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

The result was move to Hanging basket --Salix alba (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Basket Tree[edit]

Hanging Basket Tree (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm not sure it's strictly a dicdef, but it's definitely not encyclopedic. Dose of OR thrown in. Travellingcari (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. Exists (plenty of online stores), but no independent sources on Google, as far as I can see.[6] -- Lea (talk) 04:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Utterly self-explanatory. A hanging basket tree is a tree-like structure for hanging baskets. Wow. My mind is blown. Please! There is nothing unique about this particular devise over the "hanging basket easel" or "hanging basket rack" or "hanging basket bracket." It's a thing you hang baskets from: self-evident dictdef. People smart enough to type in the terms are smart enough to know what they are. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move to Hanging basket. This could be part of the more general article. Hanging basket is a perfectly decent horticultural term on which there are plenty of sources both generally here and here and specific issues here and here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Move per Bridgeplayer. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have restructured the page to make it suitable for a move. If it is kept I will carry out a substantial expansion based around the references I have listed above. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although the page is well written and some may argue, well sourced, the significance of such an article is questionable. Rudget. 16:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridges in film[edit]

Bridges in film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic trivia. No more meaningful than Streets in film or Airports in film. Corvus cornix_talk 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia articles should be be about topics that are the subject of reliable published sources, not merely instances of a particular phenomenon deemed notable or interesting by editors. As it is, the article fails the notability guideline. Admittedly, it's more selective than many "cultural references to X" articles, and I'd be willing to reconsider my opinion if sources could be found that generalise about "bridges in film" in, say, the way the lead does. EALacey (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (for now) - I agree with EALacey, however, the lack of WP:RS or something that is unattributed does not mean it cannot be, or that sources do not exist. I'm confident that the article passes WP:NOTE for these reasons. Furthermore, trivia is generally only shunned if it's a miscellaneous obtrusive list. They are discouraged, not reasons for deletion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge Most of what is here is about bridges that are notable in their own right and have their own articles. A mention of important film appearances in those articles seems more appropriate and useful to the reader. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge. Films about bridges, perhaps. But films with bridges in them? No way. Any notable appearances of real-world bridges in films should be noted in the articles of those bridges, but we don't need an article that is basically just a loose collection of trivia. PC78 (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh dear god, delete - yet another in a horrifying number of "this one time in this one film there was this thing" articles that have polluted Wikipedia for far too long. The fact that a bridge appears in a film does not merit encyclopedic attention. Otto4711 (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Settings of films are major elements of their creativity and significance, and bringing them together in an appropriate article is appropriate. they should also be mentioned in the articles about the individual bridges. Beeblbrox is right about that. The use of a notable set of these is fiction is notable. Every one of these can be sourced. DGG (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the fact that a film company put in a shot of one bridge versus another bridge or whatever is not significant, especially if there aren't reliable sources that specifically discuss the choice of setting. Otto4711 (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but only the ones where bridges are key elements, e.g. The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Bridge of San Luis Rey, For Whom the Bell Tolls, Bataan, Lloyd Bridges (okay, maybe not that last one). Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I think the above remark reveals the core problem with this type of article. In X-men The Last Stand you couldn't tell the story without the Golden Gate bridge, it's practically part of the cast. In many of the other films, the bridge is simply part of the backdrop, used to establish that we are looking at San Francisco. In a contemporary film, it could just as easily be the TransAmerica Pyramid. Deciding here which of these films are in some way about the bridge and which use it simply to establish a location would seem to be original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - so, there are some films that have bridges in them. There seems to be no connection whatsoever between them, making this a perfect example of a list of indiscriminate information. - fchd (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. John254 18:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler LA engine[edit]

Chrysler LA engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is very messed up, not at all at the encyclopedia standards & is very messy to read. As well, the article does not site any sources or references. Warrior4321^talkContribs 22:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep — This AfD nomination makes little sense. Those few Wikipedia articles that approach perfection get nominated for Featured Article status. We don't delete the ones that fall short of the mark, we work coöperatively and steadily to improve them incrementally. Chrysler LA engine needs work — reliable sources would be a good start. However, it's not "messy" by any reasonable definition; its assertions and subtopics are arranged logically and coherently, its lengthy lists are neatly hidden behind hide-tabs pending consensus on whether the lists should be there or not, and it is currently under active development by more than one editor. There seems no valid reason to delete this article unless we also decide to delete Ford FE engine, Chrysler Slant-6 engine, Ford Windsor engine, and numerous other articles about vehicle engines that are in need of — and undergoing — active development. I would suggest the nominator adhere to his/her own advice regarding Wikifying rather than deleting articles. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep - No kidding. This article has every reason to exist. --SFoskett (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. The natural state of a Wikipedia article is unfinished. (Otherwise, what's the point?) This is similar to numerous other engine articles, and while it needs references, that is not of such urgency that deletion is the only recourse. --Dhartung | Talk 09:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chadminton[edit]

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

Unsourced article about a sport whose notability is unclear. Prod was contested on the grounds that other sports have their own article without being specific about which ones.

• Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Oh, that's imaginative-- Chadminton instead of badminton. Bring it back when it's on ESPN8, "the Ocho" Mandsford (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I would say keep, it is still a sport. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sport is not the subject of any reliable sources; most hits, oddly, are for MySpace. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As unreferenced original research. Sounds like a fun game, but popularity on one college campus and no references adds up to a failure on notability.Beeblbrox (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom--NAHID 07:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no reliable sources to indicate notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Strong Keep" I play the sport, it's real. The game is great. It's just like every other sport with rules, fans, awards, teams, etc. Isn't wikipedia about providing information you can't find anywhere else? --Craziesportsgirl (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)— Craziesportsgirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • "Isn't wikipedia about providing information you can't find anywhere else?" In a nutshell, no it isn't ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I can't find a single reliable source talking about this sport at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yet another unknown and made-up sport. See WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Can't believe it wasn't a speedy. Paste (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Strong Keep" I can assure you that while there isn't much information to be found online, chadminton has been around for years. It's tough to get credible sources to back something that's based on a game made up to be a cheap alternative to lacrosse and eventually became more. It is incredibly difficult to get anyone to take it seriously, so I implore you to consider giving chadminton a chance. I will do whatever it takes to make sure that the information is accurate, up to date, and anything else that people want or need to see to justify it's existence on Wikipedia. I understand the need to keep false and satirical articles off of this site, but this is real. Instead of being another obstacle on the bumpy road to becoming legitimate, can the Wikipedia community find it in their hearts to let us stick around? --Chadminton17 (talk) 18:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)— Chadminton17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • So your goal is to promote the sport? Sorry, but you have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia. The sport is real? I believe that. But before writing an article in Wikipedia about it, you might want to take a look at WP:SCRABBLE. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 20:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link, that goes right to the heart of this one. Nobody is saying this is a hoax, just that, as Chadmiton 17s above remark seems to indicate, it is not widely known. When Chadmiton makes it up that "bumpy road to becoming legitimate" it will be time for a Wikipedia article. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the WP:SCRABBLE policy goes, this is not a "new, great thing you or your friends just thought up". It has been developing for more than two years, and is in the process of being established as a club sport at Ohio State University. And as for publishing things on a personal website, it has been done. This page is not for promoting chadminton, but just as a vehicle for information. Check [[7]] --Chadminton17 (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)— Chadminton17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Strong Delete. I could just as easily make a sport, popularize it in my school, and claim it's significant enough. However, a simple Google search returns nothing but user pages and the page of the school that came up with it. Thus, delete. <3 bunny 22:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you severely underestimate the work going into to "popularizing" a sport. Not that it's relevant to this argument anyway. In fact it's just as hard to convince people to play a new sport as it is to convince people to let you have a wikipedia article. Chadminton17 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. Fails verifiability as the article presents no reliable sources independent of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - There is nothing worth saving of this current article. Appears to be full of OR. -Djsasso (talk) 22:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equanimity[edit]

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

Delete This was deleted 2.5 years ago when it was basically nothing but a link to wiktionary. Now it's an essay, unsourced and best to be deleted. An editor deleted the content and made a dab page, but with a single link to the Buddhist concept, which may be where it ought be redirected if it's deleted, but this current incarnation isn't headed to nirvana... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This topic is notable by this name and there is a large number of good sources available. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unreferenced original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a discussion of Western philosophical equanimity here. I think this is a potential article title, but I'm undecided whether the content is salvageable. It would have to be rewritten from sources and indicate the prior history of the terminology. --Dhartung | Talk 09:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The point made by Dhartung is serious, because there is no doubt that a perfectly legitimate philosophy article can be made on the topic. The problem is that, as it is now, there isn't anything worth saving. For now, I'd say weak delete but with no prejudice for a recreation with a serious and sourced treatment of the topic.--Aldux (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rudget. 16:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sammamish Symphony Orchestra[edit]

