< 15 July	17 July >

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. Leaning towards keep, but not enough to call it. Bulk nomination has only made this discussion harder to follow - individually nominating the articles is more likely to get a reliable result. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood War[edit]

Also nominated:

These are eight articles about plot events related to Dungeons and Dragons, written entirely from an in-universe perspective. They have no out-of-universe notability and cite no out-of-universe sources. This clearly violates WP:NOT#PLOT ("Plot-only description of fictional works") and WP:WAF ("the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources"). For more problems associated with these types of articles see WP:INUNIVERSE. Savidan 23:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone looked at the large number of magazines and the like devoted to reviewing RPG products to see if these can be sourced? Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of third party sources from Pazio, Green Ronin, Fast Forward Games and others. Just no time for me to add these. If I could be given a week longer (when work is not killing me) I could do it. Web Warlock (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to them so other editors can evaluate their utility and come to a more informed decision? Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Timeline of wars in D&D or somesuch. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not really appropriate, as there is not a unified timeline of D&D. Rather, these fictional events are part of several distinct fictional storylines. I do, however, agree that some could be folded into a setting-specific timeline page. Resistor (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blood War. This is a highly notable ongoing fictional conflict that actually spans several fictional settings. Neutral on the others, but I would think a merge would be more appropriate than outright deletion. Powers ^T 14:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete or Userfy these for now, since a user claims he can find sources if given time. Given that these articles have had years to find sources, they can spend some time as redirects now until the sources are found and the article can be restored. Abductive (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no timetable. If the user can provide good faith evidence that the articles can be improved, we should keep them, as they are still providing useful information, even if not the most important useful information. That said, I would like to see the references to make an informed decision first. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – there is no deadline or timetable in which issues have to be resolved. These are all highly important storylines for the various RPG universes from which they come. It is highly likely that some out-of-universe notes and/or third-party commentary exists on each of these, but it's a matter of knowing where to look. I don't doubt that such sources exist, but they may not be found today, or even a week from now. A merge is not out of the question - Blood Wars and Reckoning of Hell could be merged into some kind of "history of the Planes" if one existed, Crown Wars could possibly be merged into some Forgotten Realms article, and the remaining Dragonlance wars could be merged together - however, I feel that each of these have the potential to stand independently. BOZ (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet you can't come up with a single reliable source at all. Abductive (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I probably couldn't. But then, that's me; I don't know what anyone else is capable of. BOZ (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is the obligation of those saying keep to provide the reliable sources. BOZ, an experienced user who I have seen redirect articles that have no sources, can't find any sources. In a way, this admission is an argument for deletion. Abductive (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to refute the idea that I am arguing to delete, although as always anyone's arguments are subject to interpretation. I've never voted to delete anything and I'm not about to start. BOZ (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm finding the attempted turn-around to be unproductive rhetoric. At no point has BOZ admitted that he has had the resources or ability for a reasonable let alone representative search. He's inexperienced in that. He has presented an educated guess of our ability to address grievances, and detailed his reasons. --Kiz o r 23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you accept the articles in your userspace and work on them there? Abductive (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We ought not keep an article because sources theoretically may emerge. If you have some evidence that sources exist, by all means, provide it, but we do not keep articles because maybe sources might exist. Phil Sandifer (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couse not, but that seems like a different situation than what BOZ is suggesting. I'm all for keeping articles that there's reason to consider likely fixable. --Kiz o r
Keep and improve. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The War of the Lance wasn't just a major event and driving plot in the first three novels, but in the animated series, comic books, and games. The rest are the same. They aren't just in books, but also role playing games, there many magazines dedicated to such things, and sure to mention them. Dream Focus 23:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide us an example of such a mention? Abductive (talk) 23:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blood War and War of the Lance. These are both important events in the D&D universes... the former spans most of the settings and has been present in most of the game's editions, and the second is the pivotal storyline of the Dragonlance series, IIRC (I'll do some source hunting in the next few days; I'm pretty sure that there are some for both of them). Delete all of the others as non-notable... they are also much too in-universe and I really don't think that much could be done with them unless reliable print sources can be found. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 03:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Merge War of the Lance into Dragonlance timeline. This is, essentially, the most notable event in the Dragonlance history and has been the main timeframe for a video game and an NYT best selling book series. Surely there are plenty of reliable sources on the game and series, but the fictional war itself doesn't seem to have many sources ([1] was all that I could really turn up online, but its only a one-page discussion). –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to ~~Delete~~ Merge Blood War as non-notable. Trivial mentions by Necromancer Games, which I'd argue is a reliable source, in [2], but nothing else that isn't just discussing the Blood War D&D minis set and the similarly named Planescape book. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it should at least be merged to Fiend (Dungeons & Dragons)? Powers ^T 23:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I hadn't thought of that as a merge target. That being the case, changed to merge. Thanks for mentioning that! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blood War is also a major element in the video game Planescape: Torment. See The Nameless One. User:Resistor 00:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge) Thisg ame is notable enough and complex enough that a separate article is necessary. Since it's sourced from the work itself, it meets WP:V. No additional sources are needed. DGG (talk) 04:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all — I tried to weed this WalledGarden most of two years ago (it's well-defended by Grawp;). This is simply an inappropriate depth of coverage. There is no need to merge these as the w:en:D&D-verse already has lots of lists, too. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
actually, I understand the feeling--I have some walled gardens in mind myself... Wouldn't a merge take care of it--I modified my statement above--it would be helpful if you gave a fuller explanation with the noms, maybe. In any case, there should be redirects. DGG (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've not looked, today, but I am rather sure these are in some list. That's the appropriate level of coverage for these D&D elements. Most all of the D&D "modules", settings, and (irony:) trolls have no real-world notability. Reviews in faszines, fansites, and books milking the franchise are hardly independent reliable sources. Show me an article in the Washington Post, and I'll believe. In many of these cases a redirect would be inappropriate. The D&D fans have merely gotten to the title first; why should Blood War be theirs? What about this book on Amazon? Blood War (Masquerade of the Red Death #1)^[3]. I'm sure there are other claimants to many of the above titles and the issue is the same across hundreds of thousands of so-called articles. This is a core issue with the inclusion of shite based on popularity with editors; they hijack names by being the first mover; this creates inertia in a biased direction. Oakdale, Texas, for example (vs Oakdale, Texas (Wishbone TV series)). This bias is fundamentally damaging to the project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem like a big deal to me - if we have a carelessly named article that is occupying a spot that should go to a different topic or a disambiguation page, that can be dealt with easily through moves by any moderately experienced editor. Phil Sandifer (talk) 13:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agreed; completely and totally regardless of whether the content of these articles is merged or removed entirely, the names will need to go somewhere. Whether they become disambiguation pages, redirects to another related topic, or new articles entirely is irrelevant. Deletion is still patently unnecessary. Powers ^T 13:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil; I just commented re this issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Gunpowder River. Single examples can be dealt with. A successful grab of a title by a specific subject is a great way to promote a specific title as the primary meaning of that title, when in many cases some other subject is more appropriate. When a genre (think tv character names;) grabs titles en masse. the issue is not so easily corrected. The first mover has no difficulty, those seeking to remedy an issue have huge hurdles to face; endless discussions and battleground tactics. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, ~~delete~~. I will further note that I am extremely disappointed by the editors arguing for inclusion, who have ignored multiple requests to provide even the beginnings of evidence for the existence of sources. When one editor says "I bet there are sources but I don't have time to look" it is one thing. When multiple editors angrily insist on the existence of sources without actually providing even a hint of work on it, it appears to be lazy, cavalier, and shoddy editing of the worst and most embarrassing kind. Were editors less prone to the laziness and disregard for quality displayed here, those of us arguing for why fiction articles should largely be kept around would have a far easier time. