2city^‽ 00:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficiently notable per ~~WP:PORN BIO~~ WP:N. --maclean 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -

I strongly question the use of http://www.bardweb.net/will.html as a source. It is used for WP:SYN. The only connection with the article is the following statement:
Witness to the publishing hereof: Fra: Collyns, Juilyus Shawe, John Robinson, Hamnet Sadler, robert Whattcott.
That proves nothing about the birth or parentage of Hamnet Shakespeare. I removed it but the editor put it back. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:47, 3 February 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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autexousious[edit]

I believe this to be a hoax or a not notable neoglism. See goggle search [30] No Dictionary definitions, just a bunch of MySpace pages and similar accounts, probably an internet handle. In addition, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DFS454 (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD, ~~WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms and WP:NFT~~. JohnCD (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki - Delete as a dictionary definition, nothing more. I do not think it's a hoax or a neologism. See [31]. Possibly transwiki to wiktionary if its status as a historical word can be confirmed. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. I withdraw NEO and NFT, but it's still a dicdef; and I doubt if it meets Wikitionary's inclusion criteria which are quite strict, e.g. three independent instances. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki - It would appear from the cluster of Google hits found that this word has or is gaining currency in the BDSM community. But this would still only qualify it for a Wiktionary entry. If the author wishes to expand the article to give some background within the community, a useful encyclopedia entry might emerge. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NAR Also no reliable sources. --Artene50 (talk) 04:09, 3 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Superbike World Championship season[edit]

The page has no information relating to the championship except the little note about the official sponsor. It's way too early to have information about this future series. Asendoh (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment May will be re-AFC after end of the 2009 series? And is this a violation of WP:CRYSTAL ?Junk Police (talk) 13:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and tag as a stub until the information can be provided. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little more to say about it than "it exists". Stifle (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, fails the WP:CRYSTAL. Junk Police (talk) 13:09, 6 February 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 CSD A7. GlassCobra 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angelo "Onslow" Nooijen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Angelo "Onslow" Nooijen

Fails WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 07:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:32, 2 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 13:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ioka[edit]

Self-promotion article that fails WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 06:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No claim made for notability, no cited sources. LK (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No verifiable references, and the tie-in to the author's own name crosses the bounds of WP:SPAM. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:47, 5 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dan O'Brien (comedy writer)[edit]

Fails to meet notability guidelines for people; also, vanity article concerns, evidenced by the fact that the subject created this article himself as a response to the creation of another article (https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1881436689414323085&postID=8415230829757651102&pli=1). Regardless of whether Those Aren't Muskets think "they're f***ing bigshots!?!", informing Fox of exactly how many "dicks they should eat" (http://www.cracked.com/blog/fox-can-eat-several-dicks/) doesn't justify using Wikipedia as the track for your "race to the top of glorious Mount Fame".( 123fakestreet (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is Dan O'Brien. In response to the above: Kudos to your research, but I assure you that I didn't create this Wikipedia entry, (though I'm flattered and psyched that it exists). I'm sure there's a way to check who DID create it, and once you do check, you'll see it wasn't me. I think we can all get to the bottom of this mystery together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.38.166 (talk) 09:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While there are some references to "Daniel O'Brien" in reliable sources, it looks like none of them refer to this individual. Notability cannot be established. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 5 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Pink Lava Lamp[edit]

Fails WP:NALBUMS by being a mixtape without significant third party coverage by reliable third party sources. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 13:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, searching pulls up no reliable, third-party, sources. Just another non-notable mixtape. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 20:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both: no notable independent 3rd party sources, fails WP:NALBUMS. JamesBurns (talk) 01:23, 4 February 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 wrong process used to propose merge.Fugu Alienking (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmondo 2[edit]

Needs to be remerged with Gizmondo - still not clear whether this product will ever exist or what it will look like. Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are sources on the web to suggest it will be releaced in the summer, I would also request to state the gizmondo 2 as a offial handheld in the seventh generation catorgory. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it needs to be merged with Gizmondo, why didn't you merge it? -_- --Izno (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Jones (British Politician born 1978)[edit]

Delete non notable politician, doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN Mayalld (talk) 12:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, candidates for public office are not notable for that alone. Weak because he is representing one of the big two parties in the UK. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable as a Conservative candidate in a safe Labour constituency. . . Rcawsey (talk) 13:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POLITICIAN. Wikipedia is not an election bill-board. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only apparent claim to notability to date is that he is the only person born in 1978 to be only 17 in 1997 - which seems more an error of mathematics than notability. Again showing why BLP's of minorly or non-notable people should be axed pronto since no one can seem to get them verified and correct. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given that this is an autobiography, one might expect him to get that right! Actually, I can find no record of Benjamin John Jones being born in May 1978 in Liverpool. Mayalld (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being good at numbers is never a requirement for politicians. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:53, 5 February 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) Nancy ^talk 13:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut! Film-making[edit]

Delete non notable film society Mayalld (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as organization having no assertion of notability. Tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 2 February 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 WP:CSD#A7. Hut 8.5 12:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WOOTSInternational[edit]

Non-Notable Company, no hits on Google » \ / (⁂) 12:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this started life as a cut-and-paste from Google. That has now been removed, and it looks like an article about a non-notable new company which will be speedy-deletable ((db-inc)). However, it has an ((underconstruction)) tag, so we should give them a bit of time to develop it and see if they can establish notability. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as article about a company which does not establish its notability. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 2 February 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 speedily deleted as blatant advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Localyte[edit]

Non-notable website. Extensive article instructs how to use the site, but site itself presents no claim to notability and lacks external coverage. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as article about website not asserting notability, and/or advert. Tagged accordingly. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 2 February 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. Discussion to merge should take place at the article's talk page. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upper Wickham Lane[edit]

Non-notable Lane. Oscarthecat (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar, on what basis do you judge the lane as non-notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lundenwick (talk • contribs) 11:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He doesn't need to show how he judges it because the policy is WP:BURDEN -- in other words, unsourced material can be cut from Wikipedia. It's for article creators and editors to show from verifiable sources that the article's subject is notable, and if they don't, the whole article can and will be deleted. Having said that, I think there's a chance we'll be able to give good sources for Upper Wickham Lane, so I'll have a look round and see what I can find. Gut instinct says we don't want to cut this particular article.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after a quick glance at google. We'll be able to give good sources for this, and I'll personally do that if nobody beats me to it.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added five sources. If this was some ten-house side-street I'd be all for deleting it, but it just isn't; the notability standards for geographical locations are relatively low in any case and I'm confident this passes them.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 12:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep According to http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/roadlists/r10/notes.php?number=A209 "there's not much to say about it", but it could be renamed to A209 road, which can be about Wickham Lane and Upper Wickham Lane (and the now unclassified part of the A209). Articles about A roads usually survive AFD, and a search of Google Books finds some information that could be used in the article. —Snigbrook 15:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to A209 road of which it is part, pruning off excess detail. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A209 road is currently a redirect to a list, the article hasn't been created yet. —Snigbrook 12:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable lane. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to A209 road as suggested above. I seem to recall that my car broke down in this lane once. But that don't make it notable enough for its own article and nothing else does either. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 16:40, 3 February 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 CSD:G4. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clandestine industries[edit]

Previously deleted as non-notable. There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clandestine Industries which I suspect is the same page with different capitalisation (as "Clandestine Industries" is protected against re-creation. pablo_hablo. 10:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, and appears to fail WP:N.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G4? Can an admin confirm this is the same content? JulesH (talk) 11:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 2 February 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. PeterSymonds (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway climate change[edit]

There is a lot wrong with this page. The main problem is that it has no clear definition. Indeed the current [[32] when I wrote this] text starts Whilst the term runaway climate change has no widely-accepted definition... following extensive crit on talk about lack of defn. The author has attempted to cure this by continuing it are [sic] used to describe periods of self-sustaining climate change in scientific literature... but the two references he has managed to find to back this up are deeply unimpressive, and far away from the climatological literature you would expect ([33] [34]. In essence they confirm that the term isn't used in the scientific literature. We're so desperate for a defn that the opening para concludes A blog dedicated to the concept also exists which is an obviously NN blog with only one post [35]. If we knew what RAC is, we could attempt to clean it up and make sense of it. For example, I doubt that arctic shrinkage counts as RAC; but since we don't know what RAC is it's rather hard to argue one way or the other. William M. Connolley (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the author has added a defn from a newspaper [36]. If the article is to be about media coverage of the concept, that would be fine. But it isn't; it aspires to be about a scientific concept William M. Connolley (talk) 09:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OK science meets dodgy data meets The Tipping Point meets various other things and it's all something of a content fork. Bits and pieces are worthwhile so the creator should userfy it and perhaps recycle bits of it elsewhere, once these have been checked carefully. Problems start with the very subject of the first sentence, as The Guardian is no longer a broadsheet. (Oh, and if I may defend The Guardian, it's also no tabloid and it is good enough to present Ben Goldacre to the reading masses.) Morenoodles (talk) 10:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I was originally happy to have the article merged with tipping point (climatology) (as one can see on the talk page), but after further research on the issue I'm convinced it's not appropriate. Definition has been found and added added from a respected mass media source Guardian newspaper. I have cited 8 references for the term in use, not 2, and have added a 9th from a peer-reviewed? journal. The grounds for inclusion are not that it is an 'official' scientific term (I've made it clear that it's not), but that it's in general use - including by some scientists. Wiki does NOT demand that terms are in general use by scientists to justify their inclusion. Further, the article with which it will be merged/redirected to is actually a slightly different concept. Tipping point (climatology) describes the event that starts the runaway climate change, not the change itself. (Minor points... 1) The grammar error was not mine, and has been corrected. A simple check of the edit history would have revealed this. 2)I accept the blog is non-notable in general, but the identical name makes it worth a mention in this article. It could be removed if needed. Andrewjlockley (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Climate change as a field of inquiry is so notable both to academics and the public that there will be many notable subtopics. This term is widely enough used, and the article is well sourced. DGG (talk)
Weak keep for the time being. I can understand William M. Connolley's viewpoint, and I share the concern that this could become a content fork. However, there are sources and it does satisfy the WP:V and WP:N criteria, which means I don't feel able to support an immediate "delete" on an article that's still clearly a work in progress. I'd like to reserve judgment until I can see it in a more final form. -- I feel it'll be very important to monitor this article for non-NPOV material appearing, so I'll put it on my watch list and would encourage others to do the same.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the appropriate article on Effects of global warming. This looks like a rehash of material more properly covered there, a case of WP:CFORK, I believe. The term itself is a rather trivial extrapolation from the current debate. Ray (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about tipping point (climatology) or abrupt climate change? I've now expanded the section suggested using material from this article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping point (climatology) looks like a weak article, barely above a dictionary definition, and susceptible of the same criticism; however, we are not discussing its merits here. I find it bizarre that we are extending pop-science/business jargon into the scientific realm. Abrupt climate change looks like an article describing an altogether different class of meterological phenomenon quite removed from the current debate, and a worthy article in its own right. Ray (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion based on views There seems to be some consensus for keeping the article as a primarily 'non-scientific' article explaining the use of the term in general media, and moving the 'hard science' concepts elsewhere. Do people agree? If so, where should the various bits go? Effects of global warming, Tipping point (climatology), abrupt climate change are all possibilities.Andrewjlockley (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect. The article as it is written today [37] is about something. However, from the article and discussion on the talk page, I do not understand what that something is supposed to be. A literature search shows no use of this term in the climatology or planetary journals. There appears to be some use of this term in the media. If the article is rewritten using media sources about their usage and not as a science article, then it could possibly be kept. The science bits would then be merged (if needed) into the appropriate articles, likely Tipping point (climatology). However, I don't think there is a need for an article on this media term. Therefore it should be deleted and a redirect added (to either Greenhouse effect or Tipping point (climatology)) as a likely search term. -Atmoz (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete before redirecting? The edit history might be useful. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The delete is because I think the edit history is not useful, nor will ever be useful. The redirect is because it's a likely search term. (Also, if the page is deleted, it's likely the user will ask for it to be userfied, so it won't actually be lost anyway.) -Atmoz (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a 'media article', strip out hard science and move to ???Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nb: this is this users second "keep" vote William M. Connolley (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure it's a second keep but with different suggested actions. I've left the first up as a record. In the meantime I've spoken to many scientists by email and the most common opinon I've got back is that RAC is now a de facto term, and trying to file the concept under some obscure scientific term that no-ones' ever heard of is not productive. I suggest we keep as a media term and skeleton science, and move the detailed science elsewhere. I think it's hard to argue for a full delete, and I note even William M. Connolley (talk) said this above and he tagged the deletion. Can we now conclude this?Andrewjlockley (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In these cases it's usual to ~~strikethrough~~ your previous words to show there's a subsequent post explaining your current view.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've spoken to many scientists by email and the most common opinon I've got back is that RAC is now a de facto term - this is meaningless. What would have been meaningful would be if one of these very many people could have pointed you to even one defn. But they haven't. As a media article, this article would be fine. But with no weaselly "skeleton science" in there. With no defn, there can be no meaningful science William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed I've been trying to move the science to GW. You 3rr warned me for my efforts. You also haven't addressed the comparable lack of an agreed definition for GW or CC. Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: When I wrote my delete vote, up near the top, I had Gladwell's little book directly in mind; I hadn't realized that there actually was an article Tipping point (climatology) (A). I take the point that (A) is not the same as "runaway climate change" (B), but instead '"describes the event that starts" (B). However, the notion of (A) seems to make no sense without (B). Do descriptions of (B) also all assume (A)? Would it make sense to merge the two in some way and under some title? Morenoodles (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping point should stay, but RAC is so frequently used (and now I've found it in papers) that I am sure we need to keepAndrewjlockley (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge A google search had over 50,000 hits (when using double quotes). Because I don't see a big difference between "runaway", "tipping point", and "abrupt", I suggest having a single page and redirecting those to it. If there are subtle differences in meaning, point them out on a single page. Both scientific and popular definitions should be included because an encyclopedia should report usage, not try and control it. It would not be appropriate to merge this with Effects of global warming because abrupt change could also be caused by cooling, changes in solar radiation, and the like. Side topics, like Mitigation, should have their own pages and NOT be included. Q Science (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this argument is a fallacious one see wp:ATA#GHITS --DFS454 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've just been sent a big list of papers that use the term. Please holdon until I've had a chance to rework.Andrewjlockley (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep at least for now. I would be more inclined to merge Tipping point (climatology) into this than the other way 'round. The concept of tipping points isn't specific to climatology, as far as I understand, whereas the effects of passing a tipping point in climate are. The only argument I've seen for deleting this is that the citations aren't up to standard a few days after the article was created. But there are stubs around that are a lot older than that with no citations at all. If no satisfactory citations are found after a bunch of people have looked, then I might change my mind. Dan Wylie-Sears 2 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on this. Let me know what you think. I don't think tipping point should be merged, as it's a different concept and lots of articles link to it. A tipping point also does not exclusively preceed runaway climate change, it can precede other climate events.Andrewjlockley (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete massive original research, not based not upon common denominator or concept. Even where known concepts are used, they are synthesized into something that is unrecognizable, when checking with the references. Where science sources are used, they are cherry-picked, with no weighting. Its basically pseudoscience at this point. The suggestion that it should be based upon what media says, seems to be a suggestion that entails that the main writer can now pick and choose amongst the most alarming and least scientific sources that can be found. We've tried to salvage, and to find some sort of common footstep. But to no avail. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What elements constitute OR? What sections, if any, do you think should be removed? Which sources do you object to?Andrewjlockley (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would a move to runaway (climate change) help remove any ambiguity with similar terms such as runaway greenhouse effect?Andrewjlockley (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge sourced content. The opening paragraph definition says it all. The person at NASA does not use this phrase. There is vast amounts of original reserach trying to masquerade as a scientific concept. This is mostly a term coined by the media. --DFS454 (talk) 11:54, 8 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oldstead[edit]

Uncited unremarkable anonymous residential road in a bland "new town" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Crown Wood. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --An urban street of 96 houses is clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability. Joshua Darkins (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable evidence of notability. Most of the links to it are for a village in North Yorkshire, which probably has fewer residents than the street but may be notable as it's a civil parish, and is likely to have more history and reliable coverage. —Snigbrook 01:13, 4 February 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. Ty 12:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Shore Canadian Art[edit]

