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

The result was Keep (non-admin colsure), very near unanimous keep consensus Fr33kman^{talk APW} 06:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin[edit]

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

The information on this subarticle now has many sources and this duplication is unnecessary. The activity on Palin in general allows POV editors just another avenue to include their edit if it's rejected on the main Palin page or if they want to "sneak" it in by subarticle by passing the consensus process that seems to be working on the main Palin talk page. [First time I've done this, excuse me if I did it wrong] Theosis4u (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some evidence to avoid the main Palin consensus process is here

Talk:Sarah_Palin#Summarizing_Mayoralty_section

The main topics presented in Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin are the following

Energy & Environment , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Energy_and_environment , Sarah_Palin

Budget , is already covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending , Sarah_Palin

Matanuska Maid Dairy, ISN'T covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Government_Spending but could be.

Bridge to Nowhere, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#.22Bridge_to_Nowhere.22 , Sarah_Palin, and Gravina_Island_Bridge

Earmarks, covered in Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Earmarks, Sarah_Palin

Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, covered in Alaska_Public_Safety_Commissioner_dismissal , Sarah_Palin

• Keep - notable? yes. Supported by reliable sources? yes. Threshold for keeping article has been met. Merge and redirect would be the alternative, but I don't see any reason for that. Also, please see WP:POINT. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mayoralty_of_Sarah_Palin has the same debate - though without the insults being offered. Please note, I did place the question on the Talk page of the article and I went back an added the comment about this deletion request I made. I thought that was being responsible and respectful to those involved. I don't see how notable & reliable sources are the only requirements otherwise subartilces could be infinitive. Theosis4u (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sarah Palin unless that would make her article too large. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a necessary daughter article of Sarah Palin that is consistent with summary style. This would be comparable (from a parent/child standpoint) with United States Senate career of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scjessey. In response to Edward321, such a merger would indeed make her article too large. JamesMLane t c 00:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scjessey.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, summaries can be written, not easy given the controversy, but it can be done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unlike the iffy Mayoralty of Sarah Palin article, this is a clear keep. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Hobartimus (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, specifically to avoid WP:Coatrack on her bio page. --Kickstart70-T-C 06:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, before I goto bed. Looks like this might be a "keeper". Can someone make sure this is communicated very well on the main talk page as well as the politics one? This way, the material is consistent throughout and not contradictory when compared against each other. Sound reasonable? Theosis4u (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- the summary style makes sense in the main article. As more information emerges, this article will be a better place for in-depth study of her term as governor than the main article would be. Coemgenus 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To agree with User:SimpleParadox's point below, I think it should be kept, but we should also monitor it to keep it NPOV and within the bounds of its purported subject matter. Coemgenus 17:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge If this article were actually about the Governorship of Sarah Palin, then I might be okay with it. Unfortunately, this article is clearly a POV fork attempting to highlight certain areas of her governorship in a less than neutral light (evidenced by the dozen or so crafted "gotcha" statements in the article). For example, when the lead draws attention to the fact that she has never traveled outside of "North America" (not "Alaska" or "the United States"), a fact that has little to do with one's governance of a state, one can plainly see the purpose of this supposed "Summary". Theosis4u, don't be intimidated, you had it right in the first place. AfD is not a vote count, you've clearly shown that the vast majority of topics covered in this article have been written about in depth elsewhere and your concern that this article is an attempt to evade consensus is valid. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Absolutely notable. rootology (C)(T) 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mayoralty of Sarah Palin and Electoral history of Sarah Palin to Early life and career of Sarah Palin. Grsz^talk 17:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable; sourced; if it were gone, we'd have to make the main article substantially longer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepGreat Page , better than the main page, more specific , more detail, and better oveall presentation.. Reduce the blurb in the main article and direct to this page.

--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and reduce the related content in the Sarah Palin article to a summary. We should follow the guideline Wikipedia:Summary style. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Obviously notable. The Sarah Palin article is already huge and loads extremely slowly so merging is a bad option. POV should be dealt with as it comes up. Also, broadly accusing the editors of this page of trying to "sneak" in POV is a failure to assume good faith.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 20:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"or if.." and Talk:Sarah_Palin#Summarizing_Mayoralty_section allows others to make up their own minds. Theosis4u (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No policy or real reason for deletion. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:01, 13 September 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. Keeper ǀ 76 19:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make Ya Wanna Do Right[edit]

Make Ya Wanna Do Right (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Google came up with no sources that this album exists or is even in the making. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Unverifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 04:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 10 September 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. BJ^Talk 08:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasilla Bible Church[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)).

Wasilla Bible Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable church which lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable 3rd party sources for verifiability Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, there is a related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Kroon. Keeper ǀ 76 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I do not know Jasynnash2 or what his motivations may be. This is the church that Sarah Palin attends. It is drawing significant national attention. The article is well-sourced even from newspaper articles and books that pre-date her candidacy.Elan26 (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

• Delete her church info is covered in the Sarah Palin article. I see no notability for the church itself. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gtstricky, while your opinion is interesting, please note that Time magazine and Newsweeek Magazine disagree with you. Newsweek has an entire article dedicated to this church. Itis on the page. This is, by the way, a large, successful congregation with multiple pastors and written up in at least one book as a model of a sucessful evangelical congregation. it would be notable without Sarah palin. I post Wikipedia articles on churches and synagogues reguarly. Why do I suspect political motivations in this deletion discussion? Is it because the article on her pastor Larry Kroon was deleted without an AFD, despite copious sources? Elan26 (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

I am as unpolitical as you can get. If it was not for Sarah neither of the articles that you cited would have been written and they both focus more on her then the church. But that is just my opinion and that is why we have an AFD process... Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that her church is getting more press by the minute. Going neutral for a few days but I suspect it will gain notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was her old church (Wasilla Assembly of God) getting the press today [1] Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• grudging keep- I'm basing this on two things. One, the precedent that we have an article on Trinity United Church of Christ, a church that became notable in the press because of one member (Barack Obama) and its pastor (Jeremiah Wright). And second, this church has gotten some press lately thanks to the nomination for VP of Sarah Palin. There's already enough this press to make it notable, and more will likely be forthcoming. As long as NPOV rules are adhered to, I see no problem with keeping this article. I may not like it, but my personal feelings are not important. Its a valid article topic. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 17:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. The Time article itself says the church is "...similar to "thousands of conservative evangelical churches across the country." Or: "'the largest and most influential' churches in Wasilla" ? Wasilla has 8500 people, so this is hardly a claim to notability. It's only notable because of Palin, and so should only be on her page. I will stand corrected if there is press coverage of the church as doing something distinctive itself. justinfr (talk/contribs) 18:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justinfr, all high schools are similar, all Presbyterian and Catholic churches are similar. All sunni mosques are similar. Nevertheless, we give the big ones and the ones that draw attention because they have notable members, notable pastors, or notable buildings on Wikipedia. This church is large, and it is bein gdiscussed in the media. Newsweek published an entire article about it because people want to know. One of the things the article said is that it is "similar" to thousands of other large, American, Evangelical churches. This paints a picture, it does not lessen the notability of the chuch. Notre Dame is similar to a score of other gothic cathedrals. that doesn't mean that we should take th epage down.Elan26 (talk) 18:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Point taken. It would just be nice if the article included more than, "This is the church that Sarah Palin attends." That could just as easily be on her page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 19:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentDelete I think this fails WP:NOT#NEWS, actually, since the only reason the church is being covered is because a particular politician attends. I'm inclined to think this should be Transwiki'ed to Wikinews, since there will likely never be additional RS coverage of this particular congregation once the presidential race is over. Jclemens (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, Your argument would be more convincing if you would explain why you have not proposed the Trinity United Church of Christ for deletion. Trinity United got a wikipedia page on Feb. 12, 2008. when a individual is chosen to run for President at least in part because of teh support she will dreaw from fellow evangelical Christians, her church and her pastor beocme notable.Elan26 (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sound argument Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note There is a related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry KroonElan26 (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS completely non-notable. Mayalld (talk) 20:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Umbralcortex gives an overall good argument for keeping and given prior news coverage before this the church likely meets notability criteria even without the Palin matter. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable on its own. Seems to be a coatrack for hanging various controversies on, the article really says very little about the church itself or its history. Kelly ^hi! 21:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a coatrack. Nothing in the article, or the sources, argues for the notability of the church. It is simply a cover for another Sarah Palin article. Resolute 21:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply not a notable church simply because of one of its members. The pastor is equally non-notable, by Wikipedia standards. Keeper ǀ 76 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This is ludicrous. Maybe the church is influential in Wasilla. There are less than 9,000 people in Wasilla. You heard this from the Alaskan horse's mouth: no one cares about Wasilla. Notablility isn't transferable, coatrack, etc etc. I'm feeling like a broken record. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 23:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepComment A controversy related to certain entities related to Sarah Palin has arisen in the Wikipedia community. This includes articles involving Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church. Discussions are heated because of the political environment, and allegations of censorship.

I argue as follows for inclusion of articles on some of her former teachers, pastors, churches, and schools, but not inclusion of others.

The Wikipedia:Notability policy allows for articles on persons or entities known only because they are related to major historical figures in some circumstances.

The teachers of historical figures, thinkers, mathematicians, painters, scientists, etc., are all notable for their relation to the ideas or actions of the historical figure. This is especially true if the teacher made controversial statements, and the same kind of controversial statements are what made the historical figure notable.

For example, suppose writings of the philosophy teacher of Socrates were discovered. The teacher would be known only for their relation to Socrates. But no one would argue that verifiable information about “the philosophy teacher of Socrates” would be of intense intellectual interest, and if anything, would be valid for a Wikipedia article. In fact, if you noticed the link for philosophy teacher of Socrates, you likely would want to see who it is and what their ideas are.

If Sarah Palin had a meteorology teacher who teaches the controversial idea that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. Since Palin is notable for her controversial position on global warming, that teacher and their ideas would become notable.

But Palin’s high school astronomy teacher, even if he or she had controversial views, would not be noteworthy, as Palin is not known for her astronomy policy.

Arguments for The Alaska Pipeline put forth by Governor Palin, and for the War in Iraq by Vice Presidential Candidate Palin, explicitly included both being God’s Will. The former is consistent with the ideas of Larry Kroon. The later are explicitly the stated controversial ideas of her teacher in this area, Ed Kalnins. Ed Kalnins thereby becomes notable by his relationship to the controversial ideas of Palin, not just by his relation to Palin. This makes Kalnins notable in itself, while a former pastor of Palin who did not teach this would not be notable.

All of the teachers, schools, churches, or theories that teach controversial ideas, if they are the same as controversial ideas by which Palin has become notable, are thus notable.

They are notable for their relationship, not just to Palin, but to the policies and ideas by which Palin has become noteworthy.

Churches and pastors of Palin that are not linked to controversial policies of Palin are not notable.

Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Assembly of God, Larry Kroon, and Wasilla Bible Church have been the subject of controversy in The Atlantic Monthly, Newsweek, the Chicago Tribune, New Jersey Times of Trenton, ABC News, MSNBC, and other news sources. But suppose they were not. These kinds of problems are going to recur, so a general policy for handling these should be arrived at. EricDiesel (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. No where does WP:NOTE state that notability in inherited by association to another topic (ie. Sarah Palin). So your whole diatribe claiming that notability is inherited is not supported by the notability guideline and therefore irrelevant. --Farix (Talk) 00:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS and also WP:COAT. Themfromspace (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No independent notability. rootology (C)(T) 00:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. CENSEI (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it came from the Alaskan horse's mouth. Synergy 01:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break[edit]

• Comment This AfD was previously closed and that closure was contested and reversed at DRV. The original closing can be viewed in the history. The deletion review discussion can be seen at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 4. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thaaaat would explain why its back open again. I just thought I was going crazy.Umbralcorax (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete can't be compared to Trinity United Church of Christ with Obama, as the church in that instance was significant in the story, whereas this Church really isn't. Just can't see a reason to keep forking the topic matter. PHARMBOY (TALK) 23:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, strongly. Yes, this church's notability comes chiefly from national attention being paid to Sarah Palin's religious and political beliefs. It may not have been notable six months ago. So what? Ford's Theatre was a minor local venue until it became a center of attention for reasons entirely unrelated to its actual stage productions. Very simply, Sarah Palin's being elevated to a major party Presidential ticket, based at least in part on her appeal to evangelical Christians, has cast the spotlight of history on her religious background. This means that the churches she attends easily meet the basic requirements of substantial third party coverage in reliable sources.
  