Sammamish Symphony Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability and ghits seem to primarily be performance dates. Per WP:CORP, Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. Travellingcari (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has been tagged for notability for some time and no reliable sources have emerged. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As primary author, I can't disagree with Travellingcari's assessment. David Brooks (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Sparx Systems. Non-admin closure to help with extraordinary backlog. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sparx Enterprise Architect[edit]

Sparx Enterprise Architect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

undefined notability - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I tagged this, and nobody's working on it. There's not much to the article aside from a list of features. It's impossible to tell if this has been widely adopted or what good it's for. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per discussion below. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 02:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It's a crappy article, but it is a real product from a real company (my company uses it). WP:NOTE says, A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. These: [8] [9] fit that description so I'd say this (just barely) meets notability (depending on your definition of significant). Slap some random fix me type templates on it and let it live. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, it has been notability tagged for over a month with no movement on it at all. The sources you mention aren't really "published" sources. Something like an O'Reilly guide might do it. Maybe this is worth a merge to the (rather anemic and potentially AfD-able) Sparx Systems instead. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd certainly go along with the merge. Sparx is pretty much a one-product company. There's no justification for two articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Sparx Enterprise Architect and Sparx Systems stubs: not enough content in either to justify separate articles. — Athaenara ✉ 00:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the Sparx Systems stub INTO this article. Gartner included EA in a recent "magic quadrant" report [10]. It is also mentioned in the editorial review for a classic textbook on OO analysis and development (Booch et al). [11]. nafisto (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.12.13.2 (talk) [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Chetblong^{T C} 03:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WLS-TV minivan crash incident[edit]

WLS-TV minivan crash incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was previously deleted as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerald Richardson., mainly due to It was later merged to WLS-TV as a section, which has (again) been deleted. It has now been recreated as this article, which was originally a redirect.

Let me summarize some of the arguments related to the event in question.

• A mentally ill man drives his car into a TV studio, that's the whole story
• This event is unlikely to have any lasting effect on anyone except the subject, his family, and perhaps the newscasters involved. It's a textbook case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS.
• This is a property crime that got undue attention because it involved a tv station that captured the noise, live on air. You Tube fodder, for maybe a few days, but not WP
• Fails WP:N and WP:BLP, no lasting notability Wikipedia is not a newspaper.

The clear consensus from the last AfD was, not only is this a BLP violation as an article about the subject, but it's not a notable event. Wikipedia is not news and this event has no lasting notability — it got some minor coverage because of the circumstances, and the drifted into obscurity. It's probably no more, or less, notable than any one of the innumerable car crashes which makes it into the back pages of the New York Times. Indeed, the only claim to any lasting fame is that it became an internet meme — but, naturally, this claim is unsourced.

Did this happen? Yes. Was it reported on? Yes. Does that make it notable? Not in the slightest. Haemo (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the nominator says it all. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nomination. --Mhking (talk) 21:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Notable...when the crash happened on December 23rd. Two months later? Not so much. Nate • (chatter) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per BLP1E and comprehensive nom Travellingcari (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lasting notability is not established, and more likely, does not exist. Jd027^chat 00:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It probably won't make any difference, but I think that this article should indeed be kept. For one thing, WP:BIO1E does not apply since this isn't a biography. I agree that the original Gerald Richardson article should have been deleted as an inappropriate, one-event biography, but this article (which I wrote independently of the deleted material) is primarily a description of the event, not the person. Also, notability is not a policy; it is a guideline, and one that is often questioned and contested. It's not a violation of WP:BLP because all claims are attributed to reliable sources as required by Wikipedia policy. The article meets the three core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR) and should therefore be kept. *** Crotalus *** 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is this particular article special, so that we should set aside notability guidelines for it? --Haemo (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not arguing that this article is special. I'm arguing that any article that meets core content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and, if applicable, WP:BLP) should be kept, and that WP:N is an unneeded addition to these basic requirements. Several attempts have been made to elevate notability to policy level, and they have failed because many users consider the concept misguided. I would also point out that, even if you accept WP:N, interpretations of the policy differ. Some people think that notability, once attained, can't be lost later on; so if the crash was notable in late December 2007, it is automatically notable now. But my argument does not depend on that. *** Crotalus *** 02:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  In other words, you fundamentally disagree with notability as a guideline. Fair enough, but I don't think this is the correct place to make that argument. --Haemo (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this would have been a 100% local news story if it hadn't resulted in some compelling video of the anchor reacting as the vehicle crashed into the studio. --Dhartung | Talk 09:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I'd not object to a merge to WLS-TV provided that this stays there (it certainly is one of the most interesting things to ever happent to WLS). However, this article can manage to be kept on its own given how widespread and continuing the coverage was over a long period of time (making it not a NOTNEWS situation). Dhartung's comment above "this would have been a 100% local news story if it hadn't resulted in some compelling video of the anchor reacting" misses how Wikipedia inclusion policies function. We don't say "well, if not for this tiny thing it wouldn't have generated many reliable sources so we don't treat it that way". If we did, nothing would be notable. And to be clear since this article does not focus on the person there is no BLP1E issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How was the coverage "widespread and continuing"? The crash happened two months ago — in the last month, there has been no news stories on it. It's a blip — it didn't even pass the "1 month" test for enduring notability. Dhartung's comment is not "this wouldn't be notable if..." it's a comment that the only reason it even attracted attention to begin with was because of the fact it was on air; as I said, it's no more or less notable than any car crash that makes it into the New York Times. It has no lasting impact on anyone, possibly beyond the driver — it's quite simply news, and that's it. --Haemo (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, that's a good point. I need to think about this more. It may make more sense to simply merge the content (regardless I see no reason for not having a mention at the main WLS-TV article). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Newspedia: Just Say No. Wikinews is just down the hall and they don't take GFDL material. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Fails to meet WP:Bio as he was only a college player. -Djsasso (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Byrd[edit]

Eddie Byrd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Overly-abused page, personal attacks. Remove page altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byrd.eddie (talk • contribs)

• Comment: the subject might be notable enough for Wikipedia, but is barely notable enough for Wikipedia and the article has been a magnet for WP:BLP violations. This would need careful pruning and monitoring, if it is kept. Aecis^Brievenbus 20:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I am the original adder, I was not quoting authentic sources, I had mis-information, it should be deleted. Jasoned (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• None of the information quotes a source, much less a credible one, including my information. If Eddie Byrd is an caucasion, how is the University of Charleston player african-american? No information quotes any source, nor is this person famous or valid for a wikipedia entry. Jasoned (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the information added since it's creation has been false as well, no credible information, nor any sources.Jasoned (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please be a bit more specific? Which information is incorrect, and what would be correct? Aecis^Brievenbus 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete perhaps I missed something but the "article" is currently, Edward Byrd better known in the world as Eddie Byrd.[edit] Biography

A native of Charlotte, North Carolina, Byrd is a Caucasian-American and is not married. I cannot find any other evidence of notability, even putting aside the COI issues of other contributors. Travellingcari (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • This article has gone through a lot of vandalism, blankings and BLP violations in recent years. The most recent somewhat stable version of the article dates back to May 9, 2006, and states i.a. that Byrd played for the Carolina Panthers and the Miami Dolphins. That is a sufficient assertion of notability to avoid speedy deletion for A7. Jasoned and Byrd.eddie claim that this information is incorrect. That is what needs to be addressed in this AFD. If the information is incorrect, the article obviously needs to be deleted or corrected. And if the information is correct, does it make the subject notable enough for Wikipedia? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Got it, thanks. I tried to weed through the convoluted history to see what the substance of the issue was. No evidence of him playing with the Panthers per their site and Miami lists a Eugene Byrd. Based on those I'd say delete however I'd change if other evidence can be found
      • I've had similar (lack of) results. The only sources I found for Eddie Byrd were Wikipedia mirrors. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep that was what prompted my original delete. Thanks for clarifying. It's a mirror farm! Travellingcari (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am the original one who created the article and did so based on the wrong Eddie altogether. None of the facts are actual. The only known, true, facts are there on the page now. It may not merit staying on wikipedia, but it's finally correct. Otherwise, it's someone else's personal information and a total f-up on my end.Jasoned (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete We don't even need to worry about BLP penumbra issues since he was apparently only a college player so he doesn't meet WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tragic, but clearly non-notable. Black Kite 23:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Renaud[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)).

