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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Disney's Hercules characters[edit]

List of Disney's Hercules characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

A list of characters in one film. Joe Chill (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, per author request (CSD G7). decltype (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking out loud[edit]

Talking out loud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

No notability stated; also, please see WP:NOTDICTIONARY Airplaneman ^talk 23:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Wikipedia is NOT A DICTIONARY. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WINAD. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the writer of this page, I have read more about the criteria of a good article and realize that this page does not meet it. Feel free to go ahead with speedy deletion. WesUGAdawg (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NOTADICT. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Either a separate article or no article. Redirects simply aren't a good solution here and since the consensus is against a separate article, this is a delete. Tone 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin M. Emanuel[edit]

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

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

This 'article' needs a little explanation. Benjamin M. Emanuel is a Jerusalem-born paediatrician, now living in Chicago, who is the father of three notable people: Rahm Emanuel, Ezekiel J. Emanuel and Ari Emanuel. However, it has previously twice been determined at AFD that he himself is not notable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin M. Emanuel (2nd nomination). This presents us with a problem.

In December 2008, this article was recreated as a redirect to Rahm Emanuel; however, User:Zach425 pointed out that a redirect is not appropriate here, as there are three equally plausible targets. He turned it into the current pseudo-disambiguation page, listing Benjamin Emanuel's three sons. This, to me, seems even less desirable than a redirect; there's really no precedent for it.

So, what should be done with the article? A redirect doesn't work, as there's no single obvious target; a disambiguation page seems odd and unhelpful. I think the only real options are restoring the article itself (which has been previously deleted several times; Benjamin M. Emanuel is still not notable) and deleting it outright. I think we have to choose the latter. If anyone has a good suggestion, though, I'd like to hear it. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Methinks, the principles underlying BLP compel deletion. We shouldn't have a page in the name of a private person, even though he has famous sons, in whose articles he is mentioned. -- Y not? 23:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I figured the pseudo-disambiguation would be preferable to the re-direct, but being a relatively newbie editor, I was hoping that someone more knowledgeable would take up the cause - thanks, Robofish. If deleted, is there an effective way that we can protect the page from re-creation? The protect previously issued by Jayjg seems not to have worked. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 00:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And certainly leave option open to recreate. He's still making news for his own comments. Even "Benjamin M. Emanuel" gets 400 plus google hits. "Benjamin Emanuel" surely gets lots more. If his article hadn't been deleted, I'm sure there's be lots of research and more to add to it. Details about his activities in Irgun may yet surface and he may be a bigger fish than he admits. Also, he may say more notable things like his slur against Arabs and his defense of Netanyahu - not to mention defending Rahm Emanuel and friends as not being self-hating Jews or Fifth Columnists. I mean he's a fun outspoken guy. Why silence him? CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I assume we will not either of the last two admins who decided this issue decide it? Also, frankly both Admins who did so last two times had well known POVs, so I hope that a truly NPOV admin will decide this issue. How can we ensure that? CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. See WP:GHITS, where the application cannot be more apt than in this case. The ghits are all by-the-way mentions of him as background in profiles of one his children. The classic WP:NOTINHERETED. The complication of a unprecedented (and weird) soft redirect/disambiguation page further calls for its deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and recreate the version hastily deleted last time when there was a majority supporting keep, and an involved administrator deleted prior to the usual discussion time. To quote a prior keep !vote "Even before Rahm Emanuel’s recent political ascent, Benjamin Emanuel’s life story has been deemed important enough to be profiled by many news sources, including the NYT and Fortune Magazine. But now with Rahm Emanuel’s new prominence, Benjamin Emanuel’s participation in the Irgun and his recent quote about his son’s putative support for Israel are fueling many recent news articles. (Just one example: [1]) International perceptions about the Emanuel family have policy implications for the new Obama administration. A properly-sourced, authoritative wiki biography is important to clarify the facts of Dr. Emanuel’s life and to quash the false rumors that are circulating." TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide evidence for the claim that his life story was "profiled by many news sources, including the NYT and Fortune Magazine" independent of his sons' positions, it may add weight to arguments for restoring the original article. Unfortunately, neither of the previous deletion discussions nor the original article provided any such evidence. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 21:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His story is really at the heart of this NYT piece [2]. There is also significant attention in fortune mag [3]. The claim of "private citizen" really doesn't hold after the number of times he has been quoted by papers, and after the interview he gave the press [4]. Further coverage [5] [6]. The Sunday Herald focused in on Benjamin [7] TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While the original article did suffer from poor and questionable sourcing, and some of it should not be resurrected, these new WP:RS sources show that Benjamin himself is considered an important and notable figure for his own comments and his defacto attempts to impose himself into the Israel-Palestine and Obama administration discussion. He obviously says things that annoy people with a variety of POVs, but that's no reason to delete his article. And don't forget that Wikipedia has been criticized repeatedly for deleting his article. Search Wikipedia deleted Benjamin Emanuel article and you'll find dozens of hits. Let's take wikipedia off the bloggers S%*# list :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If he's notable enough on his own, then someone should probably write and support an article on him, including these references. In that case, my vote would be keep. If we're just talking about the redirect page, though, I'd say delete, since it just seems to be causing confusion and does nothing to help establish notability on its own. — λ (talk | contribs) 19:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given everyone is busy, people might be reluctant to create. Especially since original article which has some usable content is not available, and some might be reluctant to start from scratch. However, lots of people would work on that, I'm sure, given past discussions, so I think one would quickly arise. I'd make sure all the WP:RS i've collected over last 11 months got used :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. He has notable spawn, but isn't notable enough himself. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—does not satisfy simply WP:N guidelines. Most of the articles written mentioning him are actually about one of his offsprings. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super imposed dead load[edit]

Super imposed dead load (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

There doesn't seem to be much hope for expansion beyond a definition. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Delete while the term may or may not be "commonly used" (according to the article) it just refers to dead load which happens to superimposed. Not a separate concept. Icewedge (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted by User:John Reaves Corpx (talk) 04:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Building chicken coops[edit]

Building chicken coops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

This article had previously been prodded because it appeared to be a how-to guide. The page creator made some changes to the article and removed the prod tag to contest the proposed deletion, but this article still looks like a how-to guide. In addition, this article does not appear to explain how or why chicken coops are significant, nor does it attempt to provide a history of chicken coops. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also there is an article on Chicken coop. Dr.K. logos 23:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge into the chicken coop article as appropriate. Various methods of construction and architectural aspects, as appropriate, could be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gosox5555 (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep and Merge to chicken coop. The GFDL requires that the edit history be maintained when an article is merged, so you cannot delete an article if you intend to merge it. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge to chicken coop. As said by Gosox5555, " Various methods of construction and architectural aspects, as appropriate, could be useful." Airplaneman ^talk 23:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think we forgot something here. The whole article has no citations. It is pure OR. How can we import uncited info into another article? Even the picture is a copyvio from an educational website and it is uploaded to Commons. It should be deleted immediately. Dr.K. logos 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess the problem was solved for us. Could an admin kindly close this discussion? Thanks. Dr.K. logos 01:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ding Day[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)).

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

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

This article about an event was created by an editor from WildKatPR, the PR company set up by Kathleen Alder, who co-founded this event. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. It was prodded, but a single purpose account remove the notice. Fences&Windows 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails to establish notability through reliable sources. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree, could find no inforation about the cycling event as of today. However, after next years competition (if it generates enough coverage), hope to read about it here at Wikipedia. Thanks. ShoesssS ^Talk 23:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per reasons above. Notability not established and I catch a whiff of WP:COI here too. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is a well established event, with Chris Hoy, Boris Johnson and the London Cycling Campaign as supporters. Decent amount of coverage can be found already for this year online and whilst I am the founder of WildKat PR that does not mean that we cannot have private passions. I work in completely different field in my normal job and we are all doing this for fun. Non profit and just a great idea. We will be adding more articles throughout the week... kathleen.alder (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - We are part of this over the London Cycling Campaign since last year and can confirm the press coverage as well, would be a shame to not include it . sanjasavjec (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Show us multiple examples of significant press coverage here and now, or the article gets deleted. Wikipedia is not a platform to promote events. Fences&Windows 21:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - To use a state-side term here - Whoaaaaaa there Fences&Windows as an editor here on Wikipedia, your first obligation is to Assume Good Faith. Second, it is not the responsibility of ONE individual to produce evidence of notability but the responsibility of the individual proposing the deletion to support the reasons of why NOT the article does not meet current Wikipedia standards of notability for inclusion as listed in Before. With regards to significant press coverage, that is a PERSONAL standard, any and all individuals expressing a KEEP or DELETE opinion must support that. Finally, in expressing our opinions, I have always been instructed Do Not Bite The Newbies. Relax - kick back and hopefully, as I expressed above, this article will be part of, and a FA, next year. Thanks, ShoesssS ^Talk 21:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I did look for sources and came up blank. WP:NOTABILITY isn't a "personal standard", it is a "generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow". There's a good essay on notability here. Fences&Windows 03:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Guys, I appreciate your comments and thanks for the feedback. ANyone who has researched Ding Day has found enough sources to make it notable, even 2009 has already achieved decent coverage in blogs and online papers. In 2008 the press coverage included Time Out, BBC Radio London, Metro London NEwspaper and countless blogs of which a few we added to the page. However, many such as Time Out and Metro are no longer live online or never excited online... I think it is great how you censor articles and all get involved, but you are clearly digging here at the wrong point. Even just by putting Ding Day in google you should realize there is enough to support the case. So anyone else got anything substantial why this page shouldnt remain up there? --Kathleen.alder (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kathleen. What we can do even if the article does get deleted is have an administrator move the article to being a user page instead of being part of the main encyclopedia. This means you can work on it in the expectation of more press coverage appearing. The standard for Wikipedia is significant coverage in the press; we keep this standard to avoid having articles on things that really don't have a place in an encyclopedia. While blogs and Google hits can give an indication of the popularity of something, that doesn't mean it is necessarily noteworthy. Also, an alternative to having a whole article about Ding Day could be writing about it briefly under the London Cycling Campaign article, if it is officially supported by the LCC. Fences&Windows 21:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see coverage for this in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So BBC Radio London, Metro London and the London Cycling Campaign do not count as reliable sources? I understand your filtering process, but in this case I completly disagree with above said. There are enough 'reliable' sources and it for example the BBC Radio London feature can be found on the Ding Day 2008 website. I find this an unnecessary rigiurous process for a clearly defined day with enough hits and listings and mentions...Kathleen.alder (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kathleen, traditionally you get to vote once in an AfD. I know as the creator and PR lead for the event you are keen to keep the article, but there are limits. --Tagishsimon (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – you are right that every editor is allowed only one Keep or Delete opinion. However, editors are allowed to express their arguments and respond to other editors comments, without limitations, no matter how many times, on the AFD. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 12:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But Kathleen had started her second bite of the cherry with "Keep". I changed it to "Comment". --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Which is common mistake with New Comers. I was just pointing out there are no limits to commenting and expressing alternate views. ThanksShoesssS ^Talk 13:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – I find this whole discussion very petty to be honest. I have never posted as a PR company any of my 50 artists on my roster on this until this date and i think it is sad that a topic which is quite obviously relevant to another people online/offline and in the media gets ripped apart like this and then in such a petty way. There are clearly enough 'evidences' of the relevancy (I work in PR so I know what press coverage is and not, dont you think? ) and I wonder what the point is here? We get daily blog mentions, have quite high profile backing with Chris Hoy, Boris Johnson and London Cycling Campaign, so what is the deal? I am amazed by this discussion in general as it is not factual at all. It is about me being PR, being a novice to this, being not relevant for you personally? Shouldnt Wikipedia reflect the general consens and be backed up with relevant sources. Then why am i still having to discuss this topic?Kathleen.alder (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Your comment “…Shouldn’t Wikipedia reflect the general consensus and be backed up with relevant sources”, hits the nail on the head. First Wikipedia, especially the Article For Deletion is consensus based! In that the closing adminastrator does not look and calculate we had 5 Keep votes and 4 Delete votes, therefore the article is Keep or Delete depending on the vote count. But rather, looks at the arguments and discussions on whether to Keep or Delete and the stronger consensus of those arguments determines the outcome. For you second point; “…backed up with relevant sources”. That’s the crux of the Delete opinions, they including mine, cannot find any 3rd party – creditable – verifiable – independent and reliable sources concerning the piece. References to Blogs – PR releases – Facebook – Myspace and other such sites are not considered 3rd party – creditable – verifiable – independent and reliable sources as there is no variability check with these sites. Hope this helps explain why you piece is getting the reaction it is getting. ShoesssS ^Talk 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toilet Bowl (game)[edit]

