< 30 November	2 December >

Guide to deletion

The result was What da. This article seems to never have existed.

The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of fields of doctoral studies in United States[edit]

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

No indication of notability of subject. Basically a list of subjects that can be used for doctoral studies -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 1 December 2009 (UTC) PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Betsson. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casinoeuro[edit]

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

As their website says, this website "is operated by Betsson Malta Ltd". Betsson has an article, which this should be redirected to, just like every other online gambling company like PartyGaming and Bwin. A single purpose account has created the article and keeps changing the redirect. Online gambling companies normally have several or even many dozens of intechangeable website doorways with their own licenses, but they are just different names for the same product of the company. We'd have hundreds more of these repetitive articles, basically just repeating the same info over and over about the parent company, if we made individual articles about each. Previous AFDs have created redirects to one parent article. There is nothing whatsoever notable about this entity to make it an exception. 2005 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the author of this article. If you would take a look at the site, you would see that Casinoeuro.com is not merely a clone of Betsson.com. They offer their own content, bonus schemes, tournaments etc. Also, Casinoeuro is one of biggest online casinos in Scandinavia. When appearing in news articles, CasinoEuro is referred to under its own name. See for instance these anouncements about a big winner early November: http://www.igamingbusiness.com/content/net-entertainment%E2%80%99s-mega-fortune%E2%84%A2-pays-out-another-life-changing-jackpot-4-million-euro or http://www.expressen.se/sport/tips/1.1775228/satsade-10-kronor-vann-39-miljoner.Gorgborg (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases put out by Betsson just prove this is just a website owned by Betsson. It can be mentioned in the Betsson article when this article is redirected. And, we don't care about bonus scheme details and tournament times. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to advertise products. 2005 (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge - As per nom. This casino is just another product offered by Betsson and it does not warrant a standalone encyclopedic article. The little content that there is should be merged to a sub-section of the existing Betsson article. Hazir (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC) NOTE: WP:Poker was notified of this discussion.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. discuss a redirect in talk Secret ^account 00:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Khan[edit]

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

He was was sought for questioning. He was found and removed from the list. Fails WP:BIO IQinn (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, he was on the FBI Seeking Information - War on Terrorism list; whether he was wrongly accused or not has little bearing on his notability, international manhunts were carried out to find him...and it was determined he was innocent. BLP concerns mean that we shouldn't print his home address or anything, but to relate his story is certainly allowable. Bad articles need to be fixed, not deleted. Bringing out the full details of how he came to be assumed to be a terrorist himself, over a period of several years it seems, before being cleared, is an easily surmounted task. Tagged for rescue.Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being placed on that list does not grant notability. Did you find more information or sources? I could not. This is a BLP with zero information about the subject. IQinn (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Google Books or Google News, they both return the subject in question. Where did you try searching? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. Fails WP:BIO No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as well as one event. IQinn (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the nominator... Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's what "as nom" means. IQinn (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as I'm sure the closer will not see your aggreeing with your own nomination as a second !vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP problems and there is no solid information which establishes his notability. Borock (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to FBI Seeking Information - War on Terrorism list Delete as WP:BLP1E and per WP:NOTNEWS. At the time of my writing this, the article does not say he was found innocent... all it currently says is that he was removed from the FBI's list before 2006. The article is unbalanced. Unless the article is improved to create proper balance, it does more harm to the (innocent) individual than good.... and THAT violates WP:BLP. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawing my redirect opinion. DGG's points are compelling. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being on the initial list is sufficient for notability. DGG ( talk ) 21:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? IQinn (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, DGG, why? How many were on that list? And might you agree that without balanced coverage of his innocence and being taken off the list, the article is slightly imbalanced? If it were to be fixed to add balance, I would reverse my opinion... as currently I now think a redirect would do better. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were only eight people on the list at the time. [1] -- our article on the list is clear how extremely selective it was. It was probably their assumption initially that he was involved also--but to be on that list and so innocuous that they did not proceed further after they found him is a really special distinction, if you look at the other people on it. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- No doubt this nomination sprung from good-faith motives, but it gives the unfortunate appearance of an attempt to obfuscate the historical record. As DGG says he was on the most-wanted list for a significant amount of time. His subsequent clearance is no more relevant than the subsequent clearance of Richard Jewell. Prior to their separation, when they were college students, in the USA, Khan and his wife founded a muslim charity. Just last week Khan has been quoted offering an alternate account of how his wife spent the five years since she disappeared from site in March 2003. Geo Swan (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has been quoted last week. Sounds interesting could you provide me with the link to that? As you mention his wife i get more and more the feeling that this here is a Wikipedia:Coatrack article of Aafia Siddiqui. She is very notable her ex-husband not, only because he was searched by US authority to ask him about his ex-wife Aafia Siddiqui. IQinn (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to today's Guardian: Khan's version of events has enraged his ex-wife's family. Fowzia has launched a 500m rupees (£360,000) defamation law suit, while regularly attacking him in the press as a wifebeater set on "destroying" her family. "Marrying him was Aafia's biggest mistake," she told me. Khan says it is a ploy to silence him in the media and take away his children. Geo Swan (talk) 03:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for the link. An article not about him. It is an article about his wife Aafia Siddiqui what just further strengthen the argument that we here deal with an Wikipedia:Coatrack article. IQinn (talk) 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WRT to your assertion that the article was "about Aafia", I think you overlooked the eight paragraphs, over 500 words, that were devoted to covering Declan Walsh's interview with Amjad.

WRT to the "coatrack" concern you raise. Could you please call on the arguments in this essay in a more specific way? I have seen many people call upon the coatrack essay as if it were an official wikipedia policy. While I acknowledge that the essay raises some interesting points, I have found that many of those who call upon the authority of coatrack do so in a way that overlooks the actual advice in the essay. For instance, the essay does not recommend deletion as the first response to a coatrack concern. It reserves suggesting deletion for when good faith attempts to address the coatrack concern have failed. Further, the essay has half a dozen sections describing specific named subclasses of coatrack -- my favorite name is "wongo juice". It has always seemed to me that anyone who asserts their concern is described in the coatrack essay, but then can't or won't be specific about which named class they think describes their concern -- they aren't really calling on coatrack after all. So, would you please try to be more specific about which arguments in this essay you think apply here? Care to explain why you are ignoring the advice of that essay that the first approach to your concern should not be a nomination for deletion? Geo Swan (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not paraphrase and do not put things out of context. I have nominated the article because it fails WP:BIO. Go up and read. At that time the article said nothing more than he was searched for, to question him about his ex-wife. Does this makes him notable. I think no.

After nomination people have added information to the article like his Occupation, where he studied and that his father had a company and the he was married to Aafia Siddiqui. Specially one editor mention the guardian.co.uk article aboutAafia Siddiqui where he was questioned about her. The subject of this article is Aafia Siddiqui not her husband.

So he was searched for. He was found. He was questioned and interviewed about his wife. That's not enough to gain him notability. Some people here have argued he gains notability because he was on a search list. Do we automatically grand notability to each and everybody who have been on a search list? IQinn (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody on an FBI Most Wanted List totaling 8 people suspected of involvement of terrorism in the United States, I believe we do. At least, all eight of them seem to have wiki articles - unless you were planning to nominate the others for deletion as well. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 01:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list is changing over the years right? So the number would be much greater. Sure a lot of them have articles because there are notable for many reasons not only because they are on the list. You have not present a rational argument why "all" on the list automatically gain notability. IQinn (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, it appears there have been a total of 31 people on that list since its inception in 2002, 7 years, 31 people, that's about 4 people per year. And yes, every single one of them appears to have a Wikipedia article about why the FBI warned they were a potential terrorist threat who must be found.Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for the information but i still do not understand why we automatically grant notability without looking at the real cause. The FBI explicitly stated that they do not suspect him of any wrongdoing and just search him to ask him questions. Most likely about his wife. So why do you think that we should automatically grant notability? If there are cases where there are just searched for as witness. IQinn (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I can help you with your lack of understanding. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no lack of understanding on my side. How about you take my points answers my questions and engages in a civil discussion? Cheers IQinn (talk) 04:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Geo. Notable enough already. (and of course I want to have the start of an article to look at the next time his name pops up).--Epeefleche (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. May i ask you for what he is notable? IQinn (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I was unclear. When I wrote "per Geo", I meant "pursuant to the rationale set forth by Geo, specifically his comment that ...he was on the most-wanted list for a significant amount of time. His subsequent clearance is no more relevant than the subsequent clearance of Richard Jewell. Prior to their separation, when they were college students, in the USA, Khan and his wife founded a muslim charity. Just last week Khan has been quoted offering an alternate account of how his wife spent the five years since she disappeared from site in March 2003'".--Epeefleche (talk) 07:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the original nominator for deletion has now said on the article's talk page that "it was clear to me that my version would not {be deleted on} AfD. :) (it was to good) And it did not matter to me. I have just tried to make it a good structured fully verified article. I did not write it to make it bad looking for the AfD. following a dispute over "his version" or "not his version" being the version to appear - apparently suggesting that he doesn't believe the article should be deleted if his version is the one used, only if it's not his version that's used. Since the basis of the deletion request is on the question of the subject's notability - which is obviously not dependent on the article's quality/version - I have suggested to him that he withdraw the nomination for deletion. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strike this comment because it is paraphrasing and out of context and an dispute that has spread over from the articles talk page. IQinn (talk) 04:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the strikethrough of User:Sherurcij's comment because it was done by User:Iqinn, and it appeared to me that it might give the impression that User:Sherurcij had withdrawn his remarks. See the diff here. I left the strikethrough User:Iqinn's remarks in place, because the user is free to withdrawn his or her own remarks. However, as it appears that it may have been done in error, I will leave a summary of my actions on each user's talk page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The strikethrough was no error as i have clearly given my reasons for that above "I strike this comment because it is paraphrasing and out of context and an dispute that has spread over from the articles talk page." Sherurcij knows and did not remove the tags himself and a dispute had been put to rest. I suggest you strike it again as i otherwise would be forced to long replies to defend myself and set things straight and the conflict would never stop. IQinn (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He received international media coverage for his accusation, fugitive status, and clearing of charges against him. Dream Focus 09:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a suspect no longer on the wanted list -> non-notable. Purely WP:RECENTISM. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 00:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a man known for one event - being wanted by the FBI - and through his wife, Aafia Siddiqui. Surely WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTINHERITED apply? We're basically invading his privacy by repeating old 'War Against Terror' charges against him while he gets on with his life. Not everyone the FBI once wanted to speak to is notable. Fences&Windows 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 23:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, article has been entirely rewritten, more than a dozen footnotes and sources about Khan added, and doubled in size since the original nomination. This doesn't necessarily predicate a Keep, but keep in mind that many of the delete votes were based on a "crappier" version of the article that did have WP:Coatrack issues; but that again, issues mean an article needs to be improved, not deleted. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the last edit of the article was on "28 November 2009". So that at least the last two delete from "29 November 2009" and "1 December 2009" were based on the improved version. IQinn (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there are arguments for both sides but as far as I can see the FBI wanted to speak to him (but didn't officially suspect him of anything criminal), they did speak to him and then no further action was taken. I do not think that this is enough for notability. Whether other people on the FBI list have their own pages seems irrelevant, notability should be decided on a case by case basis.Mah favourite (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, one of my concerns is that the role her first husband played in her arrest, and what sort of person he was, is definitely relevant. But if we merge this article into Aafia Siddiqui, its caretakers will almost certainly request a WP:FORK that we start a new article about Khan himself. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I would say that anything about him that is relevant to Aafia Siddiqui's article should be covered there. I am not sure what you mean by WP:FORK as that page just seems to talk about the unreliability of external mirrors and forks of wikipedia (unless I have missed something, I haven't encountered it before as I am quite new to wikipedia). Being quite new to wikipedia I am only basing my argument on the policies (or guidlines) that I have read as they have been introduced into discussions by other editors, there may be other policies that I have not yet seen that contradict me. Mah favourite (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Afia_Siddiqui or FBI Seeking Information - War on Terrorism list per WP:ONEVENT. "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate".Click23 (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don't see what's notable about this. NBeale (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ex-wife's article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's non notable, or at least merge to ex-wife's article. --MisterWiki talk ^{(SIGN/REVIEW)} 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Montana 4[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, possible WP:HOAX. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not meet requirements, it has no reliable source and is pure nonsense per WP:NONSENSE. Shooting for the fourth season of the show hasn't even begun. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Hannah Montana discography per User:117Avenue below. I can find no significant coverage for this soundtrack, only speculation on blogs and fansites about a possible future release. Appears to fail WP:NALBUMS and violate WP:CRYSTAL. Gongshow ^Talk 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. A simple redirect to Hannah Montana discography should suffice, just like Hannah Montana (season 4) is a redirect. 117Avenue (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the point in re-directing because an album called Hannah Montana 4 might not even come out. Season 4 is a redirect because there are numerous sources that a fourth season will take off soon, unlike this. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another fair point since an album is speculation as far as I can tell. I'll go with the consensus on whether to delete or redirect. Gongshow ^Talk 01:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is also no evidence that they will stop their tradition of releasing an album for each season. We already know a likely song that will be on it, "Are You Ready? (Superstar)". Also, redirects are helpful for users that may be looking for news on future projects. 117Avenue (talk) 02:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely anyone looking for news on future projects should be looking somewhere other than wikipedia. Wikipedia should only include things that have already happened, unless I am wrong about this? Mah favourite (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my comment above, if something doesn't exist yet it shouldn't have a page on wikipedia. Mah favourite (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Future albums can have an article, if they are certain to be released. This is pure speculation per WP:CRYSTAL and "Are You Ready" might be on it, as mentioned above. And I'd like to pint out might is not part of the Wikipedia style. Everything here has to be certain. It is probably very likely that a season four soundtrack will come out sooner or later, but it's not guaranteed. Anyways, it really doesn't matter that much as long as this article's not here. -- ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am still saying delete then as this article is speculation. Mah favourite (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not per HOAX nor NONSENSE, since the article seems to have been made in good faith and is clearly written, but certainly per CRYSTAL. Liqudluck✽talk 04:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Blatant WP:CRYSTAL violation. Bravedog (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above user is a confirmed sockpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hannah Montana episodes I guess. I don't really care if it is deleted or not but a redirect does serve a purpose. JBsupreme (talk) 06:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Rlendog (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Secret ^account 00:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angrohninophobia[edit]

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

WP:NEO. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure nonsense. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged as G1. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 22:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desiree Jennings controversy[edit]

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

Article fails WP:ONEEVENT, the person involved was briefly mentioned in the media in the context of one event and is unlikely to be a high-profile individual in the future. The "event" itself is of questionable notability and the article is mostly referenced to blogs. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the media discussion of dystonia and flu vaccines is briefly discussed in the 2009 flu pandemic vaccine article, using the few semi-reliable sources available, but without mentioning this unfortunate woman's name. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOT#NEWS. It's a passing event - an incorrect diagnosis that did not spur any great activity, but disappeared from the public eye. Ray^Talk 22:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This could become a story about media process if a second-party analysis is ever published in a reliable source important enough to establish notability. Until then, it is a non-notable, fizzled, almost-news story. Novangelis (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per Ray. A flash in the pan news story not reaching threshold of notability for an encyclopedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. She not notable; I am a newshound and never heard of this "event". Also fails due to WP:RS, WP:COAT, and WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Desiree Jennings deserves an article (she is much more notable than thousands of existing entries here), but it would just become another battleground for people pushing their agendas.FX (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, WP:TABLOID and WP:NOTSCANDAL. No way this event meets the criteria at WP:Notability (events). Referencing is poor. There's been an hysterical burst of coverage in US fringe sources that has died to almost nothing, with virtually no attention paid to this non-event in most mainstream media or outside the US. Wikipedia is not for repeating material from tabloids and conspiracy blogs. Fences&Windows 02:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to meet the persistence requirements set out in WP:EVENT, the relevant notability guideline. The Wordsmith^Communicate 06:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not much to add to the above reasons, specifically Fences and windows' reasons, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single event, not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the rest of the internet. JFW | T@lk 00:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Since it seems Doomed to Deletion, there must be some greater article on vaccination fears where this should be mentioned. In that context, most should agree its a notable event.--Milowent (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Rights Management II[edit]

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

This looks like a homework assignment for a course on DRM. No references, and there doesn't seem to be anything here that's not in Digital rights management. A previous instance of this was PRODed, contested, blanked and finally speedied, therefore this goes straight to AfD. Favonian (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Please do not delete until December 20th as this is for a school project. It will be taken down after the 20th." Joe Chill (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for school projects and so this should be deleted. It appears that there will not be any attempt to improve the article. Mah favourite (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an un-sourced essay. Eeekster (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not an host for school essays. 92.239.46.95 (talk) 06:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd suggest speedy delete, because this definitely contains patches of text that's so confused that it's unreasonable to expect anyone to make sense of it -- Before the 1900’s the sharing of music and other digital media was allowed causing less sales for each of the digital media. Although it was allowed then it is certainty not allowed now because of our low economy -- but in any case, I think it's standing in the path of an avalanche. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for school projects. -- Marek.69 ^talk 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Ho Ho (film)[edit]

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

~~Non-notable film, per WP:NOTFILM - direct-to-video release, filmed in two days, no major awards or coverage --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 14:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)~~ Nominator withdraws per added Romanian-language references establishing notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The film is the first Romanian Christmas comedy. If I link articles saying this, is it notable to some degree? George Lupeanu (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, such would add to assertions of notability. Can you translate the sources found below? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the first film in a film genre does not automatically make it notable. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Keep withdraw nomination per added Romanian-language references establishing notability. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And no, that the nom reaffirms his opinion here does not make it a second vote. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. LoudHowie (talk) 21:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems to have garnered quite a lot of coverage in the press in Romania,[2][3] including in daily newspapers such as Adevărul,[4] which would make it notable per the WP:GNG. We should mind our WP:Systemic bias. Fences&Windows 20:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What matters to Wikipedia and notability is the extensive coverage allowing it to meet WP:GNG [5]. What?? Its Romanan coverage?? So what.... its a Romanian film. Coverage is exactly where it is expected to be. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two of you have posted links to sources establishing notability on this discussion page. Why don't you post them on the article page, too? I don't speak Romanian, so all I have to go by is what I can find. If notability is not readily apparent, it's my responsibility to raise the question of inclusion. I'm thrilled that you have found sources - cite them in the article, and I'll happily support keeping the article. Cheers! --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are the same as you in being unable to translate the found sources. That they were findable means that the article can be improved through regular editing... and as such does not merit deletion. However, I'll have a go with Goggle Translate and see what can be done. Romanian-reading Wikipedians... help! !!!! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some improvements have been made. More in the offing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - had theatrical release, as well as in-depth coverage in major papers ([6], [7], [8], [9], etc). - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It had notable coverage, so its notable. Dream Focus 04:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like we need to get some help from WP:WikiProject Romania with translating, but if those sources establish notability, there shouldn't be a problem. AniMate 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Additional sourcing has been added. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep this one please nominator has been withdrawn now yuckfoo (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William David Cornwell[edit]

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

This article was created by the same SPA which also created Sean A. Pittman and played an active role in resurrecting the deleted article Don West, Jr.. The article covers a lawyer who represented Pittman and West's law firm as well as several professional athletes. The references do not provide non-trivial coverage of Cornwell. Instead, they mention him incidentally in the course of covering his clients. There are thousands of lawyers which represent athletes and celebrities, but the lawyers do not automatically inherit the notability of their clients. The article reads like an advertisement for Cornwell and may be an autobiography. See COIN for details. Racepacket (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, notability not established ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nomination and with Ukexpat. The showing of notability is insufficient, and the references indicate only marginal or fleeting connections with Cornwell. Tim Ross (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Consensus is abundantly clear that in this particular case deletion is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 New Mexico Lobos basketball team[edit]

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

This is a pro forma nomination because the article was created by a sockpuppet of a banned user. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PoliticianTexas/Archive for details.) I have no opinion on the merits of the article itself. LadyofShalott 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Mexico Lobos men's basketball. Rich Farmbrough, 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep No reason given for deletion. Article is clearly notable, a season for a Division 1 school. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously notable per Coasttocoast. If it weren't for the merge !vote, I would ignore all rules and speedy keep it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons given. Don't merge - there is a difference between a page for the historical context of a D1 basketball program and an entry for a specific season. Rikster2 (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that the notability is being questioned so it seems spurious to use this as an argument. The article has been created and mostly edited by a banned user so should arguably be deleted simply for that reason. Everything except for the statistics is POV and OR. If the article is kept it needs to be completely rewritten and sourced in my opinion.Mah favourite (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as Mah favourite correctly surmises (and which I thought I made clear in my nomination, but apparently did not), the nomination has nothing to do with the notability of the subject matter, but that it has almost entirely been written by a banned user. If it were not for the fact that others have contributed to it, it would be speedily deletable under criterion G5. I hope this clarifies the matter. LadyofShalott 06:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Honestly, I don't have much passion either way, but it seems silly to delete a valid article for that reason unless it is a spoof, vandalism or some such. It's a valid article on a notable subject so I don't see why it should be deleted out of hand. It's also linked to a number of pages of the College Basketball Project. I'm not volunteering to revise and update it, but if someone else is what's the problem? Rikster2 (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – while it is general practice to delete pages/contributions by banned users in violation of their ban (see G5) so as to discourage banned users to repeat their actions, deny recognition, and not undermine the banning policy, the page has had some substantial edits by others – meaning somebody else was able to step in and take responsibility (but not ownership, as nobody owns articles here) of the article. There are no other problems that I see what would otherwise warrant deletion here. MuZemike 02:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a wonderful article created for the 2009-2010 Lobo Program. As a new user myself, Let someone show pride in their team, These kinds of pages are all over wikipedia.. I could make a list of 30 of these kinds of pages, most of the users probably have mutiple accounts. The user who created this page worked really hard. It is not easy to create such a page, It takes lots of time and I would like to thank the banned user for adding wonderful work to wikipedia, because No one owns articles on this site. It is by volunteers. So have some respect. It would be horrible to merge because the existing UNM Basketball page is already a mess, instead of the editors trying to mark and delete everything lets fix it. User: LadyofShalott, I'm sure you would not like it if someone wanted to delete your hard work articles you have created! ZekeW (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't allow creations by banned users who violate their ban (except the caveat the matt91486 and myself mentioned), regardless of how "wonderful" the article is or how much "hard work" they put into it. Otherwise, why are they banned in the first place? See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ItsLassieTime and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LaVidaLoca for past recent instances. MuZemike 16:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it's not really that "wonderfully written". It needs some cleanup in order to make it more neutral in tone. MuZemike 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ignore all rules in this case. As long as the content is notable and being edited by others, it's counterproductive to delete it. matt91486 (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: User: MuZemike Why don't you help out make it "wonderfully written" then, if we work together it will be a great or "wonderful" article. Complaining about it won't change it. ZekeW (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a D-I school. It's notable. Others have edited it. It's a keeper. NThomas (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Matt91486. Rlendog (talk) 02:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this discussion was closed earlier as keep by ZekeW. As ZekeW is a new editor, I presume he just did not know an editor involved in the discussion should not close it. I reverted the close and am posting this here for full disclosure. LadyofShalott 02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taboola[edit]

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

Software company, nothing in article indicates why it would be notable. Having notable companies as clients isn't enough, see WP:CORP. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These results from a gsearch indicate significant coverage to me: [10], [11], [12], [13]. Jujutacular ^T · C 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ^Izzedine 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RHaworth. Cynof Gavuf 08:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

State-by-State Australian Daytime Television Schedules[edit]

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

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Previous consensus on this sort of thing was fairly clear - see this, this and this. There are 4 of Brisbane schedules also in AfD now. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 13:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as nom, and also as WP:NOTDIR JohnBlackburne (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep its purpose is to be an educational and historical article for anybody.Bruce65 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia policy explicitly prohibits television program guides. See What Wikipedia is not. Please, let us not turn Wikipedia into a television program guide. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 01:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This kind of information belongs in the articles about each individual show, if at all. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This will just a formatted transcription of another source. Not the sort of information expected or wanted in an encyclopedia, as it will be overwritten with changes as scheduling changes, as opposed to a recorded history of what aired when, which wouldn't be informative organized in this manner. -Verdatum (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Joe Chill (talk) 21:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopaedic. TerriersFan (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Shiftchange (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could somebody please also AFD this List of United States network television schedules 122.107.114.116 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I second the delete suggestion on all similar articles of US schedules under WP:NOTDIR. I believe in one of the related AFD discussions on Brisbane TV schedules, a user had raised the issue that the US items were kept in AFD, while Australian items were discriminated against. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 16:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you register with your own username you can propose deletions yourself. I would say the notability of this and that article are quite different, but it's not up to me, and that's what the AfD process does, it lets editors come to a consensus on such things. JohnBlackburne (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prodcast[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and an internet search reveals this word used in many different ways. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about the word "Podcast." There is no indication of special social significance beyond that of an ordinary word. It does not even have the interest of many lexicographers writing about its significance to the English language. In short it does not match the precident for exceptional inclusion established by truthiness.--Fartherred (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it might be a joke. Shadowjams (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viewmont Baptist Church[edit]

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

The article was previously PRODded and deleted, so this is kind of procedural. I haven't done thorough Google searches, but enough to doubt this church's notability in accordance with our general guideline. It's written like an advertisement, and there's no real indicators that they're notable beyond a local/state level. JamieS93 20:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual churches must be notable beyond coverage of activities by local media. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find evidence that this church meets WP:ORG. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much of the information found here belongs in Baptist, and is in fact already found there. The rest does nothing to assert this local church's notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like it might qualify as a megachurch, but in the absence of widespread coverage by independent sources, I don't know if it can qualify for its own article. Mandsford (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this church. Joe Chill (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:LOCAL. --Triadian (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Not even published yet, and there's no inherent notability for law journals. Fences&Windows 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Security Law Brief[edit]