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

Contested prod. Deleted once already in November as a non-notable junior hockey player. The only thing that has changed is that he died yesterday. However, Wikipedia is not a memorial, and dying does not create notability. Wikinews already has a blurb on his passing, as do the Windsor Spitfires and 2007-08 Calgary Flames season articles. Resolute 20:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Djsasso (talk) 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nothing has changed since the last deletion and wikipedia is not a memorial. Probably could even qualify as a speedy for recreation of a deleted article. It's only been 3 months. -Djsasso (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, i created the article after he died but he was the captian of the team and selected in the draft. Even though it was a late selection there are people who where selected later that have articles. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This player may have been the captain of a junior team but he has not played professionally as is required by WP:N. And those people who were selected later have played professionally or have otherwise achieved notability through other means. -Djsasso (talk) 20:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Then surley most of the red link should be removed from the recent deaths section for being non-notable. I don't mean to come of rude or arogant but i feel he has the notability. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I agree, they should. But just because there are other things needing fixing doesn't mean this shouldn't be deleted. -Djsasso (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, due to untimely death, never played at the professional level. Travellingcari (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Yes, it is a tragedy, but Wikipedia is not a memorial. Renaud still fails notability. Article should not be recreated. Flibirigit (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salt? Salt? Certainly since he died does not mean salt. BTW, this page is not a memorial. Editorofthewiki 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tragic that he passed away. Nevertheless, he is not notable per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the same reason Paul Fendley doesn't have an article. Very sad, but its the rules. DMighton (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• StrongKeep We have an article on Keeley Dorsey, and all he did was score a grant total of 2 (count them, 2) career touchdowns before he died. Granted, it survived the same amount of afds as his touchdowns, but this guy was the captain of a notable team with an article. Just because he was young when he died should not deny him of an article. Editorofthewiki 22:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But he wouldn't have an article if he was alive, so why should having passed away grant him the ability to have the article. Junior players just don't get articles, unless they win some major award or are drafted in the first round. Otherwise WP:N says he needs to have played professionally. -Djsasso (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment OK. But he was Captain and centre and his death does make him more notable. Every time a article is created after they die there is this debate on weather it is a memorial. Like editor said there are other articles much the same as this one. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The difference between his example and this is that that player died at practice while this one died at home, likely of natural causes. -Djsasso (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does it really matter how he died, as long as he was notable during life? This guy was the leader of his hockey team and was going to the majors, while Dorsey just scored a touchdown in one major game, but was not an important pick. WP:MEMORIAL is one of the more abused policies around here, and since there was no concensus to delete in the Dorsey article considering how much more important this guy was, there should be no concensus to delete here, even if this is not a votecount. Editorofthewiki 23:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment But he wasn't notable in his life is the argument. He fell to afd just 3 months ago for that reason. Now he is back with an article after he has died. Notability is not temporary comes into play because he is only notable because of a short burst of news coverage. As far as "was going to the majors" well that just reeks of wikipedia is not a crystal ball, players drafted that low in the draft rarely go to the majors and since he never actually did go there you can't make assumptions that he would have. Being a captain of a junior team still does not make one notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very sad death, but he never did anything notable besides being a late-round draft pick, and played in the minors. Jmlk17 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It's absurd to think that CHL players are insufficiently notable when we have dozens of articles on college players in various sports who have never even been drafted. His death is a major news story in Canada. There is absolutely no reason to delete the article. Cheapestcostavoider (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment His death is defiantely notable, however, that would cause him to fall under Notability is not temporary, which is what this is very much a case of and notability is not inheirited. Most people don't believe college players should have pages either. Personally as a hockey fan I would love to see every hockey player get a page, but thats what the Ice Hockey Wikia is for. This is a case of recentism as always is the case when someone dies in the news and suddenly has an article on here. -Djsasso (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - for those saying he is not notable per WP:BIO because he didn't play professionally must have skipped: "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." So if there are secondary sources (i.e. newspaper reports, draft coverage, etc.) he passes notability guidelines. If additionally WP:RS (there is really only one since the two used as a reference are the same article) are added then I would vote keep. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And you must have missed the part where it says for sports where there is not a professional version. Reguardless, the highest level of amateur competition for hockey would be the Olympics or World Championships, neither of which he has competed at. -Djsasso (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was the captain of his team, and he was going to play for the majors. WP:MEMORIAL states:

Wikipedia is not the place to honor departed friends and relatives. Subjects of encyclopedia articles must be notable besides being fondly remembered.