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's a pity few of the serious editors here have time for this--there are several hundred articles on fiction I know well that I want to improve, but the first step is to get them kept--or merged, which would do also.DGG (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, part of the reason we're not immediately working on getting the references is that too much is hitting us at once. If this were the only AfD current at the time, people could concentrate on it. But there are about 50 others! Nominating this way prevents an adequate response At the pace of nomination a month ago, with only 20 or so current at a time, we were able to find sources for many of them. I still AGF, but this feels like a deliberate attempt to overwhelm the editors who work on these articles. Were editors given a fair chance, they could work on articles--the current technique makes them work at defending afds. This is the classic asymmetry here between nomination for afds and trying to defend them. Anyone can easily without any research or any subject knowledge nominate any number in a few minutes. To defend them takes much longer. DGG (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been that much of a rash in the RPG area of late? That would change my opinions somewhat, for the reasons you discuss. That said, if this has been (as it usually seems to be) fairly well-distributed across areas of fiction, I would expect the D&D editors to step up to the plate. Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a fair number of AfDs at the moment; some by me. Not this one. I've not connived with anyone about this. The noms are spread across many genres so the "concern" should be of a wide group of editors. But it's not. Keepism — the anti-AfD mindset comes into play. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All, without prejudice to renomination for any individual article at a later date. As noted by several other editors, these scorched earth tactics when it comes to AfD's and "Walled Gardens" do more harm than good. Articles written off by deletionists as hopeless cases have been improved to GA status - when editors were given enough time to do so. Mc JEFF ^(talk) 02:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have a good point, and there have been many examples of this happening (e.g., Dwellers of the Forbidden City; that one actually was deleted and then DRV'd), but having done a search for sources as I described above I really can't find any. If sources suddenly turn up, the article(s) can always be restored anyway. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should review the rational that was overturned there; it will be back because it's *right*. True notability derives from significant coverage from outside a genre; that's what independent actually means. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, and I'd probably vote userfy --> redirect in a single AfD on any of the nominated. My oppose is more an oppose to the scorched earth tactics, which I think are opposite-of-beneficial. Mc JEFF ^(talk) 04:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. Jack Merridew 12:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article has been tagged for clean up since February 2008, and since then it has attracted nothing but original research. More than enough time has been given for this article to be improved, yet not one reliable secondary source has been found to provide verifiable evidence of notability. There is no evidence of scorched earth tactics being applied to this group of articles. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 13:25, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The scorched earth tactics would be far less tempting if those who edit in fictional areas were willing to improve their articles without AfD holding a gun to their head. As that is not the case, and as in this case people are unwilling to put forth even a token amount of effort even in the face of an AfD, instead preferring to try to overwhelm objections via numerical superiority in the absence of evidence, the articles should be deleted. If editors in a subject area cannot be bothered to do quality work, we are not obliged to accept crap in its place. I'm all in favor of broad inclusion of fictional topics, but editors who are actively unwilling to work towards quality can, quite frankly, fuck off and take their contributions with them. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point; agreed. fyi, I was looking at my contributions to http://annex.wikia.com/ — better than 500,^contribs it seems. Of course, I don't edit on wikia; *at all*. They are all transwiki'd edits. So, they take the contributions of others with them (which I'm just fine with;). Seems the needed take-away here is that a lot of editors simply want crappy fancruft articles, and they are also in it for the argumentation. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deadline. If a topic is notable, it remains notable regardless of how much effort has been put into its article. Might I suggest that if you're resorting to crude vulgarisms as recommended courses of action for your fellow editors, that you might be a bit over-interested in the topic? Is active, irreparable harm being done here? Powers ^T 00:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All as these unsourced articles contravene basic Wikipedia policies for article content, as they are comprised unverifiable original research that is all plot summary. There is no evidence to suggest that their subject matter is in any way notable, and arguements based on subjective judgement that these articles should be kept fail to address the issue that they don't contain any encyclopedic coverage at all. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fear attempts at trying to add citations to original research is just leading to the creation of a synthesis, which is worsening the reliability of the article. I have raised this issue with BOZ on the talk page, as I don't think he should be sticking his neck out for dubious content. No matter how well intentioned, I don't think it possible to make a silk purse from a pig's ear. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For the very short term. BOZ has contacted me on my talk page and provided a credible sense of the sorts of sources he wants to look for, but also noted that real-life pressures make it difficult to do much with these in the next 24 hours or so. I am sympathetic to this problem, having run into it myself. BOZ is clearly a knowledgeable editor in the area, and he has done great work on other articles. Furthermore, the sources he says he wants to look at are good sources that are non-trivial to search. I do not think it is excessive to table the issue for a bit and let him do some work. At the very least I hope the closing admin will see fit to extend the AfD for a few days. I recognize that there are those who would prefer to merge or userfy until sources are found. However I point out that this creates a barrier to overcome in getting permission for the article to be recreated. I would prefer to give a good faith effort to find sources some time before doing that. Phil Sandifer (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide 3rd party publications. Green Ronin, Book of Fiends, http://www.amazon.com/Book-Fiends-Chris-Pramas/dp/193244209X. Legions os Hell, http://www.amazon.com/Legions-Hell-Chris-Pramas/dp/0970104847/ref=pd_cp_b_1. Armies of the Abyss, http://www.amazon.com/Armies-Abyss-Book-Fiends-System/dp/0971438005/ref=pd_sim_b_1. Fast Forward Entertainment, Encycolopedia of Demons & Devils (2002)[4] and Encycolopedia of Demons & Devils II 2002[5]. I have more books, what I don't have is free time. Web Warlock (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Ronin Publishing is not 3rd party. Fast Forward Entertainment looks like a licensee. If you think you can eventually provide proper sourcing, would you be willing to userfy these pages? Abductive (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are 3rd party, there is nothing in their licensing agreement to state otherwise. FFE is the same. Userfying takes them out of circulation for others to work on, so no, the pages need to remain to allow others to edit as well. Web Warlock (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, they have licensing agreements? Abductive (talk) 03:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Ronin and FFE both use the Open Game License to publish products compatible with D&D, but this is an open license in a similar manner to cc-by-sa-3.0 and the GFDL, so Wizards of the Coast (the primary source) has no control over them or the content they put out. They're just using a license to make compatible products, and the license is open to everyone (not exclusive to companies that contact Wizards or the like), so I'd say that they are third-party and their products are reliable for content about D&D. It would kind of be like if a professional publisher used the cc-by-sa-3.0 license to publish content about Creative Commons. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep any that aren't info from books with their own articles. That is, keep the first three articles for sure, and I think one of the Dragonlance articles doesn't have an book article the info could be added to. Anarchangel (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Keep Blood War and War of the Lance. Merge others into appropriate campaign articles/timelines. Each of first two are notable as the primary moving events of two AD&D2nd campaign worlds, covered in books, magazines (independent stuff like D8 and Shadis), plus a wide range of game products. TSR also released a collectible card game called Blood Wars in 1995, describing the same eternal cross-campaign conflict. BusterD (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blood War and War of the Lance. Both were major cross product-line story elements that could not be easily folded into another page without detracting from the pages for the other product lines. The Blood War, for instance, is the subject of RPG books, a miniatures game, and significant mention in a major video game. The War of the Lance similarly is a defining element of the cross-media Dragonlance line, including novels, RPG products, and movies. Merge the others into their respective setting articles, or into timeline-of articles. Most of them lack the kind of broad exposure of the first two. -User:Resistor 17.224.15.109 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should note that I'm not actually opposed to massive rewrites of any of the articles involved. For the two I voted to keep, I consider them both notable enough for articles, even if those articles do not, in the end, look much like what they do now. Indeed, they probably shouldn't. Resistor (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by CactusWriter. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irfan colloquia[edit]