No reliable sources on notability seem to be available; cannot trace those sources listed in article Oo7565 (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, CSD:A7, company/organization not asserting notability. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, Stifle is correct.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 13:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. Nothing more to say really. Even if notability had been asserted, I'd be inclined to !vote for delete. freshacconci talktalk 22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like an advertisement...Modernist (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn, reads like spam. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:55, 5 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 07:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Edward Miller[edit]

Does not meet WP:ATHLETE; Has not played at the highest level of his sport (NFL or any other professional league). He has ended a rather nondescript college career and does not appear to have any pro prospects. Mosmof (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't seem to meet WP:ATHLETE/WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really know what he's done that's notable.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 01:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Under the current WP:ATHLETE wording, is notable since he's competed at NCAA Division I, the highest level of amateur athletics. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For some reason, I thought the "highest level of amateur athletics" thing didn't apply to a sport played professionally at a higher level, but it looks like I was mistaken. Still, although he would get in if we simply go by the letter of WP:ATHLETE, he doesn't come close to meeting the general WP:N (the only thing that sets him apart from other players, beyond membership on the USC football team is this piece of trivia, "Although Miller's college career was hampered by back injuries, Jimmy appeared in over two dozen college football games and is the only tight end on the 2008 USC Trojans football team to have caught a touchdown pass thrown by Heisman Trophy winner Matt Leinart"). Now, there are 120 FBS schools, each with 100+ players, including walk-ons. That's 12,000 players every year, and 3,000 each class. So over the course of history, we literally have hundreds of thousands of athletes, the vast majority of whom do not meet WP:N, meet WP:ATHLETE even though their articles will never expand beyond stub level and will not have any significant, non-trivial, independent coverage. That seems pretty indiscriminate to me. Somehow, I think the amateur portion of WP:ATHLETE wasn't meant for cases like this. --Mosmof (talk) 14:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I wrote the FA 2007 USC Trojans football team, and I'm pretty knowledgeable about USC football, and while he's managed to stay on one of the best college teams in the land his career has not amounted to anything. While that's admirable as a personal feat, I do not see any relevancy and this is exactly what revising the WP:ATHLETE to be too black/white has resulted in: a non-notable college player with a personal bio page on Wikipedia. With that said, if he ends up as a player on a CFL or NFL team, I would be happy to revise my opinion. But since he had no significant playing time or contributions on teams that have featured such notable tight ends as Fred Davis. I am not unaware of the Matt Cassell factor, but Cassell managed to get on an NFL team. If Miller were considered NFL caliber, by some bona fide service, than I'd also be willing to change my vote. I cannot see any value in including this article for now. WP:ATHLETE needs to be revised to better encompass the line that college football sits on versus other sports. --Bobak (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ATHLETE Ndenison ^talk 14:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The fact that people are using WP:ATHLETE as reasons to keep and to delete this article makes me think it HAS to be rewritten. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply WP:ATHLETE states that one must compete at the highest level of amateur sport. According to USC's depth chart[38], he's a fourth string TE. I would not call that competing at the highest level. Ndenison ^talk 21:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn, so nn we don't know his date of birth. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 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 WP:CSD#G4. The content is not much different to the other versions. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Neerattupuram[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Self-promotional biography by the subject Sudhirn (talk · contribs · count) . Fails WP:BIO , WP:N . Article was recreated after deletion on the first AFD -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —-- Tinu Cherian - 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete : per nom. May be CSDed on G4 -- Tinu Cherian - 06:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO; no sources included or apparently available. Perhaps should have been tagged as ((db-g4)) instead of being nominated for AFD again. Abecedare (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. I realised it was indeed a recreation only when I AFDed with Twinkle. G4 would have been a better choice had I known. -- Tinu Cherian - 07:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been recreated and deleted twice before after the first AFD. Either the creator User:Sudhirn should be given a last warning about repeated recreation of deleted content and COI, or perhaps the page should be salted after deletion this time. Abecedare (talk) 06:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and salt. Entirely without notability or other merit. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:52, 2 February 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. We don't agree whether this is an indiscriminate collection of trivia or interesting almanac-type content. Sandstein 07:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The World's most northern[edit]

Prior AfD for this article:

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_world´s_most_northern

I am also nominating The World's most southern, as it suffers the same inadequacy: Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records. Anything of value on these lists could be noted in the pages of the places involved: The fact that "Longyearben, Svelbard, Norway" has the worlds most northern Art Gallery, Cinema, Supermarket and Tourist Office, and that Fairbanks, Alaska has the worlds most northern pipe band, need no mention as their own article. Aervanath (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia is indeed not a book of records. However, these articles amass arguably fascinating information/misinformation, and do not obviously threaten proliferation (easternmost, westernmost, deepest, highest are conceivable but nothing much beyond that). Much of the (mis)information isn't trivial, as it's significant in biology, etc. I'd add a FACT tag to every unsourced assertion, and return six months later to delete every assertion that still wasn't sourced. And I do think that "*most cloverleaf interchange" and suchlike could be removed as trivia. Morenoodles (talk) 08:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the world's most northern indiscriminate collection of information. This cannot ever be reliable. No authoritative monitoring takes place. This is a "What were you thinking?" article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Individual assertions can be either sourced or deleted. If they are sourced, how would the resulting list be less reliable than other lists? Morenoodles (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very simple. Lists such as the Guinness World Records have paid researches verifying this stuff. Wikipedia has "the wisdom of crowds" which is often at variance with alleged facts in lists such as this compendium of indiscriminate information. While one might care about an individual fact in this list no-one cares about the totality of the list and its correctness. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You make the list sound like many lists. Each and every one of the assertions in this list can and should be deleted or sourced. (And of course it should be sourced well: if some institution's website claims that it is the northernmost whatever, that isn't good enough.) Morenoodles (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Morenoodles' arguments. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 16:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into other articles and then Delete (both). Most of the relevant data is already in Extreme points of Earth, Northernmost settlements and Southernmost settlements. The sections called The World's most northern#Geography and The World's most southern#Geography can be added to Extreme points of Earth (where that data does not already exist). All the rest is trivial/cruft - I doubt that it will be possible to verify most of the information outside of geographical features and settlements. It could be added to various articles (example: in Coral, add "the world's most northern coral reef is off the north coast of Norway"), but I'm not sure it's worth it. – jaksmata 17:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum to nomination rationale: Anyone arguing to keep this list should explicitly address how it is not an indiscriminaate collection of information; just because everything in it is verifiable or even kept in reliable sources doesn't mean it's actually encyclopedic.--Aervanath (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've just been through each of the articles and fact-tagged them. I've never seen such a collection of trivia in two places. Let's not lose sioght of the fact that this is an encyclopaedia not a popular list of banal trash to be sold to those who have no idea what to get Uncle for his birthday present. Even with references this is unmaintainable. Two excellent examples of "a list too far".Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- They should not. Who are you to dictate what others should do? What makes your favorite five-letter acronym any better than scores of others? Why did you cite an irrelevant rule? None of the five no-nos listed in IINFO as reflecting "current" "consensus" are close to this case. The articles are, perhaps, unsalvageable (unless reduced to plain geo-data per User:Jaksmata) but the rationale is different. NVO (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not dictating anything. WP:NOT is POLICY, not an advisory essay. If you feel that these lists are not indiscriminate collections of information, then say so. If you feel that the policy is wrong, then get a consensus to change it. But please don't tell me to ignore policy. Most editors I know who have ignored policy don't last very long.--Aervanath (talk) 07:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, these articles have been moved to, for example, List of southernmost items. While I support the move, I think it is inappropriate in the middle of a AfD. Second, I would draw people's attention to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/lists of unusual things. While this does not have "unusual" in the name, that is essentially what it is. I think that discussion which has just reached consensus to treat these on a case by case basis but probably keep most is valuable. OK, is it encyclopedic? Yes, I think it is. It is not an indiscriminate list. It also exactly what makes encyclopedias so interesting to many people. You come across something like this and go off having fun and learning all over the place. So, it should be kept. It should be properly sourced, but lists can be sourced by references in the article on a particular list item. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to the extent that the lists are sourced or sourceable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Clearly defined lists that can be referenced. Lugnuts (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep among the functions of an Research is browsing, and providing material like this is reasonable. Presumably all the item,s can be sourced. Indiscriminate means including the northernmost anything; as we include only the northernmost of notable types of things, it's not indiscriminate, because we are discriminating & only taking the notable ones. That's what the word means. DGG (talk) 05:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but the northernmost supermarket is notable?--Aervanath (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Where do you draw the line with stuff like this? We are missing the world's most northerly and southerly brothel, fish and chip shop, car exhaust centre, ceramic tile store, electrician, plumber (That's Joe, right?), bedding store, brickworks, coal mine, carpet manufacturer, sewage treatment works, iron works, canal, sex shop, wheelchair manufacturer. This is a load of indiscriminate information. Even if an item can be verfied it is only verified as existing. What verifies that it is the most N or S? Schott's Miscellany, yes. Wikipedia, no.
Keep. It is information of interest. I can not find in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not specifically that such info should not be included. Specifically, the person who nominated these articles here claimed that it was written "Wikipedia is not the Guiness Book of World Records" in WP:IINFO, but I can not find such info there. It is even written "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List. Wikipedia also includes reference tables and tabular information for quick reference. " Maybe one can criticize the sourcing of info, but it is hard and soruces often cities claims to have something northernmost which was not correct. Sometimes a Google search is good check, but Google searches are not allowed as sources, I have been told after I included some. --BIL (talk) 13:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment please read WP:INTERESTING which explains that this is not a useful argument in a deletion discussion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have one more reason to have such a list. When it is claimed that something is northernmost, someone can make a link to this article and check it. Otherwise we must remove all such claims, since usually only primary sources (facility's own web site) or blogs etc are available and it is not enough and it is hard to check against other articles. Besides, is it good voting ethics that a person criticizes everyone who votes against him, if there is any opportunity to do so? Do you try to convince me to change the vote? --BIL (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't think that ethics come into this. I am simply pointing out that your argument should not prevail because it is classed as a non argument. This gives you the far better opportunity to make a more substantial argument if you so desire. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then Delete both per jaskmata's arguments above. --Tckma (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[I've already voted above, so this is just a general] Comment: Most of the arguments for keeping these lists have been along the lines of "it's interesting," and "it's not indiscriminate." I'd like to take a minute to refute each of those claims. First, It's interesting: That is an editorial opinion. Personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article. There are style guidelines (WP:EDITORIOP) that prohibit opinions being added to articles, why should personal opinions be used when deciding to keep or delete one? The official policy that needs to be examined here is "What Wikipedia is not," not the opinions of editors. Second, It's not indiscriminate: Here's a section-by-section breakdown of why they are indiscriminate collections of information (from the northern article):

Animals: There are thousands of types of animals - why list only four? This page is obviously not meant to list them all, but no criteria for exclusion exists, therefore it is indiscriminate.
Plants: Ditto, but there are millions of types of those.
Recreation: We have listed 21 forms of recreation in two sub-sections. Certainly there are more than 21 recreational activities in the world, but I couldn't even guess at how many there are. Wikipedia category:sports has 72 top-level sub-categories, and hundreds of categories below it. Why list only 21? This page is obviously not meant to list them all, but no criteria for exclusion exists, therefore it is indiscriminate.
Religion: Again, thousands of religions, 13 randomly chosen.
Science: Too broad a subject to even be specifically defined. Contains everything from planetariums to gardens to nuclear power plants. Completely indiscriminate.
Shops and service facilities: to avoid being even more redundant with my arguments, why don't we just assume that the Northernmost settlements contain these kinds of things?
Transportation: Although this may be the section with the fewest possible entries, these could easily be added to respective articles.
Other: The very definition of an indiscriminate collection of information is one that starts with the word "other."

So, I'll restate that this information (at least geography and maybe transportation) needs to be merged into appropriate articles, and these lists deleted. As it is right now, these are lists of northernmost/southernmost anythings, and since anything is an indiscriminate word, these should be deleted per Wikipedia policy. Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. – jaksmata 22:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The main argument about interest is not that the editor finds it interesting, but that the editor has an opinion that readers will find it interesting, which is a call we make all the time in writing articles. --Bduke (Discussion) 22:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then this is a matter of original research and point-of-view pushing - I'll add those to my list of reasons they should be deleted! – jaksmata 14:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep typical almanac contents is encyclopedic by previous debates. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, who cares how far north bats, trees, coral or whatever can be found? Benefix (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That just says you do not like it, and is not a valid argument to bring to bear. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK then. It cannot be reliable because no-one cares how far north things live, and thus it will remain unverified. Benefix (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you for that clear assertion (no-one cares how far north things live). It's a most extraordinary notion; I wonder how it occurred to you. Here you will see it disproved: a section on "The Northernmost Tree Species" within a book published by the University of Chicago Press. Morenoodles (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Anyway if you were looking for the northernmost tree species you should be looking under tree. Likewise for penguins etc. Even if the articles don't have this information you are sure to pick up some other interesting info during your search. Benefix (talk) 19:34, 7 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Maguire[edit]

Declined A7, appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And appears to also fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do you mean Wikipedia:Notability (music)? Morenoodles (talk) 09:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google Books and Google News searches come up with substantial coverage in reliable sources such as this and this. Each of these is the very first result from the corresponding search, so it's a bit surprising that the nominator missed them when going through the pre-nomination procedure. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the strength of Phil Bridger's findings. Morenoodles (talk) 08:32, 4 February 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. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Shrinker (band)[edit]

Article's unreferenced tag was removed, but an almost complete lack of references indicate non-notability, which is borne out also by the lack of references available for this band (discounting blogs etc.). Their records (a split EP and an album) were released on non-notable labels. Drmies (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I ask the proposer, Drmies, to reconsider this deletion proposal. There isn't a clear consensus to delete as of yet. In the meantime, if you'll allow the article to stand, some of us could take the time to better source the article. It would be a shame to get rid of this act as they were notable on the scene and within the genre. As others have mentioned, there are sources out there - they just need to be found. Best, A Sniper (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable band WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - obviously, the proposer knows nothing about the underground US Death metal genre as this band is certainly notable. The most reputable reference sites of the genre note the band, and the band's popularity in the tape trading world that spawned the genre is without question. Of course the page needs work, but this coupled with the proposer's ignorance of the genre is not a reason to delete the article. A Sniper (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry - the wording of the deletion proposal got me a little flustered. Apologies to the proposer & all... A Sniper (talk) 13:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C1, album review, album review and an in-depth interview. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Esradekan, that part of the policy says "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries." These three references you've kindly provided (and you had to wade through a lot to get them) don't exactly fit in there. I really don't want to restart that discussion of whether Metal Archives is notable, reviewed, etc.; I'm perfectly willing to accept some notability to be derived from inclusion on MA, but there simply isn't a whole lot about Dr. Shrinker on MA (no reviews of the albums, for instance, and that's important). You see, A Sniper, I'm not a complete idiot here. Now, if there were anything else, or if there are a lot of print resources out there not available online, that's great--but those who state that case should back up that argument by adding those sources to the article. The article was tagged "unreferenced" in May of last year, and an IP thought that one addition was good enough to remove that tag (incorrecly, IMO). So there's been plenty of time, and there is no requirement that sources be online. There is a requirement that there be sources, this being an encyclopedia. Now, if Necroharmonic is notable, that's a start, though that still doesn't bring them up to WP:MUSIC#C6, which requires two albums on a notable or important label. Baz, if you find those sources, I'll be happy to withdraw this, but Esradekan, what you dug up is not enough for me, though I thank you for the good work. A Sniper, no hard feelings, but please don't think that someone is ignorant for proposing deletion of a band you like; feel free to look throught the List of death metal bands and you'll see we're on the same team. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral for now The band is certainly name-dropped a fair bit and their demos are "legendary". However, they never released an album (only a demos compilation), never toured and have significant coverage in third party reliable sources (Metal Archives and Metal Rules do not count). It is possible that there are further sources out there, and I'll endeavour to find some but at present the article fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I should add though that, whilst a page has yet to written, an argument could be made that Necroharmonic is in fact a notable label. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that the notability of the label drags the subject band of the article into notable territory, split album notwithstanding. Thoughts? A Sniper (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, WP:MUSIC requires at least two albums on a notable label, so at present that criterion alone isn't fulfilled. I do feel that there must be sources out there, as this is such a well-known band, but it may all be pre-Internet. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an unfortunate result of timing, the lack of easily findable coverage. Pre internet sources are out there. I have read stuff on many for bands I listen to, love and adore that are notable but I can't prove. These sources just need to be refound, my remembering reading something doesnt help till I find where it was I read it. The flaw of an internet based encyclopedia where the main sources are not on the internet. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands it doesn't quite make it. It appears they may be notable but sources need to be provided to verify that. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:MUSIC by not having any reliable sources. http://books.google.com/ and http://www.rocksbackpages.com/ are both good for trying to find pre-internet sources, but both failed in this instance. --JD554 (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm sorry but you're certainly not going to read anything about a pioneering death metal band at Google Books or Rocks Back Pages. Jeesh. A Sniper (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I think you'd be surprised[39][40][41]. However, they are only passing mentions and not enough to prove notability per the guidelines at WP:MUSIC or WP:GNG. Jeesh. --JD554 (talk) 07:51, 4 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Boss[edit]