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

Law journal that hasn't published its first issue yet, in fact it is still looking for a publisher. The creator made a credible claim that this paper is the first of its kind, but WP:NMEDIA says nothing about that. The creator also asserts that the paper's advisory board is considered authoritative, but that's the advisory board and not the paper itself. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the creator's claim that the journal is the first of its kind, this is covered in WP:NMEDIA as the law journal has "served some sort of historic purpose or [has] a significant history." The journal does not carry advertising, nor is its content trivial. With regard to Blanchardb's argument that the journal's advisory board is authoritative but not the paper itself, I would respond that no paper itself is authoritative, but that a source's authority stems from its authors and its editors. Lastly, as other Law Journals are included on Wikipedia, the NSLB should be included in the interest of completeness. MaxIdle (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether other law journals have articles is a WP:WAX argument, and isn't very persuasive. Although there are some categorical cases of inherent notability, in most cases, the notability of an article stands or falls on its own merits, not by comparison to others. As a side note, I'm not aware of any other law journals that have not yet gotten to the stage of actual publication that have articles. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for re-creation if and when it becomes notable. At the moment, it's just a good blog by law students (and not the first of its kind; see the Georgetown Security Law Brief). If it starts publication, and does so in such a way that it is notable (e.g., publishing contributions by noted authorities; being cited in significant cases, etc.), re-create it. I take no position on whether being the first law journal to limit itself to national security issues is of sufficient historic import to, in and of itself, convey notability. Right now, when publication is just a plan, it is not the first anything. TJRC (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice for re-creation in the future. It doesn't even exist yet, so it cannot be notable. Misses all criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals). There are many student-run law journals, the only reason anyone can say this is "the first in the nation" is the specialized subject (and even that seems to be an exaggeration, see above). --Crusio (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Georgetown Security Law Brief is not student-run. NSLB is the first student-run national security law journal in the United States. Electric67 (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've reviewed the notability guidelines for academic journals, and I feel the NSLB currently satisfies two of the three guidelines. Guideline (1) states that "[t]he journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." The NSLB advisory board is made up of authorities in the field of National Security law and cybersecurity, so it follows a fortiori that the journal is considered to be influential in its subject area. Guideline (3) states that "[t]he journal has a historic purpose or has a significant history." As the first student-run student-run national security law journal in the United States, the NSLB has a significant history (source). It is not an "exaggeration", as Crusio stated, as the Georgetown Security Law Brief is not student-run. Further, the print publication is only one (forthcoming) portion of the Brief. The blog is also considered part of the Brief, so Crusio's argument that the Brief "doesn't exist yet" is inapposite. The blog portion of the Brief has been functional since early September, 2009. Electric67 (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're telling us is that the journal is considered reliable by its own staff? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, sir. The fact that experts in the national security field sit on its advisory board makes the NSLB authoritative, as they act as auditors of the information the Brief produces. Electric67 (talk) 19:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academic journals) for a discussion about this. Having "heavyweights" on the editorial board (which really don't even count as "staff") does not contribute anything to the notability of a journal. The NSLB does not fulfil any of the criteria of WP:Notability (academic journals). Criterion 1: Some "authorities" on the editorial board does not equal "reliable sources" in the Wikipedia sense. Criterion 3: It's really a stretch to argue that this being the first student-run journal on this speciality equals "a historic purpose" or constitutes "a significant history". As yet, the journal does not have any history whatsoever (whether one includes the blog's 2-month "history" or not). Finally, being student-run hardly rates as "historic purpose". --Crusio (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you've been telling us is that, because a few heavyweights are involved in the NSLB, it should be regarded as authoritative. The problem is that Wikipedia is not concerned about should, no matter how strong an argument justifies it. What you have to show, if you want to play the authority card, is whether the NSLB is already considered authoritative in its own right by people with no involvement whatsoever in its publishing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pile on here, but I really don't buy the argument that, because the NSLB's advisory board includes authorities in the field of national security, the NSLB is somehow authoritative by contagion, and therefore notable. Notability is not inherited. WP:NOTINHERITED. Assuming without agreeing that the NSLB's advisory board's members are authoritative or notable, that assertion does not mean that the NSLB is authoritative or notable. That issue should be decided on its own merits.

I'll also note that, of the four advisory board members, only one, Michael W. Carroll, has a Wikipedia article. That's not the be-all and end-all, of course; many individuals who are authoritative and who meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines do not yet have Wikipedia articles. But it makes the inheritance argument even weaker, I think, because there's been no evidence that the Wikipedia community agrees with the premise that all of these board members are authoritative and notable.

Finally, the inheritance claim is further weakened by the fact that every NSLB advisor is a faculty member of the Washington College of Law that will presumably someday publish the NSLB. This is not an indication that the NSLB has attracted these advisors by virtue of its own authoritative status. Rather the opposite, it indicates that the NSLB has not yet demonstrated enough authority, or likelihood of future authority, to attract advisors outside its own parent institution.

In sum, I'm still holding to my Delete position expressed above, unless and until the notability of the NSLB itself (not that of one or more of its advisors) can be demonstrated. TJRC (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G4. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Butler Coomber[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Public relations firm using Wikipedia for public relations. Some trivial "X hired Y" mentions in PR Week, but no significant coverage in general-interest media, so fails WP:N. ~YellowFives 20:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even an attempt at an assertion of notability. Fails V, N and probably NPOV. At best it's a non notable company, at worst, just plain advertising. HJMitchell You rang? 20:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bengals–Steelers rivalry[edit]

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

Non notable rivalry with no references. Others than the teams being in the same division, its not really a big deal. Coasttocoast (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article gives no indication that Steelers fans get more pumped up than usual when the opposing team is the Bengals, or vice versa. Canadiens-Nordiques this ain't. Keep. Concerns have been addressed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:BEFORE. I know a bit about hockey and I can find loads of sources: Steelers, Bengals rivalry heats up, Steelers Bengals' rivalry is one-sided, but it has grown closer, The Best Rivalry In The NFL Grows, A rarity: Bengals-Steelers really is a big game, NY Times: Rare Big Game Looms for Steelers and Bengals, ESPN, etc. A chess set is available at many stores of Bengals vs. Steelers. WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS do not count as reasons to delete. One might not care that a rivalry exists, or that bigger rivalries are of longer duration, but this is still notable. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited it a bit, added the articles found as further reading, and updated tags. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, yes, I know it's football. I was only kidding. LOL. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - local Ohio papers are a source for notability, but not exactly in-depth coverage of the rivalry per se. Racepacket (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I'm torn on this one - we do not need an article for every rivalry, but the fact is that this is a prominent and notable rivalry in football. There are sources, per Bearian. And the fact is that they've played twice annually for almost 40 years, which is itself significant (with division changes, realignments, and expansion, that's a rare feat). So, I'm leaning Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bearian has made a very convincing case. Plenty of coverage of this rivalry, therefore its notable. Dream Focus 04:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Bearian has demonstrated significant sources. The only delete vote doesn't really provide a valid deletion argument. matt91486 (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well-sourced sports rivalries are encyclopedic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian's research and reasoning. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Very significant and widely reported on rivalry. Rlendog (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vossed[edit]

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

Yet another unreferenced neologism. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Classic case of a neologism. No evidence this has widespread use. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Pure vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 07:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it's quite blatant enough to fall under G3 (pure vandalism), but it definitely comes under WP:NEO. Maybe even WP:MADEUP, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a Neologism. December21st2012Freak (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Moritz[edit]

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

Various claims to notability but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources. Also the middle bit is copyvio of http://www.rebeccajmusic.com/bio.html Polarpanda (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if we can't get some reliable sources (and a bit of a rewrite...). The only reference so far may be in connection with a typo - 1995 Song of the Year? I've worked with a singer/songwriter who was 12, but 4? No, hang on. It is a typo - should be 2005. (I've corrected it.) She was 14. Presumably one or both parents were in the US forces, as she is listed as having an APO location. Possible notability. If we only had references for the rest..... Over to you. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to find significant coverage of the singer. Agree it would need a rewrite if notability is established. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The songwriting award suggests some notability, and as Peridon says above, it would be nice to have some (any?) sources for this singer, but I'm finding zero "in-depth coverage", so I'm not convinced to keep. Gongshow ^Talk 00:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 01:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Levine[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article was deleted by AfD in June 2009 and, from memory, this current article is essentially the same as the one that was deleted. The unanimous verdict in June was "delete" for the following reasons: Paid insertion into Wikipedia. Self promotion. Marginal notability per WP:BIO, not notable, spamvertisement, not even notable by association. Corp he founded had its article speedily deleted, spam, spam and clear Self Promotion and fails WP:BIO and WP:N, the article does not show notability--for the reason that the subject is apparently not notable, paid, unsourced article about a non-notable person Brumski (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Brumski (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article has at least one valid reference: http://www.dailynewstribune.com/state/x1059361235 , and the Fox Business News interview with Dave Levine is probably valid as well. We all recognize the problems inherent in COI, but many good articles started off as COI ones. If the references are enough to pass the general notability guideline, then keep the article and edit it vigorously. – Eastmain (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. \//\ - 09:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep per Eastmain.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Was "speedy delete as an article previously deleted under AfD" not valid? Ironholds (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, non-notable (a one or two times reference in a business news hardly makes one notable). -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 18:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unhappy keep. Subject appears to satisfy the coverage requirements of the GNG. Article is plainly not "essentially the same" as the previous deleted version because the previous AFD was June 2009, and the article discusses August 2009 TV appearances, which were particularly prominent due to the notoriety that came to the program involved, and the August 2009 coverage by the Wall St Journal's "Speakeasy" column, which is a strong indicator of notability. Some people don't really deserve to be notable, but we bite the bullet and cover them anyway when they satisfy our criteria. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Racepacket (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Katsunori Wakabayashi[edit]

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

This article was PRODed by RHaworth with the comment, "no evidence of notability." Article creator NIMS MANA contested the PROD with no comment.

According to the article, Wakabayashi has published two books and at least 5 articles that have been frequently cited. He also won the Japan Physical Society's best paper award in 2003. It is not clear to me whether this constitutes notability per WP:Notability (academics). Cnilep (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The award from the notable organization Physical Society of Japan would on its face satisfy the standards of WP:ANYBIO. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I must point out that the article is a little deceptive in that under the heading "Books" there are only book chapters by the subject, rather than whole books. I'll fix that. However, if the citation numbers given in the article can be confirmed, it would seem that the subject might well pass WP:PROF criterion 1. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), primarily based on the citation impact of his two top cited papers – 402 and 216 cites in GS, of which he is second and first author, respectively. The overall picture is a bit borderline, with a grand total of 981 citations and an h-index of 10 in GS. Still, one single paper with more than 400 citations is impressive.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Web of Science gives 546 and 279 cites for those two articles above (not to mention others), which I believe is a more accurate count. The topic is related to graphene - a hugely popular material nowadays. Thus, yes, not extraordinary, but well above average, and IMO passes WP standards. Materialscientist (talk) 02:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These are extremely high counts, and show the person to be a significant authority in the field. As materiascientist shows, this article is an excellent demonstration of the irrelevancy of using bare h-factor as a measurement: h-factor is irrelevant as shown here, h=10 is non-notable if it is 10, 10, 10, ... but not when it is 100, 100, 100, 10, 10, ... let alone a count like here. DGG ( talk ) 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, it is so difficult to get the h-factor in some cases (that is I do doubt that his h is 10): there are dozens of scientists with the name K Wakabayashi, who are moving between different institutions in Japan (that's the Japanese reality) and changing collaborators. I simply don't know how to get h-values in such case. Off course one could search K Wakabayashi AND Fujita (his past supervisor), but that would only give selected past articles. Materialscientist (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, there are more than 10: Although the Author finder of Web of Science was not able to establish a unique identity, Scopus Author Search uses a different algorithm, and was able to establish one--their author ID is 7402087980; and found 43 papers with an h of 12, and the highest counts 543, 280, 89 , 81, 58 -- about 20% more than Google Scholar. GS usually gives higher results, but this result reflects that non-English sources are very poorly represented in G Scholar. (not that they are that great in Scopus, either, so the actual count is probably yet higher). (checking the individual papers, the counts in Web of Science were almost identical to those in Scopus) DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The h-index of 10 certainly should not be the deciding factor in cases like this. I would not say it is irrelevant though; simply not the deciding factor. And, as noted by Materialscientist, it may not be the correct h-index for this particular subject.--Eric Yurken (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep First ten cites in GS are his so he passes WP:Prof #1, but in a much narrower field than is usual for candidates here. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

it what sense it it a narrow field? No field that has a paper that can be cited 543 times (the citation count for "Peculiar localized state at zigzag graphite edge" in Scopus of Science) is in a very narrow field. Essentially all scientists study a particular group of narrow topics within a field. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic transport in graphene is a rather narrow field but none the worse for that. I guess it depends upon one's perspective. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Snow Keep. No question this is a keep, so let's spare other editors the waste of time of reviewing and voting here, and free them up to do something productive.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on there, speedy. Is the current state of the article not resume-like? Do any independent sources exist that can be used to improve it? These are proper questions for afd. Wp:prof's criteria are non-functional and irrelevant to these questions, and no editor above has addressed them. There is something productive that can be done at afd, but nobody is doing it. 160.39.212.108 (talk) 14:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Funny AfD. Always good for a laugh, that wikipedia didn't have an article on Katsunori Wakabayashi in the first place, gets one, and is now in the process of deleting him for lacking notability. Very entertaining AfD. Nice to see a sense of humor in the AfD department. I rethink this, though. Wakabayashi is not that uncommon a name, maybe there is more than one Katsunori Wakabayashi and this could be about another one, not the notable one. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstracts of the five "most cited papers" all associate the author with the National Institute for Materials Science: [14][15][16][17][18]. The fourth of those shows that he also spent some time at the Graduate School of Advanced Sciences of Matter (ADSM), Hiroshima University, which links him to the book chapters: [19][20] (scroll down to page 279). This leaves negligible doubt that everything in our article is about the same, notable, Katsunori Wakabayashi. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed also by the fact that the cites in his first GS page all refer to papers in the same narrow subject of electronic transport in graphenes. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep, seems that the strange falloff in cites is the only holdup and may be an artifact. When one searches by the term nanographite, Wakabayashi's paper comes up first. Ditto with zigzag ribbon. Abductive (reasoning) 03:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep please the physiscyst is notable and has awards to show yuckfoo (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham University School of Pharmacy[edit]

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

Contested prod. Giving the article a second look, I see that it may be OK so I'm going to be neutral on this one. Asking for community consensus besides my own. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice for recreation, borderline speedy on copyright issues. The deprodder was absolutely right on the notability issues, but the article is a copyvio stitched together from various short pages on the university website. For example, the third-from-last paragraph comes directly from this page [21]; the fourth-from-last paragraph from this page [22], and the beginning of the second paragraph from this page [23]. Slightly too complex a copyvio to qualify for speedy deletion, judging from several of past speedy noms, but clearly not acceptable for Wikipedia use. Would need to be rewritten from scratch. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Keep as rewritten. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rewritten. Since the school is clearly notable , I've just rewritten it as a stub with a reference or two. Needs to be expanded (and wikified--I only did the first steps). It's really quite easy to do this sort of minimal rescue as long as the topic makes it worthwhile, especially when there actually are some usable references already there. DGG ( talk ) 05:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. This is a very important Pharmacy School. I expect there will be links to Jesse Boot, 1st Baron Trent of Boots Chemists fame. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - self-evidently notable. TerriersFan (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was the original PROD remover (and new page patroller). While the quality of the page was initially poor (and had some copyright issues that have since been addressed), sufficiently large branches of a sufficiently large university have intrinsic notability. If a school goes overboard (e.g. College of Underwater Basket Weaving with 10 students), then it only qualifies for a section in the school's article, but at larger schools the sub-colleges often have independent notability and history separate from that of the school as a whole. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A consensus on the merits of an article can be obtained from a discussion on a talk page. From the details of the nomination I think that this deletion discussion was started inappropriately. The nominator does not think it should be deleted, so I think that this discussion should be closed without further delay. Snowman (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This AfD seems to be miscategorized under "Media and Music". Rlendog (talk) 17:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep' please it is notable and page has been improved now yuckfoo (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Consensus is that this film passes WP:NFF by virtue of the coverage. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to live forever -The movie[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF. Future film for which there is little to no coverage besides the article's only reference, which is not an acceptable source. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References found. Film is notable for the collection of notable actors involved in the project. Since principle filming has commenced, the requirements of WP:NFF have been met. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article has been appropriately moved to Ways to Live Forever (film). -Verdatum (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article could use further improvement, but it appears to me that sufficient sources exist to carry this out. -Verdatum (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the sources in the article and [24], [25], [26], and [27]. Joe Chill (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allison Gilbert[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable author, COI concerns as article was written by her husband. GlassCobra 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, completely unnotable, even by her own husband's note: "I wrote this entry to provide a public forum for her biography, which currently only exists on her own site"[28]. The two "sources" listed on the talk page are two of her own websites for her books and her blogging at the Huffington Post about her ovarian cancer is not any evidence of notability. Fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:N -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully, and with all due respect, Allison did not blog about having ovarian cancer. She blogged about the lead-up her surgery that helped her prevent this horrible disease.--Markweintraub (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ with option to revisit in 1–3 months. The article is very new, and the information presented on the talk page shows that even if she isn't notable as a writer (yet), she's notable as a TV producer, since she's won an Emmy. I think cleanup and expansion is the proper course for the article. However, if 1–3 months down the road the article isn't any better, I would support a new AfD and would be leaning toward delete at that point. —C.Fred (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She did not win an Emmy Award, she won a New York Emmy, an entirely different, local, and thoroughly unnotable award. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the New York Emmy is a regional award given by the New York regional chapter of NATAS. I would not call it thoroughly unnotable, but I don't give it the same weight as a national Emmy, either. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No reason the COI issues can't be resolved via the discussion process going on at the talk page; the article isn't unsalvageably bad. While local Emmy awards often aren't sufficient to satisfy notability requirements, the New York media market is so large, prominent, and competitive that its awards can't be smmarily disregarded. As C.Fred accurately argues, there are enough indications of notability to gove this a chance and reexamine it down the road if necessary. The article was only created four hours ago, after all. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice (offer to userfy, if anybody besides her husband volunteers). (Contrary to the delusions of some people east of the Hudson, New York City is not the hub of the universe.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep There is a bio at CBS which mentions some achievements and the NY Times mentions her book as reason for starting some help groups, so there might be some notability here. Regards So Why 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is self-made publicity allowed to establish notability? The CBS Show "article" is clearly a press release, and only mentions her in passing. The NY Times one is not significant coverage of her as much as it is her group. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think sufficient coverage exists despite any COI issues (which can be resolved through the usual editorial processes). JBsupreme (talk) 06:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite my obvious COI, please check her latest article (new as of 12/2/09 on the Huffington Post as examples of recent coverage. * Parentless Parents on the Huffington Post Markweintraub (talk) 14:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She WROTE that blog post - that is not coverage OF her. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Earlier in this discussion, the issue was notability, which is why I called out the Huffington Post article from yesterday. Markweintraub (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see that Gilbert passes WP:BIO as either an author, a blogger or a TV Producer. If she really had won an actual Emmy that would be different, indeed a few days ago I nearly !voted keep here as I (as was probably the intention) had been taken in by the failure in her own promo material (which is the bulk of her Ghits), to differentiate between the local New York Emmy that she won and a proper one. Nancy ^talk 14:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The CoI issues are not an insurmountable problem (other editors can work to get NPOV), but the fact that she does not seem to pass WP:BIO is - all the sources which I can find seem to be either written directly by her, to come from press releases, or to be about her group. I can't find significant coverage about her from independent, reliable sources. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The latest "references" added to the article have all been grasping at straws: Susie Bright's blog post about one book and a writing for a history class (albeit 400-level) about the other. I'm beginning to have doubts of whether there's sufficient independent coverage of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 19:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - Nancy has good points, and the rest are right too. This article is not notable Cynof Gavuf 11:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep -- Clearly COI and the article may have been written for the wrong reasons, but she does have a non-fiction book out and presumably available in libraries. I'd also suggest that blogging for the Huffington Post is not like writing for your own personal blog--don't they choose "experts" in various fields (I don't know--please correct me if I'm wrong)....Vartanza (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a book doesn't make her notable nor is its availability in any library. And being a journalist/blogger is also not a notability criteria by itself. The only people talking about her are herself and her husband. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For information: WorldCat shows the following figures for the number of libraries holding her books:

Always Too Soon: Voices of Support for Those Who Have Lost Both Parents

UK: 1 library
Canada: 4 libraries
Australia: 8 libraries
US: 285 libraries (i.e. on average 6 libraries per state)

Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11

UK: 1 library
Canada: 5 libraries
Australia: 6 libraries
US: 443 libraries (i.e. on average 9 libraries per state)

Even if this was American Wikipedia rather than English Language Wikipedia, I'd still suggest that these figures do not equate to a high level of holdings (For comparison, Black Holes by Heather Couper - a children's book I chose at random, published in 1996 - is held at 25 UK libraries, 6 Canadian libraries, 87 Australian libraries and 900 US libraries; Death by black hole : and other cosmic quandaries by Neil deGrasse Tyson, published 2007: held by 5 UK libraries, 13 Canadian libraries, 28 Australian libraries and 1161 US libraries) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I look over the WorldCat listings, I see that one or both (usually both) of her books are held by major academic libraries, including Yale, Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, and Duke; I think that's more significant than the exact number of local public libraries with copies. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really...most Uni libraries have more space to hold all sorts of books the public ones, which have to be more selective to conserve space. Many of the largest ones, such as those listed, make a fairly decent effort to grab at least one copy of pretty much every non-fiction book printed and released. Either way, which libraries and how many holdings they have are still irrelevant to notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my experience, and it hasn't been that long since I was sending people to hunt down library copies of books for various reasons. And I doubt that while major universities are reducing financial aid, hiring, etc. they're indiscriminately stocking their libraries with one copy of everything. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, they don't by one copy of everything (exaggeration), however they do generally buy most newer books in certain areas if they correspond with their colleges such as Children's Educational (one of her books). Her other work, Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11, she is not the author of, but one of FIVE editors, and basically is a series of stories and snippets from many reporters, including Larry King, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, etc. That would be reason to have it in libraries, not Ms. Gilbert's being one of its editors. All they have to do is give it to the uni library, and it will likely be stocked. Not all books in a library are purchased. Publishers frequently gift out copies to major libraries to get them on the shelves. Very common publicity method. Uni libraries also allow patrons to make purchase requests, which are usually honored. You can't make the claim that because Yale has a copy that it is somehow so notable they went and bought one because they just had to have it. Without actual reliable sources stating anything, there is no way to confirm that a - they have the book, and b - how and why it was acquired. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First off -- I want to thank each and every one of you who have taken the time to comment on this article. It's given me a window into the rigor that goes into each article's discussion. While I see the merits of both sides here, I'd be remiss if I didn't add further support to the article, COI or not, with a number of links that further demonstrate the coverage Allison and her books have gotten. But before I do, it's worth clarifying Allison's role in Covering Catastrophe. While it's been depicted above as snippets and stories, it remains the definitive oral history of how broadcast journalists covered 9/11. Allison conceived of the idea; she organized the group of editors and wrote the introduction. While the September 11 Memorial & Museum is still under construction, Covering Catastrophe has already been chosen to be in its permanent collection. There is not yet an on-line link that supports this point. In addition, the US State Department turned Covering Catastrophe into a video that was distributed to every US embassy around the world. Again, there's no link to this effect, but the video does exist.

I'm not sure whether to put these links on the article itself -- or to just list them here. My apologies if I'm violating Wiki protocols by placing them in this forum.

American Journalism Review article about Covering Catastrophe.

Library Journal write-up of Always Too Soon - along with supporting editor Christina Baker Kline - who has an article on Wikipedia

WCBS-TV interview -- following her on-air appearance.

Los Angeles Daily News interview.

New York's 92nd Street Y listing of a speaking event where Allison spoke alongside Geraldine Ferraro and Mariel Hemmingway

FOX NY Interview RE: Always Too Soon. Markweintraub (talk) 02:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN interview transcript -- Allison being interviewed about Always Too Soon. Markweintraub (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these, Mark. I'll comment on them below:

American Journalism Review: This confirms that she edited and contributed to it. This does not give information *about* Allison, beyond the fact that she conceived and contributed to the book (which no one is disputing) and that she is a WNBC producer (again, no one disputes this)
Library Journal: Again, this is about the book more than Allison. The only information is provides which could be used in the article are that she was a CNN producer, that she initiated the idea for the book and that she interviewed people for the book. It doesn't particularly give information about *her*
WCBS-TV: Again, it's about the book, not about her. It gives us the information (again) that she inititated the book, as well as the fact that it was connected with the death of her father.
LA Daily News: Again, it's about the book - not her. It gives us the information about her parents, brother and husband, but beyond that nothing that could be used in an article about *her*
92nd Street Y: Advertising an event where she was involved. The only useable information about her is "Emmy Award-winning producer for CNN"
Fox NY: Unless I missed anything, the entire interview was about the book - nothing about Allison herself was discussed here.
CNN: Again, this doesn't provide information about Allison herself, beyond the facts of the loss of her parents.