Article is a substantial copy of organization's about page. May be spam, or advertisement. Rmosler | ● 14:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — not notable, no secondary sources to indicate why it is notable. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just informed about the existence of the new page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irfan_colloquia . I am the webmaster and typesetter for all this group's publications in English, including irfancolloquia.org/about (the webpage noted for possible copyright infringement. I affirm that our group DOES give permission for this use. I will begin cleaning up and improving http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irfan_colloquia this week. To confirm that I have permission and access, I can be reached at our domain name: contact@irfancolloquia.org . Jonah22 (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not solely an issue of copyright, but of notability, with no secondary, independent sources providing significant coverage. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @971 · 22:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @012 · 23:17, 16 July 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 Unzipped (a.k.a. Delete) -- as per the consensus of this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zipper theorem[edit]

The "theorem" is too obvious. Here is the better proof: That in a topological space ${\displaystyle a_{n))$ converges to a point L means that every neighborhood of $L$ contains all but finitely many ${\displaystyle a_{n))$ . Obviously, if $a_{n}\to L$ and $b_{n}\to L$ , then every neighborhood of $L$ contains all but finitely many ${\displaystyle a_{n))$ and ${\displaystyle b_{n))$ . This is just logic. (What is not so obvious is that what if we have infinitely many sequences converging to L.) -- Taku (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be a content dispute, or a reason to deny a patent, but not a reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 02:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was originally going to say delete as a neologism or hoax, but Google Books yields two apparently legit references in mathematics textbooks (despite no relevant Google or Google Scholar hits), so I remain as a Weak keep unless someone can convince me otherwise. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 04:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those are the same book in different editions, and this theorem is just an exercise; it's not actually discussed in the text. Algebraist 04:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete per further input above...I am now convinced of the subject's non-notability (fails points 1 and 4 of general notability guideline).-RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the entry and comment immediately above combine to show this is a non-notable mathematical exercise (and the solution may be original research). No evidence that this theorem has any role except as a textbook exercise in a single textbook, and Wikipedia is not a textbook. Could possibly consider a transwiki to Wikiversity or Wikibooks but i'd be wary of the copyright implications of taking an exercise from a published book. Qwfp (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Paul August ☎ 16:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP and due to general lack of noteworthiness. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This "theorem" is a good homework problem for a certain kind of undergraduate course. But only a good homework problem. And not a very hard one at all. Things like that have a place on the web, but an encyclopedia article isn't the right place. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep actual but minor theorem; is there a good rd target? JJL (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should be redirected to the article on limits of sequences, where this can be mentioned in one sentence. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn by nominator, no opinions for deletion (non-admin close). Guest9999 (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kearns[edit]

Seems like a non-notable person. It fails WP:NPOV badly, to the point that it seems like self-promotion. I tried a CSD G11 but that was declined. Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sound keep and send to cleanup. Yikes... the article is certainly a mess. But that's a matter for working on it... not deleting it. I was amazed at the sheer volume of coverage this individual has in multiple reliable sources. With respects, was WP:BEFORE forgotten? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 06:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still not convinced he meets WP:N, which states that using search engine statistics is an invalid criteria. He's had some guest starring roles and one-man plays, but seems to fail all three criteria in WP:ENTERTAINER. It says he's an activist, and that seems to be the only thing which might establish notability, but I'm not convinced. Also, few pages link to this. And while this article would need a major cleanup to be kept, i think it's beyond fixing. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Few articles are "beyond fixing", even if you do not wish to do it yourself. There was a valid reason your speedy was declined. WP:BEFORE instructs that a nom look for, examine, and consider the available sources before nominating for deletion. I included a simple g-search to show the dozens upon dozens of sources covering this man's career... not to say "hey there are 3,000 g-hits, he must be notable"... but to elucidate "hey, he was covered for over 27 years in depth in multiple reliable sources that meet and surpass the inclusion criteria of WP:GNG." Before scrolling down to the criteria of WP:ENT an editor must first, per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria, first consider if the GNG can be met. If that inclusion criteria fails THEN one goes down to subordinant criteria to see if he might otherwise merit inclusion by awards or recognition. Had you actually looked at and considered any of them, you might have then seen he has won multiple awards, including a 2008 LA Weekly Theater Awards and the 2009 Producers STAGE Award. You would have learned that in 2008 he traveled to Africa as an AIDS awareness advocate and has been dubbed "The Actorvist". You would have learned that in upon the death of Rock Hudson in 1985, he was then Hollywood’s only openly gay actor... etc, etc, etc. With respects, if you had considered why your speedy prod was declined and actually looked for the sources that explained the de-proder's reasoning, you would have found the in-depth, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that more than meet WP:N... such as San Francisco Chronicle, Backstage, La Weekly, Gay & Lesbian Times, Broadway World, Los Angeles Times, and quite literally dozens more which speak toward the man, his career, his background, or give positive critical response to his stagework. With all respects, you might seriously consider withdrawing your nomination. Thank you. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I declined to speedy-delete this article since I found notability and references clearly present; I still do. Yes, the article needs some work; I just think the presentation of an impressive set of accomplishments doesn't count as self-promotion. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Am involved in fixing it up now. Might take a few hours as I do have real-world responsibilities. Why is AfD so often used to force cleanup? All the article needs is a little wiki-love... rather than sitting back and expecting someone else to do the work. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did actually mean to CSD by A7. It's better to AfD to force cleanup than let articles like this be. As it's being reworked, I'll withdraw the nomination. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the best way of getting an article cleaned up is to start doing it oneself. DGG (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops The nom appears to have withdrawn his nomination and removed the tag from the article at 21:36, 17 July 2009 diff, but failed to close this discussion. Not to confuse the issue, and as long as this discussion remains open, I am replacing the AfD tag onto the article. If someone would be so kind as to close this officially and then remove the tag, I would be quite grateful. Thanks MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian NINJAS[edit]

Per precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashley Lane and Nevaeh. They've only teamed together approximately six times, and all the relevant information is already located in the articles of the individual members. The team itself has not established notability independent of its members. Nikki♥311 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 19:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rather than looking at the number of times they have teamed together, I believe the notability guidelines call on editors to check for sufficient mainstream media coverage. The team is discussed in decent detail here and are mentioned on several reliable websites as holders of the Shimmer Tag Team Championship. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:, disagree. Just holding the Shimmer Tag Team Championship isn't enough to warrant a separate article for the team. Teams who have held more prominent titles (like WWE or TNA tag team titles) and teamed for longer periods of time have been deleted in the past. Most of the Google Hits are from unreliable sources, wrestling news sites, or are trivial mentions of them as the champions. Moreover, the SLAM article linked to is about Nicole Matthews, and the team is mentioned because it is a notable part of her career...but that doesn't make it notable in the history of professional wrestling and warrant a separate article. The mentions in the individual members articles are sufficient for now. If the team continues to team together or wins other championships, the article can be recreated at a later date. Nikki♥311 02:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The linked site seems to be a reliable source, but it's not in the article. The article as it now stands violated BLP, if references were provided, that would make a difference. However, that source doesn't show up in a Google search, so it's understandable that it wasn't found. In addition, they only get one Google news hit, and only 169 Google hits, none of them apparently reliable. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gentleman and the nom. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 22:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not a notable tag team. Mad Dog Dunstan (talk) 11:24, 14 July 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 22:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the Gentleman about WP:BLP. Female tag teams outside of WWE and TNA just don't have the notability for whatever the reason. Get Dumb 08:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. I disagree with GetDumb because female tag teams do not just have to be in TNA to be notable. There are a few female teams on the indy curcuit that are notable.--WillC 21:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Shimmer_Tag_Team_Championship#Title_history where they are mentioned. JJL (talk) 16:26, 20 July 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, and rename business as usual (disambiguation) here. Greyskinnedboy was the major contributor to what had previously been a redirect, and a consensus of interested parties seems established here. Uncle G (talk) 18:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Business as usual[edit]

The disambiguation page was recently moved to make way for this main article. I had previously given the topic some thought (and discussed with others) the best way of presenting the term when I merged two DABs, reforming the system whilst setting up the article about the policy. Anyhow, I diverge.