Non-notable kook that ran for president. Only one reliable source. Peephole (talk) 04:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until he gets elected or more than a handful of votes. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ray (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 14:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I thought it was pretty impressive that there are more than 7,000 Google hits on "jeff boss", and the first dozen or so are all about our afd candidate, but beware, the search also picks up many hits on the common phrase "jeff's boss". Kestenbaum (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. and WP:POLITICIAN. JohnCD (talk) 12:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on User:Peephole/911TMCruft#Conspiracy_AfD's. Ikip (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Userfy to User:Greenguy89/Jeff Boss so the creator can clean up and find more references. Ikip (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Duran (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Userfy. Added a few more sources showing he actually got a bit of independent coverage... so there's more now than just one. May be shaky for WP:POLITICIAN, but seems to approach WP:GNG for his determination. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment inre WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." His coverage seems to be tweaking that bar. It may be safe to presume that he will get more coverage and not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:30, 6 February 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, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --J.Mundo (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PyroLance North America[edit]

Non-notable fire extinguishing technology. Article notes, "Pyrolance... has lost its license to the patented technology which originates from Cold Cut Systems in Sweden"; in other words, it's not even a currently marketed product. Sources exist, but their reliability is doubtful; the ones I have examined all read like copies of marketing materials. N Shar (talk · contribs) 04:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn; rename to Cutting extinguisher and rewrite. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Article tone is ugly and it's a patent, proprietary technology, but it does seem to have significant novelty and utility to make it notable. If this is genuine and referenceable, we should keep it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Cutting extinguisher and re-write (change from above). The technology itself (originating in Sweden as "ColdCut Cobra") appears strongly notable, one overseas licensee (PyroLance) isn't more than a footnote. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would explain a lot. I'll support this. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:40, 2 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In The Night (Dream Evil album)[edit]

This article completely violates WP:CRYSTAL. There are no WP:RS to confirm the mere existence of this album, and we generally do not have articles about future albums unless they are almost certain to come out. Jonathan321 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced, everyone please repeat to bring on the snow. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no verifiable sources, WP:CRYSTAL. JamesBurns (talk) 01:21, 4 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washi Washi[edit]

This article doesn't provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that this company satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for companies and organizations. JavaTenor (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable organization has received no independent reliable source coverage, thus fails WP:CORP; the article's sole claims of notability refer to submissions to the Daily Mail's online debate blog. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a great name for a business startup (cf. Moshi moshi, which they surprisingly don't seem to mention), but I see no notability in it. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 2 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Sixty[edit]

Speedy deletion contested. Fails WP:BAND. This is an uncharting band, who has not been the subject of significant third party coverage. They have not released any albums on any major labels. The only sources are the band's MySpace page, fails WP:V. -- Darth Mike (join the dark side) 03:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well, another conflict of interest, reliable source lacking, non-notable garage band. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: non-notable band, fails WP:BAND. JamesBurns (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BAND and WP:N, absolutely no reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 2 February 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 deleted by Gwen Gale under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty South Killa[edit]

Notability not established, no external links or references. Appears to be an advertisement. Plastikspork (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no significant 3rd party notability. JamesBurns (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 Hasn't worked with any notable artists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 2 February 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. Most editors agree that most such relations are not notable, but there's no consensus that all of them are sufficiently likely to be non-notable to allow for an en bloc AfD nomination. This suggests that individual AfDs for the non-notable pairings may be needed. Sandstein 08:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Singapore relations[edit]

I'm proposing for deletion a bunch of pages on bilateral relations by User:Groubani, a user who specializes in creating stubs of this type that are either non-notable or far shorter than they should be. This group falls squarely into the former category: all the pairs of countries are very far apart, none of them is a world power (to justify the claim that relations with it are notable), and there's zero evidence presented of notability in the relationships -- merely that they exist. As established before, for instance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peru–Romania relations, mere existence of diplomatic relations is not inherent evidence for notability. Thus, delete. Biruitorul ^Talk 03:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete All If the topic hasn't been discussed in notable sources, it is not notable. Besides that, there are thousands of possible articles of this kind that could be created by picking any two countries. Borock (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and figure out a way of handling "foreign relations of X" templates that doesn't suggest that these articles should exist for every possible pairing of countries. Relations between most pairs of countries are unremarkable; there are obviously exceptions (China-Japan relations, for instance!) which obviously merit deeper discussion, but the vast majority could be summarized in tabular form. (Country A, Country B, year relations were established, locations of embassies.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Relationships between countries aren't intrinsically notable. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Other dubious articles recently created by Groubani (talk · contribs) include: Georgia–Thailand relations (basically non-existent), Norwegian Argentine, Kenya–Romania relations, Morocco–Romania relations, Israel–Vietnam relations and many, many others. None of these articles appears to have any sources to demonstrate notability. This may require a large clean-up job. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a notification of this issue at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Editor mass-producing articles on minor bilateral national relationships. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with roughly 200 countries in the world, that would mean 40000 articles saying... what? that they recognise each other? ¨¨ victor falk 08:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All and consider the balance of such articles for deletion too. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all there are 192 countries in the United Nations, that's 36,672 of these articles, most of which are completely useless. Unless one of the countries is particularly signifcant internationally, or there is significant interaction between the countries concerned, we shouldn't have an article on the countries' relations. Hut 8.5 10:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all including all the similar pages, and templates and images which were created for them. I'm currently making a list of them at User:Od Mishehu/pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Egypt–Israel relations is one article which, although was created as part of the spree, I think shouldn't be deleted. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; that one should gain an expand tag.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 14:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly that falls into the "far shorter than they should be" category. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the fuck is going on here? for any random pair of countries, establishing the notability of their bilateral relations is easier than pissing in the shower, and not half as fun. Picking one at random: Argentina–Egypt relations - not much information, definitely an unsourced stub. Then .. + external link+ reference+ reference+ reference+ reference and all of a sudden we have a reasonable looking start class article on a really worthwhile subject - all with the mighty power of Google. Is nobody here looking at what's going on and thinking before voting? WilyD 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Devil's advocate - Couple of questions. First, are those sources independent of the subject? Second, are those sources about treaties and trade agreements, and not about the relations specifically? There's a difference between a news article about, say, a meeting between the Japanese and Chinese head of states, and one about Sino-Japanese relations. --Mosmof (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In reference to the first question: no, yes, yes, hard to say, yes. Meetings between heads of state, trade agreements, other treaties on co-operation are all aspects of bilateral relations. It'd be rightly rejected if I could write Box office sales of Pirates of the Caribbean and Inspirations for Pirates of the Caribbean and Johnny Depp's acting performance in Pirates of the Caribbean but not Pirate of the Caribbean because no article forcused on that generally. We know when the two countries established bilateral relations, we know some of their history, including the nuclear power co-operation, the value of trade between them, the current focus of expanding trade, and so forth. Wily D 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: Argentina–Egypt relations was never nominated for deletion, so there's no reason to get excited. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I just picked a bilateral relations article by User:Groubani at random, since it seemed the fairest way. Certainly Od Mishehu has indicated that they intend to expand this stub-hunt, and AN or AN/I is tending a similar way. The user's been blocked, for fuck's sake, for creating neutral, notable articles but not citing explicit sources, and having a hard time communicating because they're not an anglophone. I think there's definitely a reason to be agitated. Wily D 16:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the ones I picked for deletion were not random. I think the case on these is pretty airtight, but if I'm wrong, I'll gladly acknowledge it. As I've conceded from the beginning, some of Groubani's creations are notable, just far, far shorter than they should be (eg, Egypt–Israel relations); for those, expansion and not deletion is the solution. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but to then pick one you have nominated [42] + [43] + [44] + [45] and so on (Spanish references abound, but are harder for me to evaluate/find), and we see that Argentina-Nigera wouldn't be hard to expand from it's "stub" state to 'start', especially using "non-independent but reliable" sources (i. e. the two governments for data on trade relations & whatnot). Wily D 17:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Argentina–Egypt relations, thanks to WilyD's most excellent piss in the shower, I mean his most excellent editing work. As for the others, still undecided. Normally I loathe mass-produced substubs, but some work (automated or otherwise) has gone into "locator" maps such as this, and foreign relations can be, or can become, noteworthy. -- Hoary (talk) 15:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Using the example you've cited, I can dig up bwhich is in spanish :(Spanish again but that's all. Knowledge of Arabic would probably help, or even decent french. Spanish too, I'm groping blind and can only find a bit that's independent. The Uruguayan embassy in Beirut has some information, but it's not independent [46], but it should be clear from that that plenty more sources exist. Wily D 16:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Just because some of our editors are so lazy they can't google up a couple of words and find a reference is not a reason to mass delete anything. If you are physically incapable of finding said sources, post a note to WP:AR and WP:SG, and they will be happy to oblige.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:12, February 2, 2009 (UTC)
- Please mind WP:CIV, and until sources are provided, we can't assume inherent notability in these particular cases. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but we can spend a minute or two investigating notability, rather than assume non-notability, either. Nominating someone's work for deletion without properly investigating, and some of the other treatments Groubani has received fail civility by a country mile. Wily D 17:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What Wily said, and also what does WP:CIV have to do with my comment??? It was a general observation aimed at no one in particular. If it offended you personally, I apologize.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:36, February 2, 2009 (UTC)
Delete all and seriously ponder if we need any such articles. This whole series looks almost like someone is gaming the system, creating articles by randomly selecting any two countries. It's all inee minee miney moe, and "let's see other editors trying to figure out if this article can go anywhere". Even if any of these has notability, it could all be folded into some other articles - there is absolutely no need for these ones. And may I add: editors are instructed not to create articles that are very hard to link to (I have difficulty imaging an article where this could be done, and done in compliance with the WP:MOS); this entire bilateral relations series, even "US-UK relations", comes pretty close to that situation, and in most cases it is an optimistic, overzealous and, dare I say it, scribomaniacal content fork. If anything, articles on such topics should be the exception, not the rule. Dahn (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Canada, a featured article, links Canada–United States relations in the lede, which is pretty necessary. One couldn't hope to understand anything about Canada's history, it's national identity or its place in the world without an explicit discussion of its relationship with America. (Caveat: I rode a polar bear from my igloo to the Inukshuk this morning). Wily D 17:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, Category:Canada–United States relations has 106 articles and 11 subcategories. Dozens of books have been written on the subject (and probably hundreds of scholarly papers and tens of thousands of newspaper articles). Not all countries have such extensive relations that 100+ articles on the subject are needed, of course. WilyD 17:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that I disagree with your point, but I would argue that, even in Canada's case, the information about the relations could have been structured otherwise from the very beginning (let's say, around preexisting articles referring directly to Canada's/US's politics for the new stages and history for the old stages, not to mention the tens or hundreds of articles on individual topics). Even if I'm wrong about this, the case you make would still be for an exception, not necessarily for the rule. Dahn (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This particle comment only addresses the comment to which I'm responding, that bilateral relationships are inherently non-notable. But I don't you could really cover the topic well without an explicit Canada-America relations article - spreading information around like too little fertilizer is the opposite of what we're supposed to be doing - aggregating and condensing information, making summaries of important topics & whatnot. Now, it's not obvious to me that every set of bilateral relations are notable, but most are, and for any individual one it's not hard to dig up enough sources to establish notability (as my example of Egypt-Argentina above illustrates). A few countries may have generally non-notable relations, but those'll be the exception, not the rule. Wily D 18:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep or Merge to respective countries pages on foreign relations. I would like to see proof that those relations are non-notable, with WP:BIAS in mind: even if nobody outside Argentina and Singapore cares about their foreign relations, they may be notable in light of works in language of those countries. Have respective deletion projects been notified? I don't see such notifications. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merges are generally unadvisable where there are multiple appropriate targets - e.g. since both Foreign relations of Singapore and Foreign Relations of Argentina should have this content, the best way to manage the content is to have a seperate page and link both foreign relations articles to it. WilyD 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, for that hypothetical scenario: 1) the need to write the same basic facts on several pages occurs very often, and many times there's nothing one could or should do to merge it; 2) it is easy to write the same info in two non-identical but perfectly complementary ways (I do it all the time); 3) any text that links to a main article should in any case have a summary of what one can read in the main article; 4) linking all of the relevant individual bilateral relations articles on the respective two pages creates an unmanageable and often illegible text, crammed with links and lacking in depth. Dahn (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - This isn't a viable solution at all. It's not hard to like Foreign relations of Argentina from Argentina or Politics of Argentina or whatnot, and use Foreign relations of Argentina to link each specific relation. The keeps things organised and uncluttered - merging perfectly sensible stand-alone content into multiple articles creates clutter - moreso given the amount of expansion mandated. Large sections of text shouldn't be duplicated, but should exist in a single location. Not only does this help maintainability, but it also prevents parent-type articles from becoming unwieldy. It's the best choice for both current readability and future expandability. There's no real argument against seperate articles at all, except this religious notion about what merits an article in some value judgement scheme. Wily D 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the stubs. There are at least 192 countries in the world (that's the number of members in the United Nations). Some countings yield a few more. If we were to create bilateral relation articles for every possible pair, we'd get more than 18 000 articles, most of which would be entirely pointless. I suppose one afflicted with editcountitis might find rather enticing the prospect of claiming credit for creating all those -- and then 18 000 more for creating the redirects of B-A relations to A-B relations --, but that is just plain silly.

Separate relations articles should only be created where there is clear utility in maintaining such articles, not as stub articles 'just in case'. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The problem with this argument is that none of the articles are entirely pointless. Whether countries have official diplomatic relations is probably the first thing one might ask regarding their bilateral relations. A little more information is added and we've got the stubs you see today - essentially now at the point of "minimally useful - need to be expanded for all but the most cursory enquiries", but stub is not a criterion for deletion, it's a criterion for expansion. Why delete already useful (to some readers) articles? WilyD 19:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, we could create a table in, say, Diplomatic missions of Argentina, with the date relations were established and where embassies and consulates are located, could we not? For the more trivial relationships (ie, Argentina–Singapore, Argentina–Nigeria, etc) that seems like a good solution. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Diplomatic missions are installed essentially because the countries have a notable bilateral relation. Where they don't exist, I'd buy the two countries might not have a notable relationship (though Iran doesn't have an Isreali embassy, for instance). Merging, especially merging into lists, kills article writing in practice, and what we're looking at are a collection of good stubs in need of expansion. I had hoped a random demonstration would show this clearly, but then I :('d. Wily D 20:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Your Nigeria-Argentina example wasn't especially compelling. OK, so a couple of cities in each country agree to trade more. And the Nigerian embassy in Buenos Aires is involved in some shady vehicle practices, along with 100 others. Hardly encyclopedic stuff. 2) A bilateral relation is not really that exceptional -- its mere existence, as established in various AfDs, is not inherently notable. If backed up by sufficient sources, maybe, but not on its own. 3) There's nothing particularly "good" about these stubs (what - the maps?), and their expansion potential is dubious at best. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete these stubs; the information can be in Foreign relations of Argentina and Foreign relations of Singapore; more useful than an article for every country pair. Many such articles have also been deleted previously; some have been recreated by the author, who does not seem to believe in communication. Kusma (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, except a small number of obvious cases This should normally be a no-brainer issue. It is very alarming to notice the amount of dramatization and personal ego going into such an elementary issue without geting any closer to solution. I repeat, ask any sane person, and this is really a no-brainer issue. 1) There are a number of instances, where separate articles are needed, such as Egipt-Israel relations, USA-UK relations, USA-Russia relations, USA-France relations. 2) Any other info should be found at Foreign relations of X. Come on, if you look for the relations of USA and Columbia, what would be your first instinct? Obviously, you'd look at the foreign relations of the two countries and search there. To whom this is not obvious, should take a wikibreak, you are boiling out! Yes, yes, I am fully aware of the amount of special relationship existing between the two countries, and even in this case, it's redundant. Articles of drug trafic and FARC are the proper place to discuss the relationship, not vice-versa. 3) I suggest to develop the article Equatorial Guinea-Bhutan relations and run it as a DYK on the next April 1st. Dc76\^talk 20:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, one follows the generally accepted precedent of WP:N, which establishes a criterion for inclusion of material. It's unclear why we'd want to adopt the much higher standard of "Does it affect America, or at least hit the headlines of the New York Times every couple of weeks?" With ~200 countries and a sizeable chunk of those bilateral relations having sufficient information to make dozens or hundreds of full articles, and almost all pairs having sufficient information available for a decent sized article, "foreign relations of X" articles would be monstrous.