• • • How was he not notable?????Editorofthewiki 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment See my comments above, the fact he was going to the majors is your guess, he didn't do it yet so that is a case of WP:Crystal. Players drafted that low rarely make the majors so it is not a given fact that he was going to be going to the big show. And being a captain of junior team still does not make you notable as junior teams have many captains over the years, its not like being the captain of an NHL team which might last for 10 years or however long. -Djsasso (talk) 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, there is no "for sports where there is not a professional version" on that page. And last time I checked NHL players (and oter players from other professional leagues in the world) played in the World Championships and Olympics. At the last time I checked the NHL players were considered professionals. So that would mean those two events could not be the highest level for amateur hockey players. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Amateur players are not bared from playing in those competitions, therefore they are still the highest level. Infact it has happened more than a few times that amateurs played alongside professionals at those competitions. -Djsasso (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Amateur golfers and tennis players can compete in professional tournaments as well, but nobody would consider that to be the highest level of amateur golf/tennis. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete voted this article down once before. Nothing changed. He still wasn't notable enough to have an article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, one thing did change: he died. So his claims to notability are:
    1. captain of a major minor leage team (we have articles on baseball minor league players)
    2. was drafted to play in the majors late in year have articles on people who were drafted later)
    3. had a huge out-of-the-blue death (we have Dorsey and I'm sure plenty of others)
  • So what's the real problem? Verifibility? I'm sure I can find more sources if I look harder. I was also told on my talkpage about WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That generally only applies to articles without afds that should also be nominated. That one was nominated twice, and survived, albeit a no concensus. I'd nominate it again, but it would probably be the same either way. Just because Wikipedia has systemic bias does not mean we have to feed the monster by deleting this. Editorofthewiki 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are misunderstanding the level he played at. He did not play in the minor leagues. If he did then he would be having an article and this wouldn't be an issue. He played junior youth hockey, amateur. Lots of people have out of the blue deaths, that still does not warrent an article on wikipedia or I know tonnes of people I could make articles for. As for where he was drafted, we DO NOT have articles on people drafted later than him unless they played professionally, which he has not done. -Djsasso (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per what the creator of this article said. He was captain of his team and selected in the NHL draft. His father played in the NHL, Deleting this is just ridiculous. michfan2123 (talk) 02:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment. Where is it said that notability guidelines allow for captains of junior teams or the offspring of professional athletes to be allowed? Patken4 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. No where, the guideline is stupid and I don't care what it says. This is notable. Keeping it brings no harm to wiki. michfan2123 (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It does actually bring harm to wiki in that eventually every person who ever did anything will be added to wiki, its a very slippery slope. -Djsasso (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Never drafted in the first round of the NHL draft, never won a major junior award, never played a game in a professional league, never played in the Olympics or World Championships, not an honored member of the Hockey Hall of Fame. Patken4 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree with what Djsasso just said. If this article is kept, I'll run down to the local rink, put on some skates, grab a stick, and play some pick-up hockey for about ten minutes. I'll be almost as notable. Sure, that's an exaggeration, but it's the same kind of exaggeration being made in the notability assertions here. This article should be deleted. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Everyone who is saying he had not achieved notability needs to turn on their local news, or perhaps visit a website called cnn.com. The man was very well known and well respected in the OHL community and in southwestern Ontario in General. The assistant manager of the Detroit Red Wings said today that he regrets not drafting Renaud this summer. Thousands upon thousands of people have shown their support for him in life and in death if that is not notability that I don't know what is. There are people who were drafted later then Renaud and they have uncontested pages. So with that precedent, keep this page. catauro (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (EST)
  • Comment Only reason he made it into the news outside of the OHL and the local area his team played in is because of his tragic death. Sorry, that does not make him notable. And you just proved the point being made, stating that he is well-known in the OHL community and in southwestern Ontario. I wasn't aware that being well-known in those two "areas" make one notable. Oh wait...it doesn't. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since most people will come here and make keep statements without reading the guidelines I will quote one of the applicable ones that applies to this editors comments Notability is not temporary. A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. -Djsasso (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Newsworthy is not noteworthy. Renaud's death is a news story, much the same as any other death is. Dying does not make one notable, and Renaud's exploits as a hockey player were not sufficient to achieve notability that way. There is a remarkable number of precedents to show that junior hockey players are not notable by default, even those who have been drafted. Resolute 04:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By default, no, but this guy was the captain of his team AND he was drafted AND his father was a major league player AND he had a suspicios death. Let's see. How is Toilets in Japan MUCH more notable than a hockey player with all those qualities. And that's a FA. Editorofthewiki 18:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being the captain of a team does not make one notable, being drafted does not make one notable, his father being a major league player makes his father notable (see notability is not inheirited). And so far his death is not suspicious. -Djsasso (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But all four combined make him notable. Editorofthewiki 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - with additional sources now added, it now meets WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of your additional sources added anything to the article that wasn't already there. That you had to focus so much on how much height and weight a teenager gained each year only underscores just how far one has to stretch to add any kind of commentary. None the less, adding more obits doesn't change the problem of him never playing pro, never winning a major award, never playing at the top level of his sport, or that notability is not temporary, and a burst of news stories related to one event does not satisfy WP:N. Resolute 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it really added most everything. Everything in the WP:LEAD needs to be covered in the body, as does any thing in an infobox, as both are summaries. And per WP:V it all needed to be cited. As to size, take a look at coverage of athletes, that is a rather important component, that's why the infobox has a space for it. And he did play at the top level of amateur hockey. As to burst, which burst of stories? Around the draft or around his death? Aboutmovies (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - He is notable. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete I don't see how his death confered any notability sufficient to overcome the deficiencies that led to the first deletion. Maxamegalon2000 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unfortunatly, he died too soon to be of any notability. Dynad00d (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if that is your logic then we should delete the article on Anne Frank. NorthernThunder (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An FA, shall I add. Editorofthewiki 21:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anne Frank was the subject of a major and very famous book that has easily stood the test of time. Mickey Renaud has had a few articles written about him in the newspaper. Patken4 (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable hockey player. Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above. ----SpeedKing (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If we're keeping Steven Kazmierczak, we're keeping this article. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 17:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What does that have to do with anything? One person is notable and the other is not. Just because he did something horrible doesn't mean he is not notable. -Djsasso (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually he make a great point. How are mass murderers more notable than minor-league players? People keep linking policies to me but here's one: WP:Wikipedia is not paper. I certainly don't see Wikipedia bandwith getting used up anytime soon, and then we can delete the article. Editorofthewiki 18:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite simply because he met the notability requirements of long term notability. Mickey Renaud will not remain notable over the long term. He is only newsworthy because he died recently. WP:Wikipedia is not paper does not apply to just letting any random non-notable person have an article. -Djsasso (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A mass murderer is more notable than a minor league hockey player? If no one else, Renaud's death has a major impact on his family, friends, and team. Any non-notable person would be you, while this guy had extreme talent with an unfortunate death. He was notable for how he lived, not how he died. Death only reimbursed the factthat he is notable. Editorofthewiki 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again he was not a minor league player, he was an amateur junior player. If he was a minor league player we would not be having this afd. He did not play professionally, he did not win any major awards, he had no means of being notable while he was alive. Nothing has changed since the article was last deleted except that he died. -Djsasso (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ahemhem, that debate only received a total of, beside yourself, 3 comments. And his death is another thing to add to his notablity, to turn semi-notable people into notable people. If you don't like Keeley Dorsey, see Natasha Collins, another actor with a mysterious death. There IS a precedent, but not your deletionist agenda as you may think. Editorofthewiki 19:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Again you keep trying to compare apples an oranges. That article has an actress who was on a nationally televised show. And again, he did not have a mysterious death unlike her who was murdered. And death does not create notability if there was none to begin with. And its sort of ironic that you are saying I have a deletionist agenda when most people think I am far too inclusionist when it comes to hockey articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you want to argue precedents, I could give you dozens of athletes whos articles were deleted due to lack of notability, some of whom were drafted higher than Renaud, and all of whom the consensus was that being a junior athlete is not an inherent claim to notability. That Wikipedia's nature tends to create conflicting precedents is exactly why WP:WAX is a bad AfD argument. Resolute 19:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • (Edit conflict) I was one of the principle voters to keep in those afds, she was not murdered, just perhaps drugs supplied to her. Again, she was semi-notable during her career just as he was semi-notable during his. Death only reimbursed their notability. I was not "trying to compare apples an oranges", I was just stating that these two are best known for their death, but they were also at least semi-notable during life. Again, we are only feeding the monster that is systemic bias by deleting this article but keeping Dorsey. Editorofthewiki 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I happen to think its the other way around, keeping more and more of these articles is a side effect of systemic bias. Again there dozens upon dozens of articles I could list that show that the precedent is that being a junior athelete is not notable. If you want specific hockey example all you need to do is click on the list of hockey related afds up at the top of this page and then click on archive and you will have quite a few since the archive was started a few months back. -Djsasso (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Most of them weren't drafted and most weren't the captain of their team and most didn't die so young. Editorofthewiki 19:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Actually most of them were drafted and most of them were drafted before him. Being drafted is extremely common for hockey players playing in that league, which is why it does not make one notable. -Djsasso (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                        • That wasn't my only point. Editorofthewiki 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Yes, but it is already well established that dying young does not make one notable. That is pretty much the entire reason behind WP:MEMORIAL. As for being a captain, again there is 90 (give or take one or two) captains per year in the CHL. So being a captain again is not really all that notable either. -Djsasso (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                            • How can you say that being a captain is not notable. Here are my points and yes it is common but so what. He was drafted, he was captain of a team and a rising star. He died young and several large and well known media companies produced obits. I know i should not refer to articles X & Y but there are several less important articles out there! Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 11:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sometimes a death can create notability for someone who was pretty borderline before. The death of an NHL prospect is rare, and it has an impact on the NHL and the minor league. The OHL will be honouring him this season by putting his number on all helmets for the remainder of the season. It's a national news story getting attention from Canadian Press, the Globe and Mail, Canwest Global, the NHL network, and many others. In my view, this article isn't serving as a memorial - it's serving as documentation of an uncommon event in hockey history.-Wafulz (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sorry, his untimely death, while tragic, still does not change the fact that he fails WP:BIO and Nobability Standards as agreed to on WP:HOCKEY. --Pparazorback (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP. If Mickey Renaud is notable enough to be listed in the "Death during hockey career" section, why shouldn't people be able to read up on who he was and a bit about him? Are we honestly running out of space on the internet that we can't have a page devoted to this great man? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.194.10 (talk) 01:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is actually one of the uses of lists, to list players that might not otherwise be notable enough for their own articles. -Djsasso (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was going to say delete or merge, but he could be considered notable. His Death in on CBC found here: CBC News Story --Bhockey10 (talk) 20:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned earlier, his death is newsworthy. But newsworthy and notable are two different things. -Djsasso (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Djsasso is correct, Delete this player does not meet the Player Notablity--Bhockey10 (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Other than the fact that the subject of the article is deceased, this is an eerily similar discussion to one that happened a few weeks back regarding numerous articles about U.S. college soccer players who had been selected in the first round of the MLS draft. The problems with that discussion, as with this one, are contradictory interpretations of WP:BIO and projects on the specific sport that set notability guidelines that were more strict than the general ones.

I'll make the same point now that I did then - you cannot define a sport as professional, and the fact that professional hockey exists doesn't exclude an amateur hockey player from acheiving notability. Almost all sports can be competed at both the professional and amateur level, and hockey is no exception. So, a hockey player can meet the test of WP:BIO because they've "competed in a fully professional league" or they can meet the test of WP:BIO because they've "competed at the highest level in amateur sports" and they have secondary sources published about them. If the community here has generally taken the position that the OHL is an amateur league - and more on that in a second - then I think it's a completely defensible position that it's at the highest level in amateur hockey (along with the Quebec and Western leagues and the NCAA Division 1). I also see at least two secondary sources referenced in the article from prior to his death, and there are doubtless more out there. As such, he meets that test of WP:BIO.

However, here's a more radical thought to throw into the mix, or maybe it's not that radical and already been debated within the project. Is it appropriate to consider the OHL an amateur league? OHL players are drafted from the lower levels of junior hockey, they sign a contract that binds them to the team, and their rights can be traded to another team - none of those are consistent with what we'd generally consider to be characteristics of amateur sports. OHL players are paid a salary - Wikipedia's own article on amateur sports reads, in part, "By definition amateur sports require participants to participate without remuneration.". In fact, due to the fact that they're paid a salary, they're barred from later playing hockey in the NCAA.

Anyway, the last paragraph is just food for thought. Per the first two paragraphs, Keep. Mlaffs (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But regardless of the above, this player simply isn't notable based on what he's done in his hockey career, which isn't much. Outside of his family, his team, their fans and a small number of others outside of that, no one really had ever heard of him. I've covered hockey for 20 years and I never heard of the guy and I know the top prospects in junior hockey. This guy was NOT one of them. Fact is, he is newsworthy (now), but is not noteworthy per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had heard of him prior to recent events, and I wouldn't come close to saying that I follow junior hockey, although I am a hockey fan. But that's not even relevant. With all due respect to your experience, "I never heard of the guy" might speak to the fact that he's not famous, but it doesn't have any bearing on his notability, which is an entirely different animal. Did he play at the highest level of amateur hockey and does he have valid secondary sources?