It is my considered opinion that an article about the general application of the term is destined to never be anything more than a dictionary definition. Wiktionary already includes a definition for the term, which is linked from the DAB page. Wikipedia is not designed for dictionary definitions, IMHO. Lacking an interaction with the business term, however, I ready to be convinced that a page could be supported about this application of the term. I just cannot see it at the moment, sorry. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 10:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. After deliberation I see your point. Here, I was trying to document something that could be used to contrast better with project and process -- but it is more of a dictionary definition. On that basis, I have just added a second meaning to Wiktionary. As the author of this article, if you want to revert the changes please go ahead. I'll modify the link to this article I created from the article project management. Thanks. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move disambiguation page, article is no more than a dictionary entry. ViperSnake151 Talk 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agreement from author - I created the page, and I'm convinced it should go, there are no dissenters, can it not just happen now? Greyskinnedboy Talk 20:10, 20 July 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 and redirect term to Bookkeeping. No properly verified information to merge at this point. — Satori Son 16:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remote bookkeeping[edit]

Delete, no sources, bordeline ad Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and source could go into Bookkeeping if some sources are there doesnt really have notability for standing alone Ottawa4ever (talk) 19:22, 2 July 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 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence that the mechanics of doing bookkeeping in this way are notable. JJL (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @979 · 22:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bookkeeping. Not noteworthy enough to stand as a separate subject. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as either WP:NEO or WP:DICTDEF. I don't see anything notable about this specific mode of bookkeeping. DMacks (talk) 07:21, 21 July 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. Has been open for 19 days and no reliable secondary sources to determine any notability have been found, so it is reasonable to suggest that none will. Black Kite 10:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orange Star Ultras[edit]

Apparently non-notable fan club for a Puerto Rican soccer team. The article makes a claim for 30 regular members; barring any evidence of reliable, independent sources materializing, that seems a paltry number of members for a notable organization of this type. Given that I can't find anything at all besides blogs and forums and social networking stuff in the relevent google search this one seems well below the inclusion criteria spelled out at WP:N. Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The blog Blog is their official site, from what i can gather as a Islanders fans is that they let their domain run out as their working on a new site. Size of the group is not really relevant as the only ultras group in the caribean and the first mayor supporters group on the island it has some historical value. I'll take a gander on editing the page and making it fit the criteria at WP:N. Automotivado (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It should be noted that self-published blogs are not sufficient to establish notability nor are they usually considered reliable sources. I see literally nothing in any source defined as reliable in WP:RS. If you could add some reliable sources to the article, it would help! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - under construction. I would give them a few more days to find reliable sources, or They're out! Bearian (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the most verifiable and useful content to Puerto Rico Islanders, the team this fan club supports. Normally fan groups get covered in the article about the team they are fans of. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable fan clubs may get that coverage, but there is nothing to suggest this club is anything of note. Reso lute 01:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @978 · 22:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable in itself, and no need to have every fanclub on the mainpage for notable teams. No refs have been added to this page, and it consists of self discription and promotion and links to their own blog/website.Fuzbaby (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly not notable. Less members than a classroom and nothing else to make it special. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable secondary sources mentioning this fan group, thus failing WP:RS, WP:V and WP:GNG. Also fails notability for non-commercial organisations at WP:CLUB. --Jimbo^[online] 08:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Mayve deserves a passing mention on the Islanders article, but other than that doesn't appear to be notable. Giant Snowman 10:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hancock Studios[edit]

If this had just shown up, I would have agreed to the G11 speedy deletion, since it's an obvious attempt to sell porn, but since it's been around in roughly this form for 3 years (sigh), this requires AfD, I think. I just softblocked the company-promoting username of the article creator ... better late than never. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, although don't think a PROD would have been inappropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, this is an unresolved question. Does a 3-year history on Wikipedia mean all by itself that the deletion is likely to be contested by somebody, and therefore not suitable for a prod? Some people say "don't bother us at AfD if you think you know that it's promotional", some people say "2 people shouldn't overrule the hundreds or thousands who saw this article and passed by without complaining, it should be a community decision". I'd love to know the answer so that I ... and more importantly, the taggers ... feel confident in our decisions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a good reason for not using a speedy, but a PROD does give people time to object. AIUI if something is deleted via a prod and someone later contests it, it is routineley restored and brought to AfD anyway. This is however just my ha'penny's worth! Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom (I originally nominated for speedy deletion). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gasm[edit]

There's no indication that this meets WP:N. Has no references, and is not in Discordian primary sources. Appears to be a neologism and an extension of Operation Mindfuck, but doesn't seem to have any traction. Seems like it was made up recently. Firestorm ^Talk 20:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Notability and my be WP:MADEUP. Google search provided no valid results. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain It's kind of a Thing on principiadiscordia.com. It's borderline WP:MADEUP, and WP:N would be a big stretch, but it does seem to have some traction as a micro-subcultural movement. If there's anything reliable to cite on the topic, somebody should speak up. (And while you're at it, admit to how heavily the whole thing is inspired by Project Mayhem from Fight Club.) —chaos5023 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The GASMs themselves are rather new. Wikipedia does not take new material? I know for a fact the Golden Apple Seed Missions are happening, as I had helped with ColbertGASM and am helping with LitGASM. I can add citations, though. Hail Eris! (talk) 00:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Wikipedia does not take new things. In order for it to comply with our notability guidelines, it has to have gotten coverage in reliable third-party sources, like books, academic journals, newspapers, magazines, etc. As much as I love Eris, we already have quite enough chaos on the wiki as it is. Firestorm ^Talk 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is reliable? Because, this proves that really, nothing is. Does it simply need to be in a book? Because that is simple to arrange nowadays. You can even get a free ISBN! Lolikhan (talk) 01:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemological relativism may be true for you, but it isn't true for everyone. —chaos5023 (talk) 12:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or the external link version. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 18:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply being "new", itself -- i.e. lack of age -- isn't the problem, the lack of sources is. But if anything at all can be sourced reliably I think that stuff should be better merged into the OM article. What can't be should be deleted, and if that means everything on here (ie. nothing suitable for merge), then that's what should be done. mike4ty4 (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails N and V due to sourcing. Borderline G11, as importance and encyclopedic relevence isn't clearly asserted. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about G11, but it doesn't seem like its a company, so I don't think it fits. Firestorm ^Talk 21:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. A minor meme, for which no reliable sources exist. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy 2.0 Summit[edit]

NN, self-published sources, looks like a copypaste of the orgs website Falcon8765 (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable; no reliable sources. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only coverage from own website, summit title has WP as the only hit. Not notable.--Pgallert (talk) 11:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete yeah, I agree that it isn't notable. Tavix | Talk 23:01, 16 July 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 Doctor Jones Cheers, I'^mperator 14:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Jones[edit]

Appears to be a vanity page. Does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Delete and redirect to Doctor Jones. bd2412 T 22:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Jones. Fails WP:MUSIC. youngamerican (wtf?) 11:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Restore the original redirect. The current article is primarily a copyright violation with material taken from the Dr Jones web site biography. I've removed it leaving a stub. Based on the biography, this is a musician that's kicked around here and there hooking up with various other musicians but never in a group that achieved notability. My own search for sources to establish notability was fruitless. -- Whpq (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Net Country Song Contest[edit]