As an aside, it's patently crazy to suggest that American-Columbian relations aren't noteworthy enough to develop an independent article. Going back, at least, to the Americans' role in the creation of Panama, up to modern day influence in the civil war, drug trafficing, inter-Americas co-operation, there are dozens of articles to be written here, which need a "survery/general overview" article. Wily D 20:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about George W. Bush-Congress relations, or Britney Spears-Dustin Timberlake relations, or New York-London relations, or Pilot-copilot relations, or Pennsylvania-Tennessee relations, or Eistein-speed of light relations, or black whole-star relations, or World War I-World War II relations/connections etc ? They are all very notable. But they do not desearve separate articles. Rather, you write about these issues in both articles. Not having a specialized article does not mean not having the info in WP. On the contrary, that info enriches existing articles. Dc76\^talk 23:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep After discussing this with another editor on my talk page I have come here with my keep opinion. At first, I even said to this editor that I wouldn't come here because my opinion would be to ~~Delete~~, but after reading what he had to say, and after giving it a little bit of extra thought I have come to the conclusion that they should be kept. For the following reasons:

I don't believe it is appropriate to be bringing a large number of un-related articles here. Unrelated as per say, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghanistan–Kosovo relations, in which all articles had a common link, i.e. Kosovo.

Following on from that discussion, it is my belief that these articles should be merged to a common article until such time as they are able to be broken out on their own. With the Kosovo set of articles this was possibly to merge. The type of article I suggest merging to is something like Dates of diplomatic recognition of Uruguay, which could be a tabulated list with the date of establishment with other countries, and other information.

For long established nations, there are going to be some degree of notable relations with other countries. The bilateral relations articles don't just cover political ties, but can cover a wide range of topics within a bilateral relationship, such as political, military, trade, transport links, cultural ties, treaties, interaction between countries in international organisations, etc. So whilst Bhutan-Equatorial Guinea relations would not be notable (due to the lack of diplomatic relations), there would be ties between say Uruguay and Ukraine. Details such as political links and history, trade (even minimal) statistics, etc can be included.

I would suggest contacting related wikiprojects, and WP:FR, and discuss the issues with them, and instead of deleting find some information for yourselves and add it. I am normally a deletionist, but the way that I see it, relations between real world countries is more important to an encyclopaedia than say having totally unsourced articles on every Family Guy episode (as much as I like it, this is singled out as it has just come on). But even I before nominate articles for deletion at least do some background searching and at least try to provide some sources for information, and really consider if it may indeed be notable before bringing them here.

So keep based upon all of that. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Bhutan-Equatorial Guinea is probably not a notable pairing (I can't find any sign of it), but Uruguay-Ukraine is (having done a little research. But fixing up Argentina-Egypt took ~1/2 hour of my time, and to do so for large numbers of countries at once is very difficult - you're right that we're not discussing each article on its merits, which would probably result in a mix of keeps and deletes. With a knowledge of Spanish, I'm hard pressed to make a very convincing case for Argentina-Singapore, although I get the impression a Spanish speaker might be able to. But this format doesn't really allow for a good discussion, you're right. Wily D 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, having written articles on Bhutanese topics in the past, even Bhutan-US relations is not notable - there is no diplomatic recognition and no ties of any sort (I actually merged the article into the foreign relations of Bhutan article). Bangladesh, India and Nepal with Bhutan relations yes are notable, as is Myanmar and Thailand due to political/trade/transport links, and even China-Bhutan relations are notable, even though there are no relations of any sort, except for China encroaching on Bhutanese territory by building roads, etc. The rest of the world and Bhutan is probable not-notable, bar aid development issues and the like. Just the same that Fiji-Saint Lucia relations is probably not notable. But any country with export industries would likely have relations of some sort with many other countries. Whilst we aren't just a paper encyclopaedia for prose, we are also an almanac of sorts and trade/transport statistics can also be included and are notable. --Russavia ^Dialogue 22:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, if notable should be in "Foreign policy of..." section of country article, furthermore I would suggest deletion of all the "X-Y relations" categories I've been seeing created. At 192 U.N. members the last I checked, that's 18,336 categories (or similarly titled articles). That's simply not useful. I might see my way to supporting "Country X Bilateral relations" which is just a subset of "Foreign relations of Country X". Which then would be exploited by all those contending non-sovereign illegitimate entities are sovereign according to Montevideo, see, they have "foreign relations", see WP article. So, I withdraw supporting any of these things. It's clutter, at best, a fork of some more appropriate place where it ought to be. PetersV TALK 21:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. In all fairness, we can keep "Foreign relations of X" as categories and joust on the one-offs that are, or aren't, appropriate. For bilateral relations, all you have to do is cross-reference any two categories. PetersV TALK 21:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If you're worried about the rainforest, please see WP:NOT#PAPER. This argument has been advanced many times, and essentially shown to be silly. Hard disk space is cheaper than water. WilyD 22:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hard disk space is cheap. Editor time, however, is not. Creating (and maintaining!) thousands of nearly-identical articles is an incredibly unproductive use of editor time, given the alternative of grouping this information into a single article per country and splitting that out into articles on an as-needed basis. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Volunteer time, roughly speaking, can't be channelled very much. Creating these articles is something someone has volunteered their time to do - it's already paid for, with currency that couldn't be used to do anything else. There's no evidence of a maintance problem, either ... WilyD 03:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but then editors who actually have a clue what they're doing (as opposed to creating thousands of mindless stubs) have to sift through them, cull out the worthless ones, maybe expand the legitimate ones -- rather than using a bit of judgment when starting articles in the first place and sparing the rest of us that second step. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        They don't "have" to - these articles are already fine as is, though expansion would be nice, it can wait until there's time/effort. There's no "problem" now that has to be "solved" by someone who'd rather do something else - there's just articles that could use expansion where someone has the time & interest. Wily D 08:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I respectfully disagree that these articles are "fine": "X has relations with Y, established in 19XX" does not make for an especially compelling article, and again, it would be nice if its creator thought about expansion potential rather than playing this little game and having the rest of us pick up the pieces. Furthermore, that these articles can in fact be expanded to any significant degree is dubious. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you would find no information more useful in a reference work than a modicum of information, I can't fathom why. Otherwise, it's hard to argue that not useful and interesting to everyone should be a deletion criterion (I think we could safely delete every article under that criterion). WilyD 16:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, the list format is not a bad substitute. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Except that the list format is a bad substitute which makes it harder to keep information synched and inhibits expansion, whilst offering identically zero benefits. Wily D 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ITS UNDER COUNSTRUCTION--BubbleDude22 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- at least "Ethiopia-Ireland" relations. The two countries have exchanged embassies -- which is more than could be said about, say Ethiopia-Nepal relations. I'd venture that any countries which exchange ambassadors have relations worth writing an article about. -- llywrch (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be nice if that statement could be backed up with sources, particularly considering that repeated precedent has established that the mere existence of diplomatic relations does not constitute evidence of notability. It's a routine feature of the international system, much better dealt with in other articles and not in this game whereby thousands of irrelevant stubs are pumped out. - Biruitorul ^Talk 08:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - [47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62] - Ireland-Ethiopia is not a hard one to source, for those with a little inclination. WilyD 14:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, so the Irish gave some money to the Ethiopians and gave some of them asylum. All very laudable, but hardly at the level of, oh, territorial disputes, wars, support for guerrilla movements, etc. (Which, yes, I realise it's quite impossible for those two to have, but that's just the point - their "relations" are merely the routine workings of the international system and not particularly deserving of a separate spot here, at least not in the scribomaniacal (I like that word) way they were introduced. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Most wars necessitate >1 articles to describe them with any level of reasonableness. What you're talking about is an ethical judgement as to what you feel is notable, not the neutral judgement set by what the world at large regards as notable. Wily D 16:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then trade agreements & cultural exchanges aren't notable? Your statement would eliminate consideration of those. And the precedent of "diplomatic relations don't count" is a bad one -- funding a diplomatic mission to another country requires a notable amount of money -- especially for a poor country like Ethiopia. (Which is one reason why Ethiopia does not have an ambassador to Nepal.) You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater in this case, Biruitorul. -- llywrch (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - 1) Depends on the trade agreement - sure, NAFTA or the GATT are notable; the Korea-Chile Free Trade Agreement possibly less so. Cultural exchanges? The 2008 New York Philharmonic visit to North Korea is notable; the Indonesian dance in Canada, less so. 2) Taking that logic a bit further, all significant items in the Ethiopian budget should be covered here. Also, while I'm not saying Ireland funded the embassy project, Red China today is known to finance lots of poor countries' embassies (but then again, its relations are probably more notable due to the dispute with Taiwan) and it wouldn't surprise me if, for instance, Ethiopia had some embassies in the Soviet bloc (not Ireland) funded by the USSR. 3) The point is, these all may be interesting cases on their own, but when someone mass-produces them with no thought for how they fit into the larger structure of the encyclopedia, it's a bit exasperating. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What it sounds that you are saying here is that your primary reason for these nominations is because of your issues with the person who created these articles, & not with the subject. (To take respond to just one of your points, if a country is funding poor countries' embassies -- like China -- then that fact is notable enough to be put into an article & documented. I for one find that kind of diplomacy interesting, & it definitely would explain some of the dynamics between the two countries.) The best thing to do is let these articles sit a while to allow knowledgeable & motivated editors see if they can flesh them out -- or explain in careful detail why they are not worth space in Wikipedia. As I have explained above, there are certain Ethiopia-B relation topics that are not worth an article, so this is not a knee-jerk "keep" vote. -- llywrch (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        While it may indeed be exasperating, it does not mean such articles should be nominated in bulk. As you yourself pointed out, there may be some valid articles, which means that every single article should be nominated on its own merit, not as a chunk of unrelated stuff, which is this AfD's approach. I would suggest you withdraw this AfD and re-submit the articles individually.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:28, February 3, 2009 (UTC)
  - If my only issue had been with the mass-production, I would not have nominated articles that are clearly notable, just far short on content (eg, Australia–Israel relations). Per WP:IAR, the manner of creation is hardly a sufficient reason for deletion (unless done in evasion of a block). As for the bulk nomination: well, ten articles of roughly equal merit (that is, based on my investigation, failing WP:N) isn't that dramatic. However, once this does close, I will change tack, either nominating individually or pairs involving the same country, in order to provide for a more unified discussion format. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- This multiple AfD is not the best forum to find sources for each individual articles, but I will try: Solid reference for Georgia–Mexico relations called Georgia-Mexico connection. Chile–Ukraine goverment are partners in the "Partnership of Principles"; Ireland–Kenya: "Ireland to support Annan Peace Talks in Kenya"; Ehtipopia/Ireland: UNICEF: Ethiopia has received contributions from the Government of Ireland; Ukraine–Uruguay: Ukraine statement in the Multilateral negotiations, the Uruguay round; Philippines-Romania Business. Sources are available if someones has the time and patience to search for them. --J.Mundo (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Ethiopia and, by extension, Kenya matter is addressed above. The "Georgia" in that article is the US state of Georgia, so, no. If the "Partnership of Principles" is notable, we can easily create an article about it listing all members. The Uruguay round merely took place there, but the document says nothing about Ukraine's relations with that country. Finally, yes, there may be business links between the Philippines and Romania (though I note both seem to be private entities) - I'm not saying these countries' relations all amount to zero, just that they're fairly routine affairs not deserving of our special attention. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The nomination fails WP:BEFORE which requires more effort to WP:PRESERVE content. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A fairly similar framework exists in the context of the "Diplomatic relations of..." series. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as theabove comments show, there can generally be found references. DGG (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, if you consider the 500 obvious cases. No, if you consider all 193 x 193 = 37,249 cases. Dc76\^talk 23:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This discussion is not about 37,249 cases. It is about the articles nominated above. If/when articles such as Ethiopia-Nepal relations are created, we'll discuss them then. -- llywrch (talk) 05:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Disk space may be cheap as noted, but the gating factor is that we all live for a finite amount of time and should be creating articles worthy of an encyclopedia rather than stubs upon stubs which fork information better left in existing articles. BTW, the math for 193 countries taken 2 at a time is: 193! / ((193-2)! * 2) = 193*192/2 = 18,528. I've already spent at least 10 minutes on this, so, 10 minutes x say 20 editors x 18,528 = 7 YEARS worth of editing, 24 x 7 x 365. Let's stop wasting time an nip this in the bud. AGAIN, cross-reference anything in "foreign relations of Argentina" category with "foreign relations of Singapore" and you have everything that pertains to the topic, that's a hell of a lot more useful than a pile of stubs with minimal information which, if anywhere, belongs in a list, no more. PetersV TALK 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument of sorts. All editors are volunteers, and we all volunteer our time. Just because you think such articles are a waste of time, the solution is simple....don't edit them, do other things. But there are some who may want to work on such things, and the creation of stubs is a valid way of both starting such articles, and also encouraging others to expand them. For example, I created this stub, and another editor came along and expanded it, and it appeared on the front page as a WP:DYK. If it weren't the presence of that stub, it is possible an editor wouldn't have come along and expanded it. So your argument has absolutely zero merit. --Russavia ^Dialogue 23:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, you can't compare Russia-Mongolia, where the two have a long border and the second was a puppet of the first for about 66 years, to, say, Argentina-Singapore, which have zero historic connection. Second, shall we take a look at some of Groubani's first bilateral relations stubs, from March 2008? New Zealand–Ukraine relations. South Korea–Ukraine relations. Greco-Brazilian relations. Greek-Uzbek relations. Greco-Saudi relations. Greek-Kenyan relations. Colombia–Greece relations. Guess what? They looked like junk a year ago, and they look the same today. And they will continue to look that way indefinitely unless we do the sensible thing by purging the worthless ones, keeping minimal information in list form, and focusing (if we are to have such articles) on relations that are actually of some importance beyond the mere existence of embassies. The "some one will eventually come along to expand" mantra has a very definite limit, and it's called WP:NOONECARES. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If "WP:NOONECARES" truly applied in this case, would anyone be arguing with you about deleting this article? Except for Groubani, of course. -- llywrch (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, without prejudice to any further discussion being brought forward on any particular bilateral relation that doesn't have sources. As can be shown above, for most relations sources can be found with a bit of digging, so they meet WP:N. Therefore, I don't think a group nom is the best way to move forward on discussing what is to be done with these articles. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete All: this seems just an attempt to couple all the ~200 sovereign states in existence to create as many stubs as possible. The example given by the "What the fuck is going on here?" guy proved nothing (except his finesse maybe) as 90% of the information in that article is extremely trivial, and I doubt anyone would find them useful, be it for interest or for a reference.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised what people find useful and/or interesting. Just because information is of no use/interest to you personally is not a good reason to delete it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:05, February 4, 2009 (UTC)
Keep while I am holding my nose with respect to the current quality of these articles, the topic of bilateral relations seems encyclopedic. I seem to recall a similar debate about Foo at the XXXX Summer/Winter Olympics series of stubs where the content was nothing more than Foo competed or didn't compete, these were kept - I cannot find the link to the AfD which was based on some selected test cases, but most looked like Bermuda at the 1956 Summer Olympics still looks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all such articles so long as they contain at least one piece of meaningful information. The ones I looked at qualified, as they included such things as embassy locations and dates for the establishment of relations. Everyking (talk) 00:09, 6 February 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 Snowball keep, via well-argued reasoning of Drmies and subsequent cleanup. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every Sperm Is Sacred[edit]