In summary, although they may be interesting reading, they do not provide information about Allison herself - and this article is about her, not her parents, not the book.

Thanks for your input here, Mark - we do appreciate it. However, I am still not convinced that this article should be kept in Wikipedia -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Thank you for having a look at these supporting links; it's clear you've spent time with them -- and I appreciate the consideration. With all due respect, I'm not clear how you can separate the book from the person. Without the person, there is no book. It's Allison who was interviewed on CNN, CBS, FOX, the LA Daily News and spoke at the 92nd Street Y alongside Ferraro and Hemmingway. The AJR and LJ reviews are included here to support the notability of Covering Catastrophe, which, in turn, supports Allison. There was a question about links to other articles -- which has been addressed by linking back and forth with co-editors Mitchell Stephens and Melinda Murphy - both of whom are the subject of articles here. Markweintraub (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Mitchell Stephens, you will see that he is notable as a professor at NYU (generally, most professors at major universities are notable). If you look at Melinda Murphy , you will see that she is notable as a journalist who received a few Emmys (not New York Emmy ones, but national ones). They are not notable just for a couple of books they have written. If the book is important, then perhaps it is notable enough for an article of its own (I don't personally think it is, but I haven't looked into the book, but into Allison). If the book is the notable thing, its author isn't automatically notable - authors need to be notable in their own right. Looking at Wikipedia's Guidelines on notability for people:

"Any biography": Generally, a person is notable if:

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one
The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field

I don't feel that Allison meets this criteria

"Creative professionals (includes authors and journalists)": a person is notable if:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Again, I don't feel that Allison meets this criteria.

As for the book, under the Notability guidelines for books, I do not feel it meets the criteria for inclusion - however, even if it does, that does not mean that Allison required an article herself - at most, the book would need an article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notability distinction between book and author. That's helpful. Looking at the 'any biography' criteria I'd ask you to reconsider. It's been established here that a New York Emmy isn't a national Emmy. I'd still argue that winning three of them establishes 'notable award or honor.' And the "... widely recognized contribution to being part of the historical record..." piece is covered by her book's inclusion in the permanent collection at the 9/11 Museum -- which is quite literally the historic record. Add to that the U.S. State Department video. And to be clear, I have not questioned why Murphy or Stephens are included here. Their qualifications are notable. I only brought them up in this forum to demonstrate the link qualifier that's on the article now.Markweintraub (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete Close one, but WP:BLP concerns weren't really fixed during this AFD, and we should err on the side of caution concerning these BLPs Secret ^account 00:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Napolis[edit]

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

The article subject is not genuinely notable (NOTNEWS, NOTINHERITED, etc). The individual has been identified by court action as mentally disturbed, and her disorder is manifested by stalking various celebrities and making abusive online comments regarding notable and nonnotable people. The subject is now apparently involved in disputes over the content of the article. No good can come of any of this. While there is considerable, mostly local, news coverage regarding court proceedings resulting from the subject's celebrity stalking, there is no indication of any significant or enduring consequences from her actions, except to herself. There is really nothing to show the subject is actually notable, rather than the center of a private tragedy that can only be worsened by maintaining this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD is being debated in an external forum.

Delete Not necessary for an encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person does not seem notable. as a side note, i think she's using socks to edit her article. Theserialcomma (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think this is notable enough. It's a horrible thing to say, but she hasn't shot anyone blown anyone up run amok in a school or anything like that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BIO by a wide margin. There is sustained coverage from 1997[29][30][31] to 2003[32][33] of a number of different events of considerable importance, including full-article mentions in major international newspapers, as well as a significant mention in at least one book concerning her role in the satanic ritual abuse moral panic.[34] Her actions are decidedly not private, having ensnared many people and attracted international interest. Both of the issues for which she is known - the child abuse witch hunts and stalking of celebrities - are serious matters that deserve encyclopedic treatment, and she was one of the better known and more prolific contributors to both, and continues to be mentioned the world over in that context.[35][36][37] It is too bad that she is mentally ill but that is not an exclusion criterion for otherwise notable individuals. If anything it points to a BLP concern in how to describe her actions. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wide margin? The sources don't "address the subject directly in detail". There is evidence of a "passing mention", but not significant coverage. --Jmundo (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page currently uses 8 sources. Mackenzie 2002 is short, but solely about Napolis stalking Speilberg. Sauer 2000 is a 2500-word news story solely about Napolis' identity being discovered. Bocij 2004 is a book by a scholarly publisher featuring a two page discussion and summary of Napolis, and her implications for cyberstalking. Sauer 2002 is another news article about Napolis, this time focussing on her involvement with celebrities. DeYoung 2004 is another scholarly book that discusses Napolis at length. The Australian published a piece about Napolis, Speilberg and Love-Hewitt in 2002. People saw fit to publish Napolis' guilty plea. City News Service published a 250 piece as well on her sentence in 2003. They address the topic squarely (i.e. these are about Napolis, and not in a tangential manner), and there's a lot of them. I'd use one lengthy news piece alone as justification for an article, let alone eight. This isn't passing mention, this is in-depth details on her on-line activities, the discovery of her real-life identity and her later "involvement" with celebrities and the legal outcome. I really don't understand this being considered "passing mention". WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Wikidemon. Clearly meets notability criteria.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete Clearly a BLP1E - famous only for being well a bit obsessed even over a period of time its still one event and still not worth documenting. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just as one can be notable for being spectacularly wrong about something. Over a long period of time and about many topics is simply not one event. The principle here is NOT CENSORED; we do not exist to protect adults from themselves, if they get sufficient publicity from major sources over a length of time, especially when they are in fact significant in the history of a subject, as she is with Satanic ritual abuse. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I believe that the motivations of the nominator have merit on a personal level, I also believe that notability has been established and concurring with DGG wikipedia is not censored. Somewhat self-contradictory, if possible we should honor requests for removal from those that are responsible for the care of Ms Napolis, but we are not in a position to act on our notions of what might constitute material benefit to the subject of the article. I do not see that the article, as a whole, fails Wikipedia:HARM#TEST. Unomi (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability has been fairly established. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, repeated mention in multiple news sources, popular magazines and scholarly books. Sails pass WP:N, has significant coverage (numerous articles exclusively about her and her actions both as an on-line presence in the satanic ritual abuse phenomenon and for celebrity stalking) in reliable, secondary sources (People, The San Diego Union-Tribune, books by scholarly publishing houses), well independent of the subject. Easily enough for a stand-alone article. Note that Napolis is famous for at least two things - her on-line presence in the SRA circumstances (resulting in news articles and books covering how her identity was revealed and her impact on personal privacy concerns) and for stalking two extremely high-profile celebrities (four more news articles). As for harm to the subject - everything is sourced, wikipedia is not therapy, pages are not deleted because they might hurt someone's feelings, and consider the impact of Napolis' past (and future) accusations against, say, Elisabeth Loftus, Carol Hopkins and Michael Aquino. Loftus has been attacked at conferences based on accusations revolving around the SRA moral panic. Keep, utter, utter keep. I regularly monitor the page, and have never seen evidence of Napolis editing the page via sock puppets (however, the permabanned User:ResearchEditor has been doing so). Napolis has edited the talk page but never the main page, and some talk and main pages of several articles. The most regular sock is the permabanned ResearchEditor, who was editing towards his usual "SRA was real" theory - easily recognized and addressed. Napolis herself has edited the page, but only to put in an inappropriate EL. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WLU and others. Clearly meets WP:N. She is also notable for much more than simply "one event" as one of the delete voters has stated. As WLU points out her involvement with SRA has received attention from scholars as well. There is simply no policy rationale for deleting this.PelleSmith (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a BLP1E and pointing and staring at mentally disturbed people is not what wikipedia is for.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a BLP1E regardless of how much attention she may have received. JBsupreme (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another BLP1E case, and Doc sums it up rather well - Alison ^❤ 12:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a technicality that Napolis is well known for three things? On-line harassment (to the point that she's iconic), threatening and stalking Steven Spielberg and threatening and stalking Jennifer Love Hewitt. BLP1E calls for evaluation against "the context of a single event" and merging the person's page into the event page. There's more than one event and there's no page about a single one to be merged into. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for Christ's sake. BLP1E. I shudder to think what's in that navbox. Jack Merridew 13:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lack a lot of experience working with BLP pages in general and don't see BLP1E very often, so could someone explain (probably on my talk page) why this qualifies as a BLP1E? If the navbox contents are problematic (I had difficulty filling in the "known for" field) then we could leave it selectively blank, I don't really have a problem with that. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding BLP1E. As WLU suggests, can someone explain why this qualifies as a BLP1E? Can I suggest doing so at the BLP/N where there is already any discussion about the entry. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion of this article is to be here, not elsewhere. She is notable only as a stalker of Steven Spielberg. Ill-people stalk celebrities - that's not notable. If she'd knifed him that would be different. She's got various others deranged rantings which some people like to point and stare at. The main reason for excluding this is that it is at best marginally notable, and any smidgeon of ethics would tell us we don't point and stare at people who are mentally ill. If you can't grasp an ethical argument here and want to nitpick over the minutiae of our alphabet soup, then I've really nothing to discuss with you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm perfectly capable of grasping ethical arguments and I'm not nitpicking over minutiae. If the main argument for delete is a specific section of a specific policy and some of us ignoramuses are fuzzy on how it applies here it is perfectly understandable to ask for an explanation. Geez. I suggested the BLP/N simply because there is already an ongoing discussion there. If you would rather explain here then by all means go ahead. I'm all ears. As a side note the entry makes it rather clear that she is notable for much more than stalking one celebrity, so I fail to understand why people keep on claiming differently.PelleSmith (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sources, you will see that she is not notable only for stalking Spielberg. She also stalked Love-Hewitt (which doesn't add much) but she first came to the attention of the press as a notable participant in the satanic ritual abuse moral panic. Perhaps this is an extension of her beliefs, but there are three separate incidents discussed in the press, and two mentions in scholarly books. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - Subjectively I don't like the article, I don't like drawing attention to a person's problems in an encyclopedia article and I'm tempted to ask for deletion per WP:IAR. But objectively, I have to admit that this article does pass Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion due to the extensive coverage demonstrated. That might cause one to doubt whether our inclusion guidelines need adjustment, but this AfD is not where to discuss that. The "single event" arguments don't make sense; there are at least 3 different "events" being discussed in the article. WP:BLP1E doesn't apply to a person who is only famous for "one thing", in fact most notable people are only notable for a single reason (sports heroes, actors, scientists only famous for being scientific achivements, etc.). BLP1E is for a person only famous for a particular incident, in which case the incident deserves an article not the person. This person has received attention for multiple events. -- Atama頭 19:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You have totally misunderstood how deletion works in Wikipedia. "Inclusion guidelines" are no pieces of legislation that bind us here. They are guidelines. They are produced by reflecting what happens at Afd (descriptive NOT proscriptive). That means we don't change the guidelines in order to change what happens here, rather if people start doing things differently here, we then update the guidelines. They are not legislation. If you think this article does not belong on wikipedia, then you argue for its deletion. Deletion Policy simply says that we delete what there is a consensus to delete. So, leaving the guidelines aside, do you think this subject is suitable for inclusion in our encyclopedia (hint: I think ethical considerations are perfectly appropriate here, but your mileage may vary.)--Scott Mac (Doc) 19:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm choosing not to argue WP:IDONTLIKEIT and I'm instead judging my argument based on standards set by the community. I don't argue based on my own personal bias. That is how deletion is supposed to work in Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 19:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, you are missing the point. The standards are set by the community HERE at AFD, not by haggling over a guideline page which is supposed to describe not proscribe what we do here. You are right that you don't use your biases here, but you do use your judgement and you brain. If you think the guideline is right, fine. If you think it is wrong, then say why and decide accordingly. "IDONTLIKEIT" isn't the point. --Scott Mac (Doc) 20:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - BLP1E is a policy and trumpts GNG which is a guideline. Please don't be legalistic here - think about the pointing at the mentally ill. I would have hoped we could find a clear consensus that being mean to sick deluded people isn't morally right. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spartaz, do you think that Napolis is famous for only one event? If the deletion discussion is about BLP1E then I'd really like to understand how this qualifies - I still see three incidents, three separate waves of coverage. If the deletion discussion is about IAR because she's mentall ill, then we should focus on ethics and morality rather than policy (and probably re-launch the discussion). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is about both. This article is marginal - given that, and the ethics, should we keep it? Some people see interpreting rules and guidelines literalisticly as the way to answer this, others take other factors into account. It isn't about one or the other, different people are swayed by different considerations (or the same ones to different degrees). The closing admin will have to see where the consensus lies.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if we're going to invoke BLP1E (as policy as well), then we should be sure it's actually meets the criteria laid out in BLP1E. I just don't see it, I see three events (BLP3E?) and I'm looking for clarification on whether I'm missing something. For people !voting BLP1E, is the 1E the belief system? The stalking? Otherise, it's more "Delete - marginable notability and ethical obligation means we should ignore the guidelines." Very different, but it's quite possible that a) I don't really understand BLP1E (and explaining it to me helps my editing and the wiki as a whole) or b) we've got different definitions of 1E (and no amount of discussion will help). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought more about it and I think I'm going to ask to delete this. I still don't think this even comes close to WP:BLP1E but I think the spirit of our BLP policy is to do no harm to the article subject. I realize that Wikipedia isn't censored, and that the article subject even implicitly endorses the article (since it is alleged that she has edited the article anonymously to make minor changes to it), but I don't think the encyclopedia is better with this article. Perhaps merge some of the info to satanic ritual abuse. -- Atama頭 23:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Strip away the celebrity factor, at the end, what do you have? A private individual with a tragic mental disorder. Is that notable? Probably the case for inclusion can be made arguing the technicalities of Wiki policy and her marginal notability, but count me out of that discussion. --Jmundo (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:BIO and WP:RS criteria. Warrah (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Stalking. She is by no means a subject of national debate like, for instance, Nidal Hasan or Lee Harvey Oswald. I agree with DGG, and harm to the subject matter does not enter my thoughts on this. She just is not sufficiently notable.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad case for those involved. Wikilawyering does not persuade me of notability. Do no harm. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Those who claim notability point to two academic books and a whole lot of coverage in the media. I don't see how that is wikilawyering. Can you explain exactly how the entry does harm? People invoking this "do no harm" argument are assuming this is simply obvious, but to those of us who are not mental health experts some explanation is required, particularly when we write about equally or more tragic situations and individuals at this encyclopedia every day.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A lot of delete votes are appearing on this page based on what seem to be knee jerk reactions to the fact that the individual who is the subject of this entry has a mental disorder of some kind. Let's be clear about one thing. BLPE1 does not apply here, since notability is established through several events. No defense of BLPE1 has been made despite a number of requests. What remains is a "do no harm" argument. The fact that this argument cannot be more adequately articulated through policy, as opposed to a more general appeal to "morals" or "ethics" is telling of the fact that our current policies do not explicitly deal with situations like this. One might ask why we have biographies of other unbalanced living people without any such protest. Because those people don't deserve the sympathy of Wikipedia editors while someone like Napolis does? I'm not comfortable making that kind of judgement and I don't think anyone else here should be either. Who are we to say to the victims of cyber stalking and harassment that what happened to them is somehow out-weighed by our human emotions of "sadness" towards their victimizer? The point is that we shouldn't even be engaged in this line of reasoning at all, but I'm afraid this seems to be what is happening. As DGG put it above, when someone's own behavior thrusts them into the spotlight we are not here to protect them from themselves. Keep voters have argued that Napolis is clearly notable and that her entry is quite informative to subject areas like Satanic ritual abuse and cyber stalking. Yes the situation involving the subject is tragic. We all share the same amounts of sadness and sympathy for her but it isn't necessary to make a delete vote to prove it.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are basically saying is that the keep argument rejects any ethical considerations, and wants to stand on the application of rules. The thing is, many wikipedians do not agree with that. Many of us think that where the subject is on the margin of notability, that we should exercise some degree of humanity and compassion (these are naturally subjective). You may "be uncomfortable" with such subjectivity - but many are more and morally uncomfortable with discounting it. Fortunately, we don't need to decide some objecctive universal rule here that governs a whole set of article, since we delete or keep by consensus. Therefore we discuss and go by consensus here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure but consensus is not determined by tallying votes. Our AfD guidelines state the following:
    - The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
    - When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.
  - A closing admin should consider BLPE1 a moot argument unless it is explained (which means a good number of commenters here whose only claim is that it violates said policy have not added to any consensus). As to the moral argument, I'm afraid I don't really see an argument. What I see a is an unexplained reaction. How this entry poses harm is the operative question in regards to the moral argument. There can be no moral or ethical argument to protect someone from harm unless, bare minimum, the possibility of harm is established. Your own wording does not tell us how the entry is even possibly harmful though it does project judgement onto phantom others who are hypothetically viewing the page in a way that is disagreeable to you -- "staring at mentally disturbed people is not what wikipedia is for". In fact what do you even base the idea that "staring at the mentally disturbed" is an outcome of having entries like this in the first place? Or is the most common outcome? This is a pretty bleak picture of our users you are presenting. My point is that I don't think much thought is going into this reaction. It looks like a knee jerk reaction ... an admirable one ... but that doesn't change the fact that it lacks credible evidence. Of course even if the possibility of harm can be argued (and indeed it could be argued for most of our entries in some manner or another) the probability of harm, or the relative relationship between harm and encyclopedic benefit has certainly not been established. If you claim that these types of equations are not relevant then I will point you once again to Charles Manson whom we all read about precisely because of events directly related to his own mental problems. If it is clear why his entry belongs and this doesn't such equations must be at work here and I remain uncomfortable with the idea that Wikipedia editors are deciding which notable mentally disturbed people deserve entries and which don't based upon our own personal knee jerk feelings of sympathy.PelleSmith (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I've said, the notability question is fairly balanced - for me the ethical consideration (is this what we should be doing?) pushes that balance to delete. The rest of this is circular. You don't think my argument is valid (obviously), but I and others do. I am just as uncomfortable with your refusal to take the "impact of the article" into account. But this isn't about your comfort or mine. The closing admin will have to decide where consensus lies. We work by consensus not hard and fast rules.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - How can you claim the notability question is balanced when the only argument against notability is BLP1E and its entirely fallacious, a point no one is willing to defend with argument? Regarding the moral argument I'm asking you and others to explain what the "impact of the article" actually is. What harm is actually going to befall someone because of it? Lacking this it is not an argument at all. Our conversation is indeed becoming circular, though my logic is not. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are still rules-mongering about BLP1E. I don't care whether this article meets the letter of that or not. The fact is that this is not a very notable person, who has done nothing much, and her exclusion from this encyclopedia is no big deal (unlike if we don't have an article on, say, Charles Manson). The fact is that further publicising the case of a person who has received passing media attention only because of activities that indicate mental instability is a piss poor thing to do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The fact is that you don't know what "further publicizing the case" will do and if you do I'm not sure why you keep refusing to answer that question. I see unnecessary hysteria over unscientific assumptions about what is or is not detrimental to someone's mental health, which is ironic given the fact that the subject of the entry in question is notable for her involvement in the satanic ritual abuse moral panic. Entries like this are valuable to topics like satanic ritual abuse just like entries on people like Charles Manson are valuable to larger topics like serial killing. They provide further information on some of the actors involved. The fact that deletion commentators here (bar one) aren't even considering a merge makes it abundantly clear that they don't remotely understand this fact. In the end losing this entry may be a blip in the grand scheme of the encyclopedia but its the larger trend in delete voting here based on emotionally charged moralizing without any purported basis in actual fact that I find problematic going forward.PelleSmith (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With regard to the (generally problematic) application of BLP1E, I think my nomination rationale needs a little clarification. There's a not-very-helpful inconsistency between the BLP1E section of the general BLP policy, which says "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event," and the parallel section of the notability guideline, which says "When an individual is significant for their role in a single event." I think both significance and coverage need to be taken into account; to stack the deck, if someone who otherwise falls under BLP1E for a different were to later win PowerBall and received a brief flurry of press coverage, they should still fall under BLP1E because the second event lacks adequate significance. That's how I think the celebrity stalking should be viewed; absent some particularly significant aspect to the situation, stalking a celebrity is a common if reprehensible event, and the stalkers themselves are typically insignificant, as they do not inherit their target's notability. (The Margaret Rays of the world are the exceptions, not the rule.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate the further clarification but you're comparing apples to oranges. Napolis is discussed in an academic work on cyber stalking as a notable cyber stalker, ... notable for three separate events of cyber stalking and not one stalking event and then winning the powerball. One of these events is independently notable as an aspect of the satanic ritual abuse moral panic and is discussed as such in yet another academic book. This is above and beyond the media coverage spawning from her celebrity stalking events alone.PelleSmith (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not believe that celebrity stalking, in and of itself, is enough for notability. Internet trolling certainly isn't. The fact is that we probably wouldn't even have this article if it wasn't for Ms. Napolis's Internet activities — the stalking incidents are basically window dressing to this article. *** Crotalus *** 17:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not whether we believe celebrity stalking is notable or not (an opinion and a variation on just not notable), the point is that it has coverage in independent, secondary sources (a lot of them). I don't think evidence-free vitamin-pushing is notable, but I wouldn't argue that Matthias Rath should be deleted and it shouldn't matter what I think. Notable cranks, pseudoscientists, and even the mentally ill are still notable, even if it's not for a good thing - notability is press coverage, not what we define is importance. The reasons we have policies and guidelines is so we don't base this solely on votes of what individuals consider important. As an additional assertion of notability, Napolis' actions also led to a historically significant law suit.

As for the ethical arguments, I just don't see it as a clear black-and-white. But that's a huge and difficult conversation and I have no idea how much merit to give it or how much weight it holds in a deletion discussion. I guess that's what DRV and the closing admin are for. If it is deleted, a full discusion and rationale would be appreciated as it looks like it's coming down to a simple vote. And if we're going to vote, despite other stuff existing we should also vote down Florentino Floro - the parallels are pretty obvious. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While she may technically fulfill the notability guideline, article of such mentally ill person who is marginally notable at best has no real encyclopedic value and feels generally inappropriate, so I believe that it should be deleted per WP:UCS.--Staberinde (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per excellent points by Wikidemon, WLU and DGG. The subject is unfortunately but obviously notable for several high-profile incidents reported in several RS, so BLP1E clearly does not apply. There are also several Google Books hits, which are not passing mentions: see an entire subchapter about her here. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP: "The possibility of harm to living subjects must be considered." Never mind the technicalities of BLP1E and NOTNEWS, Scott Mac has it right: "further publicising the case of a person who has received passing media attention only because of activities that indicate mental instability is a piss poor thing to do." JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remember that WP:BLP includes WP:WELLKNOWN. In this case it is definitely not "passing media attention": we have books on stalking presenting her case in detail, see above. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Can editors please desist from canvassing at Wikipedia Review? A series of brief delete !votes derive from the posting there, and should be given less weight as Wikipedia Review is known to be hardline on BLPs. WP:NOTNEWS could apply to this case, but for the couple of books that discuss the case. Most of the news coverage is local, her case wasn't given very much attention by the media. I'm surprised nobody has looked at WP:PERP: #2 is satisfied, i.e. "The victim is a renowned world figure". I'm in two minds, but keep it is. Fences&Windows 21:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PERP involves "high profile" crimes as well as celebrity victims (and I don't think JLH quite meets the "renowned world figure" standard). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spielberg sure does, and Jennifer Love Hewitt is a worldwide celebrity. Fences&Windows 00:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia PUSH N900[edit]

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

Article from SPA who is "currently working as community manager for N900 Push campaign" [38]. Article purely designed to promote a non-notable corporate event. Haakon (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although not G11-level "unambiguous advertising or promotion," this article is basically a WP:ARTSPAM-type promotion of a corporate event. Created and editing almost solely by the SPA mentioned above, there is no NPOV version of this article to which we may revert. It's difficult to conceive of rewriting this article with a NPOV and without a fundamentally promotional basis. Therefore, deletion is the better option here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find coverage in any reliable sources, does not establish notability. -- Intractable (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While Nokia is obviously notable, this campaign hosted by a notable company is practically a WP:ARTSPAM magnet. ⇒ Pickbothmanlol 15:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Sinterklaas and Santa Claus[edit]