Toilet Bowl (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Per WP:NEO - A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing. Corpx (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete just get rid of it.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - wipe and flush. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POOP. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Terri Schiavo case. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case[edit]

Selected court cases in the Terri Schiavo case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Redundant to Terri Schiavo case. This article was created back in 2005 by the now-banned User:GordonWatts, apparently to remove text from Terri Schiavo so that article could pass FA; since then, it has been pretty much abandoned. Looking at it now, it seems entirely unnecessary. Most of this information is already contained in the main article Terri Schiavo case in summary form, and in Terri Schiavo timeline; we don't need it duplicated here in excessive detail. I've taken this to AFD rather than proposing a merger because I honestly think there's nothing here worth merging. A similar article, Terri Schiavo medical background, was redirected to the main article back in 2006 for similar reasons; this one somehow survived, but it too should now be deleted or redirected. Robofish (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back into the main article; TMI. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Untitled Story: Extension Project[edit]

An Untitled Story: Extension Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Incomprehensible (in its current revision bordering on word salad), gossipy, and no obvious notability. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note – I reverted to the cleanest version of the article here. MuZemike 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete – complete lack of verifiability. Absolutely nothing in reliable secondary sources. I cannot tell if this is madeup or an attempt at humor. MuZemike 22:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Muzemike and Pseudomonas are right. Hard to tell even exactly what it is; if it is an attempt at humor it's failing. The sooner this is gone the better. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete. A mess of an article that has no real content, and has no proven significance. It only refers to 2 forum topics, no solid third-party resource, i.e. what MuZemike already described. Suggestion: Merge with An Untitled Story, i.e. expand the section there and trash this article. <3 bunny 06:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per verifiability policy and notability guidelines. Note that I am also creating an AfD An Untitled Story. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If for no other reason, Just because I feel dumber having read it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heterochromia (comic)[edit]

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

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

Disputed prod. Unreferenced article on a single-chapter comic released in August 2009, with no signs of notability (and very little information in general) searching Google for the title, title + author, or author. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage by reliable third-party sources. Fails WP:N. Appears to be a self-published comic so this could be a vanity page. --Farix (Talk) 01:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cunard; I'm not very keen on the Pelican source, given that it has +200 pages on similar subjects. That leaves it mostly reliant on the Gazette, and that alone doesn't cut it, IMO. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg Sampler Bed and Breakfast Inn[edit]

Williamsburg Sampler Bed and Breakfast Inn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Unremarkable inn in a building built in 1976 that happens to be in the Colonial Williamsburg architectural district Acroterion _(talk) 21:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:COMPANY and WP:V. This bed and breakfast has a detailed entry in Pelican's select guide to American bed and breakfasts. Furthermore, this book says that "[t]he inn was called the "Triple Crown of Hospitality" by The Virginia Gazette/Williamsburg Magazine". This means that this inn has received significant coverage from another source, The Virginia Gazette. Cunard (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Based on discussion here, unless they have been on a cable channel claiming to be haunted or had a civil war figure there, I'm not sure they are notable. I think your citation constitutes local coverage, like "the Bates Motel next to the old widow's place" or something. My ex-wife IIRC used to find directories of these things, they would need to be quite distinctive to be notable AFAIK. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also per lack of any notability outside the local scope Corpx (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No non-local notability; no verifiable sources despite tagging requesting such for over six months; also is a standard modern building built in 1976, with some faux Colonial Williamsburg facade. N2e (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DUST 514[edit]

DUST 514 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Contested PROD. PROD reason was: WP:NN future product PROD-2 reason was: WP:CRYSTAL: Unreleased product. Come back when game is released and duly covered. Contesting reason was: There will be great interest in this game. deleting this stub is premature.

• Delete per my PROD-2. The game is not yet notable. Also, the only two references in the article at this time are the developer company's press release and trailer. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy withdraw, as the article has been cleaned up and duly sourced over the past few days. Well done all! --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I just did a decent cleanup and added some reliable sources in there. It's big enough for a stub that can be expanded when more information comes in. You could possibly merge to EVE Online, but I personally think that would be a waste of time at this point, especially when more information comes in. MuZemike 23:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It appears sufficiently sourced, and as more info is released it would only be recreated. I'd say the press about it from multiple sources affirms notability. -- Commdor {Talk} 03:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For reasons already stated here, and that more information will be released soon for additional sourcing. Seriphyn (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above comments. Since the nomination, the article has been given sources to verify information about it and establish it's notability, and thus the original concerns that resulted in it being brought here have been addressed. --Taelus (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted by Syrthiss. Hut 8.5 18:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Raleigh[edit]

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

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

Apparent hoax. Can't find any references to this club on the Internet, they play in the "Southern Football League" (which doesn't have an article), none of the players have articles, and they claim to have won the Intercontinental Cup (basketball) twice (which is definitely false). Prod removed without a reason being given. Hut 8.5 20:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete hoax. I can't find a single (non wiki mirror) site that has the title and 1916 (year it was founded) on google. ^TheWeak_Willed 20:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Agree with nominator. Could find no information regarding the club. The claims made are false. Example: Southern Football League is actually a English football competition featuring semi-professional and amateur clubs from the South West, South Central and Midlands of England and South Wales. So strike one. Strike two ‘…basketball and volleyball teams play at the RBC Center. The RBC Center has no record of this claim. Strike Three (you are out) Darren Sanchez, listed as a player is actually is a comic book creator and figure in the comic book industry. ShoesssS ^Talk 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per excellent fisking by ShoesssS - good detective work! Eddie.willers (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - this is definitely a hoax. Re:soccer (my area of expertise), I can confirm they DON'T play in the Southern Football League (and have certainly never won it), they DON'T play at the WakeMed Soccer Park, and Walter Smith ISN'T manager. GiantSnowman 12:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - part of many hoax articles created by this user. Spiderone (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - creator seems to have put a lot of work into creating a huge and intricate walled garden of hoaxes relating to an alleged Southern Football League in the USA, but apparently not considered that if such a league existed it wouldn't have the word "football" in its title....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I've also speedy deleted (same thing, by same author) Columbia Farmworks Football Club, Richmond Force, Lexington United Football Club, Nashville Elite, Luanda Avante FC, Birmingham Iron Works, Olympique New Orleans, SC Atlanta, and associated logos. A.S. Rome has been redirected to A.S. Roma. Also speedied fictional players Lucio Silva, Marijan Berg, Daniel McAlindon. Rd232 ^talk 15:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have tagged this article for a speedy as well, as a blatant hoax. GiantSnowman 15:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I hadn't checked the creator's other contributions, they were blocked for vandalism. This can be speedied. Hut 8.5 15:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mission Syndicate[edit]

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

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

Prod contested by admin. Fails WP:N. Lacks references for over two years, highly unlikely this page is going anywhere.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - First, of all admins are not only allowed to contest prods, they are expected to do so before deleting. Second, the fact that no one is working on it is not a reason for deletion. Third, the reason given for the prod I contested was "This is a misleading article coming from a misleading front page." I don't know what that is supposed to mean, but as near as I could tell all 2 sentences of the article were factually correct. If not they should be corrected, rather than simply deleting the article.