I fail to see how this particular song is in any way notable. No references, not lined on the Python navbox, and consists mostly of expanding the plot of one section of the Meaning of Life. -mattbuck (Talk) 02:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--OK, this is a very not-so-good article, so to speak, also without any reference whatsoever, and that's really unfortunate since the song, the phrase, and the content of the skit are highly relevant. I don't rightly know how to start rewriting the article, but this search, for the phrase on Google Books, clearly gives a lot of notable hits. The song/phrase is taken as an example of anti-Catholicism, is adapted ("Every cell is sacred") to include cloning, has become something of a fighting song for pro-choice activists, etc. It is cited in books on God and atheism [63], books on the, ahem, penis, and more books on the ahem penis, it's cited in the Encyclopedia of British Humorists...need I go on? Keep. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies. JavaTenor (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Drmies has it exactly right.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Drmies. A long tradition of British anti-Catholicism (and anti-Irish sentiment) bears comic fruit in this song: the video is a parody of the Oliver musical that makes a pointed claim that Roman Catholic opposition to birth control leads to slum conditions and poverty. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you all seem to know your stuff. I'm working a bit on the article and need some help--it's not just a song, it's also a scene (or skit?). Please drop by and help me find the appropriate wording, consistently, throughout the article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep as improved article shows notability. Good job Dries! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I learned from the master... Drmies (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Great cleanup and sourcing Drmies! LinguistAtLarge • Msg 19:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic, well-sourced.--Michig (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The range and depth of sources alone speaks for the sketch's notability. Further, the sketch is not only culturally notable as comedy, but is notable as a satire upon social and religious issues. The article seems to cover this, in its present incarnation. Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:36, 2 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roque "Rocky" Moran[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roque "Rocky" Moran

Translated from the Spanish Wikipedia by the subject himself. There is a weak assertion of notability, but Google comes up short when it comes to backing it up. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only possible notability is the radio work in Honduras, but even he himself calls himself only "a member of an elite group of radio personalities, having worked for the well known and prestigious radio station HRN" . Is there some way to follow this up on esWP after we delete it? DGG (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also es:Wikipedia:Consultas de borrado/Roque Moran. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Appears to be non-notable. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 2 February 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. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Datsyuk[edit]

The article constitutes a neologism and also does not meet notability requirements. Orlandkurtenbach (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge anything of value to Deke; lots of ghits [64], [65] but it appears to be just labeling the deke by who does it. No gnews hits for the phrase. JJL (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this is worth redirecting—if anything, someone searching for it would probably be interested in the player (Pavel Datsyuk), not dekeing in general. TheFeds 03:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as much as I love it, it simply doesn't come close to being notable enough for an article on Wikipedia. —Krm500 ^{(Communicate!)} 22:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 2 February 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. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MODx[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources 16x9 (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Keep. Has received an award from an independent reliable source. It may not be the most important award ever, but it seems enough to keep this framework to me. JulesH (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/question - Does the awards have to be notable for it to extend notability to the article? If someone where to ever give me a bannerstar for being such a great Wikipedia do I got to have my own article? I mean Wikipedia is notable, but are bannerstars, etc? 16x9 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it has to be awarded by or reported in a reliable source, which is the case here. Beyond that, the more notable the award is the more notability it gives to the recipient, but as a baseline level, reliable sourcing is all we need, I'd say. Wikipedia barnstars, as an example, would not normally be reported by a reliable source, so wouldn't confer reliability. JulesH (talk) 01:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:16, 24 January 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) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a poor article, but the same might be said of most Wiki articles on web CMS, and individual applications in particular. MODx is in active development and has a loyal following - if deleted the article will be replaced by something that may be no better.

There are limitations in a Wiki citation/no original research policy in that it depends on detailed evaluation and comparison being published elsewhere. In a fluid environment with a proliferation of different options that would require somebody to get to know and use a number of different types of CMS. Few people have the time, skills or inclination, and as a result published references are either very superficial, written by somebody who is familiar with one CMS and an advocate of it, or possibly someone who is irritated because they could not even get it to install. Sources are mainly the website of the project itself. The nearest one can find to objective review is a comparison site such as opensourcecms.com where MODx gets a high rating (the only one with higher has relatively few people rating) but the supporting text covers less than two lines ^[1]. Or the throw away remark about MODx on cmscritic.com ^[2].

My understanding is that MODx is particularly favoured by those who need to customise websites eg for database purposes because the modular approach means that they can modify behaviours without hacking the core. No, it doesn't explain that in the Wiki article. And I'm not qualified to edit the article myself because I've just spent a few hours trying to choose an open source CMS, which is what brought me here!

I think that the present cautions on the article are sufficient - sooner or later somebody will come along who can make a better job of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 10:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ [1]
^ cmscritic.com[2]

I've just updated and edited the content for content and style which is hopefully an improvement over the previous entry. I can certainly see how the original editor marked the article for deletion based on the original content and few external resources. Now however there are literally thousands of articles, blog entries and reviews all over the web.

Major corporations have deployed MODx and rely upon it as a critical piece of their IT infrastructure, and there is a pending press releases to attest to this coming from a publicly traded company. MODx is in use globally, has multiple books written with more in development and serves millions of page views monthly to tens of thousands of visitors, and I would sincerely argue it deserves to maintain listing in Wikipedia.

Further to this point, the judges for the 2007 Packt award alone have the credibility to prove that MODx is a noteworthy subject. And finally the 2007 Packt award is not simply a "bannerstar" as seems to be implied by the original editor who marked the article for deletion. The project received $2000 in cash to help fund ongoing development. If that's insignificant as claimed by the editor, I surely would personally appreciate receiving weekly insignificant awards from the editor via Paypal! Rthrash (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per discussion here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Packt the reliability of packt has been questioned. 16x9 (talk) 13:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —16x9 (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert on what makes a project "notable" but I know that MODx has been featured on some very notable websites such as Ajaxian[66] and NETTUTS[67]. --ANoble (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If MODx had gained attention in reliable sources, it would be worth keeping the article. Since the time the article was nominated for deletion, Rthrash was able to improve the article somewhat, though not enough to show notability, in my opinion. For completeness, I should note that the description of MODx in Water and Stone's CMS survey (Ref. 8) is far from uniformly positive:
This system showed more mixed metrics than any other in the survey. MODx picked up the "Most Promising CMS" nod at the Packt Awards in 2007; yet oddly, outside MySpace, MODx has been unable to build much show of support. Moreover, while the system has solid search engine rankings, it was the big loser in the Alexa rankings in our survey. Perhaps even more disturbing is that MODx was the only system in survey whose user ratings declined during the test period. It looks to us like MODx is managing to attract attention but failing to convert the attention into users. Does MODx risk slipping into irreversible decline or will they manage to capitalize on the many advantages they have in placement? If they are to make a go of it, they will need to repair their user ratings and improve their performance in goodwill indicators.
Our article on Packt, the organization that gave MODx the award in 2007, is currently proposed for deletion via WP:PROD. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Against that, MODx is rather more 'notable' on most criteria than a number of the examples of web CMS in the Wiki article on the subject (in the paragraph on history). Ironically, one of the criticisms of MODx that I have read in a number of sources is that the MODx team are not good at self publicity, including their own website. If the criteria for inclusion in Wiki is number of mentions elsewhere there is a real danger of doing exactly what it is desired to avoid, which is to provide a vehicle only for the self-publicists. The criterion that I think that people are really struggling for is whether the software in question is 'interesting' - a subjective measure which is precisely the problem.

Also, for consistency taking down the MODx articles probably implies deleting most of the other articles on individual CMS which seem to me a lot less notable than MODx. Not to mention a great deal else, I suspect, so it is important to be clear as to the reasons. MODx is at least different from its rivals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJHingston (talk • contribs) 09:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. As a software engineer, I would say MODx is noteworthy, and that it's hardly an obscure project in a corner of the Web. Reliable sources, however, may be a problem. A quick Google search got me two reviews that may or may not qualify, one from TechRepublic [68], another from Linux.com [69]. That's not the New York Times, but ... Equendil Talk 20:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I belive the issues with Notability and Reliable Sources have been addressed with the recent edits. Discussion follows: Note: the following relate to revision from 00:42, 1 February 2009

I apologize for not being entirely Wikipedia savvy and likely failing on some protocol, nomenclature and formatting points, but I am making every best effort to address the concerns above in a factual, non-biased manner. I would also like to thank the above editors/commentors for greatly improving the quality of the article through this discussion process.

As to the Water & Stone publication cited as supporting deletion, just because it listed some negative factors including few social media outlets, does not inherently make that non-notable. Since the survey's publication, the drawbacks have been address and the references to the previously lacking external indicators have been added to the article. (See Translations and Community section) Alexa is not an unbiased gauge of website popularity since it requires the installation of a Toolbar in order to track traffic. This toolbar is not available to Macintosh users, nor is it installed by default with any browsers. Additional evidence of Notability can be found in the same section, where community-driven efforts of establishing native-language support resources in non-English speaking countries are cited. (See Translations and Community section)

Would an indicator of Notability include publicly acknowledging use of MODx by Notable organizations and companies count? If so these sources have also been added to the article including sites managed by MODx that themselves are included in Wikipedia. (See Usage section) These include The National Portrait Gallery in England, an XO company standardizing on MODx (XO being a publicly traded company that counts half the Fortune 500 amongst its clients), numerous institutions of higher learning, and UltraEdit.

Further my understanding of Reliable Sources includes scholarly publications by institutions of higher learning. Surely publishing entire public and intranet sites with thousands of pages by colleges and universities satisfies this benchmark. If not then News Organizations are defined as Reliable Sources. CBS owns TechRepublic.com which reviewed MODx. This has now been likewise noted on the article.

Would referencing Press Releases by Notable companies included in Wikipedia that mention 1) use of, or 2) services based on, or 3) partnerships with MODx count as Reliable Sources and/or provide evidence of Notability (if further evidence is deemed being needed)?

If the above measures do not count towards resolving the objections raised about Notability or Reliable Sources, I'll keep plugging away at revising the article until it meets the standards. Thanks again for helping make this a better article that meets the Wikipedia standards. Rthrash (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note additional updates made and recognition now is in chronological order. Updates include not altogether flattering items including better explanation of Secunia vulnerability tracking and an except that was critical of MODx from the Water & Stone survey Rthrash (talk) 18:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm certainly not a subject expert, but I think the reviews and other sources good enough by our standards.DGG (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely enough used and known CMS ([70], [71], [72], [73]) to merit an article ¨¨ victor falk 09:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm with DGG--I find this adequately sourced.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:11, 2 February 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. Mgm|^(talk) 12:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EFront - eLearning and Human Capital Development[edit]

Non-notable and lack of verifiable and reliable sources. 16x9 (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Sources are available about this software (although it is hard to find them among sources about software development company eFront which is apparently unrelated). E.g.: [74] [75]. Something needs to be done about the horrible article title, though. Suggest a rename to eFront (e-learning software). JulesH (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 06:27, 26 January 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) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:45, 2 February 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. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canyon[edit]

The only sources that I can find for this movie is this and this. Fails WP:NF. Schuym1 (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently looking for other sources. Hda3ku (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As of now I've found this Hda3ku (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: notability not established WP:NF. JamesBurns (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wait, since the film hasn't been released but filming has started doesn't that mean that it is notible under WP:NF Future Films? Hda3ku (talk) 15:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No... sorry. And actually, the film is now complete and awaiting release. Having commenced principle filming is only one of the criteria under WP:NFF for unreleased films. Another is that it get some press coverage... in reliable sources independent of the film. We have been able to WP:Verify that it has filmed and is awaiting release, but production needs to get screener copies out to the reviewers so something substantial about it gets written. THAT would get it notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete While we can verify that principal photography has occurred via this source, WP:NFF also requires that we get past WP:N with regards to the film itself. News articles which mention the film focus almost entirely on the actors or actresses. I've done a bit of digging at LexisNexis and at Google News and found very little about the film other than what's in the article. Unless this film garners more media coverage, I can't see a reason to keep at this time. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, none of the sources provided by Schuym1 or Hda3ku pass WP:RS. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and allow return when WP:NF can be met. Note to closing admin: Please WP:USERFY the article back to its author, as I was able to improve it per film MOS, and that may be helpful for its eventual return. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: For more sources, a quick troll of Variety yields this and this, the latter draws its information from [[76]] Also, it is important to note that the distribution of the film remains ambiguous. As it has completed principal photography, only grounds for deletion would be if the film had not secured distribution. However, if the film has not secured distribution but does so in the future, the article should be reinstated. Gta 23
- Only one of those reliable sources has significant coverage. The second paragraph of WP:NFF says that upcoming films need to have significant coverage in reliable sources also. Schuym1 (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 00:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 2 February 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 redirect to Blue Water High. Mgm|^(talk) 12:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carolina Díaz[edit]

Can't find any sources to confirm. There is a writer on IMDB of the same name, but she seems to be a different person. Also, there is an economist of the same name, who also could be notable. So overall, probably not-notable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Person's only claim to fame is that she was once on a reality TV show. LK (talk) 11:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:42, 2 February 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. Per consensus on lack of reliable sources to support notability. MBisanz ^talk 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish[edit]

Questionable notability. Page has been an outline for awhile and has not been worked on. Cptnono (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are certainly plenty of reliable sources, but all the ones I see currently point to WP:ONEEVENT, the death of his three daughters. Some accounts of his activism prior to the current fighting would probably be enough to establish notability via WP:GNG, but I don't see them yet. That the article has not been worked on for "awhile" (how long is "awhile"? The article is only 2 weeks old) is, of course, irrelevant. Rklear (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started the page a few weeks ago and have had other stuff going on. Will add more sources to counter WP:ONEEVENT. Just give me a few hours. Cheers, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 10:07

Pedrito: Over a hundred hours have passed since your gave your basis for a "keep" and the article still has not moved beyond a WP:ONEEVENT. Thanks and cheers, --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ONEEVENT, WP:NOT#NEWS. Can anybody find a merge target? Ray (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Ray (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very unfortunate situation, but unfortunately doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standard. This is the classic WP:BLP1E. Might also be problematic due to WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and WP:COATRACK.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:1E, recentism. He isn't really a peace activist and he is only known because of one controversial address to the Israeli nation. The sources given in the article also don't support the 'facts' in the lead. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable as he is an activist. Activists are notable. He does appear to be well known. LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 21:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If ~~Rklear~~ pedrito (I misread the discussion) or another editor can show that he is notable and advance the article past an outline it should be OK.Cptnono (talk) 01:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notice the usual Israeli-Palestinian crowd has jumped on this AfD (User:RayAYang, User:Brewcrewer, User:Ynhockey). Could we get some genuinely un-involved opinions? Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 03.02.2009 09:07