  This is not a "coatrack article". That amounts to a claim that bad faith motivates the attention these churches have received in the media, and therefore the existence of an article on this church. This is a two edged sword; it strikes me instead that a prodigious amount of Wiki-lawyering is going on to remove these articles, or failing that to gut them and remove most of their substance. I have every confidence that a good enough article can be written about these churches and the substance of their teachings. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 04:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This one took an awful lot of consideration but I have to agree with Smerdis of Tlön with regards to the substantial coverage that this church has received. What have we learned from Mzoli's? JBsupreme (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If I was looking for it on Wikipedia (that led me here) others will be looking for it - articles that people may look for should be kept! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Strong - FOX News just did a long segment on the church, with barely a mention of Palin, about its style of speaking in tongues, coming convention to pray to convert gays to straights, and longstanding relationship with Jews for Jesus and David Brickner. EricDiesel (talk) 14:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Eric, do you have a link for that? I may change my stance if so. Keeper ǀ 76 20:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nominator is clearly wrong about sources, and there will be plenty more. Palin has made this one notable, like it or not. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sources in article all seem to be about a politician, and not about the church. The church itself appears to be get any discussion because of career of one of it's former parishoners, and as such isn't itself notable. If necessary redirect to Sarah Palin. Nfitz (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Consider this a strong endorsement for keep. I just turned to Wikipedia for information about this church and honestly I'm shocked that we're trying to delete the article about it. If there is a content issue it can be resolved through the normal editorial channels but this is clearly a notable church as per our own notability guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Possible Keep -- I am not convinced that this church is a great deal more notable than many others. Nevertheless, it is comparatively harmless, if it can be trimmed of the WP:COATRACK issues currently in it. That Sarah Palin is a member is worth mentioning. This also applies to the gay-diversion and Brickner issues, but at present they have an excessive prominence, probably attempts at innuendo from opponents of Sarah Palin. NOTE - I may have commented above - not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Smerdis. The church is now notable due to Sarah Palin's current attendence. She identifies as a conservative Christian, that is an important issue in her campaign for the vice presidency, and this is the church she has chosen to attend.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. Notability is not inherited. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Temporarily a hot topic because of its famous congregant, and only included on Wikipedia because of the huge battle on Wikipedia to paint Sarah Palin as the best thing since sliced bread/the embodiment of evil. Other than that the church is entirely unnotable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 2[edit]

• Keep subject of article does not need to inherit notability. It has been the subject of non-trivial coverage in major news outlets. Whether these news outlets chose to cover the church because of inherited relationship to Palin is none of our concern. The church is now and forever notable because it has been covered in great detail by very reliable sources:
• Associated Press
• Star Tribune
• Politico News
• New York Times
• Huffington Post/ Max Blumenthal
• USA Today
• CNN
• Newsweek
• Yahoo News

Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 13:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The media has covered the clothes of Sarah Palin. That doesn't mean her skirt deserves a separate Wikipedia article. The intro of the article actually makes a case for the church being like thousands of other churches, rather than to establish any lasting notability. It deserves mentioning in the Sarah Palin article and in the Wasilla article, but not an article of it's own. -Duribald (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has become of widespread public interest, as shown by RS/. That's the basic definition of unquestionable notability. DGG (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to be of the view that this should be kept. The article has now been pruned of all elements of WP:COATRACK, leaving a short, but non-trivial, article. Voted above. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral There are a bunch of sources, but it kills its own notability in the article IMO with this sentence:...Wasilla as being similar to "thousands of conservative evangelical churches across the country. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 20:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and optionally redirect per WP:BEFORE. This is a rather obvious search term, and, the deletion policy is clear that in such cases the page should not be deleted, but redirected to a more appropriate article. Neier (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how WP:Before applies. The clarity you mention is not so clear to me. This article has established notability per WP:N, and should just be kept, not redirected. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 22:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N says: "...substantive coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, of notability." Listing sources is thus not a guarantee of notability. See my comment above. -Duribald (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NEWS for me. This church is only being covered in the media cos a currently famous person sometimes went in to it. Has nothing of lasting notability to say about it. We don't have articles for all the other VP candidates in histroy, indicating that as soon as the election is over, this church will no longer be interesting to the news, and it's current "notability" is a temporary mirage.Yobmod (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean that it fails Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS?! -Duribald (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Minutiae from presidential campaigns can be remembered - and certainly is of historical interest - for a long time after the event. After all, people still remember Checkers the dog. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - When will it end?! Grsz^talk 14:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP With the New York Times interviewing the Pastor in a story that ran in half a dozen European newspapers (really, you can read about this cuhrch in Swedish, German, French...) the notability is patent. Of Course people are only interested inthis church because it is where Sarah palin prays. But with Sarah Palin now having a non negligible chance of becoming the President of the United States, everything about a church that shapes and/or reflects her beliefs is notable.Elan26 (talk) 15:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

Only one !vote per AFD please. Thank you Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable now. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought it was a new AFD. Because the page had been taken down a week or so ago.Elan26 (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]

• Delete Not notable on its own. As an aside, if the Obama supporters were working as hard on his campaign as they are on trashing Sarah Palin here at Wikipedia, he might not be tanking in the polls. CENSEI (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, asides are just yucccchy, mmmkay... Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 20:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete as notability is not inherited. Tavix (talk) 21:08, 12 September 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. Keeper ǀ 76 19:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The stunners[edit]

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

Non-notable band with claims of notability. Parts of the article were copied from this cached version of their Myspace page. No sources, they haven't done anything yet. Only 15 Google hits for '"the stunners" kiyoko'. Corvus cornix_talk 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Utterly fails WP:MUSIC. May not meet A7 given the marginal notability of each individual member. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 04:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not assert notability guidelines for musical groups. TPH, I would argue A7 myself, as the members are not notable to the article's subject matter... debating speedy criteria is of course mostly academic at this point in a deletion discussion! haz (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 10 September 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 (non-admin closure), consensus is to keep (merge), I'll place a merge tag on page Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts Route C1[edit]

Massachusetts Route C1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article doesn't give any information to establish the notability of the road, and the road ceased to exist under that name in 1971. When I nominated it for PROD, Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) commented "(numbered routes are likely noteworthy)". I don't see that that's so. There are thousands and thousands of numbered roads. All numbering generally means is that the roads are under a particular authority that is using numbers to identify them. Many of them go from point A to point B, may have certain buildings or facilities on them that are themselves notable, or residents who are notable, but that doesn't make the street on which they live notable for its own sake, justifying an article in an encyclopedia. If there is anything notable about the road, I believe the article needs to give some indication of what it is. —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Into an article of loops of Route 1, or Delete as non notable per WP:USRD/NT Admrb♉ltz (talk) 23:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a state-numbered route and Massachusetts does not have a secondary highway system so, as is, it does qualify for inclusion under WP:USRD/NT. That said, this is more like a bannered route of US 1 and should be merged there as their histories are intertwined. --Polaron | Talk 23:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article you cited: "However, the article should still make some claim of the highway's individual notability, such as historical significance, press coverage, etc. ... Highways that have very little to say about them (i.e. those that are extremely short and have no historical significance) may be better suited to a list, ...." —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think the existence of a redirect to US 1 is harmful? --Polaron | Talk 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. It's likely that people reading about C1 would be interested in US_1_(MA) and vice-versa. A redirect would allow C1 to exist as an entry in lists or templates. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Polaron. This information should not be deleted wholesale. --Son (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge as appropriate. No need to delete the information. For those of you who don't know Boston, the Central Artery is the epitome of noteworthiness in the city. Identifying C1 with the Central Artery is definitely a strong claim of notability. Fg2 (talk) 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While simply having a number isn't a gauge of notability, being assigned a number as part of the state highway system is, due to the large number of roads in any given state and the small fraction of which become a state highway. Precedent: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Nevada State Route 401, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia SR Loop 120, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia State Route 10, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York State Route 365, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 91, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nebraska Spur 10A. See also User:Scott5114/Highway notability FAQ. At the very least this could be merged to whatever highway it became. It does need expansion, though.—Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I suppose precedent is precedent, but just as a gauge of the quality of that precedent, it's like saying that only a small fraction of US university students receives the honor of induction in Phi Beta Kappa, so all members of Phi Beta Kappa are inherently notable on that account and worth of a Wikipedia article even if there isn't anything to be said about them other than the fact of their PBK membership. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • When roads are put in the state highway system, however, the routes receive state maintenance, extra signage (shields), and other such benefits. For the DOT to justify spending state money on these things, the route has to be important enough to warrant it (e.g. high traffic volumes, or being the most direct route into a town or between two cities). By taking on its maintenance, a state DOT asserts that the road is important on a statewide scale, not merely a local one. Only a tiny percentage of roads get this honor. (By the way, just because a route has been decommissioned (the designation is no longer active) it can still have a decent article written about it—see M-554, which is a Good Article.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate what you're saying about the importance and value of these roads, but as a general matter importance is not equivalent to notability, at least in my opinion. My county's sewage system is tremendously important—we couldn't do without it—and the local government pours plenty of money into it, but I wouldn't call it noteworthy. What would an article about it say? "Arlington County's sewage system serves the sewage needs of the residents and businesses of Arlington County." —Largo Plazo (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I may interject here, that's a false analogy. There are plenty of roadgeeks (hobbyists) and map lovers who would want to know what these city routes were, where they went and why they were superseded. Not too many of those for sewers. It is somewhat more like a person interested in postage stamps who wants to know: "why were there 'Special Delivery' stamps?" Sswonk (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Plus, highways are more visible to the public than sewer systems. Most people don't know and don't have any reason to care about which sewer line they're on, and where all the various branches lead to, because it's all underground and they don't interact with it on a daily basis. However, most people probably have to know where the various highways spreading out from their city lead to. Also, suppose someone was doing research on a topic through newspaper archives, and late 1960s article makes some reference to an event occurring along Route C1, or a building along it. A modern reader would most likely be unaware of this highway...it's conceivable they might turn to Wikipedia for the needed information on this old highway. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 14:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Polaron. State highways are notable as per Scott5114, however, it is a former state highway. It should be associated with Massachusetts Route 1A or U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts, perhaps, as a bypass of US-1. When I stubbed this article it was from information in the article on the Central Artery, but I see that it has since been added to. --Tckma (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoever merges this needs to find sources. A 1964 map shows Route C1 following present Route 1A and US 1 through East Boston. A 1950 map (pre-Central Artery) concurs, and shows the route west of downtown. I see that Polaron has already corrected it; thank you. Maybe a merge with Massachusetts Route 1A would make sense? --NE2 19:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Instead of merging with Massachusetts Route 1A or U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts, there is also the possibility of creating a new article such as Massachusetts City Routes and including it there with route descriptions of other C routes prior to 1971. Someone with good sources could start that article and it would certainly satisfy WP:N as a road history. Sswonk (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to U.S. Route 1 in Massachusetts#Route_C1--Rumping (talk) 11:17, 11 September 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 (non-admin closure), consensus is to keep or improve (keep) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arena Rock Recording Co.[edit]

Arena Rock Recording Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This company appears to be mainly a resale operation. I searched for news articles etc. to determine notability and found nothing that would indicate this is a notable subject or an article that could be expanded per Wikipedia guidelines even to stub status. The companies commercial link has been added to several articles as an external link, also in violation of guidelines for article content WP:EL Awotter (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 23:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep It's a circular argument, but criterion five of WP:BAND, the notability guideline for musicians, says: "Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)." So it appears that since ARRC has been around for a few years and many of the artists on the label are notable, the label itself is notable. In other words, if the label is used to confer notability on artists, then perhaps it is notable. On the other hand, pending the discovery of some good sources, this probably wouldn't pass the notability guidelines for companies. It's a toss-up, but I'd lean towards keep, especially because many articles link to it. A Google News search looks like it mentions bands on the label but not much on the label itself, I don't have time to check further today. Katr67 (talk) 23:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Thanks for the reply Katr67, I've checked at least five (randomly) of the artists groups mentioned and in only one case (so far) did they appear to have any original producing/distribution connection to any released music material. That article didn't cite any references so I'm still skeptical that the person adding the material and links isn't doing so to drive traffic to his/her commercial site via external links, but if the article can be legitimately expanded w/out the kruft that's fine and it should stay.Awotter (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, barely. I've added a few sources, and there were a lot more (about 66 hits searching US newspapers) that show they are/were involved with many of the bands listed in the article. Its minimal coverage of the label. But, Willamette Week has a fair amount of coverage, but most is in the form of editorials. Now these do count towards notability (from a WP:RS, independent of the subject, substantial coverage), but as editorials the use of info will be limited per WP:RS, so I'm not sure how many can be worked into the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:58, 10 September 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 (non-admin closure). Nomination withdrawn. Great job sourcing this article, you completely fixed it up. Abusing (talk) 06:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overtrick[edit]