Finally and most importantly, the subject of the article passes WP:N. The team plays in a professional league (albeit in a very minor sport) and has been the league champion at least one. It has received significant coverage in multiple RS such as "Blades' Hartlieb, Mission Syndicate win pro division in rout", "California teams capture four NARCh Platinum titles", and a few others.

Another alternative to deletion is to redirect to league's page, since this page currently has very little information. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- it has already been established that this league and obviously this team are of the semi-professional nature. The players on the team amount to nothing more than average joe's who have other jobs during the day. No pay or contracts can be offered to these players. In light of this, I would think a redirect could be beneficial to this page if a deletion is not available.keystoneridin! (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, that being semi-pro is a reason not to have articles about individual players, not teams. Actually, it would be quite unusual not to have an article about a semi-pro team. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the team appears to be covered regularly in sporting news -- Whpq (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - WP:NOEFFORT is no reason for deletion.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 13:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ze-gen[edit]

Ze-gen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Ze-gen. Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11 spam advertising. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ze-gen is an innovative green technology company and this page is extremely informative. This page helped me grasp the concept of liquid metal gasification which I believe to be one of the many technologies required to re-energize our community and environment. There are articles out there in this space enernoc that are much more geared towards advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Water2polo (talk • contribs) 20:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In-depth coverage by Forbes - Business Wire – earthtimes.org - International Business Times – CNET News – Boston Globe – Recycling Today – Patriot Ledger – Bloomberg plus numerous international sources, in my opinion, meets our notability criteria for inclusion here at Wikipedia. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shoessss. There are plenty of in-depth reliable sources in Google News Archive. This company easily passes WP:CORP and WP:V. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The coverage at sources listed above indicates that Ze-gen passes WP:CORP. "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Gary (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chew Valley Recreational Trail Association[edit]

Chew Valley Recreational Trail Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable organisation which no longer exists and no supporting references can be found for. — Rod ^talk 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, can't find anything apart from trivial mentions in local news and council meeting minutes. Hut 8.5 19:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was unable to find any substantial reliable sources in Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rang De[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Riddled with self links and trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 19:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nom is completely WP:RIGHT. Suprised this wasn't speedied. ^TheWeak_Willed 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment True, that this article is promotional but that can be changed. Just two reliable sources . But I think the main point here is that this is a totally new concept, at least in India. Although microlending exists , this is probably the first organization to offer people the opportunity to invest in microlending, at least the first in India. IMHO , this innovation makes it notable despite few RS. Will not vote because I like it. --Deepak D'Souza 02:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week delete; as failing WP:ORG. There is one genuine secondary source [8], but the only two other mentions I could find are reprints of the company press release [9], [10]. No objection to userification, since it is possible that more sources will be available in the future that will enable us to write a article based primarily on third-party sources. Abecedare (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:ORG. No objection to userfying, since it's likely that it will receive significant coverage in the near future. As Abecedare points out above, most of the coverage is regurgitated press releases. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Allowing eventual recreation later, if WP:ATHLETE is met Tone 19:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Fisher[edit]

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

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

fails WP:ATHLETE, since the United Football League doesn't actually operate yet, so there's no way in hell he can have had a cap. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per eventualism. The UFL is starting play this fall; with schedules and televised games and all of that. It is a fully professional league, and if all we are saying is that this person will become notable in a month and so we need to wait the month to delete and then undelete the article, that seems pointless. Since the reasons to delete become wrong in 1 month, why delete now? --Jayron32 22:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the fact that he's in the league doesn't mean he'll eventually be capped. In a month he has the possibility of at some point playing for the professional team. That doesn't mean that in exactly a month, bam! He'll have played and become notable. The standard set at WP:ATHLETE is that a player must have been capped for a team - simply being a member is not enough. Now, lets say we take away the fact that the league hasn't started yet - he's a player for a fully professional team and hasn't been capped yet. Under those circumstances the consensus is always to delete - why should that change because not only hasn't he been capped yet, he certainly WON'T be capped for at least another month? Ironholds (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Has never played professionally thus failing WP:ATH.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE; the current keep arguments violate WP:CRYSTAL and fall under WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. And perhaps it is WP:COI? –túrian^patois 01:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous athletes that create wiki pages, even ones that have not even played in the pros. I can link you to them if you want. I would do your research before you start to speculate on others. Also, I have real no affliation to the person "Patrick Fisher". We both grew up in the same area as him and was searching for him on wikipedia and realized he didn't have a wiki page. He has accomplished alot throughout his career and thought it should be recognized. When I created the account, I thought the title of the page created had to be the same as the username so that is why it is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick M. Fisher (talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you know of other articles created by their subjects, or about people who have not played at the professional or Olympic level, please let us know so that they can be examined. The existence of such articles does not justify the creation of others; that argument, which is not considered a valid one, is known as "other stuff exists" or more vulgar versions of the same. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to fly. Your username is Patrick M. Fisher while the article is Patrick Fisher. –túrian^patois 02:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are wrong so you know and shouldn't be so quick to judge. I told you why they are the same. Its my first time registering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick M. Fisher (talk • contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link us to other pages of players who have never played a professional game and I'll be happy to nominate them for deletion too. Ironholds (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second that, since I've been nominating a few of the guys I come across who haven't played professionally, I'll be happy to nominate some more.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While I was there when Patrick screwed over my Vols in the SEC Championship Game...he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. There's no proof the UFL will actually even get off the ground yet...we see startup leagues fail every single year. --Smashville^talk 21:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 15:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. --Giants27 (c|s) 15:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Montorsi[edit]

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

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

This article is about a person with no reliable sources to establish notability. A Google News search turn up no results for this person either current or in the past. A Google Web search turns up lots of social networking/business networking/directory entries as well as the subject being quoted as a spokesperson. However there are no articles about him that I could find.

There is a claim to two ICVA awards, one in 2007 and one in 2009. The ICVA 2009 award list does not show him being the recipient, but rather Myriad Global Media. No indication is given as to what was won in 2007 but his name is not mentioned in any of the 2007 award winner pages. Note that the ICVA awards entry requirements allow anybody to enter so long as they format the submission material correctly and pay an entry fee. The awards themselves appear to be non-notable as there is no coverage that I could find in Google News beyond a single press release. Whpq (talk) 17:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no reliable source coverage provided in the article, or found in my good faith search for sourcing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Pagancoss[edit]

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

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

While the article makes several claims of notability, none of the claims are verified by reliable sources. This is especially troubling in a biography of a living person. The article seems to be an autobiography, and I've informed the author of the conflict of interest guidelines. I've searched for coverage as "Harald Pagancoss" and "Harry Pagancoss", and have found no significant coverage of this person anywhere. -- Atama^chat 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Atama^chat 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —- Atama^chat 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -— Atama^chat 17:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dr.K. logos 18:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have found a few articles about him, searching under Harry Pagan-coss. He's got an MPH degree and he's a baker. He's written no books yet, and he's not head chef of a prominent restaurant. Unless he's got a whole lot of credits he's not showing, I don't think he's notable, especially since he's provided no references at all. I'd give him, or anyone interested, a week to gather what the article needs, or delete it. Rosencomet (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Since the AfD process takes 7 days, that should work out just fine. I alerted him to this AfD as soon as it was created (actually, I told him I would start the AfD before I even began it) so he should have time to back up what he's written. If he can do so with reliable sources, then excellent, I'll withdraw the nomination. -- Atama^chat 20:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Alberto Gomez President of Light Concepts PR, 305-394-8705 Office, 786-970-0287 Mobile, 305-445-3907 Fax, (55) 53 51 54 76 Mexico City, 0445516806471 Mobile www.lightconceptspr.com. I am Mr. Pagancoss' manager and publicist. The reason we have an email with hpagancoss as well as the username is to simplify matters for me. While Harry may not be known in the Anglo world, he is a rising star in the Hispanic market in Miami and beyond, has been invited to Mexico and is going to Puerto Rico for a very important interview to be aired in most of the Latin American countries. He is currently recording 13 episodes of his cooking TV show being done at culinary school, which will air by the Fall. So, it may not look to you that he is important, but he is. He IS the Executive Chef of his own company, while someone may not call that a "prominent" restaurant, just ask the Elite here in Miami who Harry Bakes is... He has actually tutored students from the Cordon Bleu in Miami in matters relating to Pastry. If you have any questions about his importance in our market, please feel free to call me. You can also watch his live interview from San Juan on August 27 via Telemundo, and an interview we just recorded today that will air in Univision, the largest network in the Hispanic market, on September 2nd during Prime Time hours to decide whether he is worthy of Wikipedia or not. You can also visit Facebook where he keeps his fans informed about his endeavors. I remain at your service to clarify any confusion. Harald Pagancoss 23:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Thank you Mr. Gomez for replying here, and clarifying things somewhat. Wikipedia has a particular set of criteria to determine a person's notability, which might not match what you (or many other people) would consider notability. What matters most is that reliable sources cover Mr. Pagancoss in-depth, please see WP:RS to see what this project considers to be reliable. If your client is experiencing success and his fame in increasing that is wonderful and I wish him the best. It is quite possible that in the near or far future he might achieve coverage in sources acceptable to the project, and at that time the article can be recreated. Thank you again. -- Atama^chat 01:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per clear lack of verifiability and what seems to be a promotional vanity page. MuZemike 00:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The aim of the page seems to be to promote this person’s notability ahead of his having achieved it. Ian Spackman (talk) 01:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No verification of notability. Fails WP:BIO. The whole "article" (and photo) consists of WP:PROMOTION. Johnuniq (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no links, no good. Kayau Wuthering Heights VANITY FAIR paradise lost 07:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article subject is not notable. Warrior4321 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THIS DELETION As you can see, we have added links to verify this the information. But for some reason, they are not showing on the page, only when I sign in do I see the links I have added. We are also working, but time has not allowed me to, on the Spanish version of the biography. It bothers me that NONE of you even know anything about the notability of people in Spanish television and judge whether a person is notable or not. It is like going to Boswana and saying look at Rachael Ray she is very important, but the people there say...who is she? Is she then not "notable" just because the people there don't even know who she is? I am working on this article little by little, adding pictures, links etc. when I can. Unfortunately we don't have al the time of the world to spend hours putting everything together. I find this troubling, when you have some of my other clients, with the same fame as Mr. Pagancoss in Latin America and less links to verify and you have them on Wikipedia. I also find it troubling how the people of thi panel just blatantly come to conclusions without even having the knowledge. As I said, we are working on adding and shaping the article so that it will be complete. To the person who says this is a vanity article...she or he should know more facts before saying so. Aren't all living persons bios somewhat vanity-based? I find this commentary not constructive or fact based. Once again, I repeat, we are working on adding more sources. Also, before saying "he is not "famous yet"...again, watch Spanish TV. If you guys delete this, I feel you are not so unbiased as you say. I will certainly make a point to mention it in the mass media, especially the one that concerns me which is the Hispanic market in the US so that people can see how the anglo TV personalities are "notable" but the ones in the Spanish market are not. Trust me. Thank you. Alberto Gomez (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Rachel Ray meets WP:BIO, then it doesn't matter who knows her. The article we have nominated for deletions fails WP:BIO. That is why. We do not delete them by knowledge of the person. (See WP:IDONTKNOWIT for more details). Warrior4321 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no bias. The only bias would be allowing this article to stay when so many others are deleted for the same reasons. Let me put this bluntly... Wikipedia is not a place for advertisement. You are paid to promote Mr. Pagancoss and Wikipedia is not the place to do that. -- Atama頭 18:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, he has his own TV show and has enough national TV appearances and radio and press in Latin American countries I do not need to use Wikipedia to promote him. He does that on his own. This is to EDUCATE his fans here in the states, those who speak English and those who will be watching him when his show starts broadcasting here. Education is not promotion, it is allowing to state some facts so that people get instructed. Alberto Gomez (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article subject must meet WP:BIO to be included in Wikipedia. Since he is an entertainer, he must meet one or more of the criteria :