Pedrito, I would hardly characterize maybe 20 edits on articles arguably related to Israel-Palestine out of a personal total of over 2500 in the mainspace as making me part of the "Israeli-Palestinian" crowd. Say, rather, that I'm a regular math editor/wikignome/AfD hangout (over 600 AfD edits in the past 6 months, I believe) who has happened, in the course of reading Wikipedia, to edit a few articles that you consider your own domain. Ray (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray: Pedrito's baseless comments unfortunately will not encourage your participation in I-P conflict articles. Ironically enough, Pedrito, is the only one here that has edited exclusively in the I-P conflict and he did not hesitate to !vote. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll hold off a vote, as an editor says he needs more time, but I would suggest that this may not be the best time for this article. Wait until there has been more independent coverage. What work has he done as a peoce activist? Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per brewcrewer --DFS454 (talk) 21:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article mentions that he ~~was frequently on Israeli television~~ "has been highly visible because of his willingness to speak with Israeli media from his home in the Gaza City neighborhood of Sajaiya". There should be sources about that and this would establish notability even without the dramatic event with his daughters. Article needs expanding, not deleting. --Crusio (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crusio, Can you point to the specific place in the article where it says that "he was frequently on Israeli television"?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I though that's what you meant. I didn't mean to be anal but the difference can be important. If he was "frequently on Israeli television" it would indicate that he's notable outside of this event. However, if he was just "highly visible" during the Israel-Gaza conflict he would still be considered a WP:BLP1E. Best,--brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, he frequently did figure on Israeli TV (Channel 10), reporting by cell phone on the situation in Gaza. I'm not sure if you can call this "appearing" on TV as there was no live image, but he certainly "figured" on TV.... But I do wish somebody came up with a reference (on his reporting or on his medical activities - a Gazan MD treating Israeli patients cannot be an everyday occurrence) that does not mention the death of his daughters. --Crusio (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took from the articles that he began appearing on TV only during the Gaza conflict. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. WHen I searched a few days ago, I got the impression that he was already known before the conflict, as a Gazan doctor treating Israeli patients and possibly also as a peace activist. The sources , however, were just blogs and therefore not WP:RS, so I did not keep the links. However, his reporting from Gaza during the conflict is sourced and started weeks before his daughters were killed. I think that a Gazan reporting live (albeit by cell phone) on Israeli TV during this conflict would be notable. --Crusio (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 3 days later and still no movement on fixing one event problem. His other wrok is sourced, but all from articles about the death of his daughters.Yobmod (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Give the author or future authors time. If there had been media in Gaza and this interview had happened by chance, I probably would support WP:ONEEVENT. But there was no official media reporting from Gaza. Thus almost every station had to use other reporting channels. There could be e.g. a category of media contacts/reporting from Gaza war 2008/volunteer journalism from Gaza war/alternative War coverage Gaza 2008/citizen media war coverage/feel free to find a better category. All we know is Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish consented to report for the Israeli media. That his house was hit and he reported almost live on Israeli TV, shortly after some of his children had died, which makes the incident very special. It surely is not the typical WP:ONEEVENT. It could only be a WP:NOT#MEMORIALif it was an article about his dead daughters. WP:COATRACK is simply bad taste. LeaNder (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grassfed (talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Grassfed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment"please don't speedy" was inserted into the edit description when the page was created on 01/22. Since then, editors have said they would add to it but nothing of true value has been done. If the doctor is notable, please fill in the information or recreate the page when more sources are found.Cptnono (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT, WP:COATRACK, WP:NOT ukexpat (talk) 16:26, 7 February 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. Appropriate references available. People in Norwich apparently care a lot. Building delays merely add a new section to the article. (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich Northern Distributor Road[edit]

Original author promised to expand this article shortly after creation, this has never happened. According to one of the sources the earliest construction could start is 2012, which would limit the amount of information available on the project to make it notable. Given the uncertainty in UK road building at the moment, I feel WP:CRYSTAL should be applied here. jenuk1985 (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposed road with insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. It allows the user to still do the expansion without leaving the article in mainspace. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL would apply if there were no sources containing discussions of future events. But, in fact, in the cases of major road building programmes, there are usually a lot of sources, several years in advance, not least because of requirements for public consultation and suchlike that governments usually have. This particular road is no exception to that. As can be seen, there are plenty of in-depth sources, discussing this subject in depth, dealing in aspects ranging from from the motivations for construction to the delays in doing so. Google Books even leads to sources, such as an archaeological report by Norfolk Archaeology. The PNC is amply satisfied. Far more than what is currently written here can clearly be written.
I urge Jenuk1985 to stop making personal speculations. You're not here to guess, based upon your own ideas, that a road won't be built, and write accordingly. Wikipedia:No original research, remember? You're not here to put your own guesses, ideas, and speculations anywhere into Wikpiedia. You're here to systematize existing, published, documented, human knowledge. And there is plenty of published documented knowledge of this subject to be had. Pick up the sources and start writing!
Keep. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not read thru the soucres provided but your comment suggests they are not appropriate sources. The need for public consultaion and government sources involved in projects are not independant. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few of the sources are government websites, but others appear to be the independent sources needed. —Snigbrook 01:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:CRYSTAL does not appear to apply: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". Although it is not under construction already, according to the sources some of the planning for the road has started, and there is enough coverage for an article to be written about it. —Snigbrook 01:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm amazed that a road scheme is even being considered as notable enough to have its own article, no other UK road schemes warrant their own article, despite similar sources to those listed being available. jenuk1985 (talk) 13:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A few road schemes have their own articles – there is a category, for articles or sections of articles about future roads. The category contains a few articles about proposed roads in the UK: Aberdeen Western Peripheral Route, Glasgow East End Regeneration Route, Longdendale Bypass and New M4; there may be others not in the category. Of the roads I have mentioned, all appear to meet the notability guidelines, with the possible exception of the Glasgow road. —Snigbrook 14:24, 4 February 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. Keep- major international companies "hide" here. Intro should explain why these companies are HQ'd in Bahamas. Should likely only include those international HQ's (non-admin closure) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 20:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies of the Bahamas[edit]

Wikipedia is wp:NOT a directory. NJGW (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by extension, I think we may need to delete all the articles begining with "List of companies of..." There are 116 of them[77]. These are best handeled as categories, and that will do a fine job of taking care of notability issues. NJGW (talk) 02:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Adding "List of companies in..."[78] and "List of companies based in..."[79]. NJGW (talk) 04:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've striken the addition of the other lists as several editors have pointed out that they are not technically added properly. This AFD can therefore serve as a test case, perhaps leading to a certralized discussion. NJGW (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The categories can't deal with indicating the subject field, or other information that could be added. The actual problem with this one is the very large proportion with redlinks. This can be taken to represent cultural bias, or to indicate that most of the companies there aren't notable & should be removed. Since at least the major newspapers there certainly would warrant articles, and the Port Administration andthe Post Office likewise, & probably the banks, the solution is to write some more articles. DGG (talk) 03:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what do we do about the fact that this is nothing more than a directory? There is no encyclopedic value to these lists. Their only stated and possible purpose is to be business directories. Even a list of notable companies is just a directory, and Category:Companies_of_the_Bahamas can be given any lead type information you could want. NJGW (talk) 03:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY, this List has nothing to do with it. What exactly in WP:NOTDIRECTORY do you mean to cite? And, please cite it. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See response to your similar comment below. NJGW (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are a LOT more than 116 of them anyway. List of companies based in Tulsa, Oklahoma, List of companies based in Oklahoma City, List of companies in Dallas, Texas, among countless others....those are only the ones that pop off the top of my head! Scootey (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is your basis for saying 'keep'? Remember that this is not a vote and the existance of other articles does not excuse this one (those should just be added to the list discussed here). NJGW (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this type of thing has been debated before. Most countries and even states or cities now have a list of companies. Besides what may not be notable in the United States doesn't mean it isn't notable in the Bahamas. E.g. BatelCo for instance is the sole telephone company in the Bahamas.

Under the logic of "no Directories" shouldn't that mean all "Lists" on Wikipedia should be deleted as they *all* would be operating as directories? CaribDigita (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A} You have not given a reason for keeping these lists as encyclopedic entries. B) You have not given a reason why these do not duplicate effective categories. C) If you have an issue with "no Directories", then that's a different question. The policy says "no directories", not "no lists". This is not a question about notability, but about the utility of these lists other than as a business directory... basically free advertising for which ever company is listed. If the lists are to be maintained however, the question then becomes whether we are more interested in notability of completeness, as well as what sort of sources to use for these questions and the question of whether an entry is included in one list or another (shall we list all the front companies for US tax evaders in the Bahamas?). NJGW (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just read Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY, this List has nothing to do with it. By repeatedly citing it, I think you're making the point of the Keeps, if it has indeed been read by the participants on this page. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See response to your similar comment below. NJGW (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which front companies are being referred to? --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Object these hundreds of lists are not tagged for deletion and not listed here properly. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (but only the article in question, I haven't reviewed others). This list wasn't crafted in an encyclopedic way and just seems to be a random list of businesses. What's the criteria for inclusion? Every business in the Bahamas? Every restaurant? If that's the case we might as well provide addresses and phone numbers, and start selling ad space. Scootey alluded to some other lists, but those are lists of companies based in some place (implying they operate in more than one place), not a list of every company operating there. That's still questionable, but at least narrows the field to something more discriminate. Alternatively a list of the largest companies would be enclopedic wrt. the Bahamas' economy. The number of redlinks indicate the category should have been filled out before creating this list. Fletcher (talk) 12:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this specific list per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:LIST. Wikipedia is NOT a directory, and these lists are nothing but regional business directories. There is no criteria of inclusion, just whatever businesses people think of to stick in there. This is not a list of "encyclopedic content" and it does not meet any of Wikipedia's content guidelines. It doesn't even comply with WP:STAND, as few, if any, of the entries there will every be notable enough to have their own entries. I also agree, in theory, that other similar lists should be evaluated, but as they are not properly included in the nomination, I am commenting only on this particular list.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#DIR seems to say keep, by my reading of it. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe there is a list of companies at the Bahamas Securities Exchange official website that can be turned into an article, viz FTSE 250 Index. --Mr Accountable (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I agree with the nominator. Wikipedia is not a business directory, so this fails WP:NOT#DIR. If there is any doubt, this list does not contain any encyclopedic content. If there were any evidence of notability, then there might be a reason to retain it, but there isn't. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:39, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely does not fail WP:NOT#DIR. --Mr Accountable (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose that's one way of interpreting the policy, but another might be that the list is a directory of businesses with no encyclopedic value, and that the list is inviolation of "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages... a resource for conducting business, ... [or] an indiscriminate collection of information." NJGW (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NOT#DIR. Of the 6 listed guidelines, please pick at least one and use it here at the discussion. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List has a sub-one page history dating back to 2005, definitely not a spam trap. It looks well-maintained, no obvious problems, there don't appear to be any directory entries. As long as there is no List of companies traded on the Bahamas International Securities Exchange, this list will have to do. Here is the BISX list; there is some overlap. WP:NOT#DIR currently has 6 talking points; not one of them seems close to this nom. --Mr Accountable (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How does the existance of an article make it encyclopedic? The other list you suggest seems to imply notability (even though it is still a business directory), and is actually wp:verifiable. If you believe this information is encyclopedic, perhaps you should create that list instead of insisting that this completely non-encyclopedic list should stay. NJGW (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, such a list would just be a mirror of the source you point out, and so would also not be in compliance with the policy. Don't create it. NJGW (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite clearly encyclopedic per the overcited WP:NOT#DIR. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The total lack of any third party reliable sources doesn't strike you as an obvious problem? Fletcher (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the companies have articles. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but prune non-notable entries (many of those in the "Other" section look like candidates for removal). The list is a service to our readers by giving them an overview of notable Bahamian businesses, about which we have or should have articles, with links to articles we have. I agree with DGG that the list serves our readers in ways that a category couldn't. It also serves the editors by identifying articles that should be written. In response to the invocation of WP:WAX, that essay (not policy or guideline) paints with too broad a brush. I agree with the essay to some extent. That there's one article of a particular type doesn't mean there should be another; perhaps the first is exceptional or perhaps the first should also go. But when there's a multitude of articles of that type, it goes beyond "other crap exists" and reflects the community's judgment that such articles are appropriate. JamesMLane t c 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain the criteria under which businesses listed on this page are deemed notable? Or can you explain the notability of Asa H. Pritchard's groceries or the Alexiou, Knowles and Co. law firm? Because I don't see what it is. Would it be encyclopedic for me to create a page listing all the stores in my local town? Do I need to provide sources or can I just recite information from memory? Fletcher (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Local town? No. The Bahamas? Yes. Please see WP:NOT#DIR. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - What's so special about the Bahamas? There are less than 350,000 people there. Should we list every store in Mexico City? How about every store in China? Well, you claim this list is encyclopedic, so please explain how. (you also ignore the notability issue) NJGW (talk) 04:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, every store in Mexico City, every store in China, that's asking a lot of the Wikipedia. I believe the Bahamas are a member of the United Nations. The Bahamas are an important offshore tax haven for some companies. As far as notability, list itself is notable per WP:NOT#DIR, so let's check individual companies. Many of the companies put on this list are at Bahamas Securities Exchange#Listed companies; some are not. Some of the discussion topic's non-intersecting members of the set are notable, some may not be. For those which are not notable in and of themselves, we have some research to do. I would start with Pinder's Ferry Service, Pyfrom's Gifts and Alexiou, Knowles. There may be good reasons not to be listed on the BISX, maybe company is listed at another major exchange, maybe company is an important affiliate, maybe company is in the process of application to be listed. The companies on the BISX list can be added to the List of companies of the Bahamas. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, very similar but inferior to List_of_Kuwaiti_companies so to keep this would be systemic bias against Kuwait. Benefix (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per a pretty strong consensus that lists of companies by country are valuable to Wikipedia and do not violate any part of WP:NOT#DIR. Systemic bias against Kuwait would be resolved by DRV'ing the Kuwaiti list, which was deleted based on rather weak arguments, and there may have been procedural issues there as well (there was no comment in that AfD for a full 11 days after nomination, then a relist and a bunch of comments happened in a 24-hour period, then the article was apparently significantly rewritten, after which there was no comment for 7 days... something smells fishy about that AfD). DHowell (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- reply I'm not sure what you mean by fishy... but in any case do you believe that the AFD for List of companies was fishy as well? See the consensus from the wikiproject below. NJGW (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I worked on the Kuwait list, thinking back, it was very inclusive, quite long, somewhat untended, and not written with particular attention to either English or to Wikistyles and formatting. I am sure that is the reason it was put up and deleted, and not because it was the List of companies of Kuwait. If I had time I might re-establish that list and do a proper job of it. It was at least a couple of years ago; I was probably User:McTrixie at the time. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nope, must have been another list. That Kuwait list looks solid as per WP:NOT#DIR. Sometimes even the Wikipedia makes errors. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My work here with Wikipedia frequently involves cleaning up promotional (and sometimes commercial) lists of stuff. Through these experiences I have noticed that the information that is provided in the lists is simply duplicated in categories. I prefer our category system as the method for grouping like items. List articles attract explosive and egregious material that I'm having difficulty maintaining effectively. E_dog95'^{Hi '} 06:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- note This is the preferred method given by consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies/Lists of companies by country. NJGW (talk) 06:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please note that the history of this list dates back to 2005, and is less than one page long. It's not attracting anything. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not attracting anything? This occurred just a few days ago. What I meant was that the lists attract spam even more so that articles. Maybe this isn't what you meant? These types of problems are far less common with categories... E_dog95'^{Hi '} 07:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nah, one page history over 3 or 4 years, that's no spam trap, that's clean. I have Marrakech and Tangiers on my watch, I know, those External links sections need to be cleaned out a few times a week, tourism industry spam. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Lists says that lists are ok, and that categories are ok. I would think that having both is preferable to choosing between the two; the wikipedia is full of lists and categories. .... In thinking on lists and categories, one might ask oneself, how could a category be created out of articles that aren't written yet? If the article isn't written, it cannot go in a category! And yet we need some way of organizing the material; in this case, the companies of the Bahamas. So, we use a list. --Mr Accountable (talk) 07:23, 6 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 07:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shelton Payagala[edit]