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

No assertion that the topic, the comparison of the two, is notable. No reliable sources used, seemingly making it original research as well. Could potentially open the door for any number of similar "Comparison" articles as well, which would probably have the same problems. If anyone raises concerns about the dubious timing of this nomination, I ain't afraid of no ghosts. No particular objections to merging some relevant content elsewhere, but I'm not sure which page to merge what to. Ebenezer Scrooge (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ebenezer Scrooge (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Ebenezer Scrooge (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~From a gut feeling,~~ Keep. I know there have been sources comparing the two. The thing is finding those sources so I can demonstrate the notability of the comparison. I'll probably revisit this discussion later this week. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just dumping some links I still have to investigate the merits of, though it's becoming clear that at least the relation between christmas and sinterklaas has been source of research:

http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Q-kO4ehiX1UC&oi=fnd&pg=PA6&dq=verschillen+tussen+sinterklaas+en+de+kerstman&ots=mvvaDdDKbt&sig=6Ocr5T9eviKC1XeBE1HARRFMHK4#v=onepage&q=kerstman&f=false

http://books.google.nl/books?hl=en&lr=&id=gyBeHYkyqigC&oi=fnd&pg=PA4&dq=verschillen+tussen+%22sinterklaas+en+de+kerstman%22&ots=a5iCb1-Z-O&sig=XHJ6ATcj6kyhtnbc5N5_k3arPRA#v=onepage&q=kerstman&f=false Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of the second link, especialy around page 135, makes my keep resounding. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, see the talk page--Narayan (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INTERESTING is not generally considered to be a valid argument in a deletion discussion. GlassCobra 17:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I completely agree that they should be compared and it's interesting. However this is not the right way to do it in an encylopedia. Mention each person's article in the other so that readers can read both and do the comparing on their own. This will give them something to do while waiting for Christmas morning. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. There are many versions of "Father Christmas." Even in the United States, for example, there are variations. There could be thousands of articles if we compare each one to each other one. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comparison, IMO is different, in that this comparison is seriously researched (see my above links, which are unfortunately in Dutch). If the other comparisons have equivalent sources, they too should be kept. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as someone's essay. Possibly some material could be put in Santa Claus if it's not already there. Mangoe (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete our function is not to make an active comparison, we take a passive role in demonstrating comparisons. We may report objectively on the comparison but doing the comparison ourselves is original research. I appreciate the sources Martijn has found, but I'm still hung up over the issue of a "compare and contrast" type article. The comparison between the two can be justly treated at their respective articles and can be done without having an essay article. Them From Space 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can certainly appreciate that sentiment, and would much rather see a "relation between Sinterklaas and Santa Claus" article, as it would be much more appropriate to an encyclopedia. For that to happen the entire article should be revamped. I believe however there is too much too say to put it in duplicate in the Santa Clause and Sinterklaas articles. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete The WP:BLP concerns raised by the article are obvious, considering the time of year, and I think that the nomination does put people in a dilemma over whether they will or will not be on the list on Christmas Eve. Ultimately, though, one can compare and contrast anything with anything in an essay. I think that in an abridged form, a paragraph on competitors to Santa would be appropriate in his article, and some of this can be incorporated into the article about the Sinterklaas myth. Mandsford (talk) 13:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP concerns? Sorry Virginia, but Santa Claus isn't real. Them From Space 19:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whaattt??? But the editor of the New York Sun said...Mandsford (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An article on the development of these various charactes from Saint Nicholas might be reasonable. This article is not, however, that. Simply comparing details, without any indication as to why those details in particular need to be compared or what significance there is to them, is another matter entirely. John Carter (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I agree the current version is weakly sourced and more in essay style than article, but as Martijn Hoekstra states: there are sources. In response to some opponents: Sinterklaas and Santa Claus are very similar (it is likely Santa Claus partially evolved from the Dutch Sinterklaas tradition) but at the same time very different. That being the same and different makes a comparison (or relation) article relevant in my opinion. In response to the comment WP:BLP above; really, naming these characters living persons is original research in itself, and may tend towards censorship of things we dont want our kids to know. To the latter - too bad, a kid old enough to find this on Wikipedia should be adult enough to realise the neither Santa nor Sint is a living person. Arnoutf (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP reference, and ThemFromSpace's straight man response, were both made in jest, of course. But it does bring up an observation about Wikipedia's policies. Consider this: If we were to go strictly under Wikipedia's rules concerning citation to reliable and verifiable sources, it would be difficult to find a published source that specifically states "Santa Claus is not real" (in that nobody wants to be the bad guy who tells that to a child); on the other hand, a Google search of news and books would turn up plenty of sources (including the famous editorial in the New York Sun) to support the opposite. Even worse, if we the typical Wikipedian believed in Santa Claus, suggestions to the contrary would be rejected as original research (based on the deduction that everyone reaches in childhood upon noticing the incredible similarity between the handwriting of one's mother and "Santa"). January's Visa bill is kind of a reminder that almost every adult is expected to be Santa Claus this time of year. Mandsford (talk) 15:08, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an essay full of original research. If someone wants to re-write the "comparison" later on down the road using proper sources they are free to do so. This version, however, cannot be kept. JBsupreme (talk) 06:42, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dusky[edit]

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

Partial title list JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Partial title matches. They aren't dabs and they aren't valid list articles. See also:

-- JHunterJ (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —JHunterJ (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless article. Somebody went to a lot of work compiling this list, but it has no significance to anyone else. --MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Delete - it is very hard to imagine how this page would be used in research. Would a reader really say, "I remember a bird called a Dusky something-or-other and will look it up using the first word of its common name." That could be done from the search window. This article is like a disamb page based on first name instead of surname. Racepacket (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's quite likely - Jonny4026 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bizarre and useless list. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a pretty radical article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonny4026 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Dusky Sound, which is the only thing on the list that could maybe be referred to as just "Dusky." Propaniac (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? Do you never want to find various dusky animals? Jonny4026 (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I feel bad about this. It obviously took someone a lot of work to compile this list. But it's pretty much useless. WP:LIST. Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 10:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wu Sien[edit]

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

I am bringing this to AfD after trying to engage in discussion with its author who seems not to have edited for some time, and after discussing it with other editors on my talk page and theirs. We cannot find any sources for a person of this name, although on my talk page it has been suggested he may have been a fictional character in a documentary on Zheng He (as an aside, while I was doing this I created an article for the real historical personage Wang Jinghong. Dougweller (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Just clarify that this fictional character is in a drama TV series, not a documentary, about Zheng He. For relevant plots about Wu Sien (吴宣, Wu Xuan) in this TV series, see, e.g., this, this, this, and this pages. --Pengyanan (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see any sources. I don't see any Chinese sources for 吴宣 that aren't about the tv series. There is no 吴宣 article on zh Wikipedia. If somebody wrote an article about the tv series, we could redirect there. It looks like a decent tv show and has obvious sources to use. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources on this particular person. There's a bunch of Google hits for the Chinese name, but all are (1) unreliable, (2) about the TV series or (3) irrelevant. Tim Song (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Tone 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Most[edit]

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

No significant coverage in wp:secondary sources to establish general notability or to assert a meeting of wp:creative Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is inaccurate. John Most meets not only wp:creative notability, but also academic notability, having edited a literary journal, call: review. This journal published the current National Book award Winner for poetry, Keith Waldrop and other notable writers. It is also in major collections,including the Library of Congress. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

In addition, what user: Omarcheeseboro also does not mention is that this article was approved by the WikiProject Biography and supported by the arts and entertainment workgroup. See the talk page for this article. Also from wikipedia: "The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum." This page should not be deleted. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC). — Derekw22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment There are also two articles about two of his works which could also be considered for separate AFDs, as lacking evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm neutral on deletion, but I just want to point out a couple of things. The talk page does not state that the article is "approved" by anybody; all it says is that it is within the scope of those groups' expertise/interest. Also, I fail to see how this is a content dispute. All edits to the article by Omarcheeseboro (talk · contribs) have been minor edits, cleanup, a merge from another article, and nominating it for deletion. A content dispute means multiple editors disagree over the content of an article, not whether the article merits inclusion in Wikipedia. Those discussions belong here at Articles for deletion. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThe individual does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE at this point in his career. Edison (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "little magazine" he founded has no presence on Google, and his books are self-published. He himself appears on Google only for this article and his home page and blog. Clearly not notable, at least not right now. --MelanieN (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment: Correction, not "approved." The page says "supported" by the arts and entertainment work group. Yes, there are more than simply his own blog and website. His review of Pablo Picasso on the premiere online poetry journal Jacket at: http://jacketmagazine.com/30/most-picasso.html. The list goes on. His two spoken word albums are internationally distributed by The Orchard. From MusicStack: "Now, the spoken word has become as diverse as the people who perform them. Top-selling spoken word artists today include John Most, George Lopez, Ray Romano, and Paul Robeson, as well as Beat poets like Allen Ginsberg, William S Burroughs, and Jack Kerouac." http://www.musicstack.com/genre/spoken-word (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC). — Derekw22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I hate to tell you this, but I went to your link at musicstack, clicked on "John Most", and it took me to music recordings by the John Most Singers! --MelanieN (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure "Singers" fall within the spoken word category: see last.fm:

for top spoken word artists: http://www.last.fm/tag/spoken%20word/artists. John Most is there as well. http://www.last.fm/music/John+Most (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.215.236 (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A description on musicstack, charting on last.fm is not significant coverage in a reliable source --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 18:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GalaHotels[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, insubstantial article, just a link to a commercial website, no efforts to improve article--just a receptacle for content scraping, orphan Careful Cowboy (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Careful Cowboy explained the problems perfectly. --MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Melanie[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advert--195.137.63.170 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Incubate. NW (Talk) 21:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient artillery[edit]

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

Article appears to be an essay or school project. The articles sling (weapon) and slingshot give a much more thorough account of these weapons. PDCook (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 9th grade project. If anyone knows a good redirect please say. Obviously the subject is notable, but this is too poor to survive here. Johnbod (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Other articles do indeed cover this subject with greater depth. If the goal is to improve this into an article, and there are no particular issues with it such as BLP or Copyvio, might I also suggest Userfying it to the author's page for development? Might be a good middle ground. We also have guidelines for school projects, which may be relevant to the author. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are many articles and categories that already cover this subject. Kartano (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly useful. I suggest userfy or incubate. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete medieval weapons are not "ancient", the article talks about medieval siege engines. If kept, rename to Pre-gunpowder artillery or Non-chemical propellant artillery. Possibly move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Pre-gunpowder artillery or Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Non-chemical propellant artillery per Bearian, if kept. Preferably delete though. 76.66.203.178 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE and the WP:GNG Fences&Windows 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wills Canga[edit]

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

Contested prod, I believe fails WP:CREATIVE. I failed to find any significant coverage, contester is sole author of the article, added a link to a video hosted on google. Ray^Talk 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 15:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete At this point is his career he is not notable. His IMB database [39] resume lists a few appearances on single episodes of Spanish TV programs, and one uncredited movie appearance. I wish him luck in his career and maybe he will be notable in the future. --MelanieN (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Weak Delete until article is sandblasted. It currently reads like a puffy resume. You'd think that the lengthy career in Spanish language film and television might have some coverage... but all I could find were two recent Spanish language articles about him... El Tiempo and El Universo. His unsourcable career fails WP:ENT. Does he pass WP:GNG? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Jacob Oduor[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails criteria of WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable lecturer. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that he meets WP:N. ~YellowFives 19:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable lecturer, minor publications. (I'm beginning to think that any article title containing "Dr." in the title, instead of just the person's name, is automatically a red flag for insignificance.) --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Comment. I know it's easy to make that assumption, but please try to avoid it. In some cultures it is considered impolite not to use the honorific (in fact, in Germany, it's not unknown for people with two doctorates to be referred to as "Dr. Dr."), so we shouldn't assume that the inclusion of a title is puffery. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Some very eminent people have multiple (maybe dozens of) honorary degrees. How do the Germans deal with that? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I'm sure many of us have made the same observation as MelanieN. Although only anecdotal at this point, I suspect that a more systematic study would show some level of correlation. I get that "cultural differences" may explain some of this, but I think it could also be true in many cases that article-creators are vaguely aware of notability requirements (hence the window-dressing of the title), but aren't yet experienced enough to realize that this is not itself sufficient. This particular article seems to have been created by the subject himself, who has only been editing WP for less than a week. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Not notable at all. --Bsa dow ski1 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability to be found. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. The wide net of Google Scholar returns 0 hits. Entirely non-notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Bentson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO, tagged for notability since 2007. I failed to find any significant coverage on Gnews. Previous AfD defaulted to no consensus following a *complete lack of any participation*. Ray^Talk 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 16:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. No sources in article, weakly written in few sentences, no apparent significant coverage. Turqoise127 (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absolutely not notable. No news, can't find reliable sources to validate. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don West, Jr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I have no opinion either way but another editor applied the tag and did not complete the nom so I'm just finishing it off. HJMitchell You rang? 14:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I got tripped up in doing a AfD on an article that had been deleted before. Thanks for fixing. This is actually only the second nomination.[reply]

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don West, Jr. in 2007. The article was recreated in 2008 by an SPA, User:SportsStar2999. A second SPA, User:Maxconquest, was the Keep vote in the first AfD, has edited this article, and also created Sean A. Pittman to cover West's law partner. The article reads like an advertisement and may be an autobiography. It lacks reliable third-party sources. There are thousands of sports agents, but they cannot inherit the notability of their clients. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way that we can combine this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don West, Jr. (2nd nomination)? Racepacket (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the statements in the article are unreferenced and not verifiable, but even if we ignore that, and assume that the article is entirely accurate, it is hard to see how Don West, Jr. is notable. Occasional contact with several notable clients is not enough. Tim Ross (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sports agent of reasonable note, and we've already gone through an AFD process on this a few months back, as I recall. MiamiDolphins3 (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment MiamiDolphins3 is correct, there was an AfD in 2007 and the result was Delete. The article was deleted, and then recreated by an SPA who has been adding most of the content. Tracing the users lead to similar COI concerns about two other articles on people who practiced law with Don West, Jr. -- Sean A. Pittman and William David Cornwell. See COIN for details. Racepacket (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to meet criteria in WP:BIO Deli nk (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – None of the sources meet the criteria for BLP notability, and I can't find any significant coverage with a quick search. Rees11 (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO, notability not established ukexpat (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The glenn robinsons[edit]

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

Non-notable one-man-band. Does not pass WP:BAND. Warrah (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently made a duplicate nomination. My rationale was as follows: This band doesn't seem to meet the general notability guideline, nor the specific guidelines in WP:MUSIC. Because the band has 4 full length albums out, I think some more discussion than given in a PROD is warrented. The album "The most worst thing ever" (a comilation album) was released on Wreck Kidz Lbl. That doesn't seem to be an important indie label as meant in WP:MUSIC #5. ( "an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable" emph. mine). I haven't been able to find out what label the other albums were released under. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I can find no coverage for this band. Does not appear to meet any of the WP:BAND criteria. Gongshow ^Talk 16:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I am unable to find significant coverage for this band. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per A7. --Fbifriday (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BAND. At least has some claims to notability, so I don't think you could quite have gotten away with an A7, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no evidence of notability. Note also the albums Mechanical Bullfighter and Bear Attack, which will have to be deleted with it — they don't require separate discussions, as they'll automatically become CSD A9s if the band's article goes. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Mediterranean Sea#Bordering countries. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean Countries[edit]

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

This is a hopeless muddle of original research, with very broad assumptions about the extremely diverse cultures of the countries of the region. Besides omitting Israel from its coverage, the article also forgets to include references. Warrah (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mediterranean unless it can be sourced. A plausible search term but the current contents do look like a muddle. JIP | Talk 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this topic could possibly be the basis for a good article but unfortunately there is nothing in it at the moment that is suitable for wikipedia due to lack of sources and lengthy original research. Unless someone is prepared to completely rewrite the article it I think it should be deleted. Mah favourite (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mediterranean, perhaps even to the section "Bordering countries". As JIP said, a plausible search term. Constantine ✍ 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mediterranean redirects to Mediterranean Sea which links Mediterranean region in the lead section, which in turn redirects to Mediterranean Basin. So there's not one but two pages that could include this... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mediterranean region unless sources are provided to establish that this is a generally accepted classification. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The sources offered don't seem to be reliable, and consensus is that it's not notable Fences&Windows 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volante Tower[edit]

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

This proposed building in Dubai is, according to the unreliable Emporis, a low-rise, with no height given even by its own webpage. It has no reliable secondary sources whatsoever, and I can say with some certainty that it will never be built. Deprodded by the author. Glittering Pillars (talk) 13:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no reliable secondary sources that discuss this tower at length. Non-notable. Angryapathy (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What makes you say Emporis is unreliable? Do you have any evidence to support your statement "...and I can say with some certainty that it will never be built"? If you are going to use a lack of sources as a reason to delete, then don't use your own unverifiable opinion to support your argument. The lack of a stated height or that it is merely a proposal is not in itself a reason to delete. Astronaut (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incdentally, AfD is an unusual place for new editors, like Glittering Pillars (talk · contribs), to start. Astronaut (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However, I've followed GlitteringPillars onto more than one AfD and not found anything to complain of - so far. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis allows registered editors to add information. All it takes to become a registered editor is an email address, and perhaps to upload some photos. It is a wiki. Glittering Pillars (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given the somewhat parlous state of Dubai's finances at this time, WP:CRYSTAL does come into my thoughts. I know nothing about Emporis, but wonder why it is referred to thus "Emporis GmbH is a real estate data mining company" at Emporis. Peridon (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any evidence in reliable sources that it will not be built after all? And to quote from Emporis: "Emporis is cited relatively frequently by various media sources as an authority on building data" Does that make it unreliable? Astronaut (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think taking a quote from a company that promotes the company is exactly reliable information. Any website can make claims about its impact on various industries. Angryapathy (talk) 15:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source of that information is Emporis, but it is not that difficult to follow up the quoted articles. Do you have a particular reason to believe Emporis have made it up? Astronaut (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying Emporis is an unreliable source, I am instead questioning whether it is reliable source that can confer notability. I feel that being included on that site does not confer notability to a building that will probably never be built. Angryapathy (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emporis is a useful resource, but it allows developers to add information about their buildings. So it is okay for uncontroversial information, but not for challenged claims, especially about buildings that haven't been built. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When they get planning permission AND cut the first sod - or rather shovel the first shovelful of sand - then maybe. Until then, CRYSTAL. The media quote lots of sources that aren't reliable. Governments, the military, etc. Peridon (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice to recreation once construction has begun. Mjroots (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks to Glittering for pointing out that Emporis is editable, and therefore not reliable (in the same way that Wikipedia may not be used here as a source). Can I add that Freebase is also editable, and the Skyscrapercity link is a forum? Which leaves us with only the 'official site' which may be interesting but is primary, and therefore inherently not classed as reliable. At the present state of play, I'm wondering if SNOW will fall on the tower..... Peridon (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Huskies starting widereceiver[edit]

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

Basically just a list of statistics Wikipedia is not a sports guide Delete Secret ^account 13:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or there'll be a page like this for every position of every sport for every college team. Glittering Pillars (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator. We don't need every stat for every position of every college/pro team on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Can we start a new word here? Statcruft, based on Listcruft. Should I make a new article about it? No, perhaps not.... Peridon (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#STATS. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Glittering sums up my concerns. This isn't a precedent that we want to set, and it's not Wikipedia's function to duplicate the Huskies Media Guide. Mandsford (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT#STATS also. --Bsa dow ski1 04:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the page for the team. No need to remove information, but probably doesn't deserve an entire page, too. --UgaBullDawgFan08 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. sourcing concern wasn't met Secret ^account 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoneTooSoon[edit]

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

It's an article for a private company, much as any other and is not notable in any way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.57.221 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is a good-faith submittal for the above IP. tedder (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There has been non-trivial third party coverage that is referenced in the article J04n(talk page) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the editor who created this article has spent most of his/her edits on this article and on a biography of the website's creator. I do not consider the coverage of this website to be non-trivial third party coverage. Racepacket (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The sources provided in the article provide marginal notability for the subject. Angryapathy (talk) 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may need further external references or be rewritten to include further citations. The activies listed don't seem excessively trivial. Maybe just a bit of a rewrite, with some further references? Kartano (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An interesting philosophical question, whether the Daily Mail is a reliable source; but this obituary website seems to have attracted "mainstream" (?!) media coverage chiefly on account of a flawed ad-serving algorithm that dished out ironically inappropriate advertisements. Then again, I am not sure what sort of advertisements would be appropriate for an obituary. Leaving that aside, I don't see that minor flurry of coverage as something that meets the website notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Secret ^account 23:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prem Chaaya: Love-nest for Animals and Birds[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "Love-nest for Animals and Birds" part has nothing to do with the real name of the animal shelter, which is Prem Chaaya. The article does contain links to some newpaper articles on the topic. Glittering Pillars (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no independant secondary sources. More like WP:SPAM than an article. Angryapathy (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Delete While I wish the shelter well, I can't see that it is notable enough. Nowhere in the league of the Battersea Dogs and Cats Home, which takes in 12,000 dogs a year. There is plenty of scope for a shelter of this nature in India, and when more notability has been achieved I would welcome a new article. Peridon (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate. The article's author asked me for help on how best to rewrite this article. I suggest that it be Incubated, since the editors there may be able to assist. In its present state, the article cannot stay in mainspace, since its title is wrong, it has weak sourcing, and it is poorly paraphrased from those sources. Also, the author can take some solace in the fact that articles such as this one are basically ignored; they typically get 2 or 3 page views a day, consistent with search engine bots and other automated readers, not humans. So having a Wikipedia article will do nothing towards saving any animals. Glittering Pillars (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

School of Resentment[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article contains no references, footnotes or citations, in fact nothing at all to suggest that the subject even exists, let alone that it is notable. RolandR 12:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The article is in desperate need of fixing, but the term is notable, based on the numerous secondary sources that describe the term. And remember, AfD is about notability, not the article status at the moment. Angryapathy (talk) 14:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Google Books and Google Scholar references. — goethean ॐ 14:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly needs refs and linkage into Bloom and his work, but current state is one for improvement not deletion. AllyD (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep please this is a article that needs some improvement yes but not erasing yuckfoo (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Lewis Anderson[edit]

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

Non-notable - time machine inventor all sources are self published (moved to talk page for reference) Rich Farmbrough, 12:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete unless better references can be provided. Deb (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created by an SPA. Need non-trivial coverage by a third party source. 14:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete A physicist who has studied and served in the military. As have so many others. Nothing in the article to even suggest notability. Emeraude (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not achieved notability, no reliable sources mention him. Angryapathy (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article would make a good User's page, but the individual isn't noteworthy. Kartano (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ^^^. JBsupreme (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Ubisoft. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ubidays[edit]

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

The article violates WP:CSD G11. This article has been used unambiguous advertising or promotion and hasn't been edited for 8 months. It also needs complete rewrite to meet with Wikipedia standards. Also Ubisoft officially announced that they have scraped this event to focus more on main regional events of E3, Gamescom and the Tokyo Game Show. Several reliable online have confirmed this news which was revealed on April 9, 2009:

1. No more Ubidays for Ubisoft - Big Download.com

2. Ubisoft scraps UbiDays 2009 event - Eurogamer

3. No Ubidays for 2009 - Exophase.com

4. No Ubidays event this year - GamesIndustry.biz

5. Imagine: A year without Ubidays - Joystiq

6. No Ubidays for 2009 - M for Mature.com

7. Ubisoft drops Ubidays - Market for Home Computing and Video Games (MCV)

8. No Ubidays In 2009 - Portalit.net JuventusGamer (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ubisoft. Wknight94 ^talk 12:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with Wknight. If it doesn't happen anymore, no need to have an article about it. Angryapathy (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. Once notable, always notable. All the coverage in the references cited above makes me think the topic must be notable. "If it doesn't happen anymore" is never a valid reason to delete an article. - Eastmain (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand using the additional sources provided by nom. Notability isn't temporary, and the event seems to have gained decent coverage. --Taelus (talk) 10:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - it's about a press conference, so maybe deserves a line in Ubisoft, but not its own article. JohnBlackburne (talk) 22:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ubisoft. Right now this article stands as more of an advert-esque entry, which could be cleaned up, but it would be better served in the parent article where it can have a paragraph or two that covers everything here. --Teancum (talk) 12:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ubisoft as per above. A fully referenced section in the Ubisoft article could save this information, as it is regarded as notable. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Withdrawn. Appears to have been speedied whilst I was creating this AFD Nancy ^talk 12:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sasikala[edit]

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

Concerns over systemic bias prevented me from just speedying this but I'm pretty sure that this article fails WP:CREATIVE. Appears to be about a lady who likes dancing with her daughter and organises a few shows. Google verification is difficult as Sasikala is quite a common name. Nancy ^talk 12:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kiely (Mayor of Limerick)[edit]

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

Non notable local politician. Recently made a remark to deport jobless foreigners from Ireland and received national coverage as a result, falls under WP:1E Snappy (talk) 12:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep'. By Irish standards, he is notable and more than a purely local politician. Limerick is the third largest city in the Republic of Ireland, and he would have been notable without his recent thoughtless comments. - Eastmain (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Satisfies WP:notability for politicians ("Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.") Emeraude (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough as mayor of well-known, sizeable (relative to nation) city. 71.235.38.171 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since when do anon IPs get to vote in AFDs? I trying to assume good faith but it seems a bit suspicious. Also, the anon IP has a suspected sockpuppet tag on it. Snappy (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since 2005. As for the sockpuppet tag no idea—it was added a few months ago, both tagger & alleged-'sockmaster' still edit. –Whitehorse1 23:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article clearly satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. Mayor of one of the 5 cities in the Republic of Ireland is notable. The office is historic (he is the 813th Mayor of Limerick). All facts are referenced. I am the main author of this article MoyrossLADY (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mayors in Ireland are not actually very notable. Unlike say USA and France where Mayors are directly to office for a term of office, in Ireland the county or city council is elected every 5 years, and every years, its buggins turn for a year as Mayor. Which ever parties have a majority form an alliance, and one of their lot becomes Mayor for a year. Mayors in Ireland have no more power than any other of the councillors, for their year of office, they simply get more local publicity than the other councils as they turn up at every event and funeral in the locality. As they are not directly elected to office and usually only last a year, their recognition rate among the general public is usually very low. The office of Mayor is Ireland is notable, the occupants are not! Snappy (talk) 18:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Air[edit]