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

Non-notable race horse. It is only mentioned in the pages for the races it won, which should be enough. Also, it mentions the term used in the game Bridge, which does not belong in this article and is not worthy of it's own article. Abusing (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Maybe notable if the world records bit could be substantiated, but even so, that was in '63. Dare I say... horsecruft? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgerzilla (talk • contribs) 22:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. "That was in '63" is a reason for deletion? Then let's delete John F. Kennedy. Notability does not expire, whether for a president or a horse. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't Delete- should be saved and perhaps expanded. Overtrick was and is a very influential sire and a winner of triple crown races. Just because it happened a while ago doesn't mean it should be deleted.LPWRHR (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google Books search quickly finds a book source that has six pages about this horse, starting with "Overtrick is considered by many to be one of the greatest pacers of all time". Sounds pretty notable to me. And there's a pretty simple solution to the inclusion of irrelevant content about bridge - just edit it out. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:02, 12 September 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, for now. Keeper ǀ 76 19:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truth (Keyshia Cole album)[edit]

Truth (Keyshia Cole album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album with no release date fails WP:MUSIC. The article is nothing but rumour and speculation at present; delete without prejudice to allow recreation when confirmed. Ros0709 (talk) 22:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reliable sources, and I've never before seen ((infobox musical artist)) on an album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I rejected G4 speedy deletion per this link. There may be more now since the last AfD. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per nom: no release date and no track list; no sources either. Cliff smith ^talk 00:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 10 September 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 (non-admin closure), consensus seems to keep Fr33kman^{talk APW} 07:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shahrvand[edit]

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

This article is a thinly-veiled advertisement for a foreign-language newspaper based in Canada. There are no sources cited at all, not even the paper's own web site. Only Google hits are directory-style listing, the paper's own site and this very article (#2 ranked). Claims to be largest Persian-language newspaper in North America, but there is nothing to verify this. Looks like a copy-and-paste from some source. I posted warning tags on this article and waited for improvement, but none has been forthcoming. Time to go. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. --Eastmain (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I toned the language down, so I think it is relatively neutral now. I think that newspapers can be notable even if other newspapers don't write about them because a newspaper's reporting and editorials can have a significant effect on public opinion and decision-making. (Note the one-line reference at the bottom of http://www.themilitant.com/1995/5920/5920_14.html , though.) Shahrvand is also the name of an unrelated company which operates chain stores. --Eastmain (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if circulation numbers are accurate. A newspaper with 110,000 readers in any country and in any language is notable. --NellieBly (talk) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I could find no verification online, and since it is a free-circulation paper, there are no audited circulation numbers to be had. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:31, 10 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomingdale Court[edit]

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

Non-notable strip mall. No references. No real history. Nothing notable about it. Not even a website. WP is not a directory. TheListUpdater (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Strip malls generally aren't notable and I don't see any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete as this power center with a 20+ year history might wander towards notability if sufficient sources could be found. I have cleaned up the article and added a reference but, sadly, it looks like the Daily Herald has the majority of their back issues on NewspaperArchive.com so while I can see that the mall has received some interesting, on-topic coverage (like this but I can't actually read the article. If somebody would like to buy me a subscription... (No? Dang.) - Dravecky (talk) 00:21, 10 September 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 Wtihdraw. I have added 5 reviews and the movie's NYT movie page that MQS found. Schuym1 (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

18 Fingers of Death![edit]

18 Fingers of Death! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources for this movie that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The sources are out there, as it was Pat Morita's last film appearance. However, I was myself in the film in a very, very, very, very tiny role. With declaration of possible WP:COI, would I be allowed to at least bring these sources to the AfD? I will not argure for keep nor edit the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the big deal is about you adding sources to this AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of what I found: filmcriticsunited, asianimpact, filmfiend, vh1, homemediamagazine (5th review on page), variety production chart, usadojo, nytimes, cduniverse, hkcinemagic, moviesonline, hkflix, dvdtalk, And to show some international interest, there's movieebox (Sewedish), zelluloid (German), dvd-palace (German). the first 7 or 8 are fair for WP:RS, and the rest are supportive per WP:V. Hope these help the article to be improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:26, 10 September 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 nom withdrawn. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Doyle[edit]

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

Does not, at first or second glance, meet WP:N. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I GNews'd the wrong name! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:35, 9 September 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. Breaks rather evenly down both sides. MBisanz ^talk 02:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick M. McCarthy[edit]

Patrick M. McCarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Reasons

1. Personal Attack: The article is about a living person, yet ascribes actions to the person that are not supported by the linked information. The article appears to be politically drive, not objective and reasoned as required.
2. Not Notable: The subject's actions have not been notable, and include commenting on a few situations and being a "senior navy appraiser." The subjects are already covered in separate categories.
3. Cites: The cites include an opinion piece from the Huffington Post, insinuating the subject of lying. This is libelous. Further, the cites include news from an interview summarizing the statements, but also from a political point of view. Another cite is an unascribed piece of paper showing a list of "senior navy appraisers." This is simply not noteworthy, and the cites suffer on reliability grounds.
4. For a full reason, see Discussion page on this subject. Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep or Speedy Close as Disrupted This article is notable, and I have been monitoring the situation with this page, this user seems to have made it their mission to continually vandalise, blank, and now attempt to delete this page.--UltraMagnus (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly take note that this request for deletion has been in full accordance with Wikipedia's policies, and I will be keeping the policy of civility in my responses in mind. The articles lacks notability, except by what you have yourself stated. I would respectfully request that the "notable" character of this article be detailed so that we may have a true debate on this subject. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, while the article does have problems, McCarthy is notable as the lead attorney at Guantanamo. It should be hashed out on the talk page, not by calling for the entire article to be deleted. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of notability. Subject has clearly been a position of some legal authority, first as Naval Commander and later as Captain, at Gitmo. However, the coverage I find such as this (not all-inclusive) is really not coverage of him but rather statements by him with respect to Gitmo. I don't think this confers notability. He may well have other claims to notability, but they aren't in this article (and aren't forthcoming in searches I tried). Now, having said all that, I get the feeling that the nomination and response above are part of some larger dispute; I apologize in advance if that is incorrect. If it is correct, please understand that my position to delete this article is based only on the article and my examination of sources and has nothing to do with any dispute that may be brewing just underneath the surface. Let's focus on the content, which is the reason we are here.  Frank  |  talk  21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Frank. I have been trying to stay above the fray on this, and have tried to stay objective. The links provided would better be served under subject tabs, and the individual does not merit his own page on this issue. Thus, issues such as "Beard Shaving" belong under an article in interrogation techniques, detainee suicides under the subject, etc. They are merely commentary, and lack any specific notable effect on the actual issues. Yachtsman1 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again - I'm not "taking sides" here. This is strictly about the content.  Frank  |  talk  00:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if article stands as is. The article is a hackjob on the man, and a case in point of why we have template:coatrack. I'm not in favor of deleting an article altogether, but as it stands, this article is awful, and is better off not existing at all on Wikipedia, if only for personal dignity. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some clean-up, putting his notability in the introduction, shortening some coatrack issues and such, would appreciate if you could do the same so the article is salvageable Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sherurcij: I saw the changes you made to the article, but Magog's description pretty much sums this entire thing up. The fact he was an attorney at GITMO is irrelevant. What makes it "notable" is what he has done according to the sources, which is not much. Instead, we are sourced to items of dubious merit that reflect opinion pieces and uses selective terms within them. His comments are basically irrelevant to the larger issues. Instead, we are asked to consider wider issues and selective facts and then to ascribe motives to statements he has made. This is template:coatrack. It's simply not salvageable. It is what it is.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact he is the lead attorney at Guantanamo is actually quite notable and relevant. I agree that his opinion on detainee suicides seems irrelevant, but he deserves an article certainly. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not. The "notable" person is the person he advised - The Base Commander. He is no more notable than you or I going to work, or some guy going to Iraq, or some guy cleaning the street. Such individuals only become "notable" when they do something as part of their job or in defiance thereof that is "noteworthy." In this case, the job itself is non-descript, it is whether he actually did something that counts. And the sources do not reveal that he, in fact, did anything out of the ordinary other than do his job. Statements do not cut it.Yachtsman1 (talk) 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- disclaimer, I started this article.
  • Patrick M. McCarthy submitted an important affidavit. This affidavit, which claimed the captives' habeas counsel were violating national security, was the basis of a motion to attempt to severely limit captive's access to their lawyers. It was important. His role is important, because he was the liason with the habeas attorneys. I think he would be "notable" for this alone. McCarthy was also interviewed for 24 minutes on a nationwide broadcast, his opinions have been frequently quoted, on a variety of topics, in prominent newspapers, for an extended period of time.
  • I am very disappointed by this nomination, because the concerns raised in it should have been more properly raised on the article's talk page. Our nominator is a newbie. This is the first article they edited. This nomination states that the article does not comply with policy, but I suspect the nominator hasn't understood our policies yet.
  • Many of the concerns, if they held merit, would simply not be criteria for deletion.
  • I am completely mystified by the concern that the article contains personal attacks. I believe a concern like this should have been brought up on the article's talk page, in a civil, specific manner.
  • This nomination states that the article should be deleted because it "appears to be politically drive [sic]". Actually, our nominator has already made clear the original reasons he or she thinks the article should be deleted. The nominator left an offensive note on my user page stating that my main emphasis was to endanger American GIs and their families. Nominator seemed to be saying that this article, and similar articles, endanger GIs and make them the target of terrorist retaliation. Personally, I think this fear is unrealistic. If nominator could make a credible case that this article put McCarthy at risk I would agree to suppress it.
  • Our nominator has also stated we are obliged to get permission from every individual we write about, and that this article should be deleted because we didn't get McCarthy's permission first. Our nominator has also stated we are obliged to get permission from every individual who image we display -- even if those images are in the public domain. (I sought other's opinions on this claim, here.)
  • I find our nominator's competing assertions confusing. They think McCarthy is prominent enough to be the target of terrorist retaliation, but they don't think he is prominent enough to merit coverage on the wikipedia? I suggest that anyone believed to be at risk of terrorist retaliation -- like Valerie Plame -- would merit coverage here for that fact alone.
  • Our nominator has objected to the inclusion of a reference to McCarthy being a "senior JAG assessor", and has repeatedly removed that reference -- and has cited that reference as a justification for deleting this article. The reference is not important, but does give an indication as to what McCarthy has been doing since he finished his stint in Guantanamo. This reference is certainly not grounds for deletion. As I stated above, the nominator's justifications for deletion include many concerns which should have been raised on the article's talk page.
  • Our nominator has objected to the use of a reference to an article Andy Worthington, the author of a book on Guantanamo, wrote for the Huffington Post, calling it an unreliable cite. To the best of my knowledge the Huffington Post is a reliable source, because the authors who write there include authoritative experts -- like Worthington. Even if, for the sake of argument, this particular reference was not an RS, that would not be grounds for deletion.
  • Our nominator interpreted Worthington's comments as asserting that McCarthy had lied. Nominator called this "libelous". This is not grounds for deletion. The wikipedia's policy on neutrality point of view does not allow contributors to insert personal opinions. But it does allow us to include the personal opinions of Reputable sources. Including the opinions of reputable sources, while maintaining a neutral point of view, is not a violation of policy. And, even if the nominator was concerned that the coverage of Worthington's comments lapsed from neutrality, that should have been the subject of a talk page discussion. It is not grounds for deletion.
  • Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to geoswan:

Please review the guidelines on personal attacks before posting again. Thank you.