To be honest, I can be swayed if there's a feeling that there's not enough secondary source material. What I was most concerned about was making sure this discussion wasn't thrown under the bus by people saying that if he hasn't played pro hockey, then he's not notable. That was the complete content of the first Afd, and it's an incomplete reading of WP:BIO, IMO. Mlaffs (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Hallmark in the history of his league?" Wow...other, otherwise non-notable athletes have died and that didn't make them any more notable. Same as this player. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question then becomes, does Major-Junior equal the highest level of amateur hockey? It is the highest level of junior hockey, but junior is only for a specific age group: 16-20. College hockey would be above that on the age scale, while you could go down to Midget (15-17 in Canada, 15-18 in the US), Bantam, etc. You also, of course, have senior-amateur hockey. Midget AAA is "the highest level of amateur hockey" for 15 and 16 year olds. Does that make any Midget AAA player notable? Also, the NCAA's draconian rules as it relates to the stipend that major-junior players recieve is well noted, and hardly relevant in determining whether the CHL is professional or amateur. Resolute 23:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something to note is that players in the OHL are not paid a salary, its a stipend. No different than a scholarship a player recieves upon playing in the NCAA. The only oganization in the world that considers this pay is the NCAA. Every other hockey body in the world including the internation ice hockey federation considers them amateur and not paid. Not to mention again that the highest level of amateur sports would be the Olympics or the World Championships, any level of sport that restricts by age automatically is not the highest level due to that restriction as the best amateur players may not be that age. -Djsasso (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it was just food for thought, and not my major argument. However, in hockey, the Olympics and the World Championships are competed for by professionals, at least in North America and most of the other major hockey countries. While amateurs have taken part, in the current environment that's the exception and not the rule. Otherwise, surely "highest level" must refer to competition and not age. The highest age level of amateur hockey in Canada is probably, what, Senior AAA or the Canadian University ranks. But they'd have to be considered a lower level of competition than major junior. Mlaffs (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is actually the point, any amateur level of competition that restricts by age does so that the players of another age level can't beat up on the younger players. So the only true highest level of amateur competitions are ones that don't restrict one segment of players from playing. Whether or not professionals are involved, they are not paid to play in those competitions so while they play in those competitions they are still amateurs. -Djsasso (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep His death his very popular and i was gonna say delete but i saw all over the internet that it was worthy and thats why i say keep for another 3-4 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookeo9 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But again newsworthy is not noteworthy. -Djsasso (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Statements like "grew an additional inch and added thirteen pounds" show how little real material there is for this guy. Sorry, but there is insufficient notability demonstrated here to warrant a Wikipedia article. WWGB (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. That wasn't exactly one of the article's highlights, but you can't blame them for trying. The Death is the real thing here. Editorofthewiki 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it can be shown that he received individual playing honours (was an all-star, top-ten in a major stats category for the league, etc.), for he did play at the highest level of amateur hockey in the world. a few other comments. that he died, as tragic as it is, is irrelevant, as most of us agree on. that there is, as it happens, a lot of media coverage on this tragedy is also completely irrelevent - notability is based achievement or notoreity - Renaud appears not to have the first and unlike a long list of criminals say, not the other either. what should happen is that he gets mention, even a section, on his father's wikipage Mayumashu (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete amateur athlete who died. Sad, sure, but wikipedia is not a memorial. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and this is not Len Bias. Quale (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep and close per no consensus. A presumption of notability, according to the guideline, is derived from sources. I would take that a bit further and state it also implies that a person should really be notable for more than just one accomplishment. This player had a storied collegiate and amateur career, and an unfortunate death, so we can close that portion of the discussion. The first sentence of the guideline is that "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." The subject meets these criteria. Anything to circumvent WP:N defeats having it in the first place. Further, per WP:BIO, "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. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability." There are multiple independent secondary sources so this requirement is also met. These are the only requirements that afford a presumption of notability. Past this, we have only Additional criteria, such as WP:ATHLETE, and "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included". MrPrada (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you even read the article? This fellow did not have a storied collegiate career as he never even went to college. -Djsasso (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pardon my ignorance for confusing the Windsor Spitfires and Academic awards with collegiate service. Perhaps the article lacks clarity, but not notability. MrPrada (talk) 07:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It also stretches WP:NPOV to describe a 5th round draft pick who won no major awards as having a "storied career" in the first place. Rather, it has already been established time and time again that junior players of Renaud's level are not notable. As you say, a person should be notable for mor ethan one accomplishment. Well, the only "accomplishment" he had was dying tragically. WP:BIO1E. Resolute 15:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't think that he passes the hockey requirements for notability. But I have no objection to the article or information being in Wikipedia. It seems that he came within a few months of meeting the notability on that count, so it would seem that it may be being set too strictly, and appears that way. Sometimes you need the exception to set the rule fairly? Is this article being used as background for the wikinews article? Alaney2k (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous afd's supporting junior players not being notable[edit]

Since I noticed that User:Editorofthewiki requested previous afd's for junior players not being notable from user:Resolute. I thought I would just list some of the previous afds over only that last couple months that have gone to show that junior hockey players are not considered notable unless they have done something out of the ordinary to achieve notability.

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wes Welcher
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Rahm
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Pageau
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Sweeney (ice hockey)
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maxime dubuc
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pier-Antoine Dion
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicolas Bachand
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Brophy
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mario Kempe
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olivier Fortier
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. K. Subban
12. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Leggio
13. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Howse
14. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mickey Renaud
15. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justin Azevedo
16. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Legein
17. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Halischuk
18. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Parlett
19. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dustin Slade

-Djsasso (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thank you for showing me. I agree, not all junior players are notable, but this guy had multiple claims to notability, as listed below. Editorofthewiki 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editorofthewiki's notability claims for the article[edit]

A sum of what I have been saying:

1. captain of a major amateur^[1] team (we have articles on baseball minor league players)
2. was drafted to play in the majors late in year (we have articles on people who were drafted later)^[2]
3. had a notable father^[3]
4. has plenty of sources^[4]
5. had a huge out-of-the-blue death (we have Dorsey and I'm sure plenty of others)

Of course, any one of these would not make him notable, but combined they do. Editorofthewiki 20:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. As was mentioned, with 60 teams in the CHL, you will see 75-90 players wear a C in any individual season. This hardly makes an individual notable at this level.
2. Drafted players with articles typically have gained notability via other means, i.e.: actually played pro. From a hockey side, the only exception thus far have been first round draft picks.
3. Notability is not inherited. An individual needs to stand on their own merits.
4. The lasting impact on family members/team is irrelevent. My aunt is not notable for being murdered, despite the lasting impact her death had on my family and her community.
5. A lot of people have had out of the blue deaths. Again, this is not an indicator of notability.