Besides the fact that this was a very non-notable airline, it's website has now been removed and it has apparently gone out of business. Greg Salter (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wasn't notable when it was in business, and even less notable now. Angryapathy (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of sources establishing notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Not a disambig page, just a series of dicdefs Fences&Windows 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pixie dust (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Not an actual disambiguation page. It's a magnet for dictionary-type references to subjects that have been described somewhere by someone as being like "pixie dust". Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete However an actual article on Pixie dust itself could be written, and the other references mentioned. If not then a possible redirect to Peter Pan.Borock (talk) 13:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There used to be a pixie dust article that was essentially this page in paragraph form. As a topic, it's easily covered in Tinker Bell. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is she the only pixie dust user? If so then a section in her article and a redirect. Borock (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, all of her new friends use it too :), but to my knowledge, that character is the origin of the concept. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peter Pan per above. JIP | Talk 16:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete why in the world would someone propose redirecting a dab page when there is nothing ambiguous? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
- Pixie dust currently redirects to this page. My suggestion is to redirect both to Peter Pan. JIP | Talk 04:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That doesn't explain why we wouldn't want to delete this. Keeping it around would just invite people to restore it (again), thinking that a list like this is somehow useful. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - So a better idea would be to redirect pixie dust to Peter Pan and just delete pixie dust (disambiguation). JIP | Talk 06:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think Peter Pan is the best place to redirect pixie dust (it's debatable whether he actually uses it; Tinker Bell is the canonical dust user), but otherwise, yeah. - Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Bailey (Irish politician)[edit]

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

Non notable local Irish politician. Not elected to national office, no national profile, Fails WP:Politician. Note: I prodded this article some months back and it was deleted. The delete was contested and the article was restored. Snappy (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Snappy (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - local politician with no other claim to notability included in article. Warofdreams talk 12:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - (I am the main author of this article) The subject of this article is a member of the fifth largest local authority in Ireland. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council covers an urban population of 194,038 [40] and is a 1st level subnational administrative division as required by WP:POLITICIAN. The subject of this article has significant press coverage at national level. 50 references on the national broadcaster's website (RTÉ) [41], 77 references from The Irish Times [42], and 190 references from The Irish Independent [43]. MoyrossLADY (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The number of google hits doesn't confer notability. It's whether the individual has achieved any national prominence, none of the refs relate to anything other than purely local issues. Why is this individual any more notable the the rest of DLR County Council? Are they all deserving of articles too? Unless this individual achieves national prominence in some area, he is just yet another one of 1500 local councillors in the Republic of Ireland. WP:Politician also states : "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of 'significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article'". Being in the papers for some local issues in DLR does not meet this criteria. Snappy (talk) 13:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably only two other members of Dun Laoghaire County Council with sufficient sources to warrant wikipedia entries. These are Niamh Bhreathnach and Richard Boyd Barrett. The others don't make enough national news. MoyrossLADY (talk) 15:54, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also those ghits are inflated as several different John Baileys are mentioned. Snappy (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local councillors, as such, do not meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Emeraude (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ No visible indication of notability. National level politicians are (allegedly) notable, but not lower levels. Candidacy does not confer notability. (Success in a national election seems to.) Peridon (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've changed my mind on re-reading the article - as it stands now. There's been quite a few changes. I'm not sure that John Bailey would like the current article, but to me it now does indicate notability. That's life... Peridon (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added about 40 references from national news sources to events in this guy's sports and political careers. There are hundreds more to choose from - not just random ghits but references in published verifiable reliable national sources. He has generated a huge amount of coverage over the past 10 years. Some of the comments above seem to indicate that being a local politician takes from a person's notability. WP:POLITICIAN states that being a member of the type of assembly that Bailey belongs to improves the case for notability. In many of the sources quoted in the article, you will notice that Bailey's name appears in the headline- he is not just a tangential reference in an article about something else. He is also referenced by several other Wikipedia articles. MoyrossLADY (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They relate to either local issues or football, no national issues, and Wikipedia is not a source. Snappy (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If John Bailey were the chairman of a Tiddlywinks club and a recluse he would still be notable because he has so many published verifiable independent reliable sources in national newspapers. But he wasn't a tiddlywinker recluse, he was chairman of the largest county board of a sports organisation with 800,000 members[44] for 10 years. Getting elected to the 5th largest local authority and generating even more articles in national newspapers just adds to the case. MoyrossLADY (talk) 15:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While no-one in their right mind wants to see individual articles for each and every county & city councillor from Ireland, I'm afraid that, according to wikipedia policy WP:POLITICIAN, the poster above is correct in saying that he meets notability criteria by belonging to the sub-national first tier of governance in Ireland. That is: "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges". In Ireland, city and county councils form the first level sub national tier in Ireland. Therefore members of the 29 city and county councils in Ireland do meet WP:POLITICIAN criteria and Bailey is a member of one of these councils (Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council). God help us. Bailey should probably met notability criteria anyway. His coveage in national print media is substantial. —Preceding Freekra (talk) 11:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, if we follow the strict letter of that guideline - but it is a guideline, not a policy, and above the text you quote, it states "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards." It's useful to bring this up, but I would suggest that this example demonstrates that the guideline needs refinement, rather than that the longstanding consensus at AfD that people are not notable solely by reason of being members of a local council. Warofdreams talk 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no need to argue about whtether the subject passes WP:POLITICIAN, because it has been shown that he passes the general notability guideline, which is sufficient for keeping. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Chelsea Clinton. The most reasonable thing to do at the moment. Later, the article can be brought back if shows necesary. Tone 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Mezvinsky[edit]

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

Not notable, per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. Known only for being someone's son and someone's fiancé. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge At best, this should be merged with Chelsea Clinton (as that is all he is truly notable for), as he is her fiance. Otherwise, he is not notable by association. Angryapathy (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or merge per Angryapathy. Notability is not inherited, and we have very little information about Marc, so the article is destined to be a WP:COATRACK about his family. ~YellowFives 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chelsea Clinton. This is a likely search term but not a good article subject; thus a redirect is appropriate. Chick Bowen 17:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. ^Izzedine 04:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chelsea Clinton per Chick Bowen. JBsupreme (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel that anyone that makes it to headline news is notable and an article about him/her adds value to WP. Jonniefast (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep or Merge Deleting doesn't make much sense to me, as he is likely to be searched often Vartanza (talk) 03:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'" Keep"': He's going to be searched often, it's worth it to keep the page. Not every page needs to be a behemoth of an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.65.245.91 (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. The arguments for keep prevail in my opinion. Article needs some work, though. Tone 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Loeb[edit]

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

no referances, doesn't seem notable at all Alan - talk 23:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 00:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All I could find is a few-sentence blurb about some MTV promos she did in an Entertainment Weekly article[45] (I don't know if there's a defining line between "trivial" and "significant", but I don't think it meets the latter), and a review of her "Faraway" single in Billboard[46]. Page 79 of the same issue lists the single at number 17 on the Hot Dance Airplay chart. Would like to see if there's anything else out there. Gongshow ^Talk 05:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article says: "She is best known for appearing as herself in her sister's reality-based series..." (referring to Lisa Loeb) WP:BIO says: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B [...], is not a reason for a standalone article on A." Therefore, since what she's best known for is being the sister of someone notable, she does not fit the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. – jaksmata 18:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – Her single was reviewed by Billboard and it charted on a speciality chart – those are fair indications of notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 10:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although she might passMUSICBIO, I belive that she still fails the general notability guideline. Click23 (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's received a few passing mentions in the press over the years. Having a single halfway up a minor airplay chart, presenting some promos on MTV, and appearing on your sister's reality show does not make someone notable. Fences&Windows 18:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Just enough coverage to establish notability, and a plausible search term, even though most of the searches would for "Whatever happened to .. . ." purposes. 71.235.38.171 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A charting single (even in one of the minor Billboard charts) passes WP:NM, and her TV presenting work also contributes towards general notability. Although WP:BIO guidelines state that relationship to a notable person is not in itself justification for a separate article, it does not state that celebrities' relatives with separate claims to notability should be excluded just because their relationship to someone famous is the main reason they're known to the public: if that were a valid argument we could lose the articles on, for example, Peaches Geldof, Kelly Osbourne, and if we were to take it to extremes, even Linda McCartney. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per CMP.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep please if she has a charting single that should be notable for us yuckfoo (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 16:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to Die[edit]

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

No indication of notability. I cannot find any mention of it on Google. No references given to show notability. This [47] seems to imply original research. noq (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as Spam Seems to be spam for Adam Smith (as listed in the first of the footnotes), and the SPA that created the article is probably him (Adamella?). Should be deleted since it is promotion for a non-notable idea per G11. Angryapathy (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buying facilitation[edit]

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

This doesn't seem to be a recognized business concept, but rather a promotional article for a book. —Chowbok ☠ 08:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All google hits are related to the book, and there are no descriptions of the term "buying facilitation". Most of the refs relate to the book which created the term, or the website run by the author. This is a non-notable idea, and does not warrant an article about it, and borders severely on spam. Angryapathy (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete bollocks and patent nonsense, the amassing of words beyond the trivial ideas that sustain them, in order to give the appearance of depth to something inherently shallow: Basically, we can say that since Buying Facilitation (R) is considered a decision support model, and it follows systems thinking, there is a specific order in which the questions must be asked to elicit decisions. The progression of areas to consider, as one goes about making a new decision, and before change will happen, would be: 1) Focus on all present and historic systems elements that create and maintain the status quo, to discover the elements that keep your current decisions in place. "The buyer/decision maker must recognize all internal, systemic elements that brought them to the current state that includes the Identified Problem (that problem that sellers wish to resolve with their product or service). It's necessary for the buying facilitator to use a form of question called a Facilitative Question that will lead the decision maker to the discovery of all elements - people, policies, relationships, rules/roles, history, etc. - that not only created but maintain the status quo and the Identified Problem. This phase is Strategic." - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Figure of the Earth. Consensus seems to support this as the primary merge target, though obviously this does not preclude including the information in other articles as well. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volume of the Earth[edit]

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

Indiscriminate information Ben (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or perhaps Merge with Figure of the Earth. I don't see this as indiscriminate. Glittering Pillars (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge One factoid does not merit an entire article. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to both Earth and Figure of the Earth. This is an important fact, albeit just one fact. (Why is "Figure of the Earth" not "Shape of the Earth"?) Borock (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Glittering Pillars.—RJH (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Earth radius (and perhaps creation of a general article on the lines of "Earth's dimensions for dummies") would also be a logical target. Interesting fact for persons who believe in the metric system, but not enough for its own separate article. Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Warfare 2 Multiplayer Titles[edit]

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

It's a very small subset of the main game, I don't see any indications of notability. It looks like people can add their own handles, but I don't know enough about the game to know the full implication of the feature (not a lot of sources). Shadowjams (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - the definition of WP:GAMECRUFT --Teancum (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Anything on this page could probably just be merged with the Modern_Warfare_2 article. Kartano (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless strategy guide trivia that we don't need. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is guide material. Reach Out to the Truth 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:GAMECRUFT without any indication of real world notability. JBsupreme (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to write Good Test Cases and Bug Reports[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Disputed PROD. Author has a COI as they are associated with or a representative of the linked software testing service company. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Exactly why WP:NOTHOWTO was written for. Angryapathy (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Possible transwiki candidate. Also more computer programming method cruft. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTHOWTO. Joe Chill (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete. Obvious how to guide. JBsupreme (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ashley Payne (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortune Araames[edit]

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

Possibly under construction, possibly not built, maybe even finished, (and, according to Emporis, not started), it doesn't matter; this puny 45 story building in Dubai has no secondary sources establishing notability or even its verifiability. Deprodded by DGG, with the edit summary "45 stories is enough to be notable,even in Dubai. . almost certainly will have sources if looked for in the proper places". I assert that neither of these are true. Glittering Pillars (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no mentions of this 45 story building, and I don't think it was ever actually built. Non-notable, doesn't exist. Angryapathy (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was under the apparently erroneous idea that the construction had actually begun. I agree that buildings which Emporis lists as "planned" or "planned (approved)" and where there is no further information readily available should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. WP:NFT. -- œ ^™ 09:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedian Game[edit]

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

It's page on wikipedia about a project on wikipedia. It goes without saying this particular project has no real outside sources or references. I guess a redirect would be alright, but want to bring it to the community first. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)).

Delete Non-notable game, every mention on google is from a blog or something of exactly reliability. Does not need its own article. Angryapathy (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You have to play the game by the rules, in this case WP:N. Borock (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but I wonder how many clicks it would take to get from here to Kevin Bacon.--Milowent (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to play a game?. Already exists on Wikipedia:Wiki Game. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that this is a valuable contribution to Wikipedia, and my solid Wikipedian posse will agree with me. Jonny4026 (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I, a member of Jonny4026's solid Wikipedian posse, think that this article should be kept. It is a valid contribution to the website. Paulmchisback (talk) 09:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if being part of the posse includes being a WP:SOCKPUPPET? At bare minimum there is WP:SPI happening here. Both of you also fail to mention any guidelines that show that this can be kept. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the votes were intended to be humorous. The article has no chance, of course.--Milowent (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so getting my posse on you, now. Humorous, indeed. How very dare you? Jonny4026 (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, have you considered that we're friends and we want to see the page kept? Take a look at our user pages, it's blatantly obvious that we're different people. Paulmchisback (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The game really needs to be perfected before an article can be written about it. I suggest a provision that you have to chug a beer if you run across a mention of The Simpsons or to Family Guy. Everyone has to take a drink if they see the phrase "citation needed", and if you run across a "nominated for deletion" box, you move into the lightning round, where you have to guess how many times the words "non-notable", "indiscriminate" and "civil" will come up. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow, this looks painfully boring. JBsupreme (talk) 23:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have deleted at least 29 other incarnations of this same game before, as indicated by the list on my user page. This version is no better than any of those others. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Six degrees of Kevin Bacon. Or delete. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ And if you'd actually checked either of our user pages, it would become obvious that I and paulmchisback are completely different people. Sukh off. Jonny4026 (talk) 08:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck this !vote as a duplicate.--Milowent (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike you off as a duplicate. Jonny4026 (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to be civil to all other participants in a discussion. Ad hominem attacks should never be used in a discussion. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, do you ever wonder why Wikipedia gets a bad name for its editors? Chill out, it was intended as a humorous jibe! Paulmchisback (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC) penis[reply]

Alas, I think that my posse and I are outnumbered. Oh well, it was good while it lasted. History will remember us for what we did here today. Jonny4026 (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Today, it might remember us. But tomorrow, History probably won't remember us for what we did here. Mandsford (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. NW (Talk) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark – New Zealand relations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Denmark–New Zealand relations

Articles for deletion/Denmark – New Zealand relations (2nd nomination)

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

I note in the last AfD, not one of the keep voters actually provided evidence of significant coverage of relations. Neither country has a resident ambassador and agreements such as working holiday are very common between NZ and most Western countries. I've checked the first 70 of this gnews search and most of it is sporting contests. A newspaper reported a New Zealander visiting Denmark in 1903 which I know of at least 1 editor who would think this advances notablity and must be included, clearly not. yes the 2 countries decided to offer assistance to Vietnam at the same time, but this is more tangential rather than a sign of in depth relations. [48] LibStar (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the two countries have a significant relationship and, taken together, the sources are sufficient to meet WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - History section describes a significant economic competition between the two countries which influenced the formation of the EEC -- sourced to scholarly journals. There are enough references here to allow the article to remain. I note that the nomination statement presents no policy-based reasons for it to be deleted. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - their relations have sown significant history, bilateral agreements, bilateral visits (alhough no state visits), and lots of references, as may be seen from the article. I also note for the record that several of my citations about their sports rivalries were erased from the article in the past six months. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are the only one to like listing sporting results in these series of articles. such information is better listed in appropriate national sporting teams articles. given that the number 1 sport in NZ is rugby union and in Denmark is soccer and they are on opposite sides of the world and do not regularly compete against each other, it is pure synthesis to suggest these countries have notable sporting rivalry. Notable sporting rivalries are like Argentina/Brazil, USA/Canada, England/Germany, Australia/NZ and so on. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I'm not alone in this argument, but even assuming your argument, there are sources out there to prove my point (just check out the history of the article or Google it). Bearian (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

these articles focus on relations between governments, its leaders and trade. my point stands, Denmark and NZ do not have a notable sporting rivalry, they have no major regular bilateral sporting contest like the Bledisloe Cup between Australia and NZ. LibStar (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the article revolves around trivia to create a fictitious topic rather than a topic anyone outside Wikipedia has bothered to notice exists. Just look how the authors strain to make this seem notable: "the New Zealand government describes the relations as 'good'". Think about that: what else might one expect from two small, squishy, socialist-lite states 11,155 miles apart? A few handshakes, some scraps of paper signed (ah, those double taxation avoidance agreements!), and ... that's about it. (Speaking of that agreement: whoever added it has also apparently failed to read WP:PSTS, taking a primary-source document and declaring it to validate a claim about a relationship. But let's not let those pesky policies get in the way, right?) Compare this make-believe pairing with actual ones, like Denmark-China or New Zealand and various Southeast Asian nations, and the difference is striking. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define trivia in a way that everyone who sees it can recognize it? A biography of a living person (BLP) can be defined so that everyone can recognize it, you can use a bot to find the articles on all the living people. Show me how I can set up a bot to find trivia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doing google searches and finding trivial mentions of any webpage that mentions X and Y is an easy way to find trivia. LibStar (talk) 05:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you have to use the word you are defining in the definition, you are admitting defeat. When I do a Google search: Denmark "New Zealand" I get 107,000,000 results. Which of those 107,000,000 are trivial and which are important. Tell me how to tell one from the other, other than asking you which ones you like and dislike. That way we can do what you are doing and get the same results. Show me how it is not subjective, so we all come to the same conclusion as we do for who is dead and who is alive. That is a good standard, and even that isn't with 100% certainty. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, I thought you were experienced at Wikipedia, you might want to look at WP:NOT to see what is not included. LibStar (talk) 11:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only mention of trivia there is this: "On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time." This article doesn't contain any prices of anything, why would you send me to WP:NOT when it has no relevance to discerning what makes something trivial? I am not following what you are trying to convey at all. Do you want to try again? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the aspect that refers to "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." LibStar (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two countries have official visits.--RekishiEJ (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That official visits has been exchanged says nothing either way about the existence of a "Denmark – New Zealand relations" topic. You need to find sources with that or a similar subject, not simply declare the visits as evidence of notable relations. We go by what reliable secondary sources, and not Wikipedians, tell us is a topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I do not believe that the topic is notable, there are no sources in the article that analyse relations between the two countries (and I can find no others myself). The contents of the article are simply a few occasions when the two countries have had minor interactions. For me this seems similar to having an article on relations between Brad Pitt and Nicole Kidman and listing films that they have worked on together and award ceremonies where they've bumped into each other (I realise that other stuff doesn't exist isn't really a valid argument on its own, I'm just trying to explain my thinking). There are an almost infinite number of things that could be linked together to create articles however the articles should only be created if the link is genuinely notable and has received third party coverage, a few obvious connections does not seem like enough. The fact that two countries have some trade agreements and that representatives from each country have visited the other one does not make the relationship between the countries notable in the same way that the fact that two actors have appeared in some films together does not make the relationship between the actors notable. I don't think that the fact that it's two countries automatically makes it any more notable than if it is two actors. The details of embassy representation and bilateral visits can be covered at Foreign relations of Denmark and Foreign relations of New Zealand, a relations article only needs to exist if there is more to the relationship than these basic points and in this case I do not believe that there is. Mah favourite (talk) 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An almanac is only good if it is complete, while this set is not as fact-rich as some others, a relationship does exists, and it covered in reliable media as well as each countries diplomatic website. Wikipedia rarely covers relationships between individuals even if they have a clear one such as marriage. The exceptions are for teams such as the Marx brothers or the Wright brothers. As I argued previously 10 facts from 10 sources have the same depth of coverage as same 10 facts from a single source. One is easy to compile and the other is more work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While not as extensive as some of the other bilateral articles, it still meets the Wikipedia dual criteria of notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about verifiability, why have you reinserted information you now know is incorrect? (diff) -- Avenue (talk) 03:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you substitute in the proper word when you find an error, you don't delete. Repair rather than discard. It is a no-brainer. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Pretty trivial stuff, and I can't see what would be merged. Fences&Windows 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girls' Generation (CFs/Endorsements)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Girls' Generation (CFs/Endorsements)

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

It's a trivial list of various commercials a Korean girl group has filmed in South Korea. The ones on the list that are of any discernable notability have their own pages (for example, the Chocolate Love page for the song/ad for the LG phone, or the page on phone brand Anycall). I know that lists can be helpful (for example, series episodes, character lists, and discographies) but this is pushing it. SKS (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge: There are no sources to provide factual accuracy. However most of this article can be easily incorporated into the main article with sources in prose. ^N_P^e_e^e_r^b_v^s_e^s_z (Push) 19:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unreferenced and trivial. -Reconsider ! 06:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. I've looked through this debate, and there are rather even amounts of discussion for either side (albeit not the same !vote count). The delete !votes are far more compelling and cite stronger policy than the keep !votes, and the consensus (by percentage) mostly leans toward deleting the article. Therefore per my full reading of the discussion, it warrants deletion. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Uchitel[edit]

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

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.

Marginal WP:BLP. Her most significant coverage came in a tabloid. There is very little information that cannot be covered elsewhere and we do not need this coatrack. Grsz¹¹ 04:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Weak Keep~~ Delete. (Changing my vote.) Her biggest claim to fame is was being the target of vicious tabloid gossip, which appears to be totally unfounded, and she appears to be doing everything she can to avoid being slandered. This ~~makes~~ made her notable, but now it ~~also~~ speaks to BLP concerns which ~~would easily~~ warrant deletion. // Internet Esquire (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Tiger Woods: She really hasn't done anything notable yet, merge for now.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I started this article, and I started it with multiple, non-trivial, reliable sources that don't discuss the Woods incident. I was actually surprised with all the articles, over about eight years, that mentioned her. She obviously meets the WP:GNG. She probably passed WP:NEWS before the Woods thing happened. At this point, if you want this deleted, you'll have to go beyond policy. The prolonged period of coverage has already happened (almost 10 years), the reliable sources part is done (New York Times before this Woods incident even happened), and the significant coverage is covered (10s of articles just on her are already written). After all our rules were satisfied years ago, now 10s of articles a day start coming out. Done. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge with Tiger Woods~~ Delete: I don't really see how a "attention-seeker" tiger "might" have had an affair with is worth of having an article on WP. Back in 2001 she was looking for her fiance Andy O'Grady who perished during the 9/11 incident and thats the most we find about her. I don't see any other relevance..--Warpath (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I change my mind. I really can't find anything else worth noting. If the "affair" thing turns out to be true, then a one sentence line could be added to TW's article under 'controversies' but thats about it...--Warpath (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really possible to merge with the main article Tiger Woods, but still notable enough. If Uchitel is only notable for this particular event, however, a decent compromise might be to create a separate article about the car accident, such as the 2009 Tiger Woods car accident and merge this article into the new article... --Hapsala (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When I go to Wikipedia I also like to read about "gossip" that may have a bit of truth in it - specially when it is all over the News and in Google's hottest trends (Remember: Democracy is voting by our feet and going to the ballot. If so many people want to know about a person serve it to your readers and mark it as 'not confirmed' or so). Specially then when all the other gossip magazines are full of stories. That is the moment I turn to Wikipedia and see which stories have been quoted by Wikipedia, because I know that the people who edit Wikipedia come from many different backgrounds and mostly do not work for a tabloid or a businesswire. They do not work for a profit of wikipedia. As a normal user it is very interesting to see the different links that have been reported in Wikipedia about a runup of a gossip theme or another kind of news story. Also: I know that Wikipedia does not have annoying pop-ups or flash or any other of that stuff. I like Wikipedia because it is not run by a professor and his assistants. This should not be merged into Tiger Woods simply because Rachel Uchitel is not Tiger Woods.--zdavatz 13:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, but Wikipedia isn't your tabloid. Grsz¹¹ 03:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS Secret ^account 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible delete Coatrack that fails WP:BLP, all the sources are related to tabloid sources, or source the tabloids. Tabloids aren't reliable coverage. Doesn't even deserve a merge to the Tiger Woods article because of the concern with sources. Secret ^account 13:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can anyone provide a detailed explanation with quotes from NOT and BLP that lead to a delete decision? I might change my vote. They didn't have anything the last time I looked, but our policies may have changed since then. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BLP1E, the only reason why the article on Uchitel was created was because of her "supposed" relationship with Woods. That's a one event right there. Wikipedia isn't the place for tabloid gossip. Also verifiability plays a major factor. The only sources of the relationship are related to the tabloids. Many times the tabloids twist the facts around to create a story for money. Who wouldn't want to read a story that Tiger Woods is cheating. Because of the nature of the tabloids, they shouldn't be considered as a reliable source for verifiability. As for the picture of Uchitel holding her late fiance picture, it's sad but there are many victims of these attacks with much more news coverage, but no article for a valid reason. Secret ^account 17:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason she has an article is because I started it. I admit that I looked for her wiki page because of the TW incident. But, I created the page because there was so much stuff in the google news archive. You'd need a BLP2.5 to delete. She's received really big national coverage twice, plus some other smaller stuff. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Secret. This person has done nothing that is reliably notable. Timneu22 (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was skeptical at first but find there are sufficient sources out there and independent events according notability. There are more sources that can be added, I'll try to do that. Interestingly, I see that the 9/11 pictures of her were published worldwide and I see later references to those picture(s) in german papers, among others. I also take into consideration the good thoughts of zdavatz, who is closer to representing the masses of people who are reading the article and will never comment.--Milowent (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, speedily if possible. This is a WP:COATRACK article and an obvious violation of WP:BLP1E. We wouldn't have an article on her if not for the Tiger Woods car accident story, and so we shouldn't have one at all. Robofish (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She's clearly in the process of becoming famous for being famous, and the coverage is just going to keep growing. Merging to Tiger Woods is a particularly bad choice, because it appears to endorse the claim that the rumored affair is fact. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - the worse of the worse for being famous for being famous for the past eight years, but meets WP:BARE. Bearian (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Milowent's comments. If she wasn't a household name before, she is now. --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at least for now. Who knows, the story might blow up into something more substantive. If so, the article has the option of being merged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.85.143.20 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — 72.85.143.20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Other way around, it can be recreated if needed. Grsz¹¹ 01:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (3x EC!!) Three newspaper (two NY Times, one LV Review-Journal) reference is enough to pass WP:BIO in my view, plus she has had coverage in the past due to 9/11 (which makes THAT her biggest claim so far, to me), so that in itself means she is notable, even without Tigergate. The article needs to be re-written showing her ties to 9/11, along with any nightclub coverage she has received, with a short mention of Tiger. ArcAngel (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Keep - Merging with Tiger Woods is an awful idea. At this point no one has any proof of any substantial confirmation that they have any type of realistic connection to one another other than some crazy media reports. Not to mention that Rachel Uchitel has been in the news for years and even has a strong connection to 9/11. Rather than deleting the article, people should work to make this article more robust and filled in. - GCV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.236.122 (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC) — 76.115.236.122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Don't merge to the Tiger Woods page. That's an extraordinarily bad idea. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Delete is the best solution. Grsz¹¹ 03:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm on the fence about this one due to the current news, but without it, just being mentioned in a few articles doesn't make her notable enough to keep. However, she should not be merged with Tiger Woods, that seems like a BLP violation just waiting to happen. Dayewalker (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per seemingly passing WP:BIO possibly review in about six months. Petepetepetepete (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another BLP1E. Also WP:NOTNEWS and a focal point for BLP nonsense - Allie ^❤ 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails WP:NOT . She hasn't done anything significant 122.167.85.46 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:COATRACK Wizzy…☎ 07:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Wikipedia is an encycloedia. That is to say- not the National Enquirer. All we have here is The National Enquirer saying something, and being parrotted elsewhere. TNE is not a WP:RS- in fact, the tabloids make their living by NOT being RS's. That said, while I prefer Delete my second choice would be to Keep. IMO, Merging to Tiger Woods is the worst possible option, as then we'd have two WP:BLP violations in two different articles- making the problem here much, much worse on a much more visible article. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E, notability outside recent events is insufficient, and I don't want to see celebrity gossip on Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, the tabloids can consult their lawyers before publishing contentious material about living persons. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most comments appear to be WP:INTERESTING, WP:NOHARM, WP:WAX, WP:VALINFO, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:ITEXISTS, WP:INTHENEWS, WP:IKNOWIT, WP:INHERITED, or WP:EVERYTHING. The plain matter of fact is that WP:ONEEVENT means that this person is NOT notable enough for their own article. Merge with Tiger Woods, or delete, and be done with it. IF this becomes a bigger event, it can always be recreated, but right now it needs to be removed. --Fbifriday (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should say most comments in support of the article being kept. Sorry. --Fbifriday (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of the deletes are ignoring that she was notable before the woods incident. I imagine they haven't looked at the huge articles, which are currently only used to support singe sentences, that came out before the TW incident. - Peregrine Fisher (talk)