It should be noted that the source link provided asks anyone who utilizes sources to differentiate between an opinion piece and an actual scholarly work. The Huffington Post has never been noted for its "non-opinionated" stance on anything, and is hardly the sort of bastion of scholarly work and integrity that this site strives to have linked to its work. Indeed, its political bent to the left is well known, and well documented. It suffers as a source from a lack of "objectivity," something Wikipedia strives for in all of its articles as a policy. The piece cited and written by Worthington is, indeed, an "opinion piece." It contains within it an admission that he does not know what happened to the subjects of the story, but he provides a conspiracy theory based on his admittedly uninformed opinion, lacking in facts. This is not worthy of being cited, expect to the degree that its inclusion is template:coatrack. Its opinion-driven conclusions do not make the subject "notable."

The item included as "Senior JAG Assessor" appears to be a piece of paper with no context. Far from the contributor's assessment of value, it does little to show what the subject has been doing of late, but merely reflects an assigned duty (probably one of many) and is not worthy of inclusion. Again, however, we are asked to assume this somehow makes this person "notable?" How precisely?

The commentator states that the subject provided an Affidavit. Is this notable? Most attorneys sign pleadings on most days. The simple fact that they did their job, and it got sourced in a newspaper story once is hardly "notable." Indeed, Wikipedia makes it clear that a short spurt of coverage in the news does not qualify for making a living person "notable" The same applies to any of the stories linked. There is no "notability" for inclusion on this site.

The commentor states an incredulous line of debate that "if a person could be the target of terrorists, how is he not notable?" Under this reasoning, any soldier, sailor or marine who wears a uniform is "notable" because he could be targeted by terrorists while walking around in Baghdad. Again, how does this make the actual subject of the story "notable?"

In conclusion, this story should be deleted primarily because the subject is not "notable." "Notability" is instead driven by the opinion of the author who sees the events at Guantanamo as notable, and who will then strive to use the story of a living person to drive home that point. The presence of one person at the base is simply not enough to provide a "notable" status. This is a coathanger, or a "hackjob" as has been previously stated. The story should, therefore, be deleted.

Sincerely, Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article does not make sense in my eyes one bit. Delete it. --RoryReloaded (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notability backed by multiple non-trivial sources. Clearly a public figure, deserving of coverage. Megapixie (talk) 22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you provide any sources that are about the subject of this article, rather than just containing quotes from him? I only see one in the article that appears to be an interview of him, and that's not really about him - it's about Gitmo and he happens to be of interest as the head lawyer at the time. Notability is not inherited.  Frank  |  talk  02:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank: Could we reach a consensus then that the page be deleted, and the links can then be used for separate articles on Guantanamo and/or the War on Terror? In other words, Guantanamo is notable, as is its prisons, but the links reflect comments on: (1) The Suicides of Detainees [There is a separate article on this]; (2) Grooming [There is are multiple articles on this subject]; (3) Interrogation techniques as they have evolved over time [There is a separate article on this]; and (4) an affidavit in a court case [There is are multiple articles on these as well]. I agree that there is a lack of notability because the subject's own actions are not listed, and notability, as you have observed, is not inherited. So why not just allow the links that reflect comments on the larger issues to be used in the articles they apply to? That would allow the cites to be used when the article involves "notable" events, providing context to existing articles on these subjects. Yachtsman1 (talk) 16:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Our nominator's suggestions immediately above suggest to me that they may not have yet fully explored what makes the wikipedia different from a conventional, linear, paper encyclopedia. Captain McCarthy is a recurring figure. He played a central role as a liason between the prison and the captives' habeas counsel. He played a central role in the efforts to restrict access between the habeas counsel and their clients. He played a central role in reporting the deaths of the four men the DoD described as suicides, being the first person to offer a first hand account of key details. He was a vocal advocate of the DoD's account that the captives were being treated humanely. He could be mentioned in all these articles. But it is a disservice to readers to not have a central place which would allow readers who were reading about the suicides, or the affidavits, to look into McCarthy's other roles. That central place should be the article about him.

Ideally, I would like this article to contain more details about his life before Guantanamo, where he went to school, his civilian legal career, his previous posts, his posts following Guantanamo, year of birth. Our nominator keeps deleting the brief reference I found to what Captain McCarthy has been doing in the last couple of months. Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Another concern -- Our nominator is a newcomer, and has been doing something that has bugged me in the occasional ((afd)) other nominators have made. It seems to me that when someone has nominated an article for deletion they are announcing they don't think there is any way it can be fixed. So why not quit editing it, and let people who think it merits efforts to improve it have a free hand? Our nominator has made something like a dozen edits to the article after making the nomination. None of them seem to be of an emergency nature. Please, if are on record as favoring delete, unless it is an emergency, why not keep your hands off, and let those who are looking at the article for the first time see it as those who think it has a future believe it should be seen? Geo Swan (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Thank you. I note that you have also made numerous edits 'after' the nomination was made, which were considered a "hack job" by Magog the Ogre for the light in which they cast the subject. In any event, I have yet to see why the subject is "notable." The fact that you cannot find a single fact about him other than a piece of paper that lists "Senior JAG Appraisers," with numerous others, and a few quotes from news stories that talk about some general observations of larger events, devoid of accomplishments, tends to support the lack of notability of the subject. Indeed, pointing to the fact that the individual may become "notable" after further research is often referred to as a "crystal ball argument."

Again, why not use the cites to support the separate subjects to which they apply as proposed to Frank supra? I think this is a modest consensus.Yachtsman1 (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There is no source that focuses on the subject of this article. Many quote him, but none are about him. This does not satisfy notability guidelines nor WP:BLP. I'm also concerned about the arguments being made to keep this article, many of which are specifically addressed in Arguments to avoid. This includes the argument that the article may have more pertinent information to allow it to stand alone in the future, repeated arguments that the nominator is new and doesn't understand Wikipedia, and the reasoning behind its notability is that the subject of the article is related to the Gitmo proceedings and is important because of that (when notability is not inherited). We must focus on the content of the article as opposed to ignoring the civility policy when discussing this and other articles. BWH76 (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as disrupted The article properly discusses the subject. At least it would, if the nom. would not try to mangle the article. I am reluctant to talk about bad faith nominations, but I call attention to the incredible edits described at [2] and especially the almost unbelievable abuse on a user page at [3]. (the nom was briefly blocked for them by another admin) Personally, I would regard this as reason for closing the AfD. someone else can later restart it, but the actions of the nom have contaminated this beyond all hope. The only reason I do not do this myself is my long-standing interest in defense of similar articles. DGG (talk) 02:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I'm trying to keep this civil and dispassionate. I can only hope others keep that in mind.

What in this article is "notable?" To date, the defense of this article appears to be engaging in attacks on the nominator, yet not one of these tacts actually "debates" the issue of whether the subject is "notable."

Let me summarize what I see:

1. There is no significant sources independent of the subject's comments provided;

2. There is a total lack of any secondary biographical sources that detail why the subject is notable;

3. The article is largely comprised of quotes by the subject with reference to larger issues, but with no independent actions that make him notable.

Again, please adhere to the the civility policy. Please debate the issue of why this article should remain. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree with DGG, it is hard for anyone to make an objective assessment of this article's value when you continuously disrupt it and the editors that try to contribute to it.--UltraMagnus (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response I see you have failed to take note that the article has been altered by Sherurcij on September 10, 2008 in order to tone it down, and it has remained essentially untouched since that date? The article stands or falls on its own merit, or lack thereof, and the issues are notability/lack thereof, secondary biographical sources/lack thereof, and accomplishments/lack thereof. I think it would be better if you debated its value as it stands on those grounds. Thank you. Yachtsman1 (talk) 14:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close per DGG and UltraMagnus. Wikipedia and AfD are not supposed to be battlegrounds. Creating or nurturing a contentious environment are not helpful to a collaborative environment. -- Banjeboi 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benji: Thank you for your input. I agree, Afd is not supposed to be a battleground, and I have tried my very best to make this an actual debate on the issues on this page. So far, my attempts have failed in regards to people who want this article to remain.

So, I ask again that anyone who thinks this article should remain provide the reasons regarding why the article should remain. The issues are notability/lack thereof, secondary biographical sources/lack thereof, and accomplishments/lack thereof. If you feel the article's subject is notable, please articulate reasons why the subject is notable through his accomplishments from the sources. If you feel the sources are reliable and list these accomplishments in some sort of detail, please articulate why and how these sources are reliable and/or generally accepted. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I note that my suggestion to link the sources and facts stated in the article proposed for deletiom with articles already in existence has already been followed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_captives%27_mail_privileges#New_rules

In light of this fact (even though the link is obviously Coatrack as well), do we have a consenses? Delete the article, and simply merge the links into other sources on the larger issues when appropriate for reference.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[4] ? Megapixie (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megapixie: Thank you for the link. Do you have anything to add as to why this article should be kept along the lines of the issues presented and previously discussed? Thank you again. Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: [5]. Note that Magog edited it back to the original. I believe his opinion on the article has been stated previously. Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm curious about your WP:COI on this matter. Here you introduced links here that require a login that would typically only be used by a lawyer or a government employee (or perhaps a combination of both). Would you care to explain which you are ? Megapixie (talk) 23:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please debate the merits of the article, Mega. You too can have a Pacer Account if you would like to sign up for one, and your request for my identity is specifically rejected as outrageously inappropriate.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you don't deny that you might have a conflict of interest ? Megapixie (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I deny I have a conflict of interest. So, now that's behind us, kindly articulate a reason, other than a personal attack, why you think this article should remain. Thank you.Yachtsman1 (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This article is nearly 100% coatrack, and has been from the start. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG especially. The article's subject is notable enough for an article. The accusations of problems in the article are reason to fix those problems, not to delete. Also, Yachtsman1 has heavily vandalised the article (see e.g. this replacement of the content, this apparent use of an IP to avoid 3RR, this blanking, and this near-blanking). Besides the subject's clear notability, I am extremely reluctant to vote to delete when the nominator has vandalised the article, and this blatant personal attack, among other things, brings up serious concerns about whether the nomination is good-faith. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 01:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bart: I took my lumps for that, and you're right, it was wrong. There's nothing I can really do about it, and I have not repeated that course of action, nor will I do so in the future. If I had known about this feature when I joined the site, I would have put it up immediately upon seeing the article. In any event, I think I have placed forward a serious, good faith argument as to why this article should be deleted, which is set forth above and not worth rehashing.Yachtsman1 (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article and Salt the nominator. Well, at least prohibit him from editing this article ever again. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thank you. What about the content? Is the subject "notable?" That's the question I would like answered. What is reflected within the article to show what he has "done" as opposed to "said." Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are a vandal with unclean hands. The evidence of your behavior in this case demonstrates that under no condition, even the complete and utter failure of this article to meet inclusion standards (which I do not assert, for the record) should your desire be granted. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Well, there it is then. Thank you for your position. I still think without a single edit, with no action whatosever from me, as it stood well before the actions you describe, this article would still violate template:coatrack and not involve a notable person.[6]the original versionYachtsman1 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as disrupted per DGG and UltraMagnus. Somebody should pound a stake into this AfD.John Z (talk) 00:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are some formatting issues, but there are reliable and verifiable sources that support a claim of notability based on his role with Guantanamo prisoners. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 00:26, 14 September 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. Independent films with no reliable sources or much of anything else does not assert notability seicer | talk | contribs 13:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Creature, The(2005 movie)[edit]

Unknown Creature, The(2005 movie) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Independent" film without real release, reliable sources, or evidence of notability. Was PROD'ded, bringing to AfD due to complaint by creator on his talk page as a response to the PROD notification. gnfnrf (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Even IMDB doesn't have anything, and that is user edited and usually includes plenty of nonnotable movies as well. The fact that it had a $200 budget (less than the average porn flick) doesn't support the notability, nor the fact that it wasn't ever screened (straight to dvd/vhs). It claims it was shot to look like it was filmed by an amatur, which likely, isn't far from the truth. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As original PROD-er. Future film, fails WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL What I mean to say is this is a student film with no assertion of notability. TN‑X-Man 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The film was released 3 years ago. I agree with the delete, but how can crystal ball or NFF apply here?? No one is questioning its existance, only its notability. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The answer to that, of course, is that I'm a dope. I was thinking of another film article I had PROD-ed. Thanks for the heads-up. TN‑X-Man 23:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - almost pathologically non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sadly, my own search found very little. One might have hoped that after 3 years it might have been reviewed somewhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as I seconded the prod. Fails WP:MOVIE, as established above. Cliff smith ^talk 00:23, 10 September 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 (non-admin closure), sources have been added to article, even cursory search for subject indicates notability, consensus= keep. Nom's reasons problematic as article does assert WP:NN regardless of if article meets it or not Fr33kman^{talk APW} 19:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Rocco[edit]

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

Notability issues Avi (talk) 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've had a look for some sources and added a couple to the article. Nothing as yet meeting WP:CREATIVE but I think the artist is worth a closer look, given that he has been active since the late 1970s.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:51, 9 September 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.