1. Has had significant roles in multiple commercially produced or significant films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.
2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.
3. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior4321 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 23 August 2009

• Comment: Has anyone bothered to notice that "Alberto Gonzalez" is User:Hpagancoss?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Niteshift36 (talk • contribs)

• Reply - Of course he is. Have you bothered to read User talk:Hpagancoss? And I removed your SPA tags, there is no User:Alberto Gomez. -- Atama頭 22:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have put User:Hpagancoss up for WP:MFD as it turns out to be substantially the same content as Harald Pagancoss. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I thought about doing that myself when I first saw it, I was going to do that after this AfD. -- Atama頭 06:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of NFL nicknames. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of aliases used by NFL players[edit]

List of aliases used by NFL players (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Very short list, duplicates List of NFL nicknames and List of sportspeople by nickname, both of which have rather extensive lists of NFL players. B (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant due to the lists mentioned by User:B. youngamerican (wtf?) 22:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - To said article.--EchetusXe 13:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bob Barker#Autobiography. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Priceless Memories[edit]

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

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

Article has been stub for over 60 days, includes no detail other than infobox. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Bob Barker#Autobiography, where it is already covered. Whilst "has been stub for over 60 days" is not a reason to delete anything and "includes no detail other than infobox" is not true, I don't see much point in having this as a seperate article. Hut 8.5 18:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - not sure about the notability, but the reason provided in the nomination is not an appropriate reason for deletion. Rlendog (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under the G8 criterion. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 06:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L-Men Of The Year 2009[edit]

L-Men Of The Year 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

non-notable competition not covered by multiple reliable sources. Cameron Scott (talk) 16:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am informed it's actually a G8. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States dishes[edit]

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

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

Normally, I am a big fan of lists but this is really better handled as a category Rmhermen (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it duplicates category and has no chance of ever truly being completed. besides, couldnt it include any dishes commonly served in america that came from nonwestern cultures: chicken chow mein, goulash, spaghetti, etc. inclusion criteria would be too vague, while category inclusion is easier, as it would be a major quality of the food being american. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW and nom. I agree with Mercurywoodrose that (a) the list would never be completed and (b) too many adopted foods are "American." (How about a New Mexican flat enchilada topped with a fried egg? Or is that a fried pie or a Cornish pasty?) Geoff ^{T C} 22:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Can you just move this somewhere please?. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hypoglycemia (alternative medicine)[edit]

Hypoglycemia (alternative medicine) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I can't quite tell whether this is supposed to be a alternativist POV fork of hypoglycemia or a coatrack to have a go at alternative medicine, but there's so little here distinct from the main article, and almost none of that referenced, that it's not really doing much. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC) ETA - I retract this; I think the page needs reworking a bit and probably renaming, but the talk page explains the rationale for the page's existence Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Largely redundant to the parent article, not enough for a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (salt). Absolutely no use, and not a likely search term. Bearian (talk) 18:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's redundant to the hypoglycemia article. The person who made this article should consider participating in the hypoglycemia article instead. Gary (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• SAVE It's really hard to respect DELETE opinions that completely ignore the extensive discussion of the need for such an article. Read the entire talk:hypoglycemia page, especially the last few sections. Further evidence that the article is needed is at talk:idiopathic postprandial syndrome and talk:reactive hypoglycemia. The editor who wrote 95% of the hypoglycemia article content IS the editor who created the hypoglycemia (alternative medicine). As explained on the talk page, the purpose is exactly the opposite of an attempt to attack alternative medicine, but is rather an attempt to reduce the confusion caused by two sets of editors with conflicting understandings of two different conditions that unfortunately share a name. The title and separate article were created after amply documented discussions with editors interested in both types of the condition. I am open to suggestions for a different title, and I would be happy to have more contributions to it AFTER you understand the distinction. I plead guilty to not following up quickly with content after creating the article, but you can see a list of references ready for insertion toward the end of talk:hypoglycemia, and I promise to add more content in the next couple of months. I also promise that more content will be added by other editors because there has been a steady trickle of attempted contributions to hypoglycemia over the last couple of years that are only appropriate to hypoglycemia (alternative medicine): now they can be transferred to a natural home. alteripse (talk) 23:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think I now see what's going on, and yes, I misunderstood the point. Not sure how I failed to read the talk page, though; sorry. I think that alternative medicine is a bit red herring here, since it's about a colloquial imprecise use rather than a different system of medicine. Given the article says The scientific medicine term for this condition is idiopathic postprandial syndrome. could we merge the page content with that article? Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and rename as above. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename which way? I am not especially wedded to hypoglycemia (alternative medicine), but idiopathic postprandial syndrome never caught on much even among physicians, and not a bit among those whose idea of hypoglycemia is this condition (as you can see from the talk page comments). I am in favor of honoring some form of "the most likely name someone will search for an article is the best title". Those interested in the alternative form of hypoglycemia universally call it "hypoglycemia" and go immediately to the hypoglycemia article. This way a banner at the top will send them to the article about the condition they will recognize. Any other suggestions before we close this page and let Hairhorn, Bearian, and Gary resume patrolling Pokemon articles and ruling on school and band notability? alteripse (talk) 01:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

was thinking maybe Hypoglycemia (colloquial) or Hypoglycemia (non-medical usage)? Neither great, but alternative medicine is a separate can of worms best avoided herePseudomonas_(talk) 06:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about avoiding alt med. How about hypoglycemia (common usage) ? alteripse (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for that - "common usage" is more colloquial than "colloquial" :) Pseudomonas_(talk) 11:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to American Idol (season 8). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Langseth[edit]

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

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

Semi-finalist on American Idol (season 8) that fails WP:MUSIC. Trivial mentions in non-reliable sources provided as references support no in-line text and having a brother who won a Grammy Award is WP:NOTINHERITED. Aspects (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Amazingly, all that I can find is trivial mentions. Seems like an AI semi finalist would have a bio somewhere that is reliable, but I can find nothing of the sort. ^TheWeak_Willed 20:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely reliable sources and enough notable singer and songwriter. Facha93 (talk) 19:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I actually had made this into a redirect but I was reverted a couple of weeks later. She clearly doesn't reach notability. --User:Woohookitty ^{Diamming fool!} 02:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Redirect: Per WoohooKitty. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casanova mohanlal film[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD, reason was: Filming has not been completed on future movie A More Perfect Onion (talk) 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This appears to be the same film about which an article was AfD'd and deleted in March of this year. Deor (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't looked into the notability yet, but since the title is wrong, the Gnews link above will be incorrect - use this instead - 26 hits for Casanova+Malayalam, and it looks like of the first 10, nine are about the movie. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I invite editors to look at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Casanovva (at least my version is sourced) which I had userfied on March 18, after the last AfD and in the hopes of it actually beginning to film on the scheduled April date. I did not return it to main pages in April because filming was postponed indefinitely. [11], [12], [13]. Contrary to the text of this newer article, the film did NOT begin filming in April of 2008... nor April 2009 as sources predicted. The latest news (June '09) is that there are "plans" to make it in the Tamil language instead [14]. Sadly, it is still too soon for this article. Let the darn thing actually begin filming... anywhere. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think MichaelQSchmidt has provided sufficient reasons for this action. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll be adding I've added the sources reffing postponement to the background section of the userfied March article. If the film is ever made, I'd be glad to bring it back. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The Ring (2002 film). Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in The Ring[edit]

List of characters in The Ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

A list of characters in one film. There is no need for a list of characters in one film. If it was a series, it would be necessary. This article is covered enough in the film article. Joe Chill (talk) 16:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the film article, or expand to cover the film series, Japanese film series, Japanese TV series, Japanese manga, Japanese novel series. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the main film article. Both the character list and the movie article itself are relatively short, so I believe they would make a good compliment to each other. Alternatively, as an anonymous user above said, expand it to include all "Ring" media-related characters. - Qinael λαλεω 01:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with the main article. Edward321 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cars characters[edit]