I looked at all the links in the article before I commented, I didn't think it was enough. I would have said delete if a similar article based on the pre-Tiger Woods sources had been at AFD a month or so ago. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)(contribs) 16:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would like to point out that if the 9/11 photo was notable enough, or anything else she did was notable enough, she would have had an article well before the alleged affair came out. She did not, which means the only reason this article was created was to cover the supposed affair, and now people are attempting to give legitimacy to the tabloid journalism by finding every single little article she was ever mentioned in to attempt to prove her notability and keep her article. The matter of fact is that the only reason she could be notable is the affair, and that is only one event, which does not establish her notability. Also, as the affair story fails WP:NOT#NEWS, and IF the 9/11 is valid, then it still fails WP:ONEEVENT. --Fbifriday (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Her earlier notability happened when WP had about 100,000 pages, so no, she wan't one of the 100,000 most important subjects in the world at that time. Notability is determined by sources, and the article currently has enough sources pre TW incident, that the TW incident isn't needed at at all. As far as every single little article, there are 10s of articles pre-Woods, and 100s since. Just say you don't like the article if that's how you feel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the matter does not matter at all, because I actually understand the arguments to avoid in an AFD discussion. My main argument for the deletion is in the last sentence of my last comment. The affair story fails WP:NOT#NEWS, and IF the 9/11 is valid enough for inclusion, then it still fails WP:ONEEVENT. "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." This is tabloid journalism. There is no noteworthy aspects of this story other than the fact it's Tiger Woods. Thousands of people lost loved ones in 9/11, and millions have had a mistress/been mistresses. She is probably not the only one who has done both either. Also, you can not use the "Her earlier notability was early in wikipedia history, so she wasn't included" argument, as that would be like saying 9/11 itself was notable when wikipedia was new, so it didn't have an article. An article can be created later if they were truly notable. Think about the millions of people, places, things, etc, that ceased to exist before wikipedia was even thought of, but they still have an article. Because they are notable. What they did was notable. What they were was notable. If she was notable for ANYTHING before the alleged affair story broke, she would have had an article. The matter of fact is that she was not notable before, and as such, the article is based off of one event. --Fbifriday (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that lack of an article indicates lack of notability, then we'll leave it at that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete more BLP nonsense. She's notable (maybe) only for a tabloid alleged affair. Mention on the Woods article, if at all.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you look at the refs? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here that indicates any notability whatsoever. Just because I know someone who once took a picture of someone who was on TV doesn't mean there should be a BLP article about me. Sorry - per all the reasons listed above - not notable = delete. (see WP:N and WP:GNG for details.) — Ched : ? 17:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability isn't inherited nor is it viral: allegedly sleeping with someone notable doesn't make you notable or Wilt Chamberlain alone gave us 20,000 new notables. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability can arise very quickly and for strange reasons. This person has reached the Wikipedia threshold for notability. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- notable person. Keepscases (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whatever we may think about this person, she is notable. Even before "Tigergate", she was featured on the frontpage of one of the leading newspapers in New York. She has worked for several years as a tv producer at Bloomberg. The allegation about her affair with Woods is also notable, and it is actually irrelevant whether the allegations are correct or not. Finally, the article seems well sourced with references to serious media such as The New York Times, Time Magazine etc. 192.121.84.241 (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh this is why WP:BLP needs an makeover, the sources are linked to gossip, it's not the NYT etc, there are no NYT articles about her as a subject, there's no way she's notable. Being a producer for a television station isn't notable WP:INHERITED. Secret ^account 21:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What to you call this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's one of those feel-good stories that almost all newspapers and tabloids such as People Magazine has every week. That source doesn't claim notability of the subject. If we have articles on every feel good story covered on a newspaper, we would have so much BLP problems it's not even a joke. There would be millions of articles on argruably non-notable people. Secret ^account 21:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I see. You should have just said you didn't like the refs, not that they don't exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having an alleged affair with someone notable does not make you notable. MrMurph101 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not news, or more appropriately, not tabloid news. Will the people who would like Wikipedia to be a real encyclopedia please raise their hands? nableezy - 22:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 9/11 coverage doesn't really satisfy "significant coverage" requirements, and the National Enquirer is hardly reliable, generally speaking. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And hell no to the merge to Tiger Woods suggestion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Front cover stories distributed worldwide, but I respect you looking at the sources and forming an opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  
  What about [49]? If it weren't for Woods, I'd think this would be enough (added to to NYT article and the other more minor sources). She was notable in her field pre-Woods. Hobit (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Absolutely not notable outside of Tiger. Coverage is not about this non-notable woman, it's about Woods's affair. Reywas92 ^Talk 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many non-notabilities at Wikipedia. In your opinion, Tiger's wife, as well as tens of thousands of orther non-notabilities, should also be deleted? Or did Elin Nordegren accomplish anything "notable" apart from being Tiger's wife? --Hapsala (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Its about WP:BLP. He has taken a hit with this one. Wizzy…☎
Delete Per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Warrah (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a coatrack article for describing BLP speculation. Notability is not transferable; you don't become notable by sleeping with someone notable or by having a personal story related to a large-scale notable event. Being a news producer is not inherently notable. - BanyanTree 01:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the above reasons sum it up nicely. Coatrack, one event, and WP:NOTNEWS. MuZemike 03:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability seems well-established by the sources. Everyking (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bradjamesbrown -Reconsider ! 04:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:BLP. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She was notable pre-Woods, she's notable post-Woods. [50] and similar articles are enough even without Woods. Hobit (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's never been notable, and even if she did sleep with Tiger, that's not enough to make her notable. WP isn't a tabloid. --Muboshgu (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain why sources like [51] don't meet WP:N? Hobit (talk) 13:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I think the Tiger thing is enough by itself, and she has several other notable events besides. And Wikipedia is starting to look ridiculous with a delete discussion on every news-related page. Binarybits (talk) 13:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Given the recent coverage, if that's all there was it would be a speedy 1E issue, in my opinion. Discarding all the Tiger Woods hearsay, there are basically four sources. I don't believe "No Dress, No Vows, and Less Status in Grief" meets the requirement of significant coverage in that the subject is profiled, but it is not specifically about her. The "Vows: Rachel Uchitel and Steven Ehrenkranz" I am discarding as fluff; I know that the Washington Post's nuptials section are essentially solicitations for puff pieces which is anecdotally a widespread practice, so the fact that they appear does not speak to their notability. All that leaves is the BlackBookMag ref, which I will agree is significant enough. Ultimately, however, the lack of several of these type of source plus BLP concerns lead me to recommend outright deletion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, there's an awful lot of POV going on here. A reliable source is a reliable source. We don't get to exclude subjects because we think reliable sources shouldn't have covered something. And I don't see anything about "hearsay" or "puff pieces" in the WP:RS. Binarybits (talk) 15:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got plenty of reliable sources that have blatantly incorrect information, do I use those sources? A reliable source means that it may be used for verification, but editors must use their good judgement as well. In this case, it's soft journalism that I would never use as proof that a subject was notable. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots more sources from before the Woods incident. I mean, look at all these. This isn't an AfD where people are basing their deletes on sources, obviously, so I only added enough to easily pass 1E, BLP, and NOTE. If I thought someone might change their mind based on the addition of sources, I would have added more. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 16:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability whatsoever apart from the Tiger Woods controversy. The article makes no effort to assert notability, and obviously the Sept. 11 stuff does not maker her notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Obviously not notable outside of Tiger Woods. --Torsodog^Talk 16:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I do think this link shows that coverage of her predates the Wood's thing by years. Hobit (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - standard BLP concerns for these situations. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited + clearly WP:BLP1E. At best we can mention her in Woods related article, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that we can write an encyclopedic biographical article. Abecedare (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you looked at the sources? They have VASTLY more biographical information than we have for 90%+ of our BLPs. Hobit (talk) 19:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I did look at the article and the sources. I don't consider, "appeared on the front page of the New York Post holding a picture of O'Grady. This picture was published worldwide." type trivia to be encyclopedic, biographical, or notable. I realize that not everyone will agree; that's the reason to have these discussions to see where policy based consensus lies. Abecedare (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment not sure how she is any less notable than Elin Nordegren? Petepetepetepete (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Based on the sources in that article, I don't see any independent notability for Elin Nordegren either. Ping me if you take it to AFD, and I'll support its deletion or merge with Tiger Woods. Abecedare (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she was getting mentions in reliable sources before the Tiger Woods incidents, and she still is. --AW (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage for her own article. + its own concerns as a BLP of marginal notability. Aditya Ex Machina 15:40, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. The article's a Coatrack, using any info that can be dug up on her as filler for the main reason even the author admits the article was created. If I appeared in a news segment covering my experience with losing my home in a hurricane, that wouldn't warrant an article, so that shouldn't be justification for notoriety years later when I have an affair with a celebrity (WP:MASK). As she's notable ONLY because of Tiger, if she has to be anywhere, it should be on Tiger's page (WP:109PAPERS).Kingdomcarts (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Attacking the reason for creating an article is not the same as attacking the value or purpose of an article. An article can be created for a bad reason but that does not mean there is sufficient reason to delete it. Goladus (talk) 02:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only real reason this article exists is because of the recent allegations of an affair. Citing the 9/11 stuff as a claim to fame is nonsense, and tacking together two completely disconnected WP:BLP1E incidents isn't an excuse to bypass WP:NOTNEWS. *** Crotalus *** 18:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gah entire article on her from 2008 [52]. It covers the 9/11 stuff, but isn't about it. And obviously the Woods thing isn't there either. That's _three_ things, one of which is huge. Clearly not a one event wonder. Hobit (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This still doesn't automatically establish that she is notable enough. --Torsodog^Talk 22:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know that anything automatically establishes notability. But if the reason to delete is WP:BLP1E, having reliable sources that meet the requirement of WP:N from before the event in question go a long way toward showing that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - (EC)Her notability is automatically established if you follow our guidelines and policies. The only real argument presented for deltetion here has been the sources don't help establish notability, based on an editor being able to look at a New York Times article and declare it kosher to notability or not. That's also not something we're supposed to do, but it's the closest so far to a real argument. It's pretty much moot based on the head count so far, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her occupation makes her notable and reliable sources exist. One reason there are so many delete arguments is because of the recent publicity. Being famous for having an affair is not a disqualification. Goladus (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As having a blip in a magazine is not a qualification. Everyone seems to be in general agreement that the affair doesn't establish WP:N, so the question is whether being a night club manager who lost someone in the attacks is notworthy or not. Having two BLP1E's shouldn't be reason enough to circumvent NOTNEWS, especially since the first would never be a consideration for notoriety without the recent allegations.Kingdomcarts (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. I wish I'd said that. That basically summarizes this whole AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notable only because of a relation to Tiger Woods. Tangurena (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has per delete votes. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's a very notable adulteress. She hasn't only had an alleged affair with Tiger, but with David Boreanaz too, [53]. KingMorpheus (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why the heck isn't that in the article? Right...because it's from an unreliable tabloid, thehollywoodgossip.com. And even if that were true, it's not notable. Reywas92^Talk 00:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's plenty more where that came from.[54] The amount of sources that exist for this girl is redic. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then put it in the darn article! (With reliable sources of course). But this gossip still isn't notable. Non-notable event + non-notable event + non-notable event =/= notability. Reywas92^Talk 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There's no point in working on the article until we know if it will be deleted or not. - Peregrine Fisher talk) (contribs) 01:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I disagree, as if enough pre-Tigergate sources can be added to establish notability that can only help the article. As it stands, someone IS adding references to it at the moment. I would have thought that her 9/11 connection was notable enough, but I see some disagreement with that. ArcAngel (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. She might have had an affair with Tiger Woods, but it's not confirmed. In any case, she's not notable at all. ScienceApe (talk) 02:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Dismas|^(talk) 11:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Uchitel came to attention post-9/11, so a redirect to Tiger when she has presently made no positive statement confirming an affair seems at best assumptive POV. The additional sources provided by her association to Tiger provides many secondary sources, added to to by additional digging by the tabloids into her private life. It is marginal as to whether she merits an entry, but there are many sources and articles, and a deletion at present would just bring hassle to the other associated articles replicating common information (9/11, private life, Tiger) - --Trident13 (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per WP:BLP1E. Were it not for the Woods connection, what is left would be a clear case of non-notability. A couple of mentions over several years does not add up to anything approaching notability. Kevin (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I do not see how this can be considered WP:COATRACK in its current form. For this to be the case there would have to be a lot more than two sentences on the Tiger Woods story (and if COATRACK did apply then the solution would be to remove the extraneous information not to delete the entire article). Therefore the question is whether or not the subject of the article is notable. She has received a reasonable amount of coverage and it is not all to do with the Woods story. As always some of the sources are better than others but my overall impression is that they are sufficient to verify the notability of the subject (although as shown by this debate it is not clear cut and it is going to come down to each individual editor's personal feeling based on the notability guidelines, it is difficult to give any conclusive evidence to support either point of view). Just because Wikipedia is not the news does not mean that things that are in the news shouldn't have articles. As with WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP and WP:BLP1E, it is fine to use WP:NOTNEWS to support your position but if you only provide the link and no further explanation then in my opinion it is very hard to know exactly what your point is. Most of these pages (coatrack, BLP etc) are quite lengthy and make numerous points so quoting the whole page with no further explanation is at best unclear (this is not to have a go at the previous editor Kevin (who has explained his reasoning) or anyone particular here, it's just that this seems to be a regular problem throughout Wikipedia). Mah favourite (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this does close as no consensus, I'm not aware of any "default to delete" option per the earlier close that was subsequently postponed a day.--Milowent (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One wonders what the point is of having these discussions if a basic rule like that has not been settled. Neutron (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it has been settled, but some try to breach it from time to time and get overturned on DRV.--Milowent (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep in it's current state. Still marginally notable but.. meh. -- œ ^™ 09:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO - with or without the Woods rumours (for that is all they are) I do not see any standalone notability. Oh, and the article is a WP:BLP timebomb waiting to explode. Particularly agree with observations made by Ched, Carlossuares and Alison above. Nancy ^talk 10:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, merging with the Woods article would be a very bad idea indeed. Nancy ^talk 10:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, WP:BLP1E. Tovojolo (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 10 - 20 of the delete votes do not address the references available, and the time period over which they occur. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I realize I am swimming against the tide here, but the article and its sources show that this person was already sufficiently famous before the Tiger Woods allegations that she would have merited an article. Among other things, this means that BLP1E does not apply here. I agree with earlier comments that she is mainly "famous for being famous," but she is, nevertheless. It also seems to me that our "notability" guideline is somewhat of a misnomer. "Notable" implies a value judgment as to whether the person has done something of note. But the criteria for "notability" really measure whether the person is "noted" -- whether they deserve it or not. This person, whether rightly or wrongly, seems to be "noted", and therefore in Wikipedia parlance, "notable." Neutron (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable for several unrelated events and media coverages. The article clearly reports these several instances, with plenty of reliable sources. Most !delete votes seem to even not have read the article, just assuming that she's there only because of Tiger Woods. But that's not the case. --Cyclopia ^talk 23:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She denied having a relationship with Woods, thats the extent of her notability. Managing a night club, being someone's granddaughter, or holding a picture of O'Grady does not make her notable.--Ezeu (talk) 03:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do mentions in reliable sources not make her notable? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is everyone mentioned in a newspaper notable? --Ezeu (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to WP:NOTE, within certain parameters which Ms. Uchitel easily meets, yes. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - According to your userpage, you're an admin, so I'd think you'd know that. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete We are not a tabloid. It takes more than a single incident of infamy involving a celebrity to make you notable enough for a bio. It doesn't matter how many newspaper mentions there are: she's still just a nightclub manager known for one incident involving Tiger Woods. Steven Walling 06:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bao Jhi Ling[edit]

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

Procedural nomination. ((Hoax)) tag added to article a week ago with no action taken to refute hoax claim or delete article. I can't find anything to corroborate this person's existence or the claims made about him, but admittedly I haven't tried every possible Chinese transliteration of this name. KuyaBriBri^Talk 03:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete. I tried a few Google searches on my guesses on the name: nothing. The book listed is a real book, and is here: [55] but searching it on the name, Mao, and other random things but found nothing I could link to the article (and the book does not strike me as a reliable source, at least not on its own). It doesn't look like a hoax, it's just impossible to evaluate without sources. JohnBlackburne (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail WP:N. I love its #1 ref - just states "Mao Zedong" and nothing else. That's right people, chairman Mao said so! TheAsianGURU (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V unless if 1) this name is simply misspelled (I tried some alternate spellings on Google, but still no luck) and 2) additional sources are discovered. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yaba Chat[edit]

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

Web chat site. No third party reliable sources meeting our general notability guideline or the special guideline for websites. ~YellowFives 03:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I declined the speedy deletion of this because there was a credible assertion of notability, but there are few references to this web site online, and a search of the Google News archives comes up with zilch. Simply does not seem to be discussed in reliable third party sources and as such not notable. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I too am unable to locate significant coverage of this item. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recalcitrance[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self published novel, that does not meet the WP:NBOOK standards. There are two author interviews published in local media, but those don't seem to provide "sufficient critical commentary" as required by the guideline. Abecedare (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The earlier AFDs listed in the box on the right are not really related to this novel or its author, and can be safely ignored. Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lack of sourcing indicates questionable notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Worldcat hasn't heard of the book or author; no critical review of the book, nothing at all to indicate that this will pass WP:NBOOK. -SpacemanSpiff 03:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This book is notable as it presents one of the rare perspectives of an Indian after 150 years of the events of 1857. As this novel is published in India you will not be able to find its listing on international websites and to go for such activity in India is still an exception. As per WP:NBOOK listing of any book on Amazon or similar websites does not makes it notable & vice-versa. Anyways, historicalnovels.info lists this novel with comments, "Anurag Kumar, Recalcitrance, about the experiences of Indians during the 1857 mutiny against British rule, by an author whose ancestors witnessed it."; novel is also listed on academic.ru, ebay.in & ebay.com. --Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 08:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : notability not established using references from reliable sources. The sources pointed out by Faiz above are not reliable ... e.g., an eBay listing means nothing (anyone can list anything there), the historicnovels.info is not a reliable site at all, academic.ru -- isn't that a wiki mirror? So, where are the references that establish the subject's notability? As for the novel being published in India, if it were notable enough, there must have been coverage on the novel in the hundreds of Indian newspapers that have been available online for the last decade. --Ragib (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Articles notability is disputed. A Google search of the novel does not yield any results except for some blogs that describe the novel.Another Google search with the novel along with its author do yield some results which does not credibly indicate the importance of the novel.The only exact hit found by Google is the article about the novel in Wikipedia. I even doubt whether this article is intended for the promoting the novel.At the end, the article even describes the author of the novel, which seems to be unnecessary.. arun talk 09:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per comments of User:Faizhaider listed above. --Anupam^Talk 14:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate the idea of deleting an article on a book, any book, but I can't find an ISBN number on this book and I can't find a single review of the book anywhere. Get me an ISBN number and one review of the book in a reasonable publication and I'll change my mind. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 15:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt there is an ISBN for the book. According to the author's blog, his father got the book printed at a press after it was rejected by mainstream publishers. It doesn't even seem to be distributed in India, and is available only at bookstores in Lucknow and through ebay. (see [56]). I am actually tempted to read the book myself, but don't consider that fact to be sufficient to establish notability on wikipedia. :-) Abecedare (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This book has been listed at historicalnovels.info because the author contacted me to request a listing. When he first contacted me, I declined to list it, because I was unable to find an online bookseller that offered it for sale. As previously noted in this discussion, eBay is not primarily a bookseller. At a later date, the author contacted me again to let me know Recalcitrance was for sale at an online bookseller - one of the Amazon stores, I think, though it doesn't currently seem to be offered through either Amazon.com or Amazon.uk. I have not read the book and cannot vouch for its quality, nor have I received a review copy, although I'm sure copies of the book are in existence. I do list quite a few self-published novels at HistoricalNovels.info - for the past year or so, I have been including the notation "self-published" with all of these that I add; the listing for Recalcitrance went up before I started doing this. Most (not all) self-published novels I have seen are quite poorly written. (The "Self-Published Round-Up" page at HistoricalNovels.info has brief critiques of self-published novels, indicating their typical flaws.) I'm inclined to think the author or one of his friends created the Wikipedia page for this novel, and I find it rather annoying to have my website offered as evidence of this novel's quality. I'm going to de-list it at www.HistoricalNovels.info. 75.175.42.10 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks are due to Abecedare, SpacemanSpiff, and RegentsPark for delving into the matter! Fowler&fowler «Talk» 23:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau Marsyas[edit]

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

Winery that does not meet WP:CORP, or more specifically, WP:WINERY. Sources are either directories/listings, coverage of winery-staged press conference, or trivial mention in a review. --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 20:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prometheus224 - After searching internet, it seems that Chateau Marsyas benefit from an important coverage in international media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus224 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Speedy - I tagged it as A7 although it could possibly meet G11. Smithers (Talk) 02:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I declined the CSD as there was notability asserted in the article. Stephen! ^Coming... 17:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:WINERY, no real sourcing to indicate notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Humanitarian Assistance[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you search under its Russian name Центр гуманитарной помощи, you will find these references, which I think are enough to demonstrate notability. If you use http://translate.google.com/ , you will be able to get a sense of what the Russian-language articles mean. I note, though, that ru:Центр гуманитарной помощи has been deleted. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fences&Windows 23:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that in Russian "Center for Humanitarian Assistance" is a generic term. Most of the references provided in this discussion do not necessarily reference this particular organization, but just the term in general. I only see 1 article which lists this particular organization, along with others, as humanitarian organizations working within Chechnya. I can not find any other significant coverage among Russian, or English, sources. LoudHowie (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to distinguish this as a notable organization. Money for people. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Blaxthos. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Author blanked - will be speedily deleted 7 02:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LEVELURZ[edit]

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

Non-notable game, potential hoax, no references, email address added, potential personal attacks. I have removed email and personal attacks. Original author contested prod. 7 02:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Town Shopping Mall[edit]