Valeria Gazzola[edit]

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

Notability issues Avi (talk) 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep granted, she is young and the notability may be thin, but she is published multiple times in a few different science publications, which should count for something. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not satisfy WP:PROF yet. Having published something or even a lot is not, in and of itself, sufficient for establishing academic notability. To quote item 6 from Notes and Examples in WP:PROF:"Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." This is certainly a very promising young scholar, and GoogleScholar[7] already shows one well-cited paper (with several co-authors):110 citations, with next citation hits at 44, 20, and 17. That's good but for a very active field like nuroscience not in the notable range yet. A very recent PhD (appears to be 2007), a postdoc at the moment, no significant academic honors or awards yet. Does not pass WP:PROF for now. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per Nsk92, an h-index of 5 doesn't satisfy me that criterion 1 of WP:PROF is met, and I don't see any evidence that any other criterion is met either. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Nsk92 and Pete Hurd. Let's see again in 5 or 10 years from now. --Crusio (talk) 07:51, 12 September 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. Notability not established; in fact, there isn't much of anything to go on with this individual. Speedying... seicer | talk | contribs 13:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Chinnadorai[edit]

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

Reject CSD based on 7 pages of google hits. I can't find anything that does show notabilty in a quick search though Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete ghits aside, there isn't a CLAIM of notability that would satisfy wp:n, imo. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Agreed. No assertion of notability whatsoever, which is the criterion. Karenjc 21:54, 9 September 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 redirect to Perineum. MBisanz ^talk 22:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taint (slang)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang, and this article has, despite a fair amount of editing, never attained any references or reliable sources that allow it to verifiably expand beyond a dictionary definition. Previous attempts to redirect it to Perineum have been reverted with minimal discussion, but I cannot see any encyclopedic information that could be added to this article that would not simply be a duplication of information in that article, the best this article seems to have got in the past is an unreferenced list of popular culture references. [8]

It was previously nominated more than two years ago and ended up with no consensus. I would assert that the lack of meaningful improvement since then lends some support to the original arguments made to delete it. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to redirect to Perineum, as the term IS very common, but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary. If a redirect isn't possible, my 2nd choice would be to keep. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Perineum per above. This is a permanently short dicdef, although it's a sort of common slang term for that part of the anatomy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect per above. It is a widely used slang term but an article on this will have no substance apart from a simple definition. All the reliable sources say (and it's used a lot in some books) it that it's a street slang term ... I can't see anything more - Peripitus (Talk) 04:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to a delete-and-redirect to Perineum, even if the article itself is unsalvageable, it does sound like it's a fairly widely used term. Not sure why that is - I've never personally had the need to specifically refer to the perineum at all, with a slang word or not! :) ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since you are the nom, you can always simply change the article to a redirect and withdraw the nom here. Or let it play out to get more input. (I'm fine either way) You can always point to this AFD in the talk section of the redirect as evidence of concensus. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true, but I'd personally consider it slightly bad form to start an AfD and then withdraw it early when consensus supports me, then point to that as a precedent. I'd rather leave it open for more input and allow someone else to close it - plus, there is a difference between an article getting deleted then replaced with a redirect, or just being blanked and redirected. Thanks ~ mazca ^{t | c} 06:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect This may not be a dictionary of slang, but notable slang does exist and does have a place. This, however, is not notable enough to warrant such, and the original choice of a redirect (from its inception) should be restored, and possibly locked until someone can provide more than enough evidence to justify it being restored. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not common slang- can't put in every slang word ever used, only notable ones

Mynameisstanley (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

• Delete non-notable slang -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, as common-enough slang. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There are other terms for this, they are not notable slang. Even the slang term is useless as a redirect, the word has too many other meanings - no-one will search for "Taint (slang)", even if they had heard it and wondered what it meant. At most it should be a minor meaning to wiktionary's Taint page. article as it stand doesn't even explain the term (It aint one nor t'other?)Yobmod (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - is already covered in wiktionary to more depth than here.Yobmod (talk) 13:09, 12 September 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 Result is keep based on two things: 1) nominator has withdrawn the nom, and 2) WP:SNOW. Apologies to anyone who thinks this is a coi since I voiced a comment in the discussion...this seems rather a foregone conclusion, though. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving aircraft[edit]

Boeing B-17 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Boeing B-29 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Boeing B-47 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Boeing B-52 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chance-Vought F4U survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Consolidated B-24 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Douglas A-20 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Douglas A-26 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lockheed P-38 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

North American B-25 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Republic P-47 survivors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These articles seem entirely non-notable. Most of these aircraft had hundred or thousands (e.g. 18,482 Liberators, 15,686 P-47s) individual aircraft built. Indeed these lists thus have potential to be thousands of items long! The articles also fail to establish why the surviving ones are notable. Perhaps if only a few models had been manufactured, a list such as these would be viable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 19:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The claim about the lists being potentially very long is wrong. The survivors are notable because comparatively few have survived, and those that survived have had considerable time and money invested in their restoration – which in turn often leads to the soft of coverage in reliable sources that would pass the general notability guideline. The survivors are historical artefacts and the subject of considerable fascination by many people. In the same way that some people enjoy collecting guns, others enjoy collecting military aircraft. --Eastmain (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fascinating" and "notable" are not the same thing. Any relevant information pertaining to restoration and amateur hobbyists belongs in the main article; or, perhaps Legacy of the Boeing B-17, etc. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These aircraft are notable because there are so few of them remaining of many that were manufactured. The survivors are all pretty much well documented in third party publications and thus meet Wikipedia:Notability criteria. Most are museum or similar preserved aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 20:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being well-documented doesn't mean the thing is notable, it just means it is verifiable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Being well-documented in reliable sources is the definition of notable. --NellieBly (talk) 05:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it really isn't. You are talking about "verifiability". Paris Hilston's fashion is well-documented by reliable sources, but I wouldn't call her wardrobe or her new haircut notable. Certain extinct species that have only one or two fossils remaining, with very little else known, are very under-documented, but certainly notable. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the above. A list of surviving 737s would be useless since there are so many of them, but many not in 100 years. As long as we are talking about older aircraft like this, the articles make perfect sense and seem to be exactly what Wikipedia is for. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have failed to address the central issue: the articles do not assert notability, and the best we can likely do is come up with a borderline claim to notability for this. All we have now is "there are fewer of these than there used to be". The same is true for believers in Ra, but we wouldn't create a list of all Ra believers, we would only create a list of the notable Ra believers. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't fail anything. The importance of the aircraft is reflected in their standard articles, and the fact that they are notable by themselves isn't at issue, as each has an article. Reading the primary articles will also make it clear. The only issue at hand is if an article listing the existing ones is noteworthy, which they are because of the age and limited numbers left, per my previous statement. Most other editors already "got this" without me having to spell this out. Didn't realize some you wouldn't. My comment and !vote stands. PHARMBOY (TALK) 10:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The aircraft model is notable, yes. But the individuals listed here are not notable, and the ones that are should be in a category Category:Surviving Boeing B-17s, etc. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is your opinion, which many others disagree with. You can stop bludgeoning everyone else for having a different opinion now. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          I am responding to everyone whose arguments I disagree with. It is important that all concerns are addressed, both mine and theirs. Theirs I address, but, for the most part, my concern of notability has not been addressed. I haven't attacked anyone personally and, in fact, I think I'm keeping a pretty cool head considering I have been attacked personally at least two three times during this discussion. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

          • No one has attacked you, but not everyone appreciates having their opinions (which were not directed to you personally) picked apart. Not everyone needs to be told why their opinion is "wrong". And sometimes, you don't have to have the last word. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very regretfully delete. Yes, it's interesting (to those of us who love these machines) and a lot of love and care has been put into these articles, but at the end of the day, this material simply isn't encyclopedic in nature. Most articles on aircraft types contain a mention of notable preserved airframes, but I think that detailed lists of each and every surviving example of a type, the compilation of which borders on WP:OR, are beyond Wikipedia's scope. Wikipedia is not a memorial for aircraft any more than it is for people. --Rlandmann (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There may have been thousands of them at one time - but those numbers are now finite. There are but ~45 B-17s intact out of 12K plus. Of 18K B-24s, even fewer survived. I believe the number of B-25s is around 80. About the only "warbirds" that keep increasing in number are P-51s and Spitfires. And for all the 737s built, their day will come,too, although I don't recommend trying to list them while they are still in production and service. I would certainly say that surviving Constellations are notable. IMHO. Mark Sublette (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that these aircraft are notable entirely due to their present-day scarcity? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In my opinion this needs to be split into seperate AfDs, possibly even one for article. Personally I group them into four groups and my opinion differs on each group. If other people's opinion varies depending on article then a single AfD isn't really suitable. My views are as follows:
  • B-17 and B-29: Strong Keep. Both of these articles list notable survivors which have their own wikipedia entry. A list of these survivors plus those other survivors which, while notable, may not be worthy of their own page is IMO definitely worth keeping. In this context I have no problem with a list of 'other (not notable) survivors' although I think the lists could be better formatted.
  • B-24, A-20, P-38, B-25 and P-47: Weak Keep. As notable WW2 aircraft I'm sure some of the surivors will be notable enough for their own write up, similar to B-17 and B-29, either due to the notability of their service career or due to being a still flying example as these will often get coverage from air shows etc. As articles that are likely to reach the standard of the first two with a little bit of time and effort I think they should probably be kept.
  • B-47, A-26: Neutral. As more modern aircraft I'm more concerned about finding individual notable examples. Fewer are likely to have a notable service career and even if still flying they're less likely to have recieved significant coverage as IMO there's less interest in aircraft of this age. If such coverage can be found for a signifcant number of survivors then they should be kept for the above rationalle but I'm not sure it will be.
  • B-52: Delete. As an aircraft that's still in service I don't see how 'survivors' are notable.

Dpmuk (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually only the H-models are still in use. All other variants are retired, and because of treaties, the early birds that were NOT preserved have been scrapped. Therefore, the surviving A-G models are notable, IMHO. Mark Sublette (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I also think that breaking this up into individual AfDs is a good idea, since I think you're right about there being different degrees of notability implicit in these articles.

However, I'm not really convinced about the notability of even many of the preserved B-17s and B-29s (even some of those with their own articles). Just being a museum exhibit doesn't indicate notability, and detailed treatment of these as individual airframes (rather than as examples of a type) seems to be lacking in secondary sources. Some of these articles are little more than pastiches of warbirdregistry.org, a specialist site devoted to documenting this type of artifact. I don't know that Wikipedia needs to duplicate this. This is exactly the sort of material that we have External Links for - "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy" (WP:EL). --Rlandmann (talk) 23:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fair point. I probably should have said that the above was more my first feelings than an in depth analysis and that I was using it to show why I wasn't happy with this being dealt with as one AfD rather than it being my final opinion (hence the lack of bold). Dpmuk (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and/or create separate articles - Merge to a section (with summary) within each main aircraft type article page. Give any survivors that are independently notable their own page and link them from these sections. Categorise individual articles in a main category, and create subcategories for proper grouping (probably some of this already exists). Articles of this nature aren't particularly encyclopaedic, and it will be difficult to establish notability for articles of these titles - remember that the reliable sources have to refer to the article subject. The articles as they are are pretty much indiscriminate collections of information, by the way. Brilliantine (talk) 01:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - actually, that's where most of these came from; a section in the article on the aircraft type in question. Once they started to be expanded to include any and every surviving airframe, they were (mercifully!) broken out into separate articles. If these are to be merged back whence there came, there needs to be some discussion about how many and/or which "survivors" are notable enough to mention in the main article on (say) the B-17 (which is very long as it is!) --Rlandmann (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure people can sum things up in a couple of paragraphs, link independently notable examples, and maybe quickly point out that there are thirty or forty (or however-many) partial or complete airframes scattered around the country. All it needs is a couple of people to keep an eye on the articles. There's no way these articles can stand as they are - it looks clumsy and the articles are more the kind of data you would expect in a database than an encyclopedia. Brilliantine (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"more the kind of data you would expect in a database than an encyclopedia" - I think that hits the nail exactly on the head. --Rlandmann (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Most of these aircraft are rare and/or notable examples. Even the B-52, where all of the 744 A-H models were built and the only still serving aircraft are fewer than 100 H models. --rogerd (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Rare" is irrelevant here. What makes you say that most of the airframes on these lists are notable? --Rlandmann (talk) 01:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, that is, it is irrelevant. Many of these aircraft have been been meticulously restored and are displayed in museums. This is important information to aviation and military enthusiasts, just as much as lists of tall buildings are to architecture buffs and lists of paintings are to art lovers. --rogerd (talk) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - that was a poor choice of words on my part - allow me to clarify. "Rare" is irrelevant to deciding whether Wikipedia should keep this article or not; it's just not a criterion for inclusion. On the other hand, notability (as defined by policy) surely is, which is why I asked on what grounds you're asserting that most of the airframes on these lists are notable. "Importance" is a criterion for exclusion, but only insofar as it can be measured by "notability"; the presumption is that if a subject is notable (therefore important), there will be independent secondary sources that give a treatment of it beyond simply noting its existence. I don't think that's the case with most of the airframes listed in these articles, but would be very happy to be proven wrong.