To say that this internet "song contest" is non-notable is putting it mildly. The four Ghits include two Wikipedia, one mirror, and Youtube. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Net Song Contest. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and per arguments used at the Net Song Contest AfD. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I originally deleted the article under WP:CSD#G4 as it was very similar to the deleted Net Song Contest. I restored it however to be on the safe side as I suddenly spotted it was not technically a re-creation as this article, although very similar to Net Song Contest and appears to be at least partially copy and pasted, was created after the AfD started but before it was closed. I will leave it to this AfD to decide the article's fate. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:30, 5 July 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 21:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pick any guideline and this probably fails it. (It definitely fails Wp:N and possibly both Wp:NFT and possibly Wp:OR.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:24, 17 July 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 deleted (CSD G3) by Stephen. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 02:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Co.[edit]

unverified claims of notability, questionable awards. Even the name of the company is unclear, is it Connor Corp, Connor Co., or Connor Corporation? Google news search brings up some hits but they appear to be different companies than what is described here. RadioFan (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as nonsense or a test page - this is incoherent and unverifiable babble. I42 (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Given the benefit of doubt, it's spam. JNW (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete This is pure vandalism. I have studied the history of the creator, and he/she is clearly running a vandalism only account. Six times this editor has created an unambiguously nonsense page which has been six times deleted. (The capitalisation of title has varied: Diary of a Mad Cow, Diary of a Mad cow and Diary of a mad cow). The article "Connor Co." was created with OR, Cleanup, and Refimprove tags already in place, suggesting that it too may have been a re-creation of a deleted article, though I have not been able to identify the original title. If it was not a re-creation then including those templates seems like vandalism in itself. The article gives the CEO's name as Connor Impson: this same name is used on a nonsense page of User:DiaryofaMadCow. The editor has repeatedly removed AfD templates from this article. He/she has also twice vandalised Jerry Crawford ([6] and [7]). This article itself is nonsense: it gives a lot of sentences any one of which might be about a real company, but it does not tell us anything coherent about the company, such as what its line of business is. There is no doubt left to give the benefit of: this is a vandalism only account, and this article is total fiction. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further information I have checked the web links given as "references". Three of them are to pages which don't exist, the other three (really only two, as 2 of them are the same link) are to very amateurish looking personal web pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you. I will request a block of the account. JNW (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Examination Requirements (Royal Conservatory of Music)[edit]

Wikipedia is not the Piano Syllabus for the Royal Conservatory of Music. The material does not belong in Wikipedia; it belongs in Wikibooks or similar. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed this is educational material but not encyclopedic material; if it was brought to another Wikimedia project then it might fit into that projects scope. -Marcusmax(speak) 00:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Alexander.hugh.george, the person who created this article, is blocked indefinitely for blatant racist personal attacks; the user's talk page is fully protected, so I cannot place a notice on that user's talk page regarding the deletion of this article. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - The nomination was malformed. There was no AFD notice on the article. I have fixed this. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That malformation was a result of a bug in Twinkle. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 21:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this isn't an encyclopedia article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dolls and Demons Characters[edit]

list of characters in non-notable, unreleased work, violates WP:Crystal WuhWuzDat 21:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appear to be characters from somone's unpublished fanfic. Edward321 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks to me to be characters from someone's unpublished (because still being written) doujinshi, rather than fanfic. Props for being an original work, but there's zippo out there about this series, so not only fails WP:BK but also WP:V -- delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fail both Notability & Verifiability. This article creator edited nothing else aside of it and upon being informed of this Afd he/she backed it up in his/her user page. Not a smart & encouraging move at all. --KrebMarkt 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V and WP:STAND. There is no evidence that the Dolls and Demons manga/comic even exists. This gives strong indication that this is either a WP:HOAX or WP:NFT. --Farix (Talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will also note that the original creator has copied the article to their user page. --Farix (Talk) 18:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I searched for the name of various characters and I don't find any Google results, other than the wikipedia article. Its a hoax. Dream Focus 20:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:RS, i.e. unable to verify through reliable sources per [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]. Not even any fansite listings let alone secondary sources. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 14:17, 22 July 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.

Gee (album)[edit]

The result was close - redirect by author. Non admin closure. The Junk Police (reports|works) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contested redirect. On first glance, this may seem odd, but I'll explain myself. Currently, the trend in Korean music is to release EPs, or "mini-albums", instead of full albums. They're packaged like full albums, with nice full photobooks and other goodies, but only have a few tracks. In these albums, only one main song is promoted as the single, while the other ones are just thrown in there, maybe performed once or twice, perhaps. As such, it's essentially a glorified single with multiple B-sides. Also, right now, there's more attention thrown at singles as opposed to albums, hence why this article has significantly more sources on the song itself than on the album. The information for this album is already listed on Gee (Girls' Generation song) (in more detail, I might add), and so there's no need for a duplicate page to exist. I understand that pages do exist for North American/European albums with only one single release, but I don't see why a separate page should exist when one should suffice. I hope I make sense. Anyway, the reason I brought it here is because the creator of this separate album page disagrees with me strongly, so...yeah. SKS (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm withdrawing my nomination because the article creator has since redirected the article. SKS (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Closed. The Junk Police (reports|works) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me & My Girl[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Unsourced future album that fails WP:HAMMER and WP:CRYSTAL. Plus seeing how Kris Allen is participating on the American Idol Tour right now, he probably has not even had time to complete his album. Aspects (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NALBUMS. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 23:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: no verification for what's here; title, release date and track list must all be confirmed. Cliff smith ^talk 02:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL violation until real sources exist. Bearcat (talk) 06:09, 21 July 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 Forest Hills Public Schools. Content will still be in the edit history if someone wants to merge it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goodwillie Environmental School[edit]

Challanged redirect. Primary school which lacks notability, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. RadioFan (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Forest Hills Public Schools as usual. TerriersFan (talk) 18:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. At first glance it sounded like it might be unique enough for coverage, but Google News and Google Books weren't promising. tedder (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sawa'ed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Al Sawa'ed

Team of the Lybian Second Division - fails WP:ORG by a long shot per the refs I can find. Ironholds (talk) 20:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 20:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The standard for notability for a football team, is usually whether they play (or at least are eligble) in their national cup. And this team does, last year entering in the second round - [13]. As such I'd think that all teams in this league - the second tier of Libyan football - would be notable (which probably explains why they ALL have articles). Nfitz (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just noticed that in the 2007/08 season they were in the top division of Libyan football - http://www.goalzz.com/main.aspx?team=1510&mode=r] so I'm changing to a Speedy Keep. Nfitz (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first division season evidence. matt91486 (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nfitz. Giant Snowman 09:49, 21 July 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pip's Three-Handed Chess[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pip's Three-Handed Chess

No google hits except one wikipedia mirror. Probably a hoax, although not a "blatant" hoax as for all I know it appears in a book about chess variations. As it stands though, (if not a hoax) it's unverifiable and as far as I can tell, unnotable. Beloved Freak 20:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MADEUP. COI author, no sources, and doesn't make much sense chess-wise, either: it is not clear in which direction the pawns move (e.g the black ones: to the right? Then Black is a rook down after 1.b3 and 2.Bxb4), "White" (i.e. the party with Ke1) has an enormous advantage over both other parties, and the checkmate rules are inconsistent.--Pgallert (talk) 10:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable at best, very likely something that was just made up. Edward321 (talk)
Thanks for the comments. I wrote to User:Belovedfreak that this is not a hoax (I created the game). I can attest that it is a legitimate chess variant, though admittedly unknown and with some flaws.--Pip72 (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Pgallert and Edward. Also, the user above admits to creating the game so it also has a conflict of interest. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:07, 17 July 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. Sandstein 06:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unification War[edit]