Resolute 21:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to see that all these combined make him notable. Also sorry about your aunt. :( Editorofthewiki 21:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is the point we are making though, if none of the parts are notable, then the whole can not be notable either. -Djsasso (talk) 21:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Natasha Collins' first AfD, DRV, and second AfD, if that's what you think. Editorofthewiki 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS yet again. Resolute 22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the first afd was Delete, DRV was to relist, and second afd was no concensus. So there is no precendent set by those afds at all. -Djsasso (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, none of the above claims make this guy notable per WP:NOTE. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it got kept anyway. It would only add to systemic bias if this gets deleted as now Wikipedia favors UK over Canada. Editorofthewiki 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is a very silly argument, given many of the editors !voting delete are from Canada. The only thing deleting this article would show is that there is consensus to delete this article. The lack of consensus for any other article is an independent issue. Resolute 23:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I've made my point, and have significantly altered the course of this debate. I've shown where I stand, and it seems that this article is going to be a no concensus deal anyway. I hate not having the last word on everything, but I'm just saying good work has been put into this article, and he will be part of the long term record for his team. BTW, I'll nominate Keeley Dorsey for deletion if this gets deleted, but feel free to do it again. Of course, there should be no concensus to delete that article just as it is here. This guy at least has a semblence of notability, and really, who is this hurting if we delete it? I'm going to start editing important stuff. Like Munster, an incredibly short article on such a large city that has an FA in German. Editorofthewiki 17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your justification by comparison is irrelevant. You're comparing apples and oranges again. You apparently are ignoring Wikipedia's policies in favor of our own opinion. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply showing that the concensus, by providing similar examples (even though in your mind you may not see them as similar), is to keep such articles. I have been saying the same thing over and over so many times I'm almost ready to let this go. What harm is it doing to have this article here? If someone came here looking for info about him they would see this messy discussion and it would disuade them from joining. He IS notable and there are sources to prove it. Editorofthewiki 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's notable to you. But per WP:NOTE he is not. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except there is no concensus, all the votes came back no consencus which means the concensus was neither keep nor delete which is very different than concensus to keep. -Djsasso (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the arguements here are off base, the only relevant thing is WP:NOTE as others and Gmatsuda point out. But I'm not sure what Gmatsuda means when they say he doesn' meet note. NOTE says: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That is the key to notability on Wikipedia. So ask yourself: is there significant coverage in RS. Yes, there are at least four articles with significant, non-trivial coverage of this person, and each is in a RS (newspapers/online, mainstream media) that the subject is independent of. It's really that simple. As to the whole newsworthy/noteworthy. At what point does someone transition to noteworthy? Is it two, three, five hundred newspaper articles? One or two articles in the local paper is newsworthy. Your death being a story picked up by the national wire services is noteworthy. As to memorial, that is to prevent an article about your cousin who got run over by a drunk driver and the story made the local paper and you want to make a myspace type memorial. A death that is covered in a national wire service is not a memorial talking about your fondness for the person and how much you miss them and love them. That's a memorial, this is an encyclopedia entry that covers a person drafted into a major sports league who then died and made the national news. Now if you want to go with the whole "one event argument" then I would suggest this be merged into the proper event, Death of Mickey Renaud, the event. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the short burst of new articles that is the issue, give it a month and the event will be forgotten unfortunately. -Djsasso (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, which burst of news? June 2007 or Feb 2008? And as to forgotten, maybe, but that happens when most people die, even those who are notable. Note that all state legislators are notable by default, but how many are remembered after their terms are up or they die? It's not about no more coverage in month or two, its about substantial coverage in multiple RS, i.e. the notability guidelines. Aboutmovies (talk) 21:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, could you provide some examples of the "burst" of news from June 2007? 5th round draft picks generally do not have multiple articles written about them, and I would be curious to see if Renaud was such an exception. Resolute 21:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Resolute mentioned there has only been one burst of news, the June 2007 news story linked in the article is just a news story for the local team that drafted him, that does not constitute multiple independant sources. There was only the one burst. And as for your legislators examples, they will have had constant news storys about them over their term, as opposed to a week long burst of news. A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage. -Djsasso (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But this all proves that he had a very small burst of news in June 2007 and a much larger one now. Yes, as Aboutmovies stated, an article on Death of Mickey Renaud would be okay, similar to Dissappearance of Madeline McCann (a GA!) and Natalee Holloway, whodid absolututly nothing in her life except getting lost and now both articles are larger than, say, Mwai Kibaki. But, due to Aboutmovies' point, it would be better to leave the article the way it is and start making Kibai's article as long as Holloway's. Editorofthewiki 23:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm still waiting for evidence of that little burst in June 2007. You might want to re-check Wikipedia's definition of WP:RS when considering this one. Specifically, the point about non-trivial coverage of which the subject was the focus. i.e.: a basic stat package and two sentence blurb on where player X is from as part of a larger capsule regarding all of a certain team, in this case, the Calgary Flames, draft picks would not satisfy this requirement. Also, WP:WAX is just as meaningless a defence today as it was yesterday as it was Wednesday as it was Tuesday. Resolute 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two stories from June. As to non-trivial, the one covering the draft picks is non-trivial coverage of this person. Though it may be non-exclusive, "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." it is not trivial. Trivial would be, "the Calgary Flames drafted Mickey Renaud in the fifth round." You add that they traded up for him, and the other details that are included and that translates into it not being trivial. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK its now up to ten pre-death WP:RS (4 from June/July), and that's just the ones with significant coverage from one newspaper. Let me know if you need more, and what number it needs to be to constitute a burst. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both McCann and Halloway, and even more recent examples such as Stacy Peterson, have been stories for more than a few months. They are all perfect examples of Missing white woman syndrome anyway. It is doubtful Renaud is going to be appearing in newspapers months from now. Doing a quick news search on him now and you find most articles from February 18th. There are very few from a more recent time. Patken4 (talk) 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess that Wikipedia has become the media. We always have to show so much bias in articles it's making me sick. There was not a huge story in June, just a small one, and now there is a huge story. This info should not be deleted any less than McCann or Holloway or Peterson should because he at lest did something during his short life. I want to see their articles to be nominated for deletion. Editorofthewiki 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia reacts to the media. McCann, Holloway, and Peterson are still all prevalent in the media many months have their dissappearance/death. Renaud is probably not going to be. Months from now, he will be forgotten. Patken4 (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL Editorofthewiki 01:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't. Thinking he will still be having numerous newspaper articles with him as the subject in a few months is. Patken4 (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Michael Fogolin as an example. Similar to Renaud, he died unexpectedly while a junior player. Similar to Renaud, he was the son of a former NHL player. The only difference is that Fogolin wasn't drafted, but he was 17 when he died. Almost five years after his death, there are no news stories about him. A search on his name only reveals articles from the time, none that are more than a few days after his death. More examples include Brent Ruff, who was one of the four Swift Current Broncos who died in the bus accident. His name only comes up in articles relating to his brother Lindy. If Renaud's story does stand the test of time and there are still articles talking about in a few months time, the article could be re-created. Patken4 (talk) 01:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the point-- Fogolin wasn't drafted. Once the Natalee Holloway Case is over and done with, nobody will remember it unless perhaps because of the media attention it drew. This is a very unusual case--as this one user stated on the talk page, an autopsy will be done in 2 months. The same can go for school shootings. Remember that Illinois school shooting? That was less than a month ago and nothing has happened since. I'm going to nominate Dorsey right now actually. Editorofthewiki 03:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop comparing one article to another, and talk about this particular articles merits based on WP:NOTE etc. Arguments based on what does or doesn't already exist on wikipedia are not valid arguments to bring up over and over again. -Djsasso (talk) 03:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see my notability claims for the article.Editorofthewiki 03:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my responses to them. 1. Being captain of a junior team isn't notable. Your argument about minor league baseball players falls flat because they are professionals. 2. He was drafted in the 5th round, which isn't notable. Of the players drafted after him in that same draft, only two have articles. Christopher DiDomenico is borderline since he has some team records (though the team is brand new) and was named to the All-Rookie Team in the QMJHL (at least his article claims it). Johan Harju plays in the Elitserien, which is a professional league and makes him notable. 3. His dad being notable has no bearing on him being notable. 4. Has been re-hashed throughout the debate. 5. See point 4. Patken4 (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth round draft picks aren't notable unless they achieve something notable, such as winning a major award in juniors or playing professionally. Patken4 (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the fact that he was named OHL Rookie of the Year and won the 2007 WESPY Male Athlete of the Year Award? Do those count as major awards? They were on display at his funeral. Catauro (talk) 06:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the official OHL rookie of the year award, but it's not Renaud. He also wasn't Wespy Male Athlete of the Year (that was a basketball player). Renaud was the hockey sportsperson of the year. WWGB (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well both awards were on display at his funeral along with a couple more, such as one award commerating his volunteering efforts. Maybe they were fakes though. Seriously though, doesn't the fact that he won the WESPY Male Hockey Player of the Year award make him notable? Catauro (talk) 16:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wespy Awards are limited to Windsor/Essex County (population less than 400 000), so it's a relatively small regional award against limited competition. WWGB (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, if he had been named OHL Rookie of the Year, he would have been notable. The award is a notable achievement. The Wespy Award doesn't appear to be to me. It's a local award and it doesn't appear to get much attention outside of Windsor. In fact, Westminster College also gives out atheletic awards called the Wespy's. Patken4 (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS source should stop being used in the debate. Of course other stuff exists and it helps compare notability which is a very important thing. There are several article that have no notability. The Disappearance of Shannon Matthews should in my view no way have a article. She has been missing 8 days and has a article. Renaud was captain of the team which is notable, son of a NHL star which in many other children of stars have articles and he died at a young age, also with several articles created. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shannon Matthews has no impact on this debate. Propose that article for deletion if you want, which no one has done yet. And I would hardly call Mark Renaud a "star". He played just over 150 NHL games in an era when there were 21 teams. Patken4 (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm more than willing to switch to WP:WAX as a comment, if you prefer. Resolute 01:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What i meant by star was he was notable enough to have a article. I will put the article up for deletion when i finish with this and tbh WP:WAX is basically the same thing. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The whole point behind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that you can't compare the traits of one article based on the traits of another article. Every article is different and need to be treated as such. The whole point of it is that you can't use other articles to compare notability. -Djsasso (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards of the subject[edit]