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

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

A list of characters in one film. Joe Chill (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you elaborate your reasoning for this, I wasn't aware that Wikipedia had prohibited list articles for fictional characters. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 16:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a list of characters in one film. If it was a series, it would be necessary. This article is covered enough in the film article. Joe Chill (talk) 16:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on that. I see your rationale and agree that we probably don't need a list article for just one movie. Delete Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Merging this back into the main Cars article is not a good idea at this time. SpikeJones (talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep while it is only one movie, it is the topic of numerous childrens books. A merge with Cars would be completely unrealistic. ^TheWeak_Willed 19:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete - Film characters are easily described within a cast section, so there is no need to bloat an article by repeating the same plot information over and over again. TTN (talk) 19:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - remember, the same characters will be seen in Cars 2, so duplicating that cast/character info on each film's page may not be a good idea. SpikeJones (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's done in the Star Wars articles, two of which are featured articles, so it should be perfectly fine to do so with these two. Simple characters like these only need a few sentences anyway. The current information in this article is just filled with useless information. TTN (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well referenced. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:31, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not a huge fan of this article, but because the characters are largely modeled after real-life (notable) vehicles, the level of detail is such that it is far too large to fit into the main article. Powers ^T 12:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to 461,981,604 reasons I can think of to keep, the claim that it is "one film" is not entirely accurate. See Cars_(film)#Merchandising, i.e. Cars 2 (a sequel film), Cars (video game), Cars: Radiator Springs Adventures, Cars Mater-National, Cars Race-O-Rama (that is correct at least THREE video games for major consoles), Mater and the Ghostlight (a short), Cars Toons (a series), and finally Cars Land (a whole section of a major amusement park!). You can play with toys of, will be able to ride rides of, watch in multiple films and shorts, play as in video games, etc. these various characters who are naturally discussed in all the previews and reviews of these various extensions of the franchise. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every dollar spent on movie tickets to see the film is a separate reason to keep an encyclopedia article listing its characters? Powers ^T 14:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, because I believe every person counts.  ;) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even though this article has undergone many rewrites in its time, surely it can be made notable if characters from the videogames are included here. Plus, with Cars 2 on the way, this article will not cover just one film for very long. In other words, I support A Nobody and believe that this is the step we must take to make this article viable. --Crablogger (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep! I can't believe this is up for deletion! Keep it-every little, silly, trivial detail. Isn't this the whole point of Wikipedia? Where else are you going to find background info on the early life of Guido the forklift? This is the whole point of Wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.81.249 (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list article should consist of links to other articles. Most of the characters are not notable enough to merit their own pages. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "not notable" is not a valid reason for deletion, though. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to have misseed my point. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Trim and merge; the article fails to provide real-world context about the fictional elements, especially context that would signify such a list of characters from one film outside that film's own article. A reasonable amount of fictional detail should be included at the "Cast" section of Cars (film). —Erik (talk • contrib) 18:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The list is detailed and very well done. Those who want to know more about the characters from the movie Car, can find it here. Dream Focus 17:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The characters appear enough different media that it makes more sense to have a separate article instead of copying the information across several pages. Edward321 (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salah Ben Djoudi Benabdellah[edit]

Salah Ben Djoudi Benabdellah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

This site [15] confirms that he hasn't played for any of his clubs and even if he did it doesn't matter as the Algerian league isn't fully pro Spiderone (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has not played in a pro league.--EchetusXe 13:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn because the result is obviously going to be a keep. Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Incredibles characters[edit]

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

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

A list of characters in one film. There is no need for a list of characters in one film. If it was a series, it would be necessary. This article is covered enough in the film article. Joe Chill (talk) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The film in notable enough to deserve an extra article for the characters SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 17:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per splette. SpikeJones (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This was originally spun out of the main article on the basis of length, a concern that I think still applies. I just don't see the potential for the massive cutting (over 50%) that would make this content fit into the parent article. Secondly, though they have appeared in only one "major motion picture" these characters have appeared in a variety of other media including a direct to DVD short film, a video game with 2 squeals, and an ice show. This relatively wide exposure for characters from a single film, makes broad coverage appropriate. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the aforementioned rationales. Nightscream (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldnt it make sense to rename the article Characters in The Incredibles, as naming it a list implies (to me) a less extensive write up on each, with links to pages that cover in more depth. Or is there a history of lists with longer writeups?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well written. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eluchil404 (talk) 07:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- but. The main characters all have their own articles; we don't need their information spread between the main The Incredibles article, their individual articles, and this list. I would prefer to see the main characters removed and leave this list for the minor characters who don't have their own articles and whose details would be excessive for the main article. A lot of the information here is just plot summary anyway. Powers ^T 13:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. but willing to revisit if someone who reads thai can check out the sources and enlighten us whether its the same person in the articles and what they are about Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nitichai Chamchoi[edit]

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

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

Hasn't played at the top tier of Thai football and appears to fail WP:GNG Spiderone (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable athlete with no significant coverage in WP:RS. Jogurney (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has not played in a pro league.--EchetusXe 13:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unlike most Thai players nominated recently, I'm getting 100s of Google hits for this player (พร้อมพงษ์ กรานสำโรง), rather than 1 or 2. Many are media articles. In addition to the one referenced above, there is also [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]. He easily meets WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 04:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't read Thai (shock horror) so can't tell if these sources constiture "significant coverage" - can anyone enlighten me? GiantSnowman 09:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pollawat Thongkao[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in the Thai Premier League. Spiderone (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and no evidence of significant coverage in WP:RS. Jogurney (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Has not played in a pro league.--EchetusXe 13:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. BIO requires multiple sources Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prompong Kansumrong[edit]

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

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

Plays in the 3rd tier of Thai football. Therefore fails WP:ATHLETE. He has an impressive goal record, if it's true, but that alone isn't a good enough reason for a page. Spiderone (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The subject is prominently featured in this Korat Daily article; seems to somewhat meet the basic criteria for WP:Notability (people), although this is pretty borderline. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 15:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes but you have to understand that he plays 2 divisions below the professional league. Spiderone (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and to quote WP:BIO, "Failure to meet these [additional] criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included," although I don't argue against the fact that the subject's source of potential notability remains limited to his athletic role. --Paul_012 ^(talk) 16:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK but the coverage must be substantial. I'm not sure one article is enough. For example many players such as Rafael were deleted repeatedly before they passed WP:ATHLETE even though there were a few decent sources. Spiderone (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While scoring a double hat-trick would usually be an impressive achievement, scoring one in the third division of Thai football makes it markedly less impressive. – PeeJay 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Six goals at amateur level is not notable.--EchetusXe 12:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alif Paoh-ji[edit]

Alif Paoh-ji (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG as he hasn't played for his club Spiderone (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 17:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - hasn't played senior game.--EchetusXe 12:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no reason to delete. Tone 21:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beckenbauer Seur-In[edit]

Beckenbauer Seur-In (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

I suspect this might be a hoax article. A Google search doesn't yield anything except stuff that links to Wikipedia. If he has played for Thailand there should be evidence somewhere on FIFA or AFC or whoever. Spiderone (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 15:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, speedy close. I don't know what the nominator searched for, but this really doesn't look like a hoax. [23] [24] [25] These may not all qualify as RS's, but there does seem to be enough out there to validate the article. There also may be variations in the way the name is rendered in this alphabet. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep - international player. GiantSnowman 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per G11. Smashville^talk 14:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hngil[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company. Tckma (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, spam. Already speedied once today, consider salting. Hairhorn (talk) 14:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Probable advertising; article creator also made several redirects to the article, to wit:

Glass india

Glass packaging

Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd ‎

Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Limited ‎

Hindusthan national glass ‎

The second redirect in particular leads me to wonder if the editor's intent is not consistent with making an encyclopedia entry. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 20:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closing note. Subsequent to the closing of this AfD the editor LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was found to be a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked editor NoCal100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Wikidemon (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False Moshe Ya'alon quotation[edit]

False Moshe Ya'alon quotation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

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

An article on this same topic was already deleted once; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation. Although this article does cite two reliable sources (Columbia Journalism Review and the Toronto Star), it still constitutes undue weight. Why does this quotation need an article of its own? Note that the article also heavily relies upon a citation to CAMERA, an unreliable right-wing pressure group that has engaged in POV-pushing on Wikipedia as confirmed by the Arbitration Committee. The creation of this article was designed to skew the debate and engage in what could be termed POV by volume. As Eleland noted in the past deletion discussion, "The article is not intended to enlighten anyone, but rather to appear in Google results." The article creator, Historicist, has said that "This needs a page of its own so that it will be in the public record" (see Talk:False Moshe Ya'alon quotation) and is attempting to use this as part of a POV-pushing, BLP-violating campaign against Rashid Khalidi. This needs to be stopped now. *** Crotalus *** 13:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Contrary to the nominator's claim, the previous article was not deleted - it was merged and redirected to Moshe Ya'alon. Since then, new material has come to light - specifically - a lengthy report in the 'Toronto Star' covered the incident, and numerous publications which carried the original hoax have retracted and apologized. Having the highly respected Columbia Journalism Review dedicate a lengthy article to this bogus quote establishes notability in itself, as do the other sources. CAMERA, according to the Toronto Star, played a key part in exposing the hoax, so it is quite appropriate to cite them on this matter. Alleging bad faith on the part of the editor who created the article is not a very convincing, nor relevant argument. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 13:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The documentation of this incident cannot be squeezed into the Moshe Ya'alon article. Moreover, it is a quite a major incident in that this was an instance in which someone actually invented a quite aggressive statement for a leading public figure. Ya'alon deserves to have all of the details laid out in full. It is at least as significant that academic figures like Saree Makdisi and Rashid Khalidi are publishing academic books using citations to sources that they have not read. The attempt to airbrush this matter by deleting the article is reprehensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamilton23 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC) — Hamilton23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Indef blocked sockpuppet nableezy - 16:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind WP:Good Faith. Yes, I am one of the editors suggesting the article should be merged into others. But one of the reasons I have stayed out of editing I/P articles for the most part is that I'm pretty sure I may have a pro-Israel POV. So I don't think it's fair to brush editors who disagree with you as "attempt[ing] to airbrush this matter". Singularity42 (talk) 14:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, although with considerable concern given the occasionally tumultous history of articles in this area. The references do show the subject is sufficiently notable that deletion is not appropriate. Apart from that, merger into the subject's article would appear to make a lot of sense, however, I don't want to offer a "drive-by" opinion since I do not know the full history of the articles in this area. It is enough to note that a keep decision here in no way precludes subsequent editors from obtaining consensus and deciding to merge, rename or the like. As an aside, I added the normal talk page templates to this article, including a reference to the general sanctions that all Arab-Israeli article are subject to per ARBCOM. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - There's just nothing justifying keeping this issue as a stand-alone article. It's currently covered in Moshe Ya'alon, and could be added to other bio articles if necessary. If there's a strong enough need, the paragraph in the Ya'alon article could be expanded to its own section for easy reference and distinguishment. Right now, the stand-alone just narrating the Toronto Star article, with a couple extra references thrown in here or there. There have been essentially two arguments made to justify the existence of a stand-alone article (I'm paraphrasing the two arguments, by the way):