Article about a fictional war plot element that violates Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction. I have nominated it separately because it cites an in-universe guide to the series by the creator of the original work (how's that for "independent"?!). Savidan 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of independent notability of this plot element. No sign that any serious, independent, reliable analysis has been done of this plot element from a real-world source. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Woulda thunk this would've been scooped up when all the Firefly character articles were truncated and whatnot. No evidence of real-world notability. No references. --EEMIV (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merger at the least. WP has no accept policy for writing about fiction, though there are many people who think it is what they would like it to me. A RS for the plain description of a work can and usually should be the work itself. The detail is not excessive, and none of the arguments about notability hold if the article is merged. And the nomination gives no reason given why it should not be at least a redirect. There's a good explanation for that: there is no possibly valid reason. Anything anyone might want to look up should have a redirect if there's relevant content in Wikipedia DGG (talk) 03:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting inclusion threshold. @EEMIV: I don't know the CharHist but will note that weeds grow back unless you get the the root. Jack Merridew 09:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack, are you arguing or implying that you would like to delete the main articles on fictions also, since they are the root.? DGG (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant. While I don't like many of them either (commercial fiction mill stuff;), coverage at that level is appropriate: they are often notable works. The ”root“ that I was referring to is the notion that all the minor elements warrant much coverage. I'm all for a compromise about setting the bar to inclusion at a well defined height. My view is that it needs to be high enough to actually serve as a bar to much of the so-called content that is so contentious. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:54, 19 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rawhide Boys Ranch[edit]

See the WP:COIN report. Apparently, this article is going to keep popping up; I'm bringing this to AfD mainly so that we've got WP:CSD#G4 available in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I just deleted and then restored so that I could restore the entire history for purposes of this AfD. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 19:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: part of an ongoing campaign to WP:ADVERTise this ranch by a WP:COI editor. No substantive non-advertising versions of the article exists and this editor (or puppets thereof) has resisted any attempts to remove the advertising from it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears as though I stumbled into a COI, Advertising thing, the article doesn't really read like it to me but I think G4 is appropiate.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep Atama brings up a point I didn't consider when saying it's G4, the organization appears to be notable with refs to back up some of the stuff.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt as spam.* — Athaenara ✉ 19:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... unless* a well-referenced nonpromotional rewrite can be both accomplished and maintained as per Giants27, Atama, CliffC, and Royalbroil. — Athaenara ✉ 04:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Everything that has been said before is true. Article has been recreated numerous times, with copyvios that advertise the company. With the history of this article, I hate to endorse keeping it, with every fiber of my being, knowing that it has been recreated over and over by a COI spammer. But in all fairness, it's a notable organization, with 187 Google News hits. It's not so much the article subject that's the problem, it's the COI editor turning it into an advertisement. I can't help but feel there's a potential for a good article here as long as neutral editors are working on it. I suggest that it get stubbified and warn the creator not to work on this article, and let others turn it into something decent. I could probably lend a hand myself in that. -- Atama ^chat 20:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Atama. Does seem notable, just needs to be cleaned up and have more eyes on it to keep the promoters in check and the language neutral. --CliffC (talk) 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic that has been spammed. It used to be the most well-known charity in northeast Wisconsin because of Bart Starr's support on television commercials. Sufficient independent reliable sources. Royal broil 03:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: SPI report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Rawhide1683. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets notability standards; just watch it for spamming and whitewashing. I've attempted to clean it up a bit. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is fine notability wise, the editor just needs to stop. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 23:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Atama. The article includes plenty of secondary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pink Bull (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 July 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. No prejudice to writing an article about the real battle. Sandstein 06:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kusegawa[edit]

This article is about a fictional battle in a video game that violates Wikipedia's policies about writing about fiction. It has escaped nomination to this point because it violates the policy so severely that it is difficult to tell that this is in fact a purely fictional battle as a google books or google scholar search will confirm. Savidan 19:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Savidan wrote. The article's creator (User:Opopoa Talk Contributions) removed (in this edit) an "in-universe" template that another editor had added. Similar problems arose in other articles by the same author about fictional battles. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rescue of Mitsunari. Siege of Edo Castle was deleted by proposed deletion. Fg2 (talk) 01:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rewrite as an article on the ja:杭瀬川の戦い real battle. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't even indicate what make-believe universe this is from. Can't make heads or tails of it. --EEMIV (talk) 13:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to have been a small skirmish at Kuisegawa (note the i, 杭瀬川の戦い). This article is based on the game, so worthless. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete and rewrite on the real battle.DGG (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per DGG and nom. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubify to the extremely basic information that there was a battle at Kuisegawa the day before Battle of Sekigahara, move to Battle of Kuisegawa to correct the spelling, and rebuild by translating ja:杭瀬川の戦い. The real event does need to be covered, and that the video game has a version of it should probably be mentioned ... eventually. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this article presents no source for verification, it's probably best just to delete this and start Battle of Kuisegawa from scratch. Marasmusine (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Samurai Warriors 2 is a sweet game, but it's really not the kind of thing you want historical articles based on. Rather than translating what appears to be an unreferenced Japanese article just to fill the void, I'd rather someone with knowledge of the Sengoku period came along and did the job properly using relevant sources. There must be plenty of people with some interest in this area, Oda Nobunaga 0wnz. Someone another 16:13, 22 July 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 Grant Comes East. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Gunpowder River[edit]

I believe this partial plot summary of a fictional work violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I have nominated it separately because it is about an "alternative history" work rather than a pure fictional work. It also cites other sources but these are for original research-type claims such as the size of the Army of Northern Virginia at a particular time, not for out of universe works that reference this fictional battle. It has been proposed for a merge, but the plot summary of the work is already ample and a detailed review of each fictional battle in an alternate history is not needed. Savidan 19:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research. This sort of in-universe book synopsis is especially dangerous because it makes claims based on real-world sourcing, yet all action takes place only in the mind of its author. BusterD (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Presumption that description is based on the fictional work is undercut by insertion of links to other sources, ergo, an original synthesis of real-world and fictional sources not intended by the primary work. While I take no issue of redirecting this particular search term, it appears as though there's a slightly pointy conversation about the value of redirects going on between the lines below. I'm wondering whether this is the appropriate forum for a general discussion on what seems "inexplicable" or not. BusterD (talk) 15:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grant Comes East as a valid search term. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Grant Comes East. This article contains a combination of real-world information coupled with plot summary, making a great terrarium for WP:OR fungus. --EEMIV (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Another example of excessive detail. (not or, for a straight description like this is presumed to be based on the work of fiction itself) There is no disagreement that this is not acceptable--and the redirect could have been done without coming here, after getting consensus on the talk page. That the nom did not consider the possibility of a redirect seems inexplicable. DGG (talk) 04:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No, we do not need a redirect for every phrase in every bit of fiction. Jack Merridew 08:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we need a redirect on every named plot element. Why not? What harm to you think it does? DGG (talk) 02:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are essentially an infinite number of them. The choice of associating a redirect title is subjective and open to bias; the First-mover advantage I referred to elsewhere. There will often be many possible targets for rather generic terms. It is better to allow a search algorithm to percolate likely targets dynamically. Compare argumentative editors bickering about targets with advertisers bidding on Google AdWords; the high bidders/loudest squawk(or best edit warrior) wins. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite any fondness for the history of Daniel Sickles (or his spouse) I may have, I am afraid I agree that this article, at this level of detail, written this way, doesn't belong here. Transwiki to an appropriate place, boil this very long plot summary down and merge the resulting paragraph or so to Grant Comes East, leaving a redirect behind. (note to my esteemed colleague Mr, Merridew, DGG is right, there is no harm in using up redirect name space this way, it's not likely this particular turn of phrase would be ever used for anything else, and if it were, we can have a new bunfight then... good times. ) ++Lar: t/c 02:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not a particularly good example of the issue, but there are better: see my comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood War or check Kressler and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 13#Kressler → List of Stargate SG-1 episodes#Season 9. Whomever first stakes a claim to a title, immediately gets one of the top spots in Google for that name. It sets the project in motion in a particular direction and it may not be the right one; it is driven by fandom, not gravitas or appropriateness to the encyclopædia. We might have a chat with Jonathan about the search engine aspects of this.
This concern is rather central to my concern about crap on wikipedia; there is only one article namespace and it is fought over by the forces of reality and the fictional armies of the benighted cultures. Compare Category:American culture and Category:Balinese culture. Who is more cultured? Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not following you. What is the harm in having a redirect here? If in future there turns out there is a topic more notable, then the redirect becomes a dab, and if still more notable, that topic gets the name. As long as the discussion (of moving) isn't itself distorted, redirects do no harm whatever. But this may be a policy discussion. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really talking about this particular article. Having a redirect on this site, one Google pays a lot of attention to, serves to define a term and it's meaning. The world is full of phrases; an essentially infinite number of them. We should ignore most of them and allow search algorithms to dynamically allow user to select amongst results. Would Google be better if the default button was "I'm feeling Lucky?" That's what a lot of redirects amount to. Who's to say that a user searching for Battle of Gunpowder River wants to land at Grant Comes East (once this fictional article is deleted;) — mebbe they would be more interested in Joppatowne, Maryland, Newt Gingrich, or Gunpowder River. Redirects are about making choices for people; a list of search results is about offering them choices. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely Delete has 19 Google hits. Abductive (talk) 08:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got 18 ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:06, 21 July 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 Dune universe#The Corrino-led Imperium. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Corrin[edit]