The comparison you make to buildings or paintings is a little bit off-target; buildings and paintings are (generally) one-of-a-kind objects; these are all surviving examples of aircraft were mass-produced and of a type that is already treated in-depth in an article of its own. However, even when a famous artist has produced multiple prints of a work, we don't include lists of each and every one of those prints.

PS: I would consider myself an "aviation enthusiast", and while I agree with you that this information is important and fascinating, I'm just not convinced that it fits within the scope of an encyclopedia (as opposed to a specialist monograph or website or database). --Rlandmann (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural question. Can editors comment on whether this should be split up into 11 separate AfDs? An admin could do that if there is general support. (This was asked at the Administrators' Noticeboard). EdJohnston (talk) 03:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly acceptable to split it, or to keep them as is. One option would be to sort them by importance, then decide where the cut-off should be. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support such a split. And if split, maybe the nom would consider not relisting them all simultaneously, but maybe deal with them one at a time, beginning with what they feel to be the least notable example? --Rlandmann (talk) 04:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The basic premise was false as this Afd result is likely to show. Rewarding that error with a consolation prize of potentially deleting some articles would be wrong. If the nominator wants to try to establish notability guidelines under which the creation of these types of lists should operate, he should do it himself first, perhaps at WP:AVIATION, then if he gets anywhere, he can bring any articles he thinks still fail that established consensus to Afd. If he doesnt get anywhere, then he can nominate articles individualy at will. But trying to determine the consensus on the issue by raising individual Afd's first is just a waste of effort, likely only to result in reactionary keeps, but this is sadly too often typical of the way wikipedia tries to treat such issues. MickMacNee (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest Possible Keep for all. These are all verifiable to multiple independent reliable sources. It doesn't matter if ANYTHING is rare or fascinating or not rare or not fascinating: multiple notices by reliable independent sources is the guideline's definition of "notable". This is how articles on items not popular with tech-savvy educated white American males get deleted far too often on Wikipedia: editors confuse "I don't like it" or "it's stupid because it isn't part of my eminently superior world" with "it's not notable". This may be one of the few times that something more popular with white American males than with other groups who are considered less notable [edit] is deleted, but deletion would still not be in accordance guidelines or policy. --NellieBly (talk) 05:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the problem right there - there simply aren't "multiple notices by reliable independent sources" for any but a few entries on these lists. By-and-large, these are lists pieced together from various self-published websites. --Rlandmann (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about not liking aircraft, mainly because I do like them. As Rlandmann says, only a few of these have multiple source. You should discuss the matter at hand; it is unfair and irrelevant to attack what you perceive as my hidden agenda. (Also, I am not a "tech-savvy educated white American male".) — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Prune/Merge on individual article basis - As stated by Rlandmann, most of the entries are not notable on their own, or are not cited from reliable sources. Each article should be pruned of those entries. If the list notable remaining items is too long to be merged back in to the main aircraft articles, then the survivors page should be kept, provided the article format is updated to current WP and WP:AIR policies and guidelines, including titles and captions. In order to do this right, it is neccessarry to consider each article separately. That should probably be done in separate AFDs for each article, in order to have the force of consenus behind the decisions taken, given that the creator of most of these articles has strong ownership issues. Finally, there are wiki-style websites that can host these articles in their entirety, with very little change to the articles required, so that the creator's hours of hard work will not be "destroyed". - BillCJ (talk) 07:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination's point about the size of the original production runs seems irrelevant. These survivors are notable by virtue of this status and articles about them seem fine. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep Without commenting on the current state of particular lists with regard to size, content or sources, the assertion that the topic of list of surviving aircraft is "entirely non-notable" based purely on the fact that the original aircraft might have been common, is patent nonsense. That is true for standalone lists and lists in articles. "Rare" - (read historic) aircraft, after a certain age, are inherently notable, no matter what the original production run size. You can debate the inclusion criteria or sourceing requirements for each particular model, or even create a guideline at WP:AVIATION, but the deletion rationale as presented can only be dealt with by a heavy blow from the clue stick. MickMacNee (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The second part of my argument was "The articles also fail to establish why the surviving ones are notable." How about a "list of medieval swords"? These things are old and there are less now than there used to be. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Do you even have a clue as to whether this strawman you serve up is even a remotely similar comparison? I have no clue as to how many medieval swords there are that still exist, or what is known about them. Heck, a List of surviving medival swords might even educate me a tiny little bit. But can we please stick to discussing this article? MickMacNee (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't look like too much of a strawman to me. It seems more like a relatively valid analogy. Brilliantine (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  So you're saying he is an expert in medieval swords then. MickMacNee (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What does anyone being an expert in anything have to deal with this? It was addressing the logic of your 'inherent notability' claim: ""Rare" - (read historic) aircraft, after a certain age, are inherently notable, no matter what the original production run size." Brilliantine (talk) 03:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  What analogy am I supposed to be drawing here? That there is no List of medieval swords? Quite clearly a strawman. Unless he has some expert knowledge to confer about medieval swords such as there are currently 1 million still in existence despite being made in medieval times, then I would have zero problem making the same claim for swords either. It seems at face value a perfectly fine example of something that would be automatically worthy of note after a certain point in time. And if there are so many left it would pointless to note them, then what point was he trying to make? Clearly in that case, they would not be considered 'rare'. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The point is that not all medieval swords (nor all things old&rare) are inherently notable. "This sword was made in 1033. It was never used in battle, and was found in an armory in 1949. It is now housed at the British Museum of History." — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 04:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think from the overwhelming majority of the people voting to keep the Survivors seriers I think the nomination for deletion can be quickly removed from all of these articles - I wish to thank all those editors for their fine comments (even those editors which I often disagree with - but these is often two sides to an arguement) I just wonder why a person who has only created articles on Canadian films and Canadian Hockey is interested in deleting 15 stronge articles about aviation. I agree that some of the articles need work, but I am only one editor who has limited amout of time each to work on these articles - again thanks to all for you support Davegnz (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a strange ad hominem to throw out there. I have only edited Canadian music and Canadian hockey articles? — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Colonel Warden, etc. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm generally impressed with these articles; a lot of work has been put into many of them, including pictures and plenty of information for each aircraft. I don't really see how having these articles is detrimental to wikipedia in any way.Erudy (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Can't see a single reason for even considering deletion. The topics are encyclopedic, the material is verifiable and well presented, there's too much of it to consider a merge. Andrewa (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep Delete all - I quit, tired of all this fighting and other nonsense - I have wasted too many long hours fighting about minor garbage issues (like what goes into captions, should the cpations be centered, is a list of survivors acceptable in wikipedia, what is notable, what deserves to be linked, length of article naming articles and now mass deletions by a music critic). I really wish I had never heard of wikipedia and I wish I had never started investing my time and efforts bringing a passion and deep interest to wikipedia. Over the past 18 months I have fought tooth and nail to get my ideas across only to have constant bickering thrown my way.
  • Rlandmann Please, Just delete all my work and let my ideas die peacefully - my words have bled enough - just put them out of there misery Davegnz (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Declined; Other editors have added material to the articles, so an author requested deletion is not possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appropriate articles. Encyclopedic topics, well done lists. (Actually, I think there are so few surviving early 11th c. swords that a list of them might be appropriate also, though not at article of every individual one. Though--even so-- for those in good museums, there will be published sources for each individual one. )DGG (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• In a general term, I've found articles like this unexpectedly useful - I used the survivors list for the Me109 to track down the specific details of the subject of a photograph that was on FPC a couple of weeks back. The topic certainly seems of practical, if esoteric, interest and utility. Shimgray | talk | 20:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this article is one of the most valuable on the entire site. There is really no reason to delete pages like this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to reconsider deleting these articles, with a strong recommendation to restructure them, particularly to de-emphasize the non-notable airframes. The following: "B-17G-95DL c/n 32359 44-83718, Converted: B-17H, redesignated: SB-17G, ex-Brazilian AF (5408), ex-6th Grupo de Aviaçao (SAR), " 8 ", Museu Aerospacial, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (R)" means very little, especially when repeated for 30+ airframes, without any prose. I would be glad to help in discussing alternative ways to present these articles. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 08:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good man. I suggest you wander over to WP:AVIATION and suggest a guideline. MickMacNee (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the relevant WikiProject is WikiProject Aircraft, and you're very welcome to participate in such a discussion. Outside eyes are good! --Rlandmann (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as the preservation of airframes is an exercise in preserving history, the historic assets are inherently notable, and thus inherently encyclopedic. (And yes, I would think that a list of historic, surviving notable swords in museums around the world would be encyclopedic, as well.) (Oh, and I, for one, appreciate all of User:Davegnz's really hard, dedicated work to make this a better encyclopedia.) AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Since Twas Now likes to talk about useless articles and lack ot notibility I think he might have a point - I recommend someone nominate the following articles for deletions (since I do not want to considered a vandal):

New York Islanders records

Boston Bruins records

Anaheim Ducks records

Atlanta Thrashers records

Kanada-malja

Colorado Avalanche records

Player salaries in the National Hockey League

• • I mean give me a break - no photographs, very little reference material, most of this information is lifted right off the official NFL web page (which is updated everyday during the season), definitly not notible, not historic, not encyclopedic, except for some hocky fans these pages are useless - if they are not a canidate for deletions then maybe someone can restructure them and get rid of all the useless infomation.