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

Prod and my Prod2 declined without rationale by page's author. Mostly consists of a store list and unsourced OR. Absolutely no reliable sources found beyond trivial, incidental local coverage at the best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only in-article reference is Target's web site, which is kind of like using the website for Victoria's Secret as a reference for the Main Place Mall. Aside from this, had to beef up the article to make it look like it could be notable. That said, I'm not seeing it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep per the nom's findings. Not often I see this. Mental note: give TPH a barnstar for this one. =D --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I think the official name is the Tiger Town Shopping Center (not mall), which will yield more relevant search results. I'm not familiar with a specific guideline (since I recall WP:MALL failing), but I was able to find a release from the Opelika Economic Development authority (second find here) with some really detailed info about this project. I also found a news blurb on the Montgomery NBC affiliate website. Here is another story in a community paper. I suggest if the article is kept, we move it to the proper name. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Blaxthos. Perhaps not my strongest motion ever to retain an article, but I think the sources out there are "good enough" and to some small degree this article serves to benefit Wikipedia and our readers. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a shame there isn't more readily available coverage of Tiger Town to use for sourcing, as it is actually quite an impressive shopping center given its rapid growth, aesthetics, and list of retailers. Despite the meager online sourcing, I believe the Tiger Town Shopping Center (article name change is needed) is notable and a decent article could be written. The site is substantial at 160+ acres and is a significant source of income for the local economy. --auburnpilot talk 04:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. MuZemike 01:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tempus Thales[edit]

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

Notable ? thisisace (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

KEEP (iCE Advertisements article) per previous related Afd discussions ie: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trank -Sodium N4 (talk) 07:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

iCE Advertisements may be salvageable but strong delete for Tempus Thales, fails ALL major policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, AND WP:N. -- œ ^™ 18:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the iCE Advertisements article as it has received significant coverage in both the film BBS: The Documentary and appears to have relevant coverage on Google Books archives as well. I am unable to find meaningful coverage from third party sources for Tempus Thales, but would be fine with delete or a redirect to the iCE Advertisements page if that might stave off recreation until such coverage shows up, if ever. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 22:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs improvement, needs verifiable material, but neither is a reason for deletion. Given material is available, article should be improved, not deleted. As for notability, given that the person was clearly notable at one point in time in one community, it just needs to be verified. --Buridan (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That this article was even nominated for deletion smells like someone is using Wikipedia to stoke an old flame war. Art Cancro (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please assume good faith. I completely understand the rationale behind nominating this article for deletion, although I'm not sure lumping the person together with the group was a good idea. I support a redirect to the iCE Advertisements page. JBsupreme (talk) 06:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep please ice advertisements has notability and tempus thales can be redirected for a unique search term yuckfoo (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Lawrence (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Poorly sourced BLP of porn actor. Fails WP:PORNBIO and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment, I have been sidelined from overhauling this article but was in the middle of adding the first of what looks to be about seven books mentioning him, some quite detailed, others reprinting his writings. Here's at least three scholar sources about him; and, of course, a couple of news hits. Given the vast majority of gay porn news sources never show in any of these searches - like these on Adult Video News - there seems no shortage of sourcing for this BLP and indeed the framework for a good article has already been started. -- Banjeboi 21:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has enough coverage to meet the suggested guidelines for notability. Dream Focus 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Banjeboi I believe there is sufficient coverage for this one. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article may use the same sources as references throughout but there seems to be more than enough in those sources to warrant a keep. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- A very interesting article. Keraunos (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I really know nothing of porn, and feel that this article is particularly informative, much more so than some other porn related articles.RadManCF (talk) 22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Tone 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicagoland Vampires (series)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NB - references are vampire fan-blog reviews and author's website --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 13:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NB. Edison (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [57], [58], [59] (Dead link, but "You would think an author who writes a series of books subtitled “A Chicagoland Vampires Novel” would be a native Chicagoan, or at least a transplant" which appears in the description on this link show that it was significant coverage), and [60]. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Native Chicagoans don't much like the term Chicagoland. Glittering Pillars (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: First, Library Journal is a strong source. Second, it's an open-ended series with a contract for more to come, so it will continue to have source added. (I know, don't throw crystal ball at me. I'm just saying it's sources are good enough now and in the future.) Also, I am an inclusion. If there are people looking at the page, beyond the author, then it's worthwhile to somebody and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabiona (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Library Journal really considered a strong source when considering notability? It's literary review publishes reviews of several hundred books each month. Would each of those books be considered notable? --SquidSK ^(1MC^•^log) 18:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would think so. Publishing several hundred reviews per month covers only a small fraction of the overall market, and reviews there have substantial influence on what ends up in US public libraries. And therefore Keep. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TVants[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Only source is a minor mention. Article has been marked for notability and references for over a year and it is unlikely to improve. Haakon (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN, sources first, then article. No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice of the Silence[edit]

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

This is a content fork of Helena Blavatsky. If the comments about the book are considered important enough then they should be moved to the main article. Ash (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The author seems to be notable and fairly important judging from her article. It would be normal to have articles on each book. Sources are needed but probably could be found. Nothing special would be gained by deleting. Borock (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The guidance of content fork applies, the fact that some other articles have spun out separate articles for each book from an author does not set the precedent here, the article should be assessed for its own encyclopaedic value.—Ash (talk) 16:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously not a content fork. Madame Blavatsky was a highly notable writer and (loony) philosopher of her day, and most of her books will satisfying the notability criteria. Article needs expansion, which means that someone may have to undertake the painful task of reading (about) the book, but there's no hurry. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. Edward321 (talk) 02:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Rosatti[edit]

.Crackofdawn (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

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

Remove Notability not established, peacock words, wikipuffery Marokwitz (talk) 06:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's possible he might turn out to be notable in a properly written, encyclopedic article, but it's impossible to tell from this puff piece. --MelanieN (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Borowsky[edit]

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

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

fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE, and WP:MUSICBIO. sounds overly self promotional for someone that has achieved little notable. only 1 relevant article in gnews [61]. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An earlier version of the article here includes a number of quotes from reviews in newspapers which apparently weren't indexed by Google News - but remember that references don't have to be available for free online to be valid. And if a newspaper in Poland reviews a performance, this is evidence in a reliable source of a tour. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the references still need to be verified, they could be made up. LibStar (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Gazeta Wyborcza and The Jakarta Post, the two major publications cited in the version of the article linked by Eastmain, both have searchable online archives, but I can't find any references to the subject in either: [62][63]. Without publication dates I don't think we can accept these as sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search the Jakarta Post for just "Borowsky", you find a reference to the upcoming concert that was quoted in the old version, but not the actual review.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply unnotable as a classical performer. Eusebeus (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment born 1992 so she has a long way to go to establish herself.... --Jubilee♫clipman 16:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't established her notability firmly yet. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more evidence of notability is provided. --Deskford (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion to merge or redirect should continue on the article's talk page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mush from the Wimp[edit]

Mush from the Wimp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I'm not seeing evidence that this topic passes Wikipedia's general notability guideline. A headline gaffe from about 30 years ago? Is an article on this really needed? *** Crotalus *** 19:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/29/opinion/mush-from-the-wimps.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarpanda (talk • contribs) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC) It does show up in a lot of other publications Polarpanda (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Boston Globe. It has some measure of historical notability in journalism, kind of as a cautionary tale about practical jokes, and it still gets mention in editorials [64] and in books [65]. My recollection at the time was that unless you happened to live in Boston, you only heard of it after it happened. Would it have been notable enough for its own article if there had been a Wikipedia in 1979? I doubt it. Mandsford (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This got nationwide coverage at the time and the incident continues to be referenced in the news and in books, as the Ghits show. Edward321 (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But just barely. I'd !vote to delete an article about Helsinki Schmelsinki. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Merging can be discussed further on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Tancred[edit]

Francis W. Tancred (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Delete. Unsourced biography dating back to May 2007. I do see some hits on Google Books, but the content is hidden and does not reveal to me if this person is notable or not. I am unable to find good biographical material for this subject. From what I can tell this name is a pseudonym. Is this person still alive even? It has a BLP sources tag but I can't tell. The article states that the subject's influence on the poetry genre was "relatively minor". If someone can locate solid references for this article please leave me a note on my talk page for reconsideration. JBsupreme (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are exhaustive books discussing the cantos, and they will discuss every person in it. Readers might well want information about the references in this rather difficult poem, and here is the first place most people look,. DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If indeed the name is just a pseudonym, then a merge/redirect would be best. See Talk:Francis W. Tancred#Pseudonym. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Imagism or Poets' Club. There isn't really enough information on him online, and I wonder how much is there offline. The Concise Oxford Chronology of English Literature which has hundreds of poets in it, doesn't mention him. Books I can find in Google and Google Books searches mention him in a line or two. He was a stockbroker with an avocation for poetry, a member of the Poet's Club and one of the few that T.E. Hulme brought with him from there to a group that met regularly together and, I think, all became Imagist poets -- Tancred definitely became an Imagist poet. Pound apparently had a low opinion of him. We don't even know if Tancred ever published a book of his own poetry. It seems worthwhile to have some information on him in the encyclopedia, given his associations, so merge to an article about those associations. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly per DGG's argument. Pound mentioning him in the cantos makes his name an extremely plausible search term, and for me tips the balance in favor of an independent article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A mention in The Cantos is reference and sufficient proof of notability. As long as there is a stub, there is a chance it can be improved. Giano 14:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Giano... I respect your opinion. Would you please elaborate as to why a mention in The Cantos should suffice as proof of notability? I would like to agree, but I'm not sure I understand how that would justify a stand-alone article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. Vartanza (talk) 16:44, 6 December 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. Very low participation, but the lone ~~deletion~~ keep argument doesn't hold any weight as the argument that primary sources such as patents indicate notability is faulty. Fences&Windows 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Fuel Freedom, Inc.[edit]

For Fuel Freedom, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

There are many sources in the article, but none of them are reliable secondary sources about the company. That makes me feel it doesn't meet the general notability guidelines, nor WP:CORP. All sources are either primary (the companies website), press releases, or don't or only trivialy mention this company. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines state "worthy of being noted" and "demonstrable effects" on culture, society, ...economies, history, ...science, etc. As a small corporation, readily available information that provides evidence of notability may be harder to come by, and "standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." First, Stephen L. Rush is running for Governor of California, and his company is of interest (see California_gubernatorial_election,_2010). Secondly, For Fuel Freedom's cellulosic process is claimed to produce 3.4 times more than corn ethanol, and has significant implications on society, economy, industry, and science. Its patents qualify as "worthy of being noted" by a "secondary source". Patent reference source was added to the page.
Rather, it is the standard of notability that needs to be reviewed, since For Fuel Freedom is primarily a technology company and secondary sources may not pick up on the development phase, and the term "demonstrable effects" limits small companies exactly in this position. Instead of proposing deletion, a request for a secondary source reference would have been sufficient as a first step, which should be a Wikipedia criteria. EmmettLBrown (talk) 14:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll comment on that some more shortly, and will try and demonstrate why I believe this article is one that is meant in the following essay, but for now, I'll just link it: WP:UPANDCOMING. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me elaborate a bit on this statement. I read that you say it does have demonstrable effects on culture... etc. The process it mentions sure sounds important, but there are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage to back up that claim (yet). As soon as they appear, or can be found, the article will meet the notability guideline. That Stephen L. Rush is running for governor probably means there is a lot of sources to be found about him. However, his notability does not inherit to his company. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of demonstrable effects, I was merely quoting part of the guidelines for the first part of my response. The notability requirement is met by the patent and it is not trivial. A secondary source has recognized something; that source is the federal government and that something is a tangible and legal piece of paper that gives For Fuel Freedom, Inc. the rights to license technology. And, although that technology may be up and coming, the patent is not. My point is that I fail to see how that is somehow not worthy of notability, or is somehow not a secondary source. Your point that the process has no independent reliable source doesn't matter, because the process is not in question here.
Now, a patent has the same notability as a published work (not self published) or an award of recognition such as nobel prize, because a patent is both. It is both published by a credible independent source and a recognition of accomplishment for research and development. The effects on society, etc. that I referred to is the effects that the patent has had on the industry. Granted, we could debate whether the recent changes in industry trends is mere speculation and extrapolation; it proves nothing. However, that does not negate my point that the patent is note worthy.

My next point was the question of significant coverage - which I was sure you would bring up. I already commented on the fact that as a small business, there may not be a lot in terms of coverage. This is what was meant by the section that refers to demonstratable effects and Wikipedia policy. My point is that during a developmental phase there is not a lot in terms of coverage, but in the case of a patent there is significance. And, that is what I mean by the tendancy to limit small company importance. Now, if for some reason you suggest that a patent does not fit notability requirements, I have already recommended that Wikipedia change its stance, because that is not right to include other published works or awards and not patents. Correct or no?EmmettLBrown (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the request for deletion be removed for the following reasons:

A patent is recognized by the federal government as a legal document no matter the size company, and therefore qualifies as being significant not trivial.
Insignificant coverage is not the only criteria for significance, and therefore is not a sufficient reason for deletion.

A patent is a published work by an credible and independent secondary source, and therefore qualifies as being worthy of notability.
Demonstratable effects cannot be proven at this time, but is not a reason for deletion given the patent meets the qualifications for a published work.

I also recommend Wikipedia change its policy on automatically tagging for deletion when a first corrective step is going to be providing a qualified secondary source anyway. If the reference is not posted in 30 days, then tag for deletion. I recommend this additional step to tone down the propensity to take things personally or to create a false image of that person or company in question. EmmettLBrown (talk) 09:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of coverage in independent reliable sources. See the search links above.. None of the sources in the article is usable for notability purposes - mostly press releases, the company's website, or listing in a directory - and I can find none. The argument with respect to the president is doubly wrong: being a candidate in a party primary does not pass WP:POLITICIAN, and even if it does notability is not inherited. The patent argument is even more off the mark. Simply because someone has received a patent does not establish notability, and rightfully so. The patent submission is written by that person and is therefore not independent of the subject, among other reasons. Tim Song (talk) 23:09, 8 December 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. Wizardman 00:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Hawks[edit]

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

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

Completely unreferenced BLP of male porn performer. Fails WP:PORN and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of male performers in gay porn films. David Anders, likely his real name, was quite notable at the time and numerous gay smut mags as well as more mainstream gay press would have delved into endless drivelly questions which is exactly what we need here; including motivations, childhood environment, interests, etc. So certainly a good article could be woven together given those sources. He was a very big deal at the time and were those sources even in one spot, writing this would be a breeze. They aren't unless someone very close to him has a trunk of material or donated it to a archive somewhere. Given that the churning up of all that is unlikely, we have to go by what is readily available which isn't a lot. Sweeping all the little bits together will only yield a paragraph or two and it seems a bit pointless as most of it will not be readily verifiable. The next best choice is to merge to the list article where several juicy sentences works just fine. Deletion is not needed here. -- Banjeboi 15:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are his films notable? If so, he'd meet the suggested guidelines for including an actor. Dream Focus 02:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One is, Brians' Boys later renamed to Brian's Men. The same issue remains however that even though the porn industry thought he was unique and praiseworthy we don't have the sourcing to back that up. -- Banjeboi 03:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject meets the GNG or any other specialized notability guideline. GNews search turns other individuals of the same name, some private, some potentially notable, so that merger to/inclusion on a list creates BLP problems. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Nom.Sabiona (talk) 16:51, 1 December 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. Wizardman 20:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Madison[edit]

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

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

Completely unsourced biography of male porn performer. Fails WP:PORN and WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, to List of male performers in gay porn films, there are a few reliable sources but I don't see this as currently having the potential to be a good article. If we knew this actors legal name and there was notability in other careers or otherwise then maybe, but going on a stage name alone doesn't seem to cut it. BTW, BLP is less of a concern as there is little doubt that what we have is currently accurate and states nothing but they have been in films, which is true. In any case deletion is not needed here and likely other options should have been explored before sending to AfD. -- Banjeboi 02:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect per benjiboi, who has already added the relevant content and citations to the list. Them From Space 06:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication subject meets the GNG or any other specialized guidelines. Ghits and GNews earch show so many other individuals sharing the name that including the subject on he proposed list raises significant BLP issues, especially given the lack of reliale information concerning the subject. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable performers shouldn't be included in List of male performers in gay porn films. Epbr123 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 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 Permanent Ability. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lanese[edit]

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

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

Non-notable musician which doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Also, if you look at the history, it appears as though this was created by Brian himself, which is a major no no. The links go to local publications or MySpace. Basically the vocalist of a locally successful rock band. Not enough for our purposes User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 05:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 06:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. If Permanent Ability passes muster for inclusion, I'd suggest redirecting this article to that one. I don't think there is a place for either article but there certainly isn't one for both. Just not enough on Brian. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 13:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no coverage of Lanese, neither in Google News nor in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. ~~Permanent Ability has a little coverage (for example), although it's not all that clear it would survive a deletion discussion. For now,~~ we can redirect to the band article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just noticed the Permanent Ability survived an AfD discussion. So I will stick with my recommendation to redirect the Lanese article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Permanent Ability. JohnCD (talk) 10:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhoff Dahl[edit]

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

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

This article does not prove the notability of its subject, and it contains extensive original research. Aliciakeyzz (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) — Aliciakeyzz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete. Self promo. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 23:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the articles, and none of them are reputable secondary sources about the man himself. The one from the Bangor Daily News is a total fluff piece promoting his book. 209.2.225.138 (talk) 19:19, 3 December 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. MuZemike 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney Platinum Editions[edit]

Walt Disney Platinum Editions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Unnotable Home video and release labels. The "Platinum editions" are nothing more than a marketing gimick. The entire thing is completely unsourced except for 3 fan site "sources" and an Amazon link. The same applies to the new Diamond Editions. Individual DVD releases are already covered in the respective film articles, and Disney's general home video release practice of vaulting titles belongs in Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment. The labels themselves have received no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources,
I am also nominating the following related pages because they suffer from similar issues, namely being unnotable video release labels used by Disney fro its video releases. These are unreferenced all together, consisting of nothing but a list of titles and dates:

Walt Disney Gold Classic Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Walt Disney Masterpiece Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Walt Disney's Studio Film Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Walt Disney Family Film Collection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Walt Disney Film Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has more content, but almost all of it entirely unreferenced beyond a few spots, and those references are about the film's themselves, and not the general topic of the "Classics" label/Brand, and its been tagged for notability issues since June.

Walt Disney Classics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment.~~ Keep. Is this any different to any other DVD list? Not that any should set a precedent, but perhaps this information is here because wikipedia users want it here. I think deleting these pages would probably bring about the information being added in another list, so maybe, rather than delete, perhaps all the information should be collected together to make one notable and properly referenced article? Rob Sinden (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any other DVD lists at all like these, except List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases which is under a separate AFD, but most other studios don't do the 5000 label thing. It isn't appropriate nor notable in other studio articles, but the Disney articles, in particular, are in horrible shape all around. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about List of Criterion Collection DVD releases, for example? I think the information should remain in some form, but agree that it could be more coherent, and properly referenced. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could have sworn that was deleted before. The information already exists, in the individual film articles. The name of the label on the DVD seems like something that would interest serious Disneyphiles and fans, not the general user who likely just wants a List of Disney feature films. How many more Disney film lists are needed? There is also: List of Disney theatrical animated features, List of Disney direct-to-video films, List of television films produced for Disney Channel, and List of Disney film soundtracks -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 09:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but can't really see that just because the information is included on the article pages that these lists shouldn't be here. That's what the lists are for. If an article on say carrot states that "a carrot is a vegetable" doesn't proclude carrot from going on a page called "List of vegetables". There are far more trivial lists out there. These lists do for the most part show what they're supposed to - and with proper referencing and some cleaning up and maybe some merging they could become perfectly valid. And as far as I can see, the lists don't fall foul of WP:SALAT. Why not have them, they just need improving. Therefore changing my view to Keep. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly with a rename or merge. Lists such as these are integral parts of a film encyclopedia, which is part of what Wikipedia is trying to be. Certainly referencing needs improvement, but I'm confident there are sources out there. Powers ^T 14:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it integral and notable to have a list of every video and DVD release made by Disney? Will we also make lists of every video and DVD released by Touchstone, Paramount, Sony, etc. What makes Disney special/unique that its sales and collector catalogs are here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: one, simply that someone has taken the time to compile this list but has not yet taken the time to compile the other lists you mention. Two, that Disney has such an extensive back-catalog that they regularly re-release in different editions and under different branding. We cover those releases in each individual film's article, so this is just another way of looking at the same data. Powers ^T 16:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For point one see WP:EFFORT.Darrenhusted (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EFFORT says that "someone worked hard on this" is not a reason to keep an article. That is not remotely what I said. I was explaining the reason why Disney releases have an article and others do not -- simply that someone has taken the time to make the former and no one has yet made the latter. Powers ^T 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP is not a catalog. Disney films should be discussed as works of art. How they are packaged for sale is not worth an article (although the info could be mentioned in their own articles). The same goes for music, video games, etc. Borock (talk) 13:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do these articles fall foul of WP:NOTCATALOG though? I can't see that they do. Also, the DVD packages, and the work regarding the restoration of the material included on the series seen as a whole could be regarded as being historically significant. Rob Sinden (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although these articles have weaknesses and a specific commercial bias, it's valuable and is a noteable part of our culture. Today I came looking for information and Walt Disney Classics specifically answers my questions about "Disney Classics". Wikipedia has many less interesting lists (just try clicking "Random article" 10 times!). The page Walt Disney Classics has this deletion warning link and should be kept. The pages about "Platinum" packaging etc are less interesting but I'd still keep them. Rixs (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, and consider which should be merged. This particular franchise is notable enough for this. Of course the information is in the individual film articles, but that very fact is what makes this a justifiable and not indiscriminate list--they're important enough. An encyclopedia exists to bvring information together in useful ways. DGG ( talk ) 06:29, 2 December 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 Nomination withdrawn.. Withdrawing nomination (as per Wikipedia:Speedy keep - application 1), and redirecting to Beyond the Break SilkTork *^YES! 12:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telenovela Star[edit]

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

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

This was a Prod. However there is a claim to meet WP:BAND criteria #10 as the band provided the theme song. Options are to clean up or to redirect to Beyond the Break. SilkTork *^YES! 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting to Beyond the Break would be best, a Google search didn't seem to turn up any reliable sources on which an article could be properly referenced. -- GateKeeper ^(talk) @ 15:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 1 December 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. Wizardman 02:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lajqi[edit]

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

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

Delete without prejudice against recreation if written properly. An article is an unreferenced arbitrary essay supposedly about an Albanian surname. - Altenmann >t 18:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's mostly opinions and trivia, but even re-written it doesn't belong here by e.g. WP:NAD. JohnBlackburne (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:28, 1 December 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. Wizardman 05:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Peterson[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BIO. Part of a series of articles written by a WP:COI ~~WP:SPA~~ has written about executives at his/her company. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO, obviously an attempt by the article's creator to promote his or her company, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per all previous discussion. Sabiona (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The claims of him being CEO was an exaggeration, and there is a lack of significant coverage. Fences&Windows 23:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott C. Evans[edit]

Scott C. Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Fails WP:BIO the only in-depth coverage is in a private newsletter from his school. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recommend early close per nom - nothing out there to indicate notability. Hazir (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep CEO of CREF is notability--considering the importance of the company--as judged by the amount of assets managed: $300 Billion. See the G News archive search: [66] DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was all ready to say "keep" when I saw the claimed title "Chief Executive Officer of TIAA-CREF." Then I went to the TIAA-CREF website and found out, IT ISN'T TRUE. He is Executive VP for asset management, yes, but he is NOT the CEO - he is fourth down the line in the executive chart. Any time I find a bio with a false claim in it, I tend to say "delete" just on general principles. --MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

I've removed that blatant bit of misinformation from the article. Toddst1 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - now the false claim is removed there is no notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:47, 8 December 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. Wizardman 00:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ono Palindromes[edit]