Prod contested through a message on my talk page. Sri-Lankan filmmaker. No non-trivial sources can be found on Google. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of Sri Lankan Eminent Artist names and works not on the internet. Shelton Payagala Is a one best Film maker and Writer in Sri Lanka. his Information is should be include to the Wikipedia. i suggest don't delete this article . some one can improve it later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetskere (talk • contribs) 03:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jetskere -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least until we can have a local look into it. Sri Lanka is obviously a country that is unlikely to have wide internet presence. Deleting because we don't have access to paper sources only promotes systemic bias. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete absolutely a entirely non-notable subject (no-offense to the person who's article this is about, but still it is not notable). - Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is well known movie personality in Sri Lanka. He makes Sinhalese films, so the internet won't be the best place to find sources. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there an article about him in the Sinhalese Wikipedia? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Delete Sri-Lanka is not another planet, it has the internet. A Sri-Lankan online newspaper is even cited! (but is a trivial mention). If no other internet sources exist, where are the dead-tree sources? Theis actor is non-notalbe unless sources show otherwise, which they simply don't. Combating systemic bias does not mean condecending to foriegn wikipedians. Everyone is equal, and equally subject to policies and guidleines.Yobmod (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and allow article about this film director and writer to be improved per WP:CSB. No need to delete. I found and added a few more sources, but I need help with non-english sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I weakened my delete in response to this. If someone actually helps the creator understand what is needed, or at least list the article for improvement at WP:CSB, then that would be great. Unfortunately that is not a debate closing option. Maybe it should be!Yobmod (talk) 08:40, 6 February 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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enda Caldwell[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. JaGa^talk 02:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least two of the references are independent and reliable, so Enda meets the WP:GNG. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about WP:ENTERTAINER under WP:BIO, though? --JaGa^talk 17:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references may be independent and reliable but the coverage on independent sources does not appear to go beyond non trivial. Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
even if kept most of the content appears to be mostly Original Research unsuported by sources and should be removed. and references to Enda should be changed to Caldwell Duffbeerforme (talk) 15:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am a new user and wish to try and clean up the article so can you please make the necesssary changes to the article in order to make it acceptible? Enda Caldwell--Enda Caldwell (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, to prove the audience for my radio program is huge - my voice is the nightime station imaging voice on FM104 who maintained it's position as the most listened to local radio station in the Dublin market with a listened yesterday figure of 20% (+1)in the most recent JNLR results found here: [80] And in my past shows on stations like Atlantic 252 I had an average quarter hour listenership of 70,000+ people in UK in 2001. On Today FM I also achieved record audiences of 26,000 adults average quarter hour performance for Planet Hits which I presented from 2001-2002. And a further 18,000 average quarter hour for Nothin' But 90's on Today FM from 2003-2005. The average quarter hour means a sample of the estimated amount of listeners at any random 15 minute period during any one of my programmes at the time of broadcast. I would be most notably remembered for my on air performances at Atlantic 252 and Today FM and also being one of the only Irish Radio Personalities ever to present shows for RTL Group and Radio Luxembourg. I have achieved some noteriety for being the last ever live presenter to say the words Atlantic 252 on 20th December 2001. The station had 1 million listeners + at that point. I hope that this helps my case. Thank you. [[User:Enda Caldwell|Enda Caldwell]--Enda Caldwell (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears, per nom, to fail WP:BIO. The secondary sources provided seem to constitute "passing references" to the subject and would therefore appear to fail "significant coverage". The rest of the article seems to rely on primary sources (or no sources other than the author/subject himself) and would seem to have quite significant issues under WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI. Guliolopez (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Shameless self promotion, total COI. Snappy (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MGM. WP:COI is not grounds for deleting an article. Sources in the article provide adequate coverage to justify an article on this apparently well-known radio personality. JulesH (talk) 10:15, 6 February 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. — Aitias // discussion 01:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man with the Iron Fist[edit]

Explicitly fails future films notability guideline. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources indicate that shooting has already begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing WP:NFF. Not enough information about the film is released to sustain an article yet. Apart from the lead, non of the information is viable:

"Currently, not much is known about the movie's plot or development, other than several interesting postings on YouTube, which can be viewed under the title RZA's movie." (stating not much is known, and telling there are YouTube videos, which Google can find just fine on its own)
The movie is quite possibly the result of RZA's friendship, and years of studying under Quentin Tarantino, who is said to be involved with the movie as well. (speculation) -- Mgm|^(talk) 11:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most recent sources I could find were from mid-2008 ([81], [82]) and suggest that this film is currently no more than a script, hence it falls some way short of WP:NFF requirements. I believe the film is already mentioned at RZA, and there is nothing here worth merging. PC78 (talk) 13:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already cited above. LiteraryMaven (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the above editors, IMDB doesn't cite this movie for release until 2010. Much too early with no information. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:30, 3 February 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 Hip hop music. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop rap[edit]

As is shown on the talk page, the debate over the deletion of this article goes back as far as 2004. But to be clear, the article is pretty much nothing but original research. And although I am familiar with the term "pop rap", when I Googled it, the only somewhat reliable link I found led to an AOL Music page that merely had a list of supposed pop rap artists with no definition of what pop rap actually is. (The rest of the Ghits I found led to message boards.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No definate information, mostly opinions. Borock (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not verifiable. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hip hop music, merging some of the article if any of it can be sourced. This article does contain some information which, prima facie, appears correct and which doesn't appear in the target article. Certainly, though, without sources it does not belong in an encyclopedia and cannot support a standalone article at this point. If the article can be cleaned up and referenced I would not object to it being kept, but currently it is pure original research. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: I appreciate the slight rewrite and sourcing to Allmusic, though I'd still assert that more references to widespread use of the term to describe a specific genre of music would be preferred if we were to keep this as a separate article. A brief mention in Hip hop music in the form of a merge still seems a more appropriate place to discuss this unless I'm missing a lot of other sources. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I agree with the previous editor, if references can be found, then Merge. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly an opinion piece WP:OR. JamesBurns (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Rewritten and referenced (diff) using Allmusic source. Much of the previous work was a plagiarised version of the source anyway. I recommend that the above editors review their decisions given the important changes. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's better, but more than one source would be nice. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:05, 4 February 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 discussion is principally concerned with whether the coverage of the subject is too superficial to confer notability, and whether or not this coverage is about a single event per WP:BLP1E. The prevailing sentiment (even when Kittybrewster's comment is disregarded per WP:JNN) is that these questions should be answered in the affirmative, leading to the article's deletion. It may be restored, of course, if the subject gains new notability. Sandstein 08:02, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morton Brilliant[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This WP:COATRACK of a minor Democratic operative has a severe WP:BLP and WP:ONEEVENT problem. Also, WP:NOT#NEWS. (NB my potential conflict of interest: this is a fellow Brandeis alum, albeit one of the opposite party. I don't know the man.) There are a handful of Google news hits not related to this event that quote Brilliant in passing, but it would be pure wikipuffery to string those together into an article. Anything really notable here is already in History_of_Wikipedia#Controversies. THF (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional datum. Brilliant's current job is "Senior Vice President" at The Strategy Group, a direct mail firm that flunks WP:BUSINESS; TSG is a partnership, and a senior vice president ranks below "partner" there. THF (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional additional data: TSG was one of the major recipients of money from the Obama campaign (well over $7 million), and it was noted in NYT, and other papers for that. The article has a plenitude of cites, even though everything taggable has been tagged for some reason or another. TSG is "notable" even though it does not have a WP article. WP can not confer notability by having an article, NOR does not having an article mean something is not notable. Collect (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator, WP:COATRACK is a controversial essay, which recently failed a straw poll to become a guideleine. No amount of alphabet soup acronyms can cover this fact.Ikip (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete doesn't seem individually notable and no obvious redirect candidate (addendum: maybe Cathy_Cox#Wikipedia_controversy?). JJL (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added a ref to show that he was alredy well known nationally before the story broke. DGG (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that's helpful, but still it's an opinion piece. I only found one gnews hit for his name [83], and his classmates.com web page is on the first page of ghits for him. For someone well-known I'd expect more. He seems best known by bloggers. JJL (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with JJL, these references don't sway me. --Crusio (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. That footnote is the very epitome of Wikipuffery. There are literally dozens of political operatives of both parties who would be "notable" by that standard. Taylor Griffin is a redlink, and he actually is nationally known. To repeat: a glancing mention in a 32,000-circulation newspaper opinion column about a different subject does not create notability. The standard is significant independent coverage. THF (talk) 02:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to be an opinion piece by a regular political commentator for a major newspaper in that region, and that counts as a RS for opinion. Of course there are dozens of political operatives who are notable by this standard. There might even be hundreds. Lets get them in Wp, if we have sources. NOT PAPER. DGG (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

32,000 circulation is by definition "not major." And a single sentence in that paper is not "significant independent coverage." Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, either, as your argument seems to assume that the encyclopedia is supposed to index everyone who has ever been mentioned in a newspaper. THF (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd advise not getting too caught up in your own AfD, THF. Let the process proceed! JJL (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. The article is not complimentary to him, but that's a function of his own behavior, not any bias in the article's description of him. He is reasonably prominent in multiple major statewide campaigns -- more than satisfies the requirements of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray (talk) 18:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's a reliably sourced opinion that he was "nationally well known" before the 2006 incident. But what does that prove? Even if it were objectively true that he was nationally well known, that still wouldn't translate to Wikipedia:Notability. Notability is neither fame nor importance. The opinion piece fails to show notability because it doesn't discuss Brilliant in any significant way.
The bulk of the article's sourcing pertains, of course, not to the subject's series of jobs as campaign manager, but rather to his newsworthy little bit of mischief at Wikipedia in 2006. Wikipedia is not Wikinews, and this article is a BLP1E. Wikipedia can flirt with certain types of coatrack articles where notability is dubious, but when it comes to BLP's, standards must be strictly adhered to. This biography of a non-notable living person must be hidden from view using the "delete" tool, unless better and more substantial sources are introduced that actually demonstrate Wikipedia:Notability. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the sources related to his Wikipedia adventure (which is just one event covered elsewhere), there are only two sources: one to Sourcewatch (a wiki and therefore not a reliable source) and one to the above-mentioned opinion piece found by DGG. The latter is actually not about Brilliant, but about Cathy Cox and only mentions Brilliant in passing. Does not meet WP:N. --Crusio (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Directly WP related for one event -- but he is notable for other actions as well in his life. [84], [85] establish fully sufficient notability. A lot more than most have, in fact. Collect (talk) 15:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentions by NYT in [86], [87], [88] , [89] thus making him notable as a spokesman, and as for his own opinions as well. How many cites does one need? <g> Collect (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not many, if any are about him. Those are all passing mentions of him acting as a spokesperson for others. In the books he appears on one page each time--a passing reference. Where has he bee noted rather than merely mentioned? JJL (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting standard -- his own particular opinions make it into the NYT and you cavil that it is "only" a single line at a time? Amazingly enough, the same cavil works for almost every cite on Obama in the NYT before he ran for President <g>. And applies to every person who has been a press secretary -- many of whom are, indeed, found in WP. Add to that the WP affair, and he leaps over the "notability barrier" with ease. Aide to Senator Hollings, Governor Hodges and more -- all well before the WP affair. The claim, recall, was that he was notable for ONLY ONE thing - that is the basis for the AfD after all is said and done. Once that claim is broken, the rationale for the AfD fails. And note that "press secretary" is sufficiently notable for a large number of WP articles in the first place - even when they have never made the NYT. End of cavils I trust <g> Collect (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood JJL's "cavil." The problem with the sources you link to is not that they only devote a "single line" to Brilliant. The problem is they say nothing at all about him that can be used to write a Wikipedia article about him. What you call JJL's "interesting standard" is, in fact, Wikipedia's standard. By contrast, the standard you apparently seek to apply--that press secretaries to notable people are automatically notable--is disfavored. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are in plenitude and provide some of his own opinions. Most articles which quote people are quoting their opinions, so that cavil makes little sense. The issue is whether he is notable without considering the WP affair -- and that is proven in spades. It is not necessary that the newspapers quoting the person provide a biography of him at all. They prove notability, which is all that is required of them. Collect (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply not notable as an individual. Redirect to History of Wikipedia#Controversies if we must, but there is nary a source that tells us anything about him. Rockpocket 20:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Cursory search of Gnews reveals that after being fired, he was director of the South Carolina Democratic Party, and currently a senior vice president to a major political consulting firm with close ties to the White House. Ray (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And note that neither cite says anything about Brilliant other than the resume line -- even though one is a press release and has much more incentive to puff Brilliant's biography than the Wikipedia editors who are inexplicably insisting that the "significant independent coverage" requirement of WP:N does not have to be significant, or even substantive. There are a hundred state party directors and the only ones who have Wikipedia entries are the ones who did something else notable (cf. Art Torres) or have written orphan autobiographies that no one has gotten around to deleting. THF (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I object to you mischaracterization of the AJC source, which gives a bit more than the resume line. Also, you appear to have made an error in your own logic: Mr. Brilliant is a state party director, who has done something else notable (i.e. gotten fired over misuse of Wikipedia in a gubernatorial campaign in another state). Regardless, I continue to maintain that the positions he's held in various major subnational level campaigns qualifies him as a "major figure" in those elections, meeting the recently revised version of WP:POLITICIAN. Ray (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't want to play Argument Clinic, but I don't see how this guy meets WP:POLITICIAN. Notability doesn't transfer. Every politician has several aides, and, while a Steve Schmidt or David Axelrod is notable because of their role in national campaigns that generates a tremendous amount of biographical press coverage, these are subnational campaigns, and not even subnational campaigns in the top 25 of importance in any given year, and he's never the story beyond the squib of being hired, with the one notable exception that is already in its own article. "Major figure" in this context is the person who finishes second or third in the gubernatorial race, not the six advisors to the winner. The fact that one can string together twelve NEXIS hits to list the long-outdated quotes a flack gave about the ephemeral progress of a campaign does not create notability. Again: "significant independent coverage" from which a biography can be written. THF (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I will quote the relevant portion of WP:POLITICIAN: "Major figures in national or first-level sub-national political races." I would say that a campaign manager for a gubernatorial race who made the news himself, who was prior to that the spokesman for another first-level subnational race, who was subsequently chair of a state party, more than qualifies. Notability means "worthy of note," not "material exists from which to write a comprehensive biography of the subject." There is nothing wrong with permanent limited biographies of people of interest. As for coverage, we have unearthed a 3-paragraph profile which dates from before the scandal, significant coverage surrounding his scandal, etc. The usual rule for general notability is "2 sources," possibly modified by one-event. We have more than one event, more than one important role, and a heckuva lot more than 2 sources. And, for the record, it was unnecessary to use a proprietary database like Lexis. My tool for this exercise was nothing more complicated than Google. Ray (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Crusio. Trying to use Wikipedia to smear your opponents is, regrettably, common enough not to confer notability. JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom amd Crusio. Notability policy is clear, passing mention in a few articles is not sufficient, nor is passing mention in a book. Nil Einne (talk) 16:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete editing Wikipedia - whether for good or bad, for political reasons or not, for pay or otherwise - doesn't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not the single event which is the basis for his notability. By the way, for WP to excise all mention of people who were noted in mainstream media as abusing WP would seem to also possibly be notable to the mainstream media, which I trust is not what is desired. Collect (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is calling for excising "all mention" of such people, just for neutral application of the rules. Brilliant will still be in History_of_Wikipedia#Controversies, and no one is calling for the deletion of that article or the line describing Brilliant's activities. If anything, there is a systematic bias where Wikipedia is overemphasized in Wikipedia articles. THF (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man. He is mentioned in passing in a few places, but no where has he been the subject of "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:BIO in a nutshell). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources all just give trivial mentions, not enough to show notability.Yobmod (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial mentions: [90], [91]