• • In fact I think these article might be a strong canidite to merge back into the main articles. Davegnz (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss what I wrote not 8 hours before you posted this? Did you not notice that I am also taking part in the ongoing discussions to rename these articles, and have been all through this AfD? Please take your bitterness somewhere else. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave: Wikipedia:Other stuff exists - Ahunt (talk) 17:02, 12 September 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 (non-admn closure), consensus to keep, if article needs improving then improve, delete inappropriate avenue Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayoralty of Sarah Palin[edit]

Mayoralty of Sarah Palin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is not currently enough material to warrent a subarticle and the article is currently a word for word copy of the main article ThaddeusB (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the Article , in my opinion there is enough material to support the article. and the article should be kept.--MisterAlbert (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Tha article is well-sourced and it's a notable topic. The main article is growing in all directions, and the replacement of this material with a summary would improve it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per Will Beback. Note that there is also an article on Governorship of Sarah Palin, and this article goes well with that one. This is standard practice for political figures. For example, see Governorship of Mitt Romney and Mayoralty of Rudy Giuliani.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I should mention that I started the article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment On the talk page of the Sarah Palin article, sentiment is against this particular fork because it seems to be hard to create a fair summary (only Ferrylodge disagrees). The sub-article and the section are very similar, and will remain so, negating the main purpose of a sub-article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussion about summarizing that section only began a few hours ago, so it's premature to say that no consensus can be reached. Keeping this article will help promote that consensus.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be true of an average article, but the Sarah Palin crew are as numerous and well-informed as an article can ever hope to have. Consensus can form rapidly. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I understand the points above, but if she wasn't the GOP VP, then this article wouldn't exist. The other two examples WOULD exist. Also, you can't compare an article about the governer of NY, the third largest state, or NYC, the largest city in the USA, with an article about a town of about 7,000 people. The main points can be made in the primary article about Sarah Palin. Anything else is either bound to be a POV fork, or a coatrack. I don't see any other articles about being the mayor of a town of less than 10k people on Wikipedia, so the premise is flawed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can always say, "well if so-and-so weren't famous then an article about them would not exist."Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. The question is NOT "is Sarah Palin notable", the question is "is her term as mayor notable" and the answer is clearly "no". To compare this to the time Rudy spent, during 9-11, as justification for the article is just silly. PHARMBOY (TALK) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get your point. However, an otherwise non-notable early period of someone's life can become very notable due to events later in life. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a reasonable fork of Sarah Palin. I think the issue here is that Palin's article has asploded in every direction, due to her rapid rise to national prominence; with Barack Obama, for example, we've had years to develop United States Senate career of Barack Obama. Would this content be notable in the parent article? Yes. It's reasonable, then, to have it as its own article here. I concur that this wouldn't be an issue if she were not the VP candidate - but she is, and we have to accept that that changes the notability question, somewhat. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait and see. If the page develops useful content we can keep it. T0mpr1c3 (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This article only has 4.5kb of readable prose, which easily fits into Sarah Palin, which currently has 22kb of readable prose. It may be well-referenced, but that is because it is a 1 for 1 duplicate of the Mayor of Wasilla section in Palin's article and that section is well referenced. Additionally, a summary of this section will garner very little in terms of article size reduction. The current proposed summary (see here) only achieves a reduction of 350 characters words and that's done by removing most of the negative aspects and retaining the positive. If article size is a concern for Sarah Palin, then I'd start with the Governor of Alaska section which is almost as long as Governorship of Sarah Palin. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just plain incorrect. The reduction would not be 350 characters. It would be from 825 words to 473 words.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh. Heh. Sorry. You are correct. It is words. Tell ya.. I should just give up typing today (especially in this AFD). Thanks for the second catch. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You meant to say "Keep" instead of "Delete" too, right? :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, you're right! I did!! *laugh* Nice try.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - . . . and incorporate notable info into the main SP article. This subject is for the most part of interest only in the short term. Many much more distinguished politicians do not have assortments of subordinate Wikipedia pages devoted to phases of their careers. This would not be a good trend to start. Wikipedia cannot provide in-depth biographies. That is not what it is set up to do. --Pleasantville (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Wikipedia isn't set up to provide single articles that are the equivalent of book-length bios of prominent persons. Nevertheless, by the magic of wikilinking, Wikipedia is set up to provide an overview of the person's life, with daughter articles that give in-depth information on specific subtopics. Under WP:SS, we can provide the equivalent of in-depth biographies, only structured so that readers who don't want to read the whole biography can readily find the specific parts they want. JamesMLane t c 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Content is constantly being deleted from Sarah Palin and Political positions of Sarah Palin with the (sometimes accurate) assertions that the articles are already too large or that the topics are not pertinent to the bio or political positions, respectively. This article will be enable some of the events that occurred while she was mayor to be more fully developed. As for pertinence, I personally believe that being the mayor of a small town provides incidental executive experience, but Karl Rove, John McCain, and Sarah Palin have all talked about this period in her life as contributing greatly to her qualifications. Therefore, it's a definite KEEP.--Appraiser (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This one. Notable, new sources all the time, no reason to compress it down into the parent article today. rootology (C)(T) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak merge to main article, but I am impressed with the sourcing on this. Still, I don't care for branching off multiple articles from a main any more than is necessary, and this may be a bit much for now. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. Article can be expanded. -- LighthouseSpider (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Is notable and can't fit in parent article. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ, I don't think you understand what's going on here.. Mayoralty of Sarah Palin is smaller than what is currently in Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla. It's not a matter of can the content fit back into the main article, but that splitting the Mayor of Wasilla section off from the main article was unnecessary because, at this time, there simply isn't the content to justify a sub-article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Someone one has moved this material, verbatim, back to the main article, and a consensus discussion in talk has decided not to summarize it. Accordingly there is no reason for this article to exist. Perhaps editors would care to reevaluate their positions based on this new information?--Paul (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hopeful that if this article is kept, editors will reevaluate their positions not to summarize in the main article. The main article currently contains a great deal (several hundred words) of boring and excessively detailed info on this subject, and that info would be much more appropriate in this article only.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Ferrylodge. Also note that for GFDL reasons we can redirect this article but not delete it if we are going to put content from it into the main article. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any GFDL concerns here. The article is a direct copy and paste recreation of Sarah Palin#Mayor of Wasilla and that if this article were to be deleted, there would be no content moved from the sub-article to the main article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It cannot possibly be true that we need a separate article to describe someone's six years as mayor of a town of 6,000 people. This is not akin to the Governorship articles, nor to Rudy Giuliani's mayoralty, whose scope was 1,000 times greater. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTR, do we need articles about what people did before they ever did anything noteworthy? See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Her article is still only medium-sized at most. I've worked on articles three times as big! If she ends up becoming the next Ronald Reagan, yes at some point there will need to be an "Early life and early political career of Sarah Palin" article. But not now. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've spent considerable time shortening some of the articles you've worked on, WTR.  :-) A big problem here is that the main Sarah Palin article is already mostly a summary article; the remaining non-summarized section on her mayoralty is therefore now receiving undue weight in the main article, merely due to the fact that the other sections are summaries. Additionally, there's plenty of material here to start a new article. Look at the article you started on Julia Keller!Ferrylodge (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, and the proportions seem okay to me -- her Governorship section is still well-sized. And in the Talk:John McCain context, you went on and on with me about how we couldn't describe her as inexperienced, because the years spent as city council member and mayor were so important and meaningful. So you're being a little inconsistent here. And comparing a proposed split-out with a stub article about another person is completely illogical. That stub creation was totally appropriate, if you don't like it bring it to AfD and I'll be happy to defend it there. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your Keller stub just fine. This article is way more than a stub. Also, I don't see why it's inconsistent to want to create a separate article about a meaningful subject.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subarticles come with real costs: ongoing maintenance of duplicate material, fights over what goes in the main article and what doesn't, and a readership dropoff that page view statistics show as on the order of 100:1. Subarticles should only be used when absolutely necessary, and I don't think it is here, not for being mayor of 6,000 people. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For comparison a total of two people have a separate article about their time as mayor - [9] - and both of them relate to New York City. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)And deservedly so. Being Mayor of New York is really like being president of a small country, and it's often been described as the second toughest job in America (after President). If someone is hankering to write another mayoralty article, start with Ed Koch, a true New York character and powerhouse force, and poorly served by his current article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOTS and lots of Wikipedia articles address periods in people's lives before they did anything independently notable. I think focussing on mayors is kind of like focussing on people named Sarah (i.e. too narrow a focus). See [10].Ferrylodge (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Category:Early lives by individual shows only 19 entries. Most of these are extremely famous people (Plato, Newton, Washington, Lincoln, JPII), some are okay recentism (GWB, Benedict XVI), and some are embarrassing recentism (Spitzer and Paterson, give me a break!). Let's not add Palin into the embarrassing column, until she's been more than a two-week political sensation. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is simply a subarticle of the main Sarah Palin it's there so stuff in Sarah Palin can be a real summary. It's not possible to merge back anything the goal is to get detailed info in the subarticle and a short summary in the main article. We simply need this for article developement and it's standard practice. Hobartimus (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- by all accounts, Sarah Palin was a popular mayor. Yet you wouldn't know it from the article as it presently is written. It's mostly a trash-Palin piece -- referenced but with little attempt at presenting a balanced picture. Criticism of Palin is given undue weight. So if this article is kept, it needs a lot of work. Likewise, if it's merged into the Sarah Palin, that material will need work. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, all I did to create this article was copy the corresponding section of the Sarah Palin article. Then I proposed a draft summary section for the Sarah Palin article. I think you will find the draft summary section much closer to NPOV.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section is rather negative right now, but that is primarily because the only content is related to Palin's first year as mayor, which was... Shall we say... a learning experience for Palin, something that Palin herself has admitted. What the section needs is additional information on the last 5 years of her stint as mayor which should make it more positve.. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There doesn't seem to be a need for so specific a content-fork at this point, and POV concerns have been raised. RayAYang (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments Barack Obama and John McCain are both Featured Articles. Every FA I have worked on has had links to several sub-articles that house details about the topic that would preclude the main article from becoming FA. Creating articles about aspects of Palin's life is absolutely necessary for a topic of such interest and absolutely necessary on the path toward making Sarah Palin a high-quality article. That article should have a brief summary of her stint as mayor with a ((main)) tag coming here. This article should have details covering everything she did as mayor that is of interest to a broad audience. The typical reader wants to be able to find whatever level of detail interests him, but not all at once. That is the essence of the value of hot links. This article has plenty of opportunity for improvement toward NPOV, but that is no reason to delete it.--Appraiser (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per FerryLodge's comments. The article is now fairly substantial and the subject is notable. I see no need to delete over possible POV concerns. The solution to POV is to remove POV, not delete everything it touches.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable? yes. Supported by reliable sources? yes. Threshold for keeping article has been met. Merge and redirect would be the alternative, but I don't see any reason for that. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unnecessarily specific fork. If we include large articles on every aspect of the life of every aspiring candidate then we will give masively undue weight to these individuals by comparison with other much more important political figures. One article is sufficicent for Abe Linconln, I believe. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently not. See, e.g., Abraham Lincoln's early life and career; Abraham Lincoln on slavery; Abraham Lincoln assassination; Abraham Lincoln's burial and exhumation; Abraham Lincoln and religion; and Cultural depictions of Abraham Lincoln. --Evb-wiki (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's unnecessary at this time and because of the activity on Palin in general allows POV editors just another avenue to include their edit if it's rejected on the main Palin page or if they want to "sneak" it in by subarticle by passing the consensus process that seems to be working on the main Palin talk page. Some evidence to avoid the main Palin consensus process is here : Talk:Sarah_Palin#Summarizing_Mayoralty_section Theosis4u (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I was seeking to avoid the main Palin consensus by seeking consensus at the main Palin article?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Sarah Palin unless doing so would make that article too large. Edward321 (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a necessary daughter article of Sarah Palin that is consistent with summary style. This would be comparable (from a parent/child standpoint) with Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one is ridiculous too. We have no other articles in all of WP that devote themselves to someone's stint as a small-town mayor or as a state legislator. That should tell us something. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Hobartimus's comment explains the reason to keep it -- as per WP:SS, linked by Scjessey. The media have paid considerable attention to the history of one person's mayoralty of a small town. As a result, we can reasonably assume considerable reader interest, and we have abundant WP:RS information on the topic, far more than for most comparable subjects. JamesMLane t c 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, summaries can be written, not easy given the controversy, but it can be done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Sarah Palin' - Mayoralty of a town so small doesn't need its own article. Any useful prose can be merged. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Most of what is significant in her role as mayor would not be significant in a general biography of a vice presidential candidate. Therefore this article is needed to capture that detail.--Appraiser (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - good grief, this Palencruft is silly. Do we even have any "Governorship of xxx" articles for anyone else? --B (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. But most governors haven't run as vice president for a major party so we don't have the need to split things off as much. I suspect that for many major political figures who have had multiple major political positions we could find more than enough material to have such articles. We shouldn't confuse people not spending the time to do something as a demonstration that something isn't a good idea or isn't notable. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Governorship of Mitt Romney and George W. Bush as Governor of Texas. We should also have Wikipedia articles about the student councilship of xxx if the media thinks it's notable and many people are interested.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody ever reads these subarticles. For example, per http://stats.grok.se/, during August 2008 the Mitt Romney article was viewed 104,874 times, while Governorship of Mitt Romney was viewed 852 times. So it would seem many people are not that interested. Also, up at the top, you described the current mayoralty material as "boring and excessively detailed info". Your arguments here lack consistency. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree that it's inconsistent. The current article is now structured with subheadings so that people can choose what they want to read about, instead of plodding through details that they're not interested in. Also, I don't find it surprising that the Mitt Romney governorship article was viewed 852 times in August. He's not a candidate for vice-president, after all. Let's extrapolate, though. Sarah Palin was viewed 4.2 million times in August, i.e. forty times as many hits as Mitt Romney for that month. So, multiply 852 by forty, and you get about 3500 hits, which is a lot more than most Wikipedia articles get.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether people frequently read the subarticles as much as the main articles has little to do with the validity of the articles (although I have to admit that I'm honestly surprised at how few people have viewed Governorship of Mitt Romney). JoshuaZ (talk) 18:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is consistently true of all biographical subarticles and something I've posted about in several talk pages. As another example, in August 2008, Barack Obama 1,377,462 views, while the abovementioned Illinois Senate career of Barack Obama got 6,454 views. These stats reveal a huge problem with WP:Summary style: moving material down into subarticles loses 99% of the readership and is thus almost tantamount to deleting it altogether. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I do not support moving the most pertinent and interesting material out of main articles into sub-articles. However, sub-articles serve a very useful purpose. If you're arguing that Wikipedia should not have any more sub-articles, then I disagree with that, for reasons that really should be addressed elsewhere. If any sub-article is appropriate, this should be it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Governorship of Sarah Palin and Electoral history of Sarah Palin to Early life and career of Sarah Palin. Enough is enough. Grsz^talk 17:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, sub-articles for national candidates is very common. It's done for people who lost in the primary contests, and it's also done for those who won.