People have said that if he won amy major awards an article on him could be necessary. Here's some of the awards Renaud got, strait out of the article:

While playing for the Windsor Spitfires for the 2005 to 2006 season, he was named OHL West Division Academic Player of the Month for Febraury 2006.^[5] In November 2006, he was ranked as the 14th best prospect in the OHL.^[6] During the 2006 to 2007 season, he was selected as an all-star to the Ontario Hockey League's All-Star Game.^[7][8]

Perhaps only winning one of these awards would not make a subject notable, but combined and with the death and being captain of the team makes Renaud notable. Editorofthewiki 14:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A series of "no"'s for notability does not make someone notable. Regarding the awards, the Academic Award isn't notable. For the 14th best prospect claim, I would need to see the actual article to see what he is referring to. Is it overall in the entire OHL, is it limited to just his draft class? The all-star game nomination is borderline at best. It would simply make him one of the 40 best players in the OHL. A notable award is generally for best at your position, MVP (play-off/regular season), Rookie of the Year, scoring champion, or post-season All-Star team appearance (which I haven't found if the OHL awards). I will reserve judgement, however, for other members of the hockey project to weigh in to see whether or not the all-star game appearance is notable. Patken4 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, some of them would constitute borderline notability, but combined with his death it pushes him over the top and makes him notable. Please note that this info was added after this debate began. Editorofthewiki 15:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep returning to your premise that multiple non-notable events "pushes" someone into notability. Please show me where that is established as Wikipedia policy. As Patken4 points out above, it's as if one "no" is non-notable, but if you accumulate a whole lot of "nos" it becomes a "yes"? I don't get it. WWGB (talk) 01:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of his nos are actually halves, and ½+½=1. See Natasha Collins, for this is basically the same as that. Editorofthewiki 02:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the biggest load of crap I've heard yet. Actresses are notable for other reasons, not being dead. Renaud is not notable. Not notable to the infinite power is not notable. Flibirigit (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Tee Ball or NASCAR. You don't get points for trying. You're either notable or you're not. I have a friend whose dad played football for a BCS school. While there, he was a starter on a team that won a major bowl game and finished in the top 5 nationally. Seven teammates played in the NFL, with four of them playing over 7 years. One is even in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. He was invited to several NFL teams training camps, but couldn't attend any of them because of the Vietnam War. My friends dad is simply not notable enough for an article because he never played professionally and he never won a major college award. These are the notability guidelines. He doesn't get an article because he is close on so many qualifiers. Patken4 (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You really don't understand semi-notability. Collins was semi notable in her life for her role in See It Saw It. Renaud was semi-notable in his life for all my reasons listed above. Death, for both of them, brought them into the notabity. Since Wikipedia is supposedly supposed to cover the event, then we can have Death of Mickey Renaud, but we should not discount his athletic achievements as well. Editorofthewiki 21:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except the issue is there is no semi-notable. You either are notable or you are not notable. You can't take parts of events and add them together to make something notable. Notability is like a light switch. If you have two light switches in a room half way on, do they still turn on the light? No they don't. -Djsasso (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So one event can make you notable, right? Aboutmovies (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No I used the wrong word. I meant attribute not event. He is arguring that a number of non-notable things on their own can be combined to make one notable. -Djsasso (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the guidelines for semi-notability? Should we have an article on Carine Desir? She would seem to be semi-notable and I can find plenty of sources talking about her death. The fact is, she shouldn't just as Mickey Renaud shouldn't. Neither met the notability guidelines. Both of their deaths have received media attention, but it doesn mean they themselves are notable unless they get extended coverage from the media. Patken4 (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See you're screwing up what I'm saying in favor of your deletionist agenda. Take that guy from Illinnois. He was a seminotable author who killed lots of people and gets an article. Or some of the Victims of Virginia Tech. Some were just the same old professors who died horribly. Or even McCann, who did absolutely nothing. One event can push semi-notability into notability. Or one event can turn non-notable people into notable ones. Editorofthewiki 23:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What did Renaud do to be notable? He was never a professional, he never won a major award in juniors. The debate over Steven Kazmierczak has been closed as being premature. A debate on his notability will be determined at a later date. McCann is notable because her disappearance has been news for almost a year. Renaud's death was news for a few days. A week after his death and there are no new articles about him. Patken4 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, and as for Carine Desir, what did she do to prove her semi-notability. Heart disease? #1 cause of death in the U.S. Desir and Renaud are not a great comparison. Editorofthewiki 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again you are either notable or you are not. There is no semi-notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet Desmir's death has gotten media coverage, just as Renaud's death did. Patken4 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renaud was a junior hockey player and captauin of his team. Editorofthewiki 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of which do not make a person notable. -Djsasso (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those facts don't make someone notable. There are close to 1,500 players in major junior hockey right now. There are close to 100 captains in major junior hockey. Patken4 (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which in my view proves that you need to do something right and notable to beat around 1400 other players in the league to become captain. Chandlerjoeyross (talk) 23:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. You only have to beat the 20 guys on the roster for your team. You then tpically have to be 19/20, since rookies are never captains, reducing it down to 10 players or less per team. And even then, for a lot of teams, it is an internal popularity contest. We might as well declare that the head cheerleader for every high school is therefore notable. Resolute 00:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History of River Trips in Peterborough[edit]

The History of River Trips in Peterborough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Poorly written and formatted; this article does not cite any references or sources. It appears to chronicle and advertise a private enterprise and has been tagged for notability since 21 April 2007. Chrisieboy (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete thought it looked familiar and realised I remember looking at it and contemplating a nomination. Even with a number of searches, including this, I find no evidence of notability among a plethora of wiki mirrors. Travellingcari (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless citations to published sources are added. This article reads like an original synthesis based on documentary or oral sources. While it may be very accurate, and I'm sure it's interesting from a local perspective, it's not suited for an encyclopedia article which has to be verifiable from previously published sources. Is there a wiki intended for this kind of article? EALacey (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Gate[edit]

Kris Gate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no appearances for a fully pro team in a national league therefore fails WP:BIO and the disputed WP:FOOTY guidelines. No reliable third-party sources to be found so fails WP:N. Etc etc. Good luck to him in netting that contracts with Barcelona, though ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. BanRay 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article about a living person who is non-notable per the arguments presented below. Rudget. 16:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Cave[edit]

Phil Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's joined Gateshead F.C., which was a member of The Football League. According to Gateshead F.C.#Current squad, he deserves notability--NAHID 20:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - however, Gateshead are now playing in the Northern Premier League, an amateur league, so any appearances for them don't count as appearances in a "fully professional league", so the player fails Wikipedia's notability criteria. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable enough. Sir-Nobby (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not according to Wikipedia's notability criteria set at WP:BIO. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I bet you're loving this aren't you Sir-Nobby (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully-professional league. Keep !votes above are void as Gateshead do not play in a fully-professional league (they play three divisions below one), and (as noted in the introduction of the club's article) are not actually the same club as that that did play in the Football League. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No appearances in a fully pro league, therefore not notable, it's as simple as that. Even if we were to accept that the current Gateshead club is the same entity as the original (which it isn't), the argument that he deserves an article because he plays for a club which dropped out of the fully pro leagues before he was even born is patently ludicrous ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sorry, but he's just not notable BanRay 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable lower-level footballer. Sebisthlm (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian pederasty[edit]