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

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

Speedy declined. Article itself indicates they've gotten major radio play, and some press in music publications, but a google search hits primarily primary sources. The non primary sources don't say much, and I haven't found any that strike me as WP:RS, although I suppose I could be wrong. Google news turns up 0. Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough to cover WP:BAND here. Article seems to be written simply to promote the band, creating editor seems to have some COI issues too. No prejudice to re-create a properly sourced article, assuming it passes WP:BAND. Rehevkor ✉ 16:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Information to verify (with ex Links) has been added - please make aware of any further changes required..Tibtib123 (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BAND you'd need "subject of multiple non-trivial published works", NMA one seems pretty trivial to me. Is Artrocker a reliable source? Still, hardly real significant coverage here. Rehevkor ✉ 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artrocker is a fairly significant magazine in the UK in terms of music - NME - trivial? Have you been around for the last 30 years? Tell you what have a listen?Johged (talk) 10:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say NME was trivial, just the coverage was. Rehevkor ✉ 17:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so the solution?Johged (talk) 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might not be one. Otherwise find the sources to cover the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" criteria. Rehevkor ✉ 16:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehevkor - For people interested in emerging music, sources, such as the NME & Artrocker, are credible and well respected. I think the issue perhaps is down to a lack of knowledge of UK based press? Could it be that due to the coding used on Wikipedia that the author has struggled to correctly Cite references. After a few searches I can tell you that all sources currently cited on the the page are correct. There also could be more references which have not been cited. At present the Page looks like a shell, and I think judgement should be made after the page (which is clearly still being edited) is completed to a proper standard?80.195.84.245 (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you used "emerging music" there - it takes time for bands to become notable by Wikipedia's standards, and I doubt any "emerging" band would easily pass that. So far there are not enough significant sources so address the notability issues, and I don't feel there are any at this time. The article has seen little development since it was first created beyond adding the sources and clean up, and if you cut out the text that is purely promotional toward the band you're left with a couple of sentences, just how much time would it take an article such as this to be "completed"? Months? Years? I'm sure you'd love for the band, which you both seem to have some connection to, to have a well developed article, but that won't happen without following wikipedia's policies. Of course is all just one person's opinion, I'm sure other editors will chime in with their !votes, but I suspect anyone familiar with wiki-policy will agree with me. Rehevkor ✉ 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears the page has had some editing done... lol interesting arguements! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johged (talk • contribs) 12:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes fascinating. Rehevkor ✉ 15:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehevkor - how about you correctly code and reference the material given? perhaps send the band a personal mail through either there myspace or yahoo which is availiable on there pages. - That way they perhaps could send you the references? and other noticable press or 'coverage' I noticed you said about 'other editors will chime in with their !votes..' It appears in nearly 5 days you are the only person continuing the argument?!? perhaps let this one slip? for good times sake...86.171.238.241 (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Sorry, I have no interest in working on the article, the burden is not on me to do so. Rehevkor ✉ 13:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well good to hear your interference ends here! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.84.245 (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More Content Added now... With Links to reference material in Ext. Links section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.205.162 (talk) 17:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: The AfD was malformed before relisting; therefore, please consider this the first week of discussion for relisting purposes. Thanks. Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 11:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic - No wonder wikipedia is loosing money and people to moderate - How can it be malformed? The fact is that the argument ended in approval due to a lack of people saying NO? TIM SONG you are the only person carrying on the argument again like REHEVKOR you should stop being pedantic... how many more 'first weeks' must the losers here at wikipedia request? I think perhaps some people need to get a life... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.205.162 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you mention my name? I didn't nominate this article for deletion. Only expressed an opinion. And I do have a life thank you very much, at least enough of one to not have the need to attempt to insult strangers over the internet. If you have nothing constructive to say then don't bother. Rehevkor ✉ 20:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel the need to carry on talking to you Rehvkor I mentioned your name as it appeared you where the only one being slightly silly ;_ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.84.245 (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rehevkor; seemingly not enough reliable sources to assert notability. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above, this band do not appear to be notable by wikipedia standards. Mah favourite (talk) 05:02, 2 December 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. Secret ^account 01:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Villain[edit]

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

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

This biographical page fails to address the requirements of WP:ARTIST. Testing the sources quoted, I note that the Guardian and coutorture.com fail to actually mention Villain. Checking Google News there are no mentions of Villain. Ash (talk) 11:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, websites that do not mention Villain have now been removed.—Ash (talk) 08:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable film maker, no credible evidence that he really collaborated with Lagerfeld. The rest of the article is gossip. --Vejvančický (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ WP:INCUBATE as experimental filmmaker and artist whose work receives critical acclaim and many positive reviews.[67], [68] The unsourcable Lagerfeld stuff can be trimmed way back and the article can be allowed to grow based upon his work in film and theater. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by the links you provide here. In the Google News link you provided the first three sources I checked don't mention Villain and in the second, a general Google search, the only match to his name seems to be for the poem he provided.—Ash (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for your puzzlement. The title Harry un ami qui vous veut du bien is a multiple award-winning [69] and critically acclaimed [70] feature film for which Villain receives writing credit. If his work receives acclaim, that acclaim is his. Sorry I did not make that more clear. What this article dearly needs is input from French language-reading Wikipeians that can translate the sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the link you provided, Villain is not credited as one of the writers but for the contribution of a poem. None of the awards listed are for the poem itself. Are there any sources that establish notability for being a film maker or should his notability be based on being a poet?—Ash (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to look yourself... as here's a few I found with a quick search that list him as screenwriter for the film: Films de France, Cinemotions (fr), the Auteurs, dvdtiole (fr), eudaimo, Outnow (grman), pg10... and there are many othres in many languages... some undoubtably more reliable than IMDB. If multiple sources say writer... I'm happy giving credence to the multiple. And I will go now and check to see if the writers of an award-wining film have any expectation of notability for their work ultimately winning awards. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete At the very least, get rid of the unsourced gossipy stuff. Rudybowwow (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heck yes. His notability lies elswhere. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modified my view slightly from keep to send it WP:Incubate. I do not have the expertise or language skills to search French language sources. If placed in the incubator, the stub may receive the help I am unable to provide. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced bio. Hipocrite (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might not an incubation and assistance from French Wikipedians over time improve the article and the project? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His only claim to fame is that film, but "Dans le film Harry, un ami qui vous veut du bien, de Dominik Moll, Harry déclame un poème de Francis Villain, Le Poignard en peau de nuit."[71] He had a poem read in the film, he wasn't a writer. Fences&Windows 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niels Damstra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Niels Damstra

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

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

Lack of notability - the page could describe any journalist. The only link is to an under construction web site with no information, so what's there is unsourced. The page was tagged with a deletion proposal tag previously which was removed without explanation or the article being improved. JohnBlackburne (talk) 11:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No claim of notability whatsoever. Pdcook (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not only not proven, it is not even claimed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 05:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Vick[edit]

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

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

Completely unreferenced BLP. She is an artist that has worked for companies that make trading cards, and also helps organize a Steampunk convention. A Google search came up with this, but I don't think it is enough to establish notability independent of the conference. We need to be especially careful with BLPs, so i'm bringing this here. The Wordsmith^Communicate 05:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 16:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to do this, but weak delete. Met Diana. Very nice girl, fun to chat with. Unfortunately, she's only approaching the line for WP:N and hasn't quite crossed it yet. She's more notable in furry fandom, but that doesn't make for anything near WP:N. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the general notability guideline. Starblueheather (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veda Vyasapriya Swami[edit]

Veda Vyasapriya Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non notable Iskcon swami. Wikid ^as© 04:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Couldn't find any coverage of him in independent, reliable sources.--Gaura79 (talk) 11:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and well sourced article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per ism schism.Pectore^talk 19:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All sources are ISKCON sites except for a passing reference in a news article that does no more than list him as a speaker at an event. Searches away from these sites produce little or nothing. Mangoe (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mangoe is right, there are no independed or reliable sources to support notability. Wikid ^as© 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ism and Pectore failed to demonstrate that sources re independent (they are not) and reliable(they are not RS), and provide substantial coverage (again not even that). Wikid ^as© 06:08, 3 December 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 Guy Sebastian. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Sebastian (Winner Australian Idol 2003)[edit]

Guy Sebastian (Winner Australian Idol 2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The page was created in good faith, but I don't think that's enough to save the page. This page is essentially the Australian Idol section of the full biography at Guy Sebastian. I just came across it, so I don't know if it was spun off or just spontaneously created, but is there a reason why this has to be a standalone page? None of the other Idol pages have their Idol experiences spun off; if anything, the material belongs on the show's season page, not by itself. SKS (talk) 04:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there SKS
Thank you I did create this page in good faith. The reason I created it was because the Guy Sebastian article was becoming too long even with regular trimming out of contributions that have become no longer current or relevant. As an emerging worldwide artist, there is a lot happening in his life and career at the moment and so his article is constantly being added to and also being trimmed down. A lot of time and energy was put in to compiling all his Idol songs and experiences by many different editors since 2003 so it would be a really big shame if this page was deleted and I cant see how this information can fit back on the main Guy Sebastian article without it impacting on the length there.
I guess if the only reason for it being up for deletion is that other idols do not have a separate page for their Idol experiences - then I am not sure how to proceed from here. I know other artists have pages created away from the biographical article when there is too much information making the articles too long.
Anyways, any suggestions on how to proceed with this if this article is deleted would be gratefully received. Should I put this information back on the Guy Sebastian article?
Kind regards
--Diane (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guy Sebastian. Add whatever content necessary to Guy Sebastian. There should not be two articles on the same person. •••Life of Riley (T–C)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 01:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guy Sebastian. A separate article covering Australian Idol performences is not warranted. Discussion can continue on the talk page there about whether the chart or any information from this article are worth putting into the main article, keeping in mind length concerns mentioned by Diane. Jujutacular ^T · C 02:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - as above. Unnecessary article, as described by Jujutacular. To be honest, I don't think we need to know every song he sung every week on Australian Idol. If the main Guy Sebastian article is becoming to long, it can be shortened down to include less trivial information, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone - I guess the consensus is that the page should be removed. I got the idea from John Mayer and Kylie editors who have separate articles for tours/appearances that didnt fit on the main page. I could change the title of this page but I guess it still comes down to having another page on Guy and this may not fit in with the rules here.
--Diane (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guy Sebastian. The article is unnecessary because the page only has a few references. We also don't need to know all of his songs. December21st2012Freak (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 06:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Source. I think there is room in Guy's main article to discuss things like what songs he did on the show, but that content would have to be reliable sourced back for something. As others have said, having two articles for the same person is problematic, and compared to article like Kylie Minogue, the one on Guy could certainly use some fattening up with content. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I wasn't sure Lankiveil which article needs fattening up - this article or the Guy Sebastian main article. If it was this article, it had been my intention to fattening it up to include all his post Idol performances also. He has been invited back numerous times to perform at the Australia Idol Grandfinal every year, has been the only OZ Idol guest judge, and Sebastian is very lucky to be one of the few idols invited back to premiere his singles on the show. He has been a guest Idol every year since he won. I was going to make this a work in progress in researching to get citations to support all Sebastian's Idol appearances including American Idol, New Zealand Idol, World Idol, Malaysian Idol, and Asian Idol (300 million viewers for Grand finale night). There is always going to be possible Idol performances in the future also as there is a possiblity of an American Idol performance next year with Sebastian's team up with Jordin Sparks and releasing their single in the US next year.
This is the first time I have created an article - so I am just saying what I was hoping to achieve here - but understand that there are rules in place.
Regards, --Diane (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to parent article. Its totally redundant to expand. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 11:05, 7 December 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. Wizardman 00:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt Films[edit]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I cannot find coverage either, is SPA-created, and reads like a promotion to me. Haakon (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MySQLDumper[edit]

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

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

I don't think this tool is notable. I've looked for reliable sources, and I haven't found any significant coverage. I've given time for others to source it - see the talk page - and I left a message with the Free Software WikiProject, but no good sources have been provided. There are some web directories, forums and blogs discussing it, but nothing I'd regard as reliable. I'm happy to be proven wrong or for a good merge target to be suggested. Fences&Windows 03:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN. No references, no articles. Miami33139 (talk) 06:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this rule really applies to all entries you should also delete the page about PhpMyAdmin. There are only links pointing to the project page. I understand the need of reliable sources. MySQLDumper is recommanded in thousands of threads in nearly any support board of other Open Source Projects like vBulletin, Woltlab, phpBB, typo3, zikula, etc. and there are many feedbacks of users saying that this worked fine for them (e.x. User comment ). I my opinion there is a lack of conecpt here: on one hand this wiki is filled by and for the public community and on the other hand your definition of a reliable source states comments of the community as not trustworthy. MSD was developed for the community and of course this script is rated with the means of the community: blogs and boards. Is the fact, that some other systems implemented MSD in their code a reliable source (e.x. nag2web)? I simply think MySQLDumper has proven to be a useful (non profit) software (especially when no shell access is given) that really helps the community. If you are not willing to present it to the public here, I accept this. But I think it is a pity because you are hiding useful information from the community just because of the definition of reliable sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.5.77.187 (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint of PHPMyAdmin has resulted in similar requests for article sources. The reason why we require reliable sources is that Wikipedia can't be a primary source of information, and without sources the information can't be trusted. It has resulted in hoaxes and mistruths in articles that people trusted. We also require them to show notability so that Wikipedia can separate important subjects from unimportant ones. Miami33139 (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deproded PHPMyAdmin, and plan to source it. Fences&Windows 02:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated, does not appear to have third party coverage. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 23:02, 1 December 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 for deletion. Merging can always be discussed outside AFD if need be. MuZemike 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lireo[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:RS. There is no reason for subjects like this one to be spin-out. JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionals[edit]

I nominate these articles for the same reason:

Sapiro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of places in Encantadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Genealogy of Encantadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Enchanta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Timeline of Encantadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hathoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of minor characters in Encantadia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Jewels and Spirit-Guides (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cast of the Encantadia Saga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Furthermore, these articles, and the ones I listed before, are collection of pure original research.--JL 09 ^_q?_{_c} 12:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the ones that are combination articles, consider the others individually for merging lists of minor characters & locations are always good to keep, if the work is at all significant and there are enough characters. Similarly for list of locations,. Whether Genealogy .. and Timeline ... duplicate other articles needs to be checked by someone who knows the work. Not OR, for the information can be gotten from the work itself, which is a RS for most of this material. DGG ( talk ) 06:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all no notability, significantly WP:OR, WP:SYNTHESIS. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 14:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, into the main article regarding the show. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 01:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for as Enchanta goes, it certainly fulfills the criteria for an article about a constructed/fictional language to have an article. It should therefore not merely be treated as an extension of the fictional world (which I'm completely unfamiliar with). That doesn't mean the article is acceptable as it looks now, but it deserves separate treatment. As for the other articles discussed, I have no opinion about them. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 14:14, 2 December 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. Secret ^account 01:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ginsberg[edit]

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

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

Inadequate references for notability--refs 1 & 2 are self published, & it does not appear that 4 & 5 are likely to have substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - abuse of deletion process. Use 'references' tag insteadAndrewjlockley (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While his book doesn't appear to be self-published (according to Amazon, it's from HarperCollins), writing one book with little or no media coverage and impact (Amazon UK rank 73,656) wouldn't be enough for an article anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside here, I suspect these sorts of books don't tend to have a long shelf life. It reached at least number 3 in Amazon's marketing books, and number 6 in BusinessWeek's bestseller list for September, 2005. Neither are huge results, but then I don't know how it went beyond that. - Bilby (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep - I added some of the refs before, and there's a bit on this person floating around. Of the references, the Boston Globe article is specifically about him and his book. The Kiplinger's Personal Finance piece is a longer article, and he gets about a column - around six paragraphs, and they're all directly about him and how he made his money. Finally, the Chicken soup for the enterepreneur's soul piece is where the authors "interviewed" various enterepreneurs, including Ginsberg - it is about 4 pages of his thoughts, followed by a one-page summary of his career. The first part is a primary source of sorts, and isn't currently used in the article, but the second part is non-trivial and secondary. As I see it he meets the non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources requirement. That said, I'm not sure that we really need an article on the subject, but that's more of a value judgement. - Bilby (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long is the BGlobe article? DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About 700 words, according to NewsBank. It's primarily about his book, but there's a bit about him personally to give some context. The Kiplinger piece is much more of a profile, and I suspect speaks more to notability. NewsBank turns up about 16 articles, but most are tied to speaking engagements, so I don't see them as sufficiently reliable even in the occasional case where they have something to say. The only exception is "Why open an online store?" in the Weekend Australian, which has a short (650 word) interview with him, mostly about why eBay is great, (the focus of the article), but occasionally wandering into his motivations. Personally I think he's marginal, but I guess the query is which side of "marginal" people are inclined to fall on. :) - Bilby (talk) 08:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Globe content is a book review (as can be seen at [72]); as indicated is primarily about the book, not information/commentary about the individual that seems to confer notability. A vignette by him in a Chicken Soup book and a few profiles and interviews here and there, which have been picked up by a few other online sources (as is ostensibly commonplace in the world of internet marketing). Most of the content provided in the references, and everything else I can find, doesn't particularly show notability as an entrepreneur, nor as an author. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete marginally or not notable biography of a living person. Apparently he wrote a non-notable book about selling stuff on eBay. There are not multiple sources that provide non-trivial coverage of this person. Fails WP:BIO. Further, he has not received significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not really that concerned about this article, but I note that there was significant independent coverage - the Kiplinger's Personal Finance piece, at least, which I'd count unquestionably towards notability - and the book was actually rather successful. (I was curious, so I asked at a couple of stores in Australia, and was surprised to learn that it still sells). I'd still agree with "marginal", though. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not significant coverage. Racepacket (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. ^Izzedine 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There does appear to be significant coverage of the man's achievements outside of the book as well as his backstory to warrant notability. I've added a few more sources and also some contextual quotes from the articles he is mentioned in which should back up this assertion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 16:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

El Club de los Astronautas[edit]

El Club de los Astronautas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Procedural nomination. ((Hoax)) tag was first added to the article in June 2009 but removed shortly thereafter amid a large deletion of content by an IP, and re-added on 13 November. No attempt has been made to delete article or refute hoax claim. I would also question the subject's notability. KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible hoax. The photograph included in the article looks like something of a photograph related to the works of The Residents. Could be wrong.... --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Gears[edit]

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

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

Non-notable organization. No significant coverage in reliable sources to satisfy the general notability guideline. Closest I could find was a photo of the owners and some cars, but no coverage of the actual company in [73]. Optigan13 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TestPlant[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another software business, founded in 2008. Only found credit agency reports of the founding and acquisition. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:51, 1 December 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. JohnCD (talk) 10:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image streaming[edit]

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

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

Psychbabble with insufficient sources available to establish notability. The article on its proponent has already been deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Win Wenger), and this article should go as well -- the only source here is a blog. This is the sort of thing that sometimes gives wikipedia a bad name... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Seems to get a lot of Ghits, and I found two articles on Google news, [74] and a pay to view article. Most likely pseudoscience, but seems to have some popularity. Angryapathy (talk) 14:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good unbiased overview of image streaming no way should it be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.92.180 (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mentions are trivial and not significant coverage; they do not describe the technique in any sort of detail. Fails WP:N. Ray^Talk 01:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the technique is described, there are no verifiable sources of repute to back said description, and scouring EBSCOhost yielded absolutely nothing under the search term "image streaming", which leads me to conclude it is pure garbage (as far as academically grounded notability goes (pretty far)). Why can't we simply remain silent when inanimate objects start talking to us?—The perennial problem of staying up too late.—αrgumziω ϝ 03:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine Point Blank[edit]

Nine Point Blank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article is about a theatre company that does not meet notability. The article contains inline references (web links) which do not establish notability for the founders either as they refer to a highschool drama competition. There is also a mistyped external link [75] which is an event listing fort he one play that the company has mounted. There is no coverage about this theatre company in reliable sources that Whpq (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no secondary sources that describe this group. Non-notable. Angryapathy (talk) 19:14, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Non notable threatre company.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Caruthers and related articles[edit]

Quinton Caruthers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Most of this article seems to be fake. For example, other artist's recordings are listed as his work, and nothing found about him on the record companies' websites (Universal and Mercury).
His albums below don't exist:

Watermark (Quinton Caruthers album)

Piccadilly Circus (Quinton Caruthers album)

Overcast (Quinton Caruthers album)

Easy Listening (Quinton Caruthers album)

And related articles below should be deleted too:

Template:Quinton Caruthers

Category:Quinton Caruthers albums

Quinton caruthers (redirect page)

Actually one user only (user:Phrasia) created the fiction. - Discographia (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched news archives via Google News and only two mentions from 2003 show up, seems like he actually appeared on that show and was eliminated early. The rest seems hoaxalicious, and the appearance on the American Idol clone doesn't confer notability. Hekerui (talk) 00:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well then it obviously isn't a hoax if the mentioned person is real. Other contestants have wikipedia pages and it seems that the links are sourced so I see no sense that this is a hoax, just a matter that unsourced business should be deleted that's all. Pleasantview (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can say 'I see no sense that this is a hoax', there is literally no sourced information in the article and there is plenty of information that can be seen to be false by clicking on the links (eg the singles that are in fact by other artists) or by a quick google search (eg his albums that don't seem to exist and the incredibly famous producers that it is claimed he has worked with). If you genuinely think that any of the information (other than the fact that someone of this name appeared briefly in a short lived TV show) is true then I think that you should take the time to look through the article and associated links again (particularly his MySpace page, which is quite funny in the context of this discussion!). Mah favourite (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He does seem to have been on the TV program in question but everything else in the article seeme to be made up (or at best is completely unrecorded by any sources and so is not notable). The sources that have been provided are just to searches under his name that come back with no results. It seems clear to me that everything other than his name and brief TV appearance is some sort of hoax or joke. Mah favourite (talk) 05:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Pleasantview, this article does depict a real life person. Those things which are unsourced should be deleted. But the main reason for this deletion is that this article is a hoax and it definitely isn't. He is a real musician and he has been on television appearances. Some of the article is sourced though. Phrasia (talk) 09:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Material with no sources can be removed. But since it has been confirmed by two people, who are opposing this article, that this person is a real entertainer with music and television background, why should it be deleted? Please tell me and I will message you back. A hoax is something made up. The person is a real musician and the only issue is dealing with things that are not sourced. Big Brother IMDB Plus 2 (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete album pages, Keep and Improve biography page. In addition to the investigations made by the folks above, I have also found that Mr. Caruthers' albums are not available on major music retailing sites. CDs are not available at amazon.com or cduniverse.com, and downloads are not available at iTunes. This should not be the case for items from major labels like Mercury and Universal Records, and by the way the guy is not found on those company's websites either. Mr. Caruthers may have really created some albums but they do not exist in the outside world. Delete all the album pages as either hoaxes or wishful self-promotion. As for Quinton's biography page, since he is a real person I have added some editing tags and we can see if anyone comes to the rescue. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 09:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can anyone confirm whether it is appropriate to delete unsourced material immediately (while the article is going through AfD)? I am not sure whether this is good practice or not. The links in the article just go to search pages with zero results so if these were removed it would make it more obvious to the casual observer that there are no sources in the article. This is clearly (in my opinion) a hoax in the general sense but maybe it is not a hoax by wikipedia standards as the name used is that of a real contestant from an American TV show (however the associated album articles do seem to satisfy WP:HOAX because the albums do not exist). In that case I still believe that the article should be deleted because the subject is not notable, he appeared briefly on a TV show, does not appear to have done anything notable since (as all of the other information in the article is made up and the photo is probably of someone else as shown by the myspace page linked to). I don't know whether this means that the article has to go through AfD again with WP:N as the reason. Either way I don't see how anyone can justify keeping this article in the long term (unless they believe that being unsuccessful in an unsuccessful TV show makes the subject notable). Mah favourite (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would hold off, it's better to wait the whole 7 days of an AfD than rush to delete something and have the discussion devolve into process disagreement. They've been here this long they can sit for a few days.

Delete all and Redirect Quinton Caruthers to American Juniors, and possibly protect that if eagerness overtakes good judgment again. Doing a broad search shows no reliable sources except that he did the show so a redirect to that is fine. I see nothing to source any singles or albums although I'm very open to WP:Heymann save. Otherwise this doesn't reach WP:GNG and certainly not notability under music. So fails per WP:N and WP:RS, and because he's so young could be a BLP issue as well. I removed the two LGBT cats as sexuality, especially non-heterosexuality has to be sourced on a BLP. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - he does exist but the article is full of lies & falsehoods, and what is true isn't enough to make this guy notable. Giant Snowman 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the content appears to be a hoax. The fact that the subject may have also legitimately appeared on a television show is not enough to establish him as notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many people suggested that the article should be edited, but the article doens't seem like a hoax to me just that it's not written very well. Maybe a few senteces of fake information, but all that stuff should be deleted. We know that the person is a real WP:bio. Musiciansdelight (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We know he exists. There's nothing to suggest he is notable. Ironholds (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - a real person, certainly, but not a notable one. Ironholds (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Other contestants have pages and they are notable so why can't this one be. This article not being a hoax should not be deleted. We all have come to consensus that things just have to be deleted because there are no sources to them. I also believe that this person should be noted because contestants on the show have pages as well. Please message me if you believe that what I am saying makes no sense. CenterfoldSally (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC) — CenterfoldSally (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Generally speaking, the winner of such a competition is the only person who's entitled to an article just on the basis of the TV show alone. Contestants who didn't win have to attain notability in other ways to merit articles on here; they don't get to claim notability just for having been contestants. Bearcat (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Main subject does not meet WP:MUSIC requirements, other articles do not meet WP:Verifiability requirements. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and Redirect Quinton Caruthers to American Juniors, same as Benjiboy. If all those albums are fake then he doesn't meet WP:MUSIC. It's nice that he appeared in a TV program, but if he doesn't have any reliable sources covering him outside of his participation on the program then he doesn't merit his own article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and Redirect Quinton Caruthers to American Juniors per Benjiboy. It seems he exists but has no independent notability. JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and redirect as in previous comment. Albums that are unreleased are not albums. Johnuniq (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I noticed that the creator of this article removed some of the untrue information so I have taken it upon myself to remove the rest. I will not be offended if anyone wants to reinstate any information but I feel it would be appropriate to justify any reinstatements either here or on the article's talk page. I have also noticed that the editor who added the false information to the article has contributed to this AfD discussion. I would appreciate it if you would explain why you added the false information in the first place. Any explanation that you can provide is likely to be very beneficial to the resolution of this discussion. Mah favourite (talk) 03:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I'd say just assume it was a colossal misunderstanding that will hopefully never happen again. What we care about is being accurate; seemingly unsupported and contested content was removed. If it is re-added it will certainly need reliable sourcing. -- Banjeboi 16:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The biography article now says "He has recorded four albums which have not been released." Therefore the four album articles should be deleted with no question. All the articles in question are likely to be Orphans as well. As for the biography article, it still needs some major help with notability. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. While it seems clear that the person himself does exist, what little about him is actually reliably sourced here wouldn't be enough to support basic notability anyway. Bearcat (talk) 02:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: A non-notable artist with four unreleased albums. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Explain what non notable is? In that case, any American Idol contestant is non notable because other than the television apperance, nothing else is said about them. So please correct me if I'm wrong. There are other people which explain that the article is sufficient enough for WP:Bio Pleasantview (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONEEVENT. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Album pages were unlinked from main article so if the album pages could be deleted. Phrasia (talk) 19:18, 8 December 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.