• "It's important to have a stand-alone article to make sure there is a proper public record. People could remove the entry from the other articles, like Moshe Ya'alon." Well, (a) it is still part of a public record if it's part of another article and not a stand-alone article. In fact, I would think that someone worried about Ya'alon's reputation would want the info in Ya'alon's article, not in a seperate article; (b) yes, someone might remove the info from the other articles. If it's done as vandalism, it is easily fixed. If it is done for other reasons, and is controversial, there are a number of remedies, including dispute resolution. A stand-alone article doesn't fix that.
• "Two respectable publishers have written an article about the issue." Fantastic! Good for them! How does that justify the creation of a stand-alone article? Articles are written about all kinds of issues and events, and usually in multiple newspapers. That doesn't mean it's noteable enough for a stand-alone article. See WP:News articles. As you can see from this edit, I do think that having those sources is enough for Wikipedia to say in any article that the quote was falsly attributed to Ya'alon, and I think it is highly relevant to his bio article. But it still doesn't justify a stand-alone article. Singularity42 (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged Ya'alon quotation. The material is already in other articles (see here) and there is no reason at all to have a standalone article. This, as the previous article, is only here to appear in google. There is no substantial difference between this article and this, which was redirected to CAMERA by consensus. I see no reason why that should be changed now and the slight change in the name of the article doesn't change that either, it was only a way to get around the prior discussion and make us go through this again. nableezy - 16:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I'm an inclusionist, and I believe the article can be written in a neutral fashion. It is a newsworthy event, and it's about an event (a journalistic inaccuracy) that occurred over a span of years, so it's not just a single news item. Although Wikipedia does not elevate many quotations at all to article status, much less misquotes, there are a few and they can be encyclopedic and instructive to the reader. This probably won't remain stable, but in this version[26] I've just edited out of it all the synthesis, original research, and opinion I could find. The article is probably a magnet for POV, BLP violations, Israeli-Palestinian edit squabbles, and who knows what else, but that alone is not grounds for deletion. Troubled articles deserve attention, not removal. My main problem is lack of sourcing. We have only two reliable sources to date, the Toronto Star and the Columbia Journalism Review pieces, and each of them are just short "commentary on the news process" type pieces. The article in its present state milks them for about all they are worth, repeating the majority of facts from each article. So it can't get much better than it is, unless other sources come out. Do two news stories about a quotation make enough fodder for an article? I'm not sure. Anyway, if this is deleted it should not be merged, because there is no article where it would not be a major WP:WEIGHT violation to include a large chunk of this text. The articles about CAMERA and Ya'alon already contain due mention, and there are some BLP and POV problems with adding this to the litany of articles about every last journalist who has repeated the material, something that off Wikipedia is being done for partisan purposes to discredit individuals perceived as being anti-Israel. Wikidemon (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all information. No point in having a double article. If it isn't a double article then keep Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am staying neutral on this subject, but just commenting that the nominator is proposing to delete the article, not merge it, as implied by your post. Did I misunderstand your words? —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per LOTRQ. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't answer the question posed since LOTRQ posted the first set of comments. How does the existence of two newspaper articles justify enough notability for it's own stand-alone article in WP. That can't be criteria, and there is some consensus about what role the existence of newspaper articles corresponds to the need for a WP article - i.e. WP:News articles (I accidentially used WP:New article in my previous comments, which I have now fixed...). Singularity42 (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question has been answered, in my comments. I will clarify them, since it apparently was not clear enough: Unlike WP:News articles, which is a personal essay and does not reflect any consensus nor wiki policy, WP:Notability is a guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow. WP:Notability states that 'A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below.' The general notability guidelines state that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The 2 lengthy articles in the Toronto Star and the Columbia Journalism Review satisfy the requirement of having significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject -> the topic satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essay helps clarify what would otherwise be an inconsisent policy. Also from WP:Notability: "However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability..." Let me be absolutely clear about my position: I am in no way suggesting the issue isn't noteable. It's just that it's not noteable enough for it's own article. It make much more sense for the issue to be described where it already is. Singularity42 (talk) 02:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is, once again, one person's opinion. It does not clarify anything - it is one person's take on policy. What is policy, on the other hand, is WP:Notability. You are suggesting that the topic is "not noteable enough for it's own article" - but that suggestion is clearly incorrect according to the very clear language of WP:Notability which states that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, our inclusion requirements are stricter than that. Policy is determined by what we actually do, not what is written on a page somewhere. Articles are often deleted on the grounds of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT, for example, even if they have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." *** Crotalus *** 14:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that in practice the requirements are stricter, and you have not shown that they are, or why they should be in this case. WP:NOTNEWS says 'Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article' - but this is hardly what this topic is about, and the fact that this event spans several years would also make the invocation of WP:NOTNEWS inappropriate. As to WP:ONEEVENT - you simply do not understand what it says, or have not read it - it is about 'Articles about people notable only for one event' - not the event itself. Every event is a singular event. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the subject does pass the formal notability criteria by a nose - two independent major sources giving detailed treatment. Thus, I think per notability guidelines this event could have an article. The question for me is whether it should have an article. Not everything that's notable has its own article - we'd have 50 million articles, not just 3, if that were the case. For me it's not completely clear that these two sources together give enough information. There are so many more questions here that they don't answer, but may be answered by original research on the primary sources: why did Henry Siegman write that sentence, and what was he getting at? Did Ya'alon use the phrase "seared deep", as Siegman claimed? Who was the first person to attribute Siegman's words to Ya'alon, and who plagiarized it from them? It is interesting and encyclopedic to trace the history of a misquote, if only more sources thought it notable enough to discuss. Ya'alon is a very important political figure, apparently, so a famous misquote is a not insignificant event. I wonder if there are any sources in Hebrew. Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subject passes the notability criteria, and I'm not that interested in a discussion of whether it passes "by a nose" or "by a length". It passes. Wikipedia is not paper, and if there are 50 million articles that pass the notability guideline - all the better. I haven't seen that the project's goal is limited to 3 million or 10 million articles. I also agree with you that the article is not complete, and that the current sources do not address all we'd like to know about the topic - all the more reason to keep the article and expand it, through the addition of sources that perhaps do have these answers. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - What new information has been presented on the topic? Has anything regarding the "false quote" changed substantially since the first AfD that resulted in a merge? The difference between this article and the version before redirect in January seems to largely consist of expanded prose, not expanded sources or justification. It is still quote reported --> quote quoted --> quote debunked, and nothing else. It is mentioned already in Moshe Ya'alon. Redirect if that is preferable, though IMO the it is an implausible search term, and deletion would be preferable. Tarc (talk) 19:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lets be fair here. There is a difference between the old article and the new article, in the sense that there is now an impartial, reliable secondary source that has reported the quote was false - which wasn't the case with the old article. I still don't think the issue merits its own WP article, but I do agree with the other editors that the situation before is different from the situation as of August 8, 2009. Singularity42 (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it was already known it was false in the first article. Did another source commenting on it matter make it any more false? Tarc (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not make the quote more false, but it made the topic more notable. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another source can't hurt for citations in another article, but it doesn't warrant one of its own. Tarc (talk) 14:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the general notability guideline says. It says if multiple RS's significantly covered a topic - it warrants its own article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also has that "...presumed to satisfy..." part, which most seem to overlook. I just don't see the need for a separate article for a quote, and a false one at that. We're not exactly in Ich bin ein Berliner or Read my lips: no new taxes territory here for widespread notability or coverage. Tarc (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When something is "...presumed to satisfy..." , then the onus is on those arguing for deletion to come up with some VERY good reasons why the presumption does not stand. Simply stating "I just don't see the need for a separate article", which is a variant of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not such a reason. As for notability and coverage - this has been addressed - 2 lengthy articles in highly respected reliable sources, one of them dedicated to journalism review, satisfy the notability requirement stated in WP:NOTABILITY. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And those reasons have been given, none of which come remotely close to "don'tlikeit" territory which you spuriously claim. Nothing has changed with the situation to make it any more notable than the last AfD discussion; 1 more source does not tip the scales to inclusion. There's really nothing more to say on this tangent, so I'll just sit back and see what the closing admin has to say in a few days. Tarc (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons you give above are "I just don't see the need for a separate article for a quote"- which is extremely close to "I don't like it", and "We're not exactly in Ich bin ein Berliner or Read my lips: no new taxes territory here for widespread notability or coverage." - which has been addressed by pointing out to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as required by the general notability guideline. If you have no other policy-based argument for deletion, it is indeed wise for you to sit back. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was "sitting back" due to tiring from your pedantry. My point all along, which you have been either unable or unwilling to understand, is that nothing significant has changed in regards to this issue from the first AfD. One new citation does not get this issue into "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" territory, not by a long shot. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to see that you consider responding to your arguments (such as they are...) 'Pedantry'. Your claim that "nothing significant has changed in regards to this issue from the first AfD" is simply false. Since the first AfD, 2 lengthy articles which directly address the topic have been published, in reliable sources of the highest order. It is not "One new citation", but exactly what our general notability guideline requires - 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject'. If you fail to see how the additon of these two new lengthy articles which directly address the topic are a material change, you need to review the relevant policies. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable false quote, covered by serious sources. This isn't just about Ya'alon, but also about journalistic practice, so it belongs in its own article. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we also have an article on the Fake Martin Luther King Quote that pro-Israel polemicists keep citing? " You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely 'anti-Zionist.' ...When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews..." Great quote, except he never said it.[27] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.171.211 (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this fake quote was covered by multiple reliable sources, I don't see why we wouldn't have such an article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Moshe Ya'alon. This false quote is notable, and we should cover it; but in fact, we already do, in the Moshe Ya'alon article. It doesn't seem to me that there's so much to say about that it needs to have its own page. Robofish (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Covered by many mainstream news outlets.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 18:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy (G4) sufficiently identical to article already deleted. Jon513 (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  the article has not been deleted before. Please exercise more care in the future. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe Jon513 is referring to Alleged Ya'alon quotation which went through AfD with a result to merge to the CAMERA article. nableezy - 19:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A "Merge" result is not a 'delete', making the invocation of G4 incorrect. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Says the "new" user with 700 edits to the admin with 7000. nableezy - 00:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The admin with 7000 got it wrong. There's no shame in that, we all make careless mistakes. You made this mistake as well, despite having 7,000+ edits, when you originally nominated this article for a Speedy. Luckily, we had an Admin with over 25,000 edits who came in, and declined the speedy, stating "WP:CSD#G4 applies to deleted material, whereas this was redirected. More importantly, G4 only applies to "sufficiently identical and unimproved" recreations of deleted material. In this case, it appears that the content and sourcing have been changed significantly since the AfD version. Since this recreation is not "substantially identical" to the redirected version, it is explicitly excluded from G4." Your response at the time was "fair enough", yet here you are agian, repeating this speedy argument which has been reviewed and declined. Makes one wonder... LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main point in the speedy decline was it was the declining admin felt that this was not sufficiently identical. I still do and so does Jon513 apparently. There is no need to argue with every single !vote. nableezy - 01:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very first thing the declining admin wrote was "WP:CSD#G4 applies to deleted material, whereas this was redirected." - which is exactly what I wrote to Jon513. Both you and Jon513 are wrong to invoke CSD#G4 here. Feel free to make other policy-based arguments. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really mater what you think about other people's opinion to be honest, and no one's opinion is "wrong". I too feel that the speedy would have been appropriate, as this version is materially the same as the redirected one...and that it was technically a redirect and not a delete is really an irrelevant point and smacks of wiki-lawyering every time you bring it up. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure MastCell, the admin who rejected the Speedy on this "technicality" would be happy to hear that you think he is wikilawyering. Why don't you post a note on his talk page? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need. :) Most speedy deletions are judgment calls. This was one. I can see the arguments on both sides - that is, I can see a reasonable argument to propose it as a G4, and a reasonable argument to oppose speedy deletion on grounds of material differences from earlier versions. My judgment was that the latter argument was more convincing and more in line with WP:CSD, but that doesn't make my judgment infallible. Another admin might have perused the same issue and, completely reasonably, come to a different decision.