This article about a plot element of a fictional work violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I have nominated it separately because it summarizes the plot of several related fictional works, rather than a single one. Savidan 19:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dune: The Battle of Corrin as likely search term. --EEMIV (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into one of the other Dune articles. (Or are they ALL going to be deleted now? Hmph.) Sorry, but simply redirecting to Dune: The Battle of Corrin seems a very bad idea to me. --SandChigger (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an inappropriate depth of coverage; a redirect to the novel is acceptable as it's basically a short form of the title. Jack Merridew 08:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (Actually, it's not a "short form" of the title of the book. --SandChigger (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC) )[reply]
Redirect to Dune universe#The Corrino-led Imperium, which touches on the topic adequately. Is it possible for the nominator to boldly redirect the article, or do we need to wait this out?— TAnthony^Talk 10:39, 18 July 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 -- as per the consensus of this discussion. Pastor Theo (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wolf 359[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I believe this article constituting a partial plot summary of a fictional work violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I have nominated it separately because it contains several correctly formatted, but ultimately flawed in-line citations. These constitute links to in-universe works such as the Star Trek Encyclopedia (which, if accepted as a basis for notability would demand an article about every minor character, item, and event in a variety of fictional universes) and a trivial mention in an internet-only review of a video game. The article covers plot and "impact on the series" but does not even attempt to claim any impact outside of the series. Savidan 19:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep originating point of the DSN TV show, and several episodes deal with it, so merge the TV episodes into this article, instead of having a separate article for each episode. / possibly merge with a "Timeline of wars in Star Trek" article. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major event in Star Trek Timeline in two separate series. If not redirect to Timeline of Star Trek#24th century or Stars and planetary systems in fiction#Wolf 359. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation), the episode in which the battle is first seen. This isn't Memory Alpha. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with the disclaimer that I only accessed this article as a result of The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation) being shown as an as an unedited full-length movie just a few hours ago on UK prime-time free-to-air TV). Despite being 'in universe' with Savidan's obvious concern about WP:RS, wouldn't a delete, redirect or merge be more harmful then keeping it? I am only here because I specifically typed 'Battle of Wolf 359' into the Main Page search box. 90.199.112.110 (talk) 01:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the page was redirected and merged, when you typed that in you would still find the content you were looking for, so no, I don't believe it would be harmful. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the episode in which it occurs. The battle is not even seen, only its aftermath. However, I thought this was the name of that episode, and I'm sure people remember it that way, so it is a perfectly good search term. Abductive (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the battle is shown in the first episode of Deep Space Nine, so which episode are you talking about? 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In The Best of Both Worlds (Star Trek: The Next Generation)#Part 2 the Enterprise arrives at the scene to see the drifting wreckage. Abductive (talk) 06:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I just watched a youtube video of the 1 minute and 25 second poorly CGI'd bit of Sisko escaping. The entire battle's relevance boils down to two points; the Federation fleet was annihilated, and it forms part of Sisko's backstory. As a stand-alone topic it is not analyzed in third party sources, and can therefore be handled in the articles on the episodes. Abductive (talk) 05:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Despite the fact that it is a fictional event, it does play an important role in the Star Trek canon, and while this isn't Memory Alpha, I do believe that there's a place for this article here. Frmatt (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Could use more real world perspective, but this is a significant plot point for multiple series' and could use this central exposition. Does need work. Dheppens (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an important event in canon, it is needed The C of E (talk) 08:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That it is an important event within the Star Trek universe or canon or whatever you want to call it is not in doubt. What we are talking about here is independent notability in the real world as established, like every other article, by coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. So, saying keep because it's important to Star Trek fans is not a valid argument. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:55, 20 July 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 Timeline of Star Trek#Eugenics Wars and World War III. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics Wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I believe this article about a fictional war violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). I have nominated it separately because this article writes about more than one fictional source (rather than only a single work), and makes the original research-y claim that a certain argument about transhumanism has been named after the fictional war. I believe that neither of these rise to the level of notability, but recognize that it constitutes a new question so have separated the nom. The first nomination was two years ago and I believe the community norms have changed when it comes to writing articles about specific plot elements of fictional works. The "scholarly works" are either in-universe works (if such were accepted as a basis for notability, we would need an article about every minor character, weapon, vehicle, and event from Star Trek, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc.) or else trivial references or else presumed (but not substantiated) trivial references. Works of that nature certainly establish the notability of Star Trek and perhaps could be used in an article such as "Influence of Star Trek on [...]" but do not mean that we need an article about each individual element of Star Trek that corresponds to an individual element of another fictional work, etc. Savidan 18:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as you have not tagged the entire section in transhumanism as OR, this provides background for that article, which is not a Star Trek article, and therefore, shows that there is notability of this event/concept outside of Star Trek. And some of your arguments seem counter to WP:NOTPAPER; People are always harping about the transporter and the communicator, yet from your argument you would deny that they should have separate articles. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nuke from orbit and reconstruct as a quasi-dab page pointing to relevant media: Khan Noonien Singh, the Greg Cox(?) books, the relevant episode articles from the Star Trek: Enterprise arc. All of those articles cover the overall plot details of the Eugenics Wars appropriately. --EEMIV (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As my recent culling of OR, speculation and trivial tangents reminded me, the "details" about the Eugenics Wars are so inconsistent across the spin-offs and media that it seems the producers were deliberately wary of trying to reconcile all the arcane minutiae. There was something of an effort at the end of Star Trek: Enterprise, and the novels are one big retcon . . . but, the topic itself is such a mess that the better part of valor would probably be to point folks toward these specific episodes'/books' plot summaries and let readers sort out the details, rather than leave this flypaper for speculation and OR. --EEMIV (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zap from orbit with a Star Destroyer per EEMIV. (wrong cruft franchise, I know;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Timeline of Star Trek#Eugenics Wars and World War III (probably only a sentence or two description of the conflict needs to be added). I agree that this probably shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article, and directing readers to the discussion in the general timeline seems like the best solution to the in-universe inconsistencies mentioned by EEMIV. BryanG (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G3. Obvious hoax. Malinaccier (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Royal House of Ber[edit]

Very long rambling entry complete with prayers and lots of cut & paste text. Incoherent in places, meaningless in others. Tried researching as a copyvio but couldn't find a source. Possible hoax? There's no mention of "Ber" in Armenian nobility. Can't find a speedy delete category for this one. Hairhorn (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 12:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as gibberish, hoax, whatever. There is no reason to ask more editors to look at this. Looie496 (talk) 01:08, 18 July 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 Zipang (manga). \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 vs 40 (Zipang manga)[edit]