This article is part of a series about John McCain
Political positions Electoral history Early life and military career Public image U.S. Senator from Arizona Early Congressional career (1983–2000) Senate career (2001–2014) Presidential campaigns 2000 presidential campaign primaries 2008 presidential campaign election primaries endorsements staff members Faith of My Fathers Worth the Fighting For Why Courage Matters The Restless Wave
v t e

This article is part of a series about Barack Obama
Pre-presidency Early life and career Illinois State Senator 2004 DNC keynote address U.S. Senator from Illinois 2004 election sponsored bills 44th President of the United States Presidency timeline Transition Inaugurations Trips international Policies Economy Energy Foreign policy Arctic Europe East Asia Middle East South Asia Obama Doctrine Pardons Marine Native Social Space Appointments Cabinet Judiciary Sotomayor Kagan Garland Supreme Court candidates First term First 100 days Recovery Act Russia nuclear treaty Affordable Care Act Dodd–Frank Iraq withdrawal Killing of Osama bin Laden 2011 debt-ceiling crisis Libya intervention Afghanistan withdrawal Benghazi attack Second term 2013 debt-ceiling crisis Anti-ISIL campaign Iraq Syria Iran nuclear deal Cuban thaw Sanctions against Russia Selma 50th anniversary speech Paris Agreement Presidential campaigns 2008 primaries convention debates election 2012 primaries convention debates election Post-presidency Planned presidential library Obama Foundation One America Appeal Publications Dreams from My Father The Audacity of Hope A Promised Land Personal Family Public image Honors Others Nobel Peace Prize Tan suit controversy
v t e

Yes, but Palin does not have near the career as either. All of the relevant information can easily fit in a merged article. Grsz^talk 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of great controversy, Grsz11. Obama is a first-term Senator who served in the state legislature. The McCain camp says that Palin has just as much experience overall as Obama, and more executive experience than all of the other three candidates combined. There is currently plenty of info in this article to justify a separate article, and the article is quickly growing in size.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I could live with a merged article. There just isn't a reason to have so many different article on her at this point. PHARMBOY (TALK) 17:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge Wikipedia is not here to bolster the McCain campaign's claims for their VP candidate. This is not the mayoralty of New York, after all. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. This article is neutral. It presents notable facts citing reliable sources. It is too big now to fit in the main Sarah Palin article.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely Keep the page is already a better read than the main page as a result of edtiors being able to edit. Which leads you to ponder , why the need the keep the main page under lock and key? This page certainly defeats their reasoning. Suggest making the main page a smaller blurb and directing to the main feature article that exits here. --MisterAlbert (talk) 20:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and eliminate duplicate details in the parent article, Sarah Palin. First, those who think that the subject isn't important enough for a separate article miss the point that importance is based on reliable sources, not on one's personal opinion. Clearly, what Palin has done as governor did as mayor has been covered recently in so many separate newspaper articles that it has long ago clearly passed any notability threshold. Second, the real issue is that if this daughter article is kept, there needs to be a related consensus to eliminate the detailed, duplicate content in the parent article, in accordance with Wikipedia:Summary style. Otherwise, the Wikipedia community looks totally incompetent. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should definitely follow WP:SS. The corresponding section of the main article could do a much better job summarizing this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that so far there has really been no attempt to write that section as a summary; rather, what is excluded are matters that fall below the estimated "importance" level of other things in the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I suspect people are reluctant to pare down the bio article as long as this (and the Governorship article) have an AFD open. We should close them with "no consensus to delete" so we can get on with paring down the bio article.--Appraiser (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked this evening on summarizing what's in the main article. Right now, the main article contains about 800 words on her mayoralty, compared to about 1880 words in this article. So, I think the summarization is improving.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Palin did no more as mayor than any other small town mayor. The content of the article is simply the result of the huge amounts of digging that resulted from her stunning pick. Do the ends justify the means? Grsz^talk 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. It means that there are many more reliable sources talking about her mayoralty than there would be for a normal small time mayor. Notability is determined by the presence of reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I cannot believe that it has been nominated for AfD. I ask the Wikipedian who put the nomination to withdraw it, the same way that the nomination for lipstick on a pig was withdrawn. Dems on the move (talk) 20:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the topic (6 years of service as small-town mayor) receives ample coverage in the Sarah Palin article. Should she become, say, President, restore maybe, but as of now, definitely undue weight. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:Undue weight refers to the amount of weight given to different things within a single article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Whether or not a sub-article is warranted in this instance is not grounds for deletion, per WP:DEL#REASON. Discussions and suggestions regarding whether this material is better in the main article or as a sub-page are entirely content questions and therefore best discussed on the article's talk page. There is no question that the topic is eminently notable, having received widespread media coverage. Debate 木 09:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Currently, this article is getting over 500 hits per day, on average.[11]Ferrylodge (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to about 180,000 hits per day for the main article over the same (brief) period. That's a 360:1 ratio. So, anything that's moved from the main article to the mayoralty article should be something that you're sure that less than 1% of the audience would be interested in seeing. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But please keep in mind that putting too much stuff in the first couple sections of the main article will result in readers zoning out before they get to the later sections of the main article. In other words, just because something is in the main article does not mean readers will read it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But that's what table of contents are for. Anyone who doesn't care about Palin's time as mayor can click directly to the Governor or Vice Presidential candidates section. Or can start the mayoral section, then skim or skip it and proceed to later sections. There's no requirement that our audience read our articles from top to bottom in sequence. History books are broken up into clearly defined chapters for exactly the same reason, and are processed by readers accordingly. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right, but I view a main article as a place for readers to find out what they want to learn more about. In other words, it's a place where they can read everything, and then decide what further details to seek. And there are lot of other advantages to a sub-article like this, too. It provides a relatively calm place where editors can focus on small details, and get them right, before butting heads with a million other editors in the main article.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a big enough topic that it should have its own article. It has been discussed extensively in the media. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer year[edit]

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

Neoligism. Found only one reference (http://www.clcsinc.com/computerage.htm), and that content's up to debate. Sigma 7 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as Neo. Not in common usage, never heard it, and I'm an old fart who been working with computers 25 years. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. It's hard to be sure with two such common words but google seems to come back with few, if any hits, of this usage. I've been in computing (studying or working) for ten years and as a hobby for quite some time before that and I've also never used the term used so in the abscence of references I can only assume it's not well used and so not notable. Dpmuk (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unreferenced neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of vaguely humorous expressions. Note that Dog years isn't an entry either, merely a disambig. Qwfp (talk) 16:21, 11 September 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 interwiki redirect. MBisanz ^talk 22:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudointellectual[edit]

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

Article is a dictionary term that has been transwiki'd to wiktionary and exists there. Need to delete to cleanup wikipedia Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Firstly, why did you close the last AfD if it was neccesary anyway? Secondly, Delete - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment because it needed action before it could be deleted. ie: it needed to actually be transwiki'd as that had become the consensus. Anything other than a straight delete consensus is a keep (merge, speedy keep, weak keep, redirect, transwiki etc.), ie: only a delete is a delete. Keeping this in mind, I transwiki'd the entry, closed the AfD and opened a second one which can now deal with the fact that it has been transwiki'd. As the first was not a delete but a keep, it needed closing so that a new discussion can take place. Hope this helps! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• So, Delete as redundant.Yobmod (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, but it has to go for this ride down Deletion Alley, then an admin has to see a consensus, or just see it, read it and do it. But, I'm not one and I can only do a keep closure; so we wait. :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 04:52, 13 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional war heroes[edit]

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

Pretty obvious why this is here. Original research, no qualifying criteria... Ryan4314 (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This list is an arbitrary selection of items from an immense population of characters that meet the definition. ~ Ningauble (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete crufty, arbitrary, unmanageable, subjective. PHARMBOY (TALK) 21:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - subject inclusion requires editors WP:OR. --EEMIV (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With no qualifying criteria, this is just unmanageable original research. Edward321 (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Indiscriminate collection of cruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all adjectives mentioned before. Eklipse (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - two years since the previous AfD, there appears no improvement. No objective criteria (violates WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE), not referenced at all; relies on each editor's subjective definition of the phrase "war hero." 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:29, 10 September 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. Clear hoax from blocked account Black Kite 20:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero (Automobiles)[edit]

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

Hoax article. No such company exists. Created by now-blocked single purpose account. Reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cicero Motors.

Also included in this nomination are the hoax articles about the "Cicero" cars:

• Statesman BVV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Cicero VB Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

 Sandstein  19:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unless reliable sources can be provided that verify the existence of this company and establish its notability. Wiw8 (talk) 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all no evidence of existence. TravellingCari 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete all in the strongest possible terms and speedy close per WP:SNOW. Clearly a hoax - images are of other manufacturer's vehicles. User blocked for creating hoaxes. ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - Hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: Obvious hoax. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as hoax. swaq 20:26, 9 September 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, consensus to keep, delete concerns noted but dismissed due to age of charity, coverage in national press and assertion of oldest charity Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CanDo4Kids[edit]

CanDo4Kids (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nonnotable Austrailian charity organization. CSD G11 was declined because of the assertion that CanDo4Kids is South Austrailia's oldest children's charity. When you take away the promotional language, history section (nothing special there), services (same as any hospital), and spammy external links there is nothing left to the article or charity itself to write about, let alone establish notability. No hits on google news and one irrelevant hit on google scholar. Themfromspace (talk) 18:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep Being a bonified charity that helps children (and the blind) and has been around since the 1870s may be enough to be notable due to the longevity alone, including being the oldest in S.A. Granted, the article absolutely needs work, but since the organization has been around over 130 years, I am betting there are plenty of references (and other notable events) available, even if more are buried in a library. If this was a 10-20 year old charity, I might be more inclined to agree with nominator. Since they are not, I think you have to give an ample opportunity to develop. PHARMBOY (TALK) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I get 18 hits on gnews. Are you confident you selected "all dates" when doing the search?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above supplemented by this, although the book doesn't have a preview available. There's probably more available as well. TravellingCari 20:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article has passed the prime WP:N guideline test with a secondary references that could be added with Google News finding 18 refs, and the book reference above. If anything, this article just needs a cleanup, wikifying, adding citations.--Takver (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have done some tidying up of the article, removing POV marketing/promotional information, wikifying, adding categories, an info box, and the citation to the Australian Dictionary of Biography entry on William Townsend. The Secondary refs from Google News still need to be gone through to see what else can be added.--Takver (talk) 06:00, 10 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Atkinson (actor)[edit]

William Atkinson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor with only minor, one-off roles that are often uncredited. — Scientizzle 18:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that he is notable. Tassedethe (talk) 09:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non notable, hence WP:LIVE issues. Equendil Talk 23:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No nontrivial coverage in a Google search, nor a Google News search. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:06, 14 September 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, utter unencyclopedic crap. Moreschi (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy[edit]

Matanuska Maid Dairy controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Violates wp:NPOV by serving as a coatrack to attack a political candidate. Bordering on being a soapbox as well. PHARMBOY (TALK) 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:COATRACK and b/c event is not noteworthy in its own right --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:30, 9 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 03:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenti[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing here that establishes any notability. However name articles have had a tendency to generate discussion so I'll bring it here. TravellingCari 17:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 17:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This qualifies for CSD but was not proposed. This article does not assert HOW subject is notable whatsoever, as such deletion is due. Fr33kman^{talk APW} 20:15, 13 September 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.