In this case, the major factors in declining the speedy were 1) the addition of another significant source and the restructuring of the article convinced me that it was "materially different" from the earlier version, and 2) given that this is a gray area, it's better handled with wide discussion at AfD rather than as a judgment call of a single admin. I think that the redirect vs. delete issue is technical and relatively minor; I mentioned it for completeness, but I wouldn't have declined the speedy on those grounds alone. The speedy criteria are intentionally restrictive, and borderline or controversial cases are better handled at AfD with wider community input (in my opinion). As a final comment, it's fine to question or disagree with a decision of mine, particularly one in a gray area like this one. Sorry for the interruption, but my ears were burning... :) MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, obviously. Has there ever been a more WP:POINT or WP:SOAP article than this? OK, there are hundreds of them, what kind of idiot am I? Anyway, all we have is an alleged misquote, of the sort that happens all the time in the real world of academia and/or journalism, however terrible that might be. As has been pointed out, a couple of mentions of it in a couple of news reports does not a WP article make. Or should not, at least. Has anyone done a Google search of this term? Not an absolute clincher I know, but zero hits, absolutely none whatsoever, other than the WP stuff. A previous version of this article has already been deleted, and this one should go too - it absolutely does not need a page all of its own. And yes, I know I'm not allowed to comment on this sort of thing, but at least I make sense when I do - User:Jaakobou can take it to WP:AE if he likes. Even if my comment is ignored on that basis, can we at least have admin closure on the basis of policy, rather than a vote-count of partisan editors who tell us very loudly that they like this article just fine the way it is? --Nickhh (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not 'a couple of mentions of it in a couple of news reports', but several full length articles which discuss the topic in detail, precisely as the general notability guideline requires. Contrary to your claim, Googling for 'Moshe Ya'alon quote' brings up close to 10,000 related ghits. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop arguing with everybody? I am pretty sure Nickhh meant googling the title of the article. nableezy - 00:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a debate, not a vote. And debating is exactly what I am doing. I am not sure what he meant, but even Googling for the title of this article yields close to 3000 ghits LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is why google hits are a generally unreliable argument to make in most cases, and even it it was acceptable, 3,000 is a pittance. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was Nickhh who brought up the Google results, not me. I just corrected his misrepresentation of those results. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation? Are you out of your mind? Do you know what quotation marks are and what they are used for in search queries? Did you see the link with the search with the title in quotes return exactly 2 results, both WP pages? nableezy - 17:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't interact with other editors in a civil way, this is perhaps not the best place for you to be spending time. If you edit the above remark to something resembling civil discourse, I'll provide a response. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. nableezy - 18:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as WP:Be civil is a Wikipedia policy, please refrain from such non-arguments as Are you out of your mind? and Says the "new" user with 700 edits to the admin with 7000. --Chriswaterguy talk 18:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Anthony Jay[edit]