{ay article from SC "State" starts "State - August 11, 2001 - B3 METRO/REGION HODGES AIDE HEADS FOR LAW SCHOOL The South Carolina press corps doesn't have Morton Brilliant to push around anymore. Brilliant, the 28-year-old deputy chief of staff for Gov. Jim Hodges, has relinquished his post for a seat in the USC Law School class of 2004. Brilliant, who has served as Hodges' top spokesman since April 2000, is not abandoning the Democratic governor, however. He will remain on the payroll, working on long-term planning and doing some speech writing. The speech-writing... " which strongly suggests notability in SC. "State - November 1, 2000 - A12 EDITORIAL IT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS WHO'S TRYING TO MISLEAD IN THIS DEBATE "This is all a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that the anti-lottery campaign has a history of exaggerating and misstating the facts." -Morton Brilliant, spokesman for Gov. Jim Hodges, on leave to work for his pro-lottery campaign Wow. Now that takes some nerve. The anti-lottery coalition - made up for the most part of people who have nothing to gain if they win but the satisfaction of knowing they kept their government out of the gambling business -... " Brilliant was working on a specific lottery campaign. "State - March 14, 2001 - B2 METRO/REGION LIVE WIRE: HODGES' SPOKESMAN WORKED IN POLITICS, NEWSPAPERS * Could you please give me a little of the professional background on Gov. Jim Hodges' spokesman, Morton Brilliant? I just hadn't heard much about him before he took the position. With thanks to the governor's press office: Brilliant, who lives in Columbia, currently serves as Gov. Hodges' deputy chief of staff and spokesman. In that role, he oversees the governor's communications office, and serves as one of the... " Biography printed in largest SC paper. "State - October 26, 2002 - B1 METRO/REGION DEMOCRATS, GOP SPAR OVER E-MAIL Gov. Jim Hodges' office says it can't find an e-mail sought by the state's Republicans, who contend the document raises questions about whether the governor's former chief of staff improperly influenced the awarding of a state contract. Governor's office spokesman Morton Brilliant said he's seen no evidence that the document ever existed. But Sam Griswold, a former member of Hodges' cabinet, said Friday that... " Brilliant was not just a "spokesperson" it appears. "State - March 11, 2007 - B7 METRO S.C. DEMOCRATIC DEBATE BACK IN LEAD South Carolina is back on track to hold the first Democratic presidential debate after organizers of a debate next month in New Hampshire have had to move their event back to June. The candidates have made firm commitments to House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn to appear at the April 26 debate at his alma mater, South Carolina State University in Orangeburg, said Morton Brilliant, chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party. The 90-minute debate at the historically black college will be... " Notable as party chairman. So we establish he is notable, has had biographical articles in major newspapers, gotten substantial mentions (not just "single sentences" as implied heretofore) and so on. Sorry to give so many cites. Collect (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cite No. 9 above, http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/shared-blogs/ajc/politicalinsider/entries/2006/08/11/time_for_the_august_break.html, is a newspaper chatroom discussion. The others are all a sentence or two (one mentioning the notable fact that he's starting law school!), and when they're more, it's to mention the Wikipedia controversy. You're proving my point that this is WP:PUFF of the highest order. THF (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the other cites where, for example, his bio is given in a newspaper? Seems that cavilling at one out of a dozen or more cites furnished does not win. Collect (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an intelligent Bayesian. When the first three cites you give support my point more than yours, it's a reasonable inference that you don't have a case. When I litigated, I all too often saw parties with bogus cases try to defeat a summary judgment motion by overwhelming the judge with volumes and volumes of chaff. Improve the article and then argue that it meets WP:N, but the reality is that all you can do is string together a bunch of non-notable sentences like "Brilliant commented to the press about the presidential debate." Since one full-fledged profile would be enough to establish N, and you're instead wasting everyone's time with bogus cites, one can assume that profile doesn't exist. THF (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"When in doubt, pound the table" is what you are now engaging in by assuming bad faith on my part. I gave a large number of cites, and your "proof by assertion" that they are bad cites is inane at best. Brilliant was quoted in roles OTHER than that of spokesperson, meaning that he was sufficiently notable for the newspaper to quote him in other than those roles. The "State" also included biographical information on him. He held a substantial number of political positions. Some of the articles went well past "single sentences" and all you do is assert that the cites are "bogus"? Thank you most kindly -- you make the point far better than I could do that the only real reason for removal of this article is that it is an embarassment to some politically involved people. Collect (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) We're still waiting for a cite with significant coverage, and you still haven't listed one, demanding that we defer to a short list of one-line "Brilliant said the governor likes ice cream" stories that the nomination already acknowledged existed. You've now made eight edits to this page without finding a single cite worth adding to the article to make it worth keeping. Do you like debating for the sake of debating, or are you trying to improve the encyclopedia? Instead of arguing here, fix the article if it's fixable. The reason this article is going to be deleted is that the article isn't fixable. THF (talk) 11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THF considering the only contributions you have made to the article is deleting other editors contributions and adding several tags, I would not speak to loudly about Collect adding references. I see Collect making a good faith effort to add contributions, whereas you haven't added a single one. Ikip (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked. There's nothing legitimate to add, which is why I made the nomination. Collect, apparently having run out of "The governor is against nun-beating" quotes, has added several sentences to the article that have nothing to do with Brilliant.[92] But now there are footnotes! Lots of footnotes! I look forward to the addition of the discussion of television shows that Brilliant might have watched, since there are many references in the New York Times to famous television shows, and then nobody could possibly argue that the article should be deleted for flunking WP:BIO. THF (talk) 23:49, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Could you please give me a little of the professional background on Gov. Jim Hodges' spokesman, Morton Brilliant? I just hadn't heard much about him before he took the position. With thanks to the governor's press office: Brilliant, who lives in Columbia, currently serves as Gov. Hodges' deputy chief of staff and spokesman. In that role, he oversees the governor's communications office, and serves as one of the ..." seems to not be "he likes ice cream." Brilliant worked on the pro-lottery campaign, for which I can give more cites. He is head of a state party, for which I can give more cites. As for your use of "assume bad faith" -- that I do find objectionable. The claim for deletion was that he was notoable for only ONE event. Clearly he is notable for more than one event, making that claim quite insufficient. The argument was NOT that the article is not "fixable" -- until just now. You just made the very first claim that that is the reason for deletion in this entire page <g>. Let's add a presidential connection at this point ... [93] "The Evanston based The Strategy Group--consultants on the Obama presidential campaign--named Douglas Herman as partner and added three senior vice presidents:

Sheila Nix in the Chicago office; Michael Berman in Philadelphia office, and Morton Brilliant in the Washington DC office." ""Morton's broad political experience, and especially his work with gubernatorial communications, has been an asset to Strategy Group clients since he first joined the firm in 2006," said Steve Stenberg, a Partner in the Washington, DC office. "We're pleased to elevate him to Senior Vice President." " "The Strategy Group is the nation's leading direct mail firm for Democratic candidates and progressive organizations. With offices in Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington, DC, the firm has served as direct mail consultants to every Democratic Presidential campaign since Bill Clinton. In 2008, The Strategy Group was lead direct mail consultant to Obama for America, and Strategy Group partners served in key roles throughout the campaign." In short Brillian worked with Obama's campaign, and is going to work in Washington DC. Odds are pretty good that he is regarded as important. Holding the position of "Senior Vice President" in a firm with such avowed political connections with the President is, I suggest, notable. Members of "The Strategy Group" were in the Obama "inner circle" and donated heavily to the Obama campaign. More cites on request, and kindly do not attack the messenger. Collect (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've answered my question: you're more interested in debating than improving the encyclopedia. Nine edits to this page now, ~~zero to the article itself,~~ and your best cite is a self-serving press release that doesn't meet WP:RS. NB that being "a senior vice president" (read: middle manager, ranking below "partner") for a direct mail firm--especially one like The Strategy Group that flunks WP:BUSINESS--isn't notable, either. (And Brilliant isn't even advertised on their website as one of their five most important members. And those five--Steven Stenberg, Terry Walsh, Peter Giangreco, Larry Grisolano, and Doug Herman--aren't notable, either.) THF (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please redact your charges about not working on the article. "The Strategy Group" states that he is HEAD of that office. So much for "middle manager." The Strategy Group was noted as one of the top expenditures for the Obama campaign, noted as working in multiple states etc. So much for it not being notable <g>. Apparently their website is not updated -- but whether that is due to laziness or the fact that they are not the trademark holder for that name is moot. And saying a person is not notable because they do not have a WP article is bassackward reasoning to be sure. Using cached pages makes it easier to find info when a page has broken links on a website. [94], [95], [96] and so on. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely false that TSG appointed Brilliant the "head" of the DC office. The head of the office is a partner. Brilliant is only a senior vp. I'm not saying TSG isn't notable because they don't have a wiki page. I'm saying they're not notable because they flunk WP:BUSINESS, and their five lead partners are not notable because they flunk WP:BIO. If Brilliant hadn't had the wiki-scandal, he wouldn't have an article either, which is why we have a BLP1E policy. THF (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that you are saying Brilliant is not notable because the company is not notable because the founders of the company do not have WP articles on themselves and so therefore are not notable per se? An interesting sort of logic far removed from the start of this page to be sure. "Peter Giangreco" has five NYT mentions. Grisolano three. Morton Brilliant nineteen. He is a "senior vice president" of a company which was one of the largest employees of the Obama campaign. Both notable. Long resume (noted in his article now). The problem is that he embarasses some people. Not that he is known for one and ONLY one event. Collect (talk) 13:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're not correct. I've made my case, and won't repeat it, but your characterization of TSG is incorrect, and based entirely on a self-serving press release. THF (talk) 14:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? Added NYT graph on TSG being a major recipient of money from the Obama campaign ($7.3 million). FEC filings showing the amounts. Many cites showing TSG members as officially part of the Obama campaign. Chicago Sun-Times cites which are *not* a press release as they have a proper by-line, etc. Article now has plenty of sources not to establish notability of TSG, which was your last big argument about "notability." Unless , of course, you feel that FEC, NYT etc. all rely on "self-serving press releases"? With all the new material in the article, I would ask that those who found it lacking in material reconsider their opinions for sure. Collect (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lets not have an personal attacks "Well, you've answered my question: you're more interested in debating than improving the encyclopedia, You misunderstand WP:RED as much as you misunderstand WP:BIO." please. I suggest refactoring this out. I find it ironic that Collect is trying to contribute to wikipedia, while you are attempting to delete material from wikipedia, and you say he is "more interested in debating than improving the encyclopedia" Can anyone else see this irony? Ikip (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this argument is digressing to whether or not TSG is notable. The article now contains a lot of references. Some mention Brilliant in passing, others don't mention him at all but just mention the company where he works, TSG, in passing. I really don't see how these sources establish notability for Brilliant besides WP1E (nor for TSG, for that matter: most sources name people that worked for Obama's campaign and mentions where they work. Obama is notable, of course, but I am not so sure that his direct mail firm or his housekeeper are). --Crusio (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. And I appreciated what I read here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morton Brilliant rkmlai (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, because that earlier discussion--which predates BLP1E--had no substantive arguments in it. One possible exception is the guy who argued that deleting Brilliant would lead to redlinks in the "three gubernatorial candidates" he worked for, except no one mentions Brilliant in those articles outside of the ONEEVENT in Cox -- because, let's face it, the guy isn't notable enough to mention in the Cox or Gregoire articles otherwise. Nobody researching Gregoire cares that Brilliant used to work for her. THF (talk) 04:26, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fact that a Gregoire campaign staffer edited her article, keeping very close tabs on it, affected any such mention? This is confirmed by the obit of the person who did that work. Collect (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, guess who just deleted the fact from the Gregoire article after saying the fact Brilliant was not mentioned in it was important?' Seems to be a gigantic COI for a person to say something is not in an article, and be the same person who deletes it from the article! Collect (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a little bit less dishonest? You added it to the article after the discussion here. It was a clear violation of WP:POINT because you made no effort to add the thirty or so staff members of equal importance. THF (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I request that you redact your charge. You had written " the guy isn't notable enough to mention in the Cox or Gregoire articles otherwise. Nobody researching Gregoire cares that Brilliant used to work for her." and I felt that means you did not think anyone had provided a cite for the article. I provided a full and accurate cite for the statement in the Gregoire article -- and someone happened to remove it, after having said no one cared <g>. And Brilliant was citred as the "person in charge" for the recount, remember? No "thirty or so staff members of equal importance" he was number one. Thank you most kindly, but I suggest that you are entirely too anxious to delete an article which another editor is doing his damndest to bring up to the highest WP standards, and that you are deliberately engaging in an effort to prevent improvement of an article in order to pursue your goal. I further submit that such deliberate sabotage of an article prevents your claims from being taken seriously by any who believe in the goal of WP as being an encyclopedia. Collect (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC). Collect (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:3RR please be advised of [97] and [98] as proof that THF will, in fact, deliberately editwar in order to delete the Morton Brillian article. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet mother of Pearl, Collect. Using your logic here, this edit is an example that you're willing to be WP:POINTy to keep the article (note the inaccurate summary).[99] While these two edits are proof that you are will, in fact, deliberately edit war to keep the Mortan Brilliant article.[100][101] Seriously, both of you need to stop edit warring on Christine Gregoire and use the freaking discussion page. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cptnono has now emended the entry -- as the article has a specific section on the 2004 election and recount, material germane to it is properly there now. Thanks! And as I consider MB to be notable in the first place, the only reason for deleting any mention of him would be what? Collect (talk) 22:19, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that the nominator who Collect is arguing with was just booted for 3RR a violation. Ikip (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And unbooted. Keep in mind WP:NPA and that every other editor on that page agreed with my edit deleting Collect's WP:POINT violation. THF (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment despite the hysterical antics on this page and others, I am not moved to change my delete vote above. --Crusio (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT and WP:N. Morton Brilliant is only notable because of him getting fired after someone in Cox's campaign edited Wikipedia's articles, so that event (and Brilliant's involvement in that event) should be rolled into the Cathy Cox article per WP:ONEEVENT. Fortunately that event is already in Cox's article. All other mentions of him in Reliable Sources that have been provided so far are of him being quoted in articles about other subjects. This seems to indicate that he fails the general notability guideline as, outside the one event, there is no significant coverage of him in reliable sources. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Collect's excellent arguments above. WP:BLP1E is regularly abused and misinterpreted to mean "delete any article for any person whose notability can be traced backed to a single event, regardless of anything else that has occurred in their life", and this selective misuse of policy is only further perpetuated here. Even for those who believe BLP1E is a valid justification to not have an article for Morton, the refusal to follow BLP1E's guidance and renaming the article -- "In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." -- is only further evidence that the policy is being abused. The absurd statement:

"There are a handful of Google news hits not related to this event that quote Brilliant in passing, but it would be pure wikipuffery to string those together into an article." Is the the real puffery is stating that the Associated Press and Seattle Times are trivial. Ikip (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I said that Brilliant's mention in these sources was trivial, not that the sources were trivial. Other than the ONEEVENT, nothing in the New York Times constitutes significant independent coverage of Brilliant as the subject of an article. You'll note that the vast majority of cites in the Brilliant article don't even mention his name. THF (talk) 23:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, my mistake, I removed many of the references which don't mention his name to talk. Again, with one event "In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." you have not suggested a redirect or merge. In addition, Brilliant's involvement in the following: "Democrat Christine Gregoire in the Washington state gubernatorial race, a very close race in which Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi after two recounts. He was also deputy campaign manager for Jim Hodges' successful South Carolina governor's race in 1998, and worked as Hodges' Deputy Chief of Staff. Before that, he was a political director for the South Carolina Democratic Party." make it more than one event. Ikip (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:16, 8 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 07:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crevier BMW[edit]

A car dealership... article shows no reasons for it to be any more notable than any other car dealership... G-news hits appear to be mostly press release type entries... Adolphus (talk) 00:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just an ad/vanity page for a nn business. JJL (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I declined the A7 speedy because the of the claim of being #1 BMW dealer in the western region (this news story from 2002 says top in the whole U.S.), and because it did have a few other news hits including some award for their web site. But I don't have strong feelings about whether that's enough to pass a full AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. This does indeed scrape through the A7 speedy criteria, but without sources it completely fails WP:CORP. It really appears to be just another car dealership, even if it is a fairly large one. ~ mazca ^t|c 17:19, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per the improvements below, it appears that the overt unverifiability problem has been solved. Though this still makes a pretty poor encyclopedia article it seems to just about scrape over the notability threshold. Consider me neutral. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I tried to reference all statements in the article. I think it barely meets WP:CORP (by the skin of its teeth), and being the top US seller of BMWs confers some degree of notability, and is verifiable. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - There are also assertions of receiving multiple awards [102], [103], including the Time Magazine Quality Dealer Award. LinguistAtLarge • Msg 20:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This Time Magazine Quality Dealer Award appears to be an award that is given at various levels, (i.e. city, state, national) Unless it went National, I believe that would open the door to hundreds, if not thousands of articles for dealerships. However, reading the allbuisness article, establishes notability: "In 2005 Crevier BMW ranked eighth on the Ward's Dealer Top 500 List" the list is a nationwide list, and with its coverage in local press, it might be a keeper, if the article can be expanded. Sephiroth storm (talk) 10:22, 3 February 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.