Albanian pederasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A likely hoax. Very bizarrely written and in parts, entirely incomprehensible. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it's a hoax, but it certainly fails to substantiate its basic premise: that culturally accepted pederasty was a practice characteristic specifically of Albanian society (as opposed to, for instance, Ottoman society at large). I have no doubt that reports by 19th-century travellers and ethnographs to that effect may exist, but then, the 19th century was a time of intense racial prejudice, and we'd really need some sanity filter through modern historical research on this issue. The sourcing is entirely outdated, and mostly from primary contemporary sources, which are rendered with far too little critical distance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obviously not a hoax. See Google scholar for more sources Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No, it's not a hoax although I can't blame the nominator for thinking that it might be something both defamatory and untrue. Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't nominate just because I thought the article was a hoax. Lines like "Prof. Weigand, who knew the Albanians well, assured Bethe[3] that the relations described by Hahn are really sexual, although tempered by idealism," make absolutely no sense. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we misunderstood you when you wrote "A likely hoax." Mandsford (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • That passage is obviously sticking very closely to some intermediate source without taking due consideration of the context. "X said that Y said that Z...". Demonstrates poor treatment of sources and lack of distance in writing. The article author even took a phrase like "A German scholar who travelled in Albania some years ago(!)", obviously said in one of the sources by a writer in around 1900, and copies it literally into our article so as to make it sound as if it were talking about c.2000. Fail. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, but edit a bit. I contributed much of the article, but it has been some time and if I did it again now I would change the language. The criticism at the beginning of this discussion, of having too little critical distance is right on the money. The material should have been edited to remove the voice of the original narrator. On the other hand, I do wish that people who start AfD campaigns would do their homework. This is historical material that can easily be cross-checked. --Haiduc (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've done some rewording. I would strongly urge you to add your true sources to that article. You were evidently quoting those 1900s reports indirectly. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Also, if this is kept, I'd suggest renaming to Pederasty in Albania. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, I will have to look again for the sources. Why do you suggest re-naming the article? Haiduc (talk) 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion is to keep in line with Pederasty in ancient Greece, Pederasty in the Middle East and Central Asia, and Category:Pederasty in the Renaissance. Though I also see Athenian pederasty, Theban pederasty, Cretan pederasty, etc. We should probably stick to one format. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The longer place descriptors really do require a "Pederasty in ..." format, but when the location can be expressed in one word, the other format is more concise and - to my eye - more elegant. I do not think we need force everything into one single pattern, certainly there is no danger of confusion. Haiduc (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My idea about the renaming was that it would be less provocative, to people who'd find "Albanian pederasty" to imply some kind of moral stain on their ethnic identity. "Albanian pederasty", to my mind, carries a somewhat stronger implication that pederasty is something inextricably linked to being Albanian, more so than "Pederasty in Albania", which just describes pederasty as something that used to happen in that place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point but I think that in this case it is the other way around. To use another analogy, it is not as if we had "Albanian smallpox" and changed it to "Smallpox in Albania" since smallpox is the same everywhere and can happen anywhere. In this case we had a local pederastic culture, with its traditions, vocabulary, religious rituals, and literature. It was very much an Albanian construction of pederasty. There was no shame to it, on the contrary, it was very much integrated into the honor code and celebrated. Just because someone today wants to repudiate his national heritage I do not think we are obligated to harness Wikipedia to that cart. To my eye it goes against the very culture of impartiality and respect for history that we are cultivating.Haiduc (talk) 02:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are obvious and strong reasons for a standard naming format, though I don't really care which one it is. But I would very much like to see a standard and have articles stick to it. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the current de facto situation is that we have two formats to suit two very different requirements. In those case where the pederastic customs are relatively uniform and consistent, we have titles in the style of "Athenian pederasty," since, quite clearly, that custom is unitary and definable. In case where we have a collection of separate pederastic traditions, we have titles such as "Pederasty in ancient Greece". In the present case, the Albanian pederastic tradition is documented as a unitary tradition, with a single vocabulary, and rituals that can be identified as specifically Albanian (vellameria is encountered only in Albania and nowhere else, vlamis is strictly an Albanian term). So I see greater accuracy in the present structure, and a blurring of distinctions if we were to adopt a single format to cover unlike topics. Haiduc (talk) 15:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rewrite from sources and cut back or better contextualize the literary interpretation aspect, which makes it look fantastic. The original Hahn account, translated, appears in full right in A Dictionary of Albanian Religion, Mythology, and Folk Culture, so it's possible to avoid these fourth-hand interpretations. As Hahn notes, the practice appeared to have survived since Doric times. --Dhartung | Talk 09:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd be careful about that Hahn account. For instance, the ancient "Doric" connection cannot possibly be much more than pure speculation. A 19th-century traveller who had no other means of researching the issue than by sitting down with a few Albanians and chatting with them could not possibly know anything about such continuity. Also, the fact that Elsie in his modern book just prints Hahn's account literally without any further commentary makes me suspicious. It seems to imply Hahn's report is really the only substantial account we have, and there is nothing else in the way of modern research to check it or corroborate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Haiduc. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 18:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve the sourcesMegistias (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Haiduc makes compelling arguments. Queerudite (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 19:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep, encourage rewrite. Wizardman 03:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TAIKOPROJECT[edit]

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

No sources, it was created by Taikoproject (talk · contribs) so it's most likely self-promotion. There's Google hits, but that's not enough to establish notability. JuJube (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep exists [12] but unsourced [13], [14]. JJL (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As a music group, wouldn't their touring make them pass WP:MUSIC? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article survives (and it looks very suspect to me), it should be retitled so it doesn't shout. Unless, of course, the band is really referred to as tee-ay-eye-kay-oh-pee [etc]. -- Hoary (talk) 11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - only a mention in the Seattle Times. Fails WP:MUSIC. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This group received attention from a Puerto Rican news, [15] and there is a lot of other independent sources. [16] Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 02:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bencherlite^Talk 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoddling[edit]

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

Delete per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete complete and utter horseshit. JuJube (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing meaningful in this, and it's been tagged by myself as patent nonsense. Speedy delete JuJube (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Concensus - Appears to pass WP:MUSIC via a charting single, but the article is poorly sourced. -Djsasso (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dolla (rapper)[edit]

Dolla (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete nn rapper sourced to myspace, fails WP:MUSIC. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vain vanity in vain, sucka. JuJube (talk) 20:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - he has a song on a sound track. Not a great movie, but notable. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - his music video has been on MTV —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSox (talk • contribs) 20:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —86.149.53.196 (talk) 10:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The notability seems weak at the moment because he hasn't released an album yet. But he's signed to a major label and he'll likely be more notable after his first album. And he already has a charting single, which passes WP:MUSIC #2. Also, here are some refs I found from a Google search. Spellcast (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I agree with nominator, it fails Music and poorly referenced. --SSman07 (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -Djsasso (talk) 21:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sidekicks[edit]

List of sidekicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Every fictional character has a sidekick, say for example - if this was to be complete this list will become overcrowded otherwise too indiscriminative. I recommend this to be speedy deleted for tat reason. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for nomination As I want to say this again, this list is too indiscriminate and will never be completed. If it does, it will become way too overcluttered.

• Keep no deletion reason given. I There's a common fallacy here: that any list will either be incomplete and therefore worthless, or complete and hence indiscriminate--one or another of these alternatives can and has been used against every list in Wikipedia. A list limited to the notable objects of a type will be neither. It will be as complete as it ought to be, and as discriminating. If this contains those who are notable by being included in WP, it will be properly selective, not indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, yes I have, my reason is, it is too indiscriminate, every fictions have a sidekick. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if every fictional character has one, it'll be much too broad. Of course that isn't so, but as Sidekick indicates, there are nonfictional examples too (such as Ed McMahon). Hence a true list of sidekicks would mix fictional and nonfictional cases. I might feel differently about List of superhero sidekicks, say, but this is too broad. JJL (talk) 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep No coherent reason to delete is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the arguments I gave previously. Please see here and here and the decision of the first AfD. The article is a discriminate list that satisfies Wikipedia:Lists. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article was previously deleted, but was just recreated (without wikilinks) apparently by copy-pasting from a cache of the deleted page. The subject of the list lacks a clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria (WP:LISTV#INC). It furthermore conflates fictional characters with real people. - JasonAQuest (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G4 - recreation of an article that was deleted at the end of December. Also a GFDL violation, since it appears to be a copy/paste of a mirror site that hadn't updated yet to remove the deleted original. Resolute 21:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tagged as G4 speedy. Deor (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:CSD#G4. User:Dorftrottel 21:35, February 19, 2008
• Delete As a recreation of an article deleted under WP:AfD, it appears to qualify for immediate ((speedy)) deletion. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot of The Thing[edit]

Plot of The Thing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and this clearly violates the "Plot summaries" subsection. Aside from that, there appears to be no reason why this film's plot should be forked from the main article instead of just summarized like every other film article. It's an unreferenced mess to boot. Nufy8 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and rewrite this should be with the article about the film. ImperviusXR (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's already The Thing (film) # Plot. This is the type of overly detailed, easy to write, play-by-play that isn't necessary for appreciation of the John Carpenter film. Mandsford (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too long, doesn't summarise the plot, contains material that isn't actually in the film (and so shouldn't be in its summary) mixed in with an OR-ish/POV writing style. Geoff B (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need for this fork; if anything is valuable here, can merge. JJL (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does it WP:SNOW in Antarctica? Yes, yes it does. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doe Ray Me[edit]

Doe Ray Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, unsourced song full of original research. It seems to be from a deleted album. Spellcast (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it lacks of importance Vacanzeromane (talk) 13:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 17:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bi Writers Association[edit]

Bi Writers Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability for this organization. Already mentioned in Sheela Lambert. Unless notability can be demonstrated, article doesn't add much worth merging. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Resolute 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on above comments made. Radagast83 (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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