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

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

Musician who does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music), but has published an 84 page pamphlet for a music publisher. Has released one album on his own record label. Article was added to wikipedia by his PR company. Tagishsimon (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC) It's worth noting, for the avoidance of doubt, that Burningpetals is Richard Anthony Jay. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Incorrect. The 84-page book (that's book not pamphlet) was published by Schirmer Trade Books, part of Music Sales Group. Schirmer are a large book publisher with offices worldwide. Also, as clearly stated, RAJ has previously been signed to many music publshers and record companies, before releasing an album on his own record label Burningpetals
    • Can you provide references to say he's been on notable record companies? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Have just added a reference to a label release in 2007. Only one other label: a Japanese division of a major 10 years ago, so not easy to find references for, other than on a "rare CD's" site. Also, it was a band name, not RAJ. The other references are to music publishers and I have added a reference to a US publisher's news page Burningpetals
        • Just remembered and found another label release and added it as reference (9) Burningpetals (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability - references provided are either links to his site (or his record labels site), or, in one case, a link to a radio show track listing he made it onto. One play on a radio show does not a notable musician make I'm afraid. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 14:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I took up editing of this page after it was started by a publicist. There are many more references to radio playlists, but I didn't think it was a good idea to refer to them all. If that is what is required I will do so. Please confirm. It is also difficult to link to print publications, such as MUSO, whom don't have online versions of references. Also, there are references to more 3rd-party sites than you claim. Finally, I believe working with world-renowned artists such as the Hallé and Davy Spillane, is evidence of notability and there are numerous musicians on Wikipedia with far less notability.Burningpetals
      • Other things exist is not a good reason for inclusion, and notability isn't inherited. If there offline references then great, you can cite books and magazines, provided they are reliable sources (see WP:Cite book for how to do this). Inclusion on radio playlists is not evidence of notability. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about chart success ?? The album was number 16 on the New Age Reporter charts last month. Ref added to page. The book is now, I believe, properly cited. The article seems to demonstrate notability so I'm slightly at a loss as to what else would satisfy you. Burningpetals
          • Our criteria for musicians is set out at Wikipedia:Notability (music). It would be helpful if you could point to the criteria you satisfy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • No definition of "notable" appears to be given and I further note that "failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted". Nonetheless 'Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition' certainly applies and is demonstrated by references 4,7,8,9 and 16, with a semi-complete list of works listed in ref 5. 'Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable' also applies, and are demonstrated by 11-13, MUSO magazine citation and the book (or pamphlet as you regard it) and 'Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart' applies also, demonstrated by ref 15. Finally, 'Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc' also applies: most TV uses are uncredited but ref 8 & 9 demonstrates the "inclusion on a compilation album". Incidentally, I take issue with your removal of the underconstruction tag, without any warning or attempt to contact me, whilst the page was still being edited and researched. May I suggest reading Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningpetals (talk • contribs) 20:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Where is the verification that any of these works are 'notable composition'? Does 11-13 refer to MUSO, The Silent Ballet time 2? Blogs are not reliable sources, leaving MUSO which looks pretty trivial. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • What is the Wikipedia definition of 'Notable Composition' ?? There is no definition, that I can see, on Wikipedia:Notability (music). What makes one composition notable and not another ? Burningpetals (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm neutral on this at the moment, primarily due to the New Age Recorder report of playtime. That said, I notice that Burningpetals is the name of Jay's band, website, and the .com of all advertised emails, as well as the site hosting a significant portion of the referenced sources. Also, all contributions up to this point by user:burningpetals appear to be solely on the article under discussion. Burning, in the interest of disclosure, would it be safe to say that you have a vested interest in the subject matter? - Qinael λαλεω 01:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only 3 of the 16 references are burningpetals .... not that significant. But, yes - I've never tried to hide the fact that we are the record company. If I was trying to hide it then obviously I would have chosen a different username !! But an author having a Wikipedia:Vested_interest is not a reason for deletion, nor is anywhere as serious as a Wikipedia:COI: anyone who knows enough to create an article, obviously has an "interest". As to not having contributed to anything else, in the 10 days since I joined, I have been subjected to plenty of sarcasm, insinuation and been accused of being a sockpuppet (wholly without evidence I might add). Hardly the kind of welcome to encourage further participation .... Burningpetals (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. It's not so much about trying to hide as it is about disclosing ahead of time, as per WP:COI. As you might or might not have noticed, I'm neutral regarding whether this article should be deleted or not, primarily on the basis of the "New Age Top 40" chart. I'm uncertain as to the nature of that chart and how it's ratings are assessed, so I'm uncomfortable saying "yea" or "nay" since that might tip the notability rating for me, depending. One of our guidelines is simply to announce ahead of time if there is a vested interest for courtesy to others in reviewing your comments; another is to assume good faith. While I'm sorry if you've not received that elsewhere (though I'm not sure where else it would be, given your edit history...) I'd appreciate if you would assume good faith from me. I notice you tend to cite policies in a rather aggressively defensive manner, such as suggesting people read WP:DONTBITE when they disagree with your position. This isn't a personal discussion about you or about the subject of the article, and I don't think anyone has been unreasonable thusfar. Simply because you do not like something a person says does not make it a violation of policy. I suggest stepping back for a minute from the AfD and taking a breath before assuming someone is making insinuations, sarcastic remarks, accusations, etc. That said, I'm interested in more information about this Top 40 chart. Is it a national chart? Can it's reputation be established independently? How does it decide how albums are rated? - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 16:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello Qinael. It is my understanding that NAR charts are calculated from a large number of radio stations, predominantly in N.America but also a few overseas: so at the very least, it's National. If you click here [28] you can see the names of some of those stations and the 'Select Stations/Playlist' button on that page shows the entire list. I'm not sure if the scoring calculations are public knowledge - probably not otherwise one would be able to game the system - but I imagine it's number of plays with some kind of weighting for larger radio stations, but maybe there is more to in than that. As to it's reputation, I'm not sure how it could be verified exactly. A Google search shows up a lot of posts referring to it's yearly awards, it's charts, interviews, etc. as does a search here on WP.Burningpetals (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've never tried to hide the fact that we are the record company, you say; but you are not very upfront about the fact that you are Richard Anthony Jay, the subject of the article under discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is that accurate, Burningpetals? Are you in fact Richard Anthony Jay? - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 16:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes I am - I thought I had already made that clear in answer to your vested interest. And a few of the sites referenced in the article clearly state that burning petals is my record company. FWIW, I should also point out that I had no knowledge of the article's creation and found out due to my automated daily Google search. So - again - I don't believe there is a Wikipedia:COI Burningpetals (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • But you do confirm that Kathleen Adler - WildCatPR - who started the article, is or was your PR? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes that is correct. I started adding references to the article after I discovered it was put up for speedy deletion (by you, I believe). Adding references is covered under 'Non-controversial edits' at Wikipedia:COI Burningpetals (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) due to 'Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart'Burningpetals (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have very considerable doubt that the zonemusicreporter chart would be considered national or eligible under WP:N(Music). Details of how the chart is made up are scant; we do not know the input base nor - I think crucially - do we know which records are eligible for the chart and which not. Certainly the tracks listed on the chart all seem to be very obscure. UNless we know what we are dealing with here, I doubt that we can accept it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided a link above to the location of the "input base". As to eligibility, any record is eligible: broadcasters can play what they like and then if it is played enough times it appears in the charts. As to "obscurity" unless you are a fan of New Age music, I'm sure they would seem obscure. Though frankly, I'm surprised if you haven't at least heard of Philip Glass or Tangerine Dream.Burningpetals (talk) 17:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you have me there. I've met PG and seen TD, both in the charts at 67 & 62. Sadly your link to the input base is less than compelling evidence. It infers that input /may/ have been received from any of a long list of radio stations, but it does not (unless you are a member, presumably) actually show who voted. So was the chart based on inputs from 5 shows? 50? 500? There's nothing on the site to tell us. I refer you to WP:Duck: any chart in which only one of the top ten artists is known to wikipedia probably reflects well the relative lack of notability of the artists. BTW, - Qinael posed a question for you a few paragraphs back. I'm sure you'd not want to overlook it. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please direct me to the section of Wikipedia:Notability (music) that requires everything you just asked for. Because as far as I can see, I have proved that it is a National chart. Wikipedia:Notability (music) says nothing about requiring a certain number of artists to be known to Wikipedia or requiring a certain number of "inputs". Furthermore you don't seem to understand the concept of an airplay chart: there is no "voting" involved. It is an aggregation of data, possibly with some weighting applied by the aggregator (but I don't know for sure, as already explained above). Burningpetals (talk) 17:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to explain again. If we consider, say the UK Singles Chart, we learn that it gets input from around 6,500 UK retail outlets. We know nothing at all about how many inputs are in the zonemusicreporter chart in which your record appears. But let's try a thought experiment. How likely is it, realistically, that Koyaanisqatsi is charting, 27 years after its first release? And if it is, does that not suggest a very small sample size? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My request was a perfectly reasonable and valid one: please answer it, otherwise it seems like you are passing off your personal requirements as official Wikipedia requirements. Given that Koyaanisqatsi was performed live at the Hollywood Bowl last month, with the LA Philharmonic and Philip Glass [29], I'd say it's extremely likely that it would chart !! Burningpetals (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're trying to establish if the zonemusicreporter chart constitutes a national chart. That is my answer to your "Please direct me to the section of Wikipedia:Notability (music) that requires everything you just asked for". Tagishsimon (talk) --18:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the unsigned poster above me, it has already been established that the chart is National (if not International). Anyone can verify by looking at the list of broadcasters whose data is used to aggregate the chart (here [30] and then click on 'Select Stations/Playlist'. Many of the stations listed are on Wikipedia. Tagishsimon is infact demanding extra criteria, such as the chart having a minimum number of stations, which does not appear to be required of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Burningpetals (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, no such thing has been established, except in your mind. I;ve referred the question to WP:CHART. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: to the question "does charting on the zonemusicreporter chart count for meeting criteria 2 of WP:MUSIC?" in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Record charts#ZoneMusicReporter as Criteria 2 we have so far one resounding "no". --Tagishsimon (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The debate at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#C10_-_compilation_albums would seem to indicate that RAJ's two compilation appearances, is also grounds for a keep under Wikipedia:Notability (music), at least until Tagishsimon succeeds in changing the wording of the criteria. Burningpetals (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be consensus there that the requirement is that the compilations are notable. Are you making the claim that the compilations your tracks have been on are notable? Or are you wishing to suggest that any compilation no matter how obscure should suffice. I'd be grateful if you'd keep the ad hominem attacks to yourself. This is one of the problems having to argue these matters with the subject of the article, and one of the reasons we have WP:COI - it's all too easy for the subject of an article to get emotionally involved in the issue. Seeking clarification at appropriate places - as I've done twice in this AfD - would seem a fair and reasonable approach, one giving maximum consideration to the question of your notability. Suggesting that wikipedia policy will be bent merely to exclude you is not a healthy course of argument. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no attacking going on. I simply pointed out that you are seeking to change the wording of a policy and such change would mean that this article would not meet criteria. I did not say that this was your motive. Agreed ? You have acknowledged on Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music)#C10_-_compilation_albums that, under current wording, the compilations do not need to be notable. I am not going to muddy the water by saying whether I think they should be notable or not. I will further say that I would argue one of the compilations is notable because it was compiled by Wikipedia/British_Phonographic_Industry and therefore could be described as authoritative. Burningpetals (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands the criteria clearly states that the compilations must be notable. "Has performed music for a work of media that is notable" (bolding mine). Duffbeerforme (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I do not think this should be deleted, considering the amount of sources there are and does seem to pass Wikipedia:Notability (music). However, I do believe that it should have a discography section. I will go ahead and clean up the area that talks about Dead Can Dance, since that is some text that I find fault with. Backtable^{Speak to Me}about what I have done 22:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discography section is a good idea. I shall add one later this week. Burningpetals (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are enough sources that, taken together, seem to suggest reasonable notability for an independent source; foremost among these the mention of the album in Muso magazine and the inclusion in the Association of Independent Music's lineup. The playing on BBC3's "Late Junction" does not, to me, suggest notability considering the show is actually known for it's use of obscure music. Likewise, the New Age Top 40 has proven to be something of a can of worms to try and verify - if they are based on radio playtime, I suggest trying to establish notoriety based on WP:MUSIC criteria 12. I had originally intended to vote "Weak keep" based on the above, however the fact that the British Phonographic Industry included one of his songs on a CD representative of British music to MIDEM, billed as the world's largest music industry trade fair, is really what decided this for me. There's obviously some notability there under WP:MUSIC #10, per the compilation album clause. The inclusion by the A.I.M. also fits under this category. While that of itself would not be enough to warrant inclusion (as #10 itself says,) I think that this combined with the aforementioned is enough to warrant a keep. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 23:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe exact nature of the coverage in MUSO magazine (reference 11) is not clear from the article, and the link does not go to the MUSO article itself but the MUSO website. Would it be possible to provide a scan of or link to the article, or else summarize it's contents and nature? We have rules against considering self-written materials for notoriety (e.g. if you paid and provided them with a description and they ran it), however if the magazine itself wrote a piece regarding the album, I suspect that would establish notoriety beyond reasonable question. - Qinael λαλεω | δίδωμι 23:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a scanned copy of the CD preview in MUSO on RAJ's blog here [31] Burningpetals (talk) 08:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is a lot of references but there is mot many independent reliable sources. Those that are do not provide significant coverage of Jay. The most extensive is a very short review in MUSO. There is no indication any of the compilations mentioned are notable. Airplay given is far from rotation on a national network and charting is not a good chart. Article suggest there might be a possible notability as a composer but lacks sufficient details and verification. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources are imo either not reliable, or the coverage is not substanitally about Jay and doesn't add to WP:MUSICBIO, which seems not fulfilled. The most mention in reliable sources (outside of press releases) I could find was http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8208310.stm, a trivial mention. Hekerui (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesnt sappear to meet music and the saourcing is either unreliable or tangential or not directly about the subject, Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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