This article clearly violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction), WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:INUNIVERSE. There is not a single word or sentence in the article that claims that this has any relevance at all outside the series. Savidan 18:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*facepalm* Barely any acknowledgement that it's fictional. So much work ... —Quasirandom (talk) 14:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, after another cuppa joe to recover my equilibrium. Ordinarily, I'd get cranky about using a style guideline as an inclusion guideline, but this article is far, far more deeply problematic than ye usual writing about fictional elements. Still, that's not a relevant criterion, nor is WP:INUNIVERSE (which is not even a guideline but an explanation). WP:NOT#PLOT is, however, definitely applicable here, and I'm not seeing any potential to make the article avoid that. Ordinarily, I'd say merge to Zipang (manga), but this is simply way unduly detailed information for an article about the (highly notable) work in question. Redirect to Zipang (manga) as a possible (if not necessarily plausible) relevant search term. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage by reliable third-party sources and entirely a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT with it excruciatingly overly detailed blow-by-blow plot summary. Given the extensive nature of the article, I would not doubt that there is a great deal of original research going on here as well. The article also does not make any distinction between fact and fiction, so if one didn't read the very first sentence, one would think that this was an actual battle. Title is not a likely search term and there doesn't appear anything worthy of merging anywhere else. --Farix (Talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete + redirect Plot & in-universe contents treated as real war event. So much that the line between realty & fiction is very blurred. Aside of the notability, excess of plot & original research issues already mentioned, an article trying to put fictional war event at the same level than real ones by even using the same infobox deserve to be deleted. --KrebMarkt 18:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not redirect, as there is no evidence that this lengthy string would be a likely search term. It is not an official name for an episode. Currently the article gets about 11 page views a day. Abductive (talk) 21:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is an example of excessive detail. DGG (talk) 04:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Nothing encyclopædic here, folks. Jack Merridew 08:52, 18 July 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Day or The Marriage of Figaro[edit]

Non-notable musical. Cites no sources and makes no claims to notability; fails WP:RS and WP:N. Article also serves largely as a WP:COATRACK for Sofia Rotaru. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the article claims that the play was staged and aired by "Russian television" - does anyone know if this is referring to the Russian Television and Radio Broadcasting Network? If it is, the fact that it was produced by a notable network, combined with its notable star, could indicate that enough sources to meet WP:N are likely to exist.--Unscented (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added references and specified the producers: NTV and Inter--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for Crazy Day or The Marriage of Figaro gives nothing on the Russian production. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are enough sources, and I just cannot understand why did User:HelloAnnyong nominate the article for the deletion, as he is asked to be a third neutral party... Go figure... As of now I personally have no time to look for sources for this article namely. I'll leave a post with the Russia Project on wiki.--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There are currently no reliable sources on the article, and like I said, it seems like the article was created solely to mention that Sofia Rotaru was in it, which seems to make it a WP:COATRACK. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently five reliable sources. The film was produced by Russian and Ukrainian television channels NTV and Inter - most notable networks with most notable stars, directed by Semen Gorov - one of the most appraised Ukrainian clip makers in Eastern Europe.--Rubikonchik (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:COATRACK, two WP:RS, no non-trivial coverage. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep - Don't see a WP:COATRACK, since Sofia Rotaru is only mentioned in the cast list. Significant coverage in two independent, reliable sources meets the requirements of WP:N. I don't read the language of the sources, but will WP:AGF that the coverage in them is significant, unless someone who understands the language can summarize the coverage and demonstrate that it is trivial. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article is now supported by what appear to be reliable sources, and any WP:COATRACK issues have been cleared up in the substantial improvements made to the articles since its nomination. The lack of sources generated by the Google search can most likely be explained by the fact that the relevant sources for this production are presumably all in Russian.--Unscented (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete A7. No notability asserted. Malinaccier (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Radical living[edit]

Not a notable community, COI editor spam Triplestop x3 17:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably speedy per A7. According to the website it is a small co-housing community that consists of 18 people and 1 dog. Meaning no disrespect to them at all, but it is not encyclopedically noteworthy in any way. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:38, 17 July 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jamestown Associates[edit]

non notable consulting firm WuhWuzDat 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - notable political consulting firm as evidenced by coverage in at least 50 reliable sources including: This book, Coverage of its president's death, Linked to alleged race-based tactics, story on ad they did, story on a different set of ads, NY Times story on an ad they did, salon article that calls them "a nationally known Republican firm", and so on. Additionally, they have won quite a few Pollie Awards and have been covered in RS as doing so: [14] --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The firm has plenty of notability in its field. Their work is discussed in The Other Campaign and The Battle for Congress. The New York Times archive has 17 results, going back to 1993. — Offenbach (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted. -- Menti fisto 18:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hampton[edit]

non notable - has been speedy deleted and recreated so came here. noq (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. This would qualify under CSD A7, receiving "1000 plays on myspace" is not a claim of notability. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per A7, no actual claim of notability here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:28, 16 July 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tawfik Alolo[edit]

~~Had 2 trials at clubs that would have made him notable but couldn't have played since the trials were unsuccessful~~ Spiderone (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:V and WP:N with references in article. Nfitz (talk) 03:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment again these are all just about unsuccessful trials. Spiderone (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has played in the Ghana Premier League. The fact that its ruling body is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for several clubs in the Ghana Premier League, the highest association football league in Ghana. Professional league as can be read in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. This was added by User:Spiderone himself [15]. Sadly he did not change his deletion argument/vote here. --Ilion2 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 19:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dabuo[edit]

Only U20 Ghana appearances to his name. Also his surname seems to be spelled Dabou on occasion Spiderone (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Spiderone accepted that Ghana Premier League is professional and added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues : [16].
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plays for a club in the Ghana Premier League, the highest association football league in Ghana. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read this please Spiderone (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Pre-professional (amateur era) footballers to have played at the national level of league football are considered notable. And : If the league is notable and the clubs are notable, you say the players are not notable? Sound silly to me. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:49, 17 July 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Gyimah[edit]

U17 isn't notable enough for this person to have an article Spiderone (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League (in which the subject has played) is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for Berekum Arsenal in the Ghana Premier League, the highest association football league in Ghana. Professioanal league, as easily can be checked in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. This was added by User:Spiderone himself [17]. Sadly he did not change his deletion argument/vote here. --Ilion2 (talk) 18:53, 18 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Boampong[edit]

Hasn't played pro football Spiderone (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N with extensive international coverage - [18], [], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc. Nfitz (talk) 03:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played for All Stars F.C. in Ghana Premier League. Reference for really playing a game http://asibeysports.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=84&Itemid=18%27. Played in 2007 FIFA U-17 World Cup, played for Ghana national under-20 football team. --Ilion2 (talk) 18:41, 18 July 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Addy[edit]

The first source isn't good enough and the 2nd is a trivial mention. Playing at U20 level doesn't make him notable and the talents section is written like an advert Spiderone (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], etc. Nfitz (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment half those links are broken and the others are trivial mentions Spiderone (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They weren't broken when I put them there - such is the quality of Internet servers in Africa ... seems like WP:BIAS to me. Besides, your the one who is saying this is a fully-professional league ... Nfitz (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has played a significant number of games in a notable African league, and also competed in the prestigious Toulon tournament Eldumpo (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the Toulon Tournament is a youth tournament, thus not making him automatically eligible. --Jimbo^[online] 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment OK I'll let you have that although "imply" worries me a bit, I added it to the list anyway Spiderone (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for Ashanti Gold SC in the Ghana Premier League, the highest association football league in Ghana. Professional league as can be read in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues. Played for Ghana national under-17 football team and Ghana national under-20 football team. Even in the 2007 Toulon Tournament squads, no word in 2007 Toulon Tournament that this is a tournament for under-20 teams. --Ilion2 (talk) 19:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the 2007 version doesn't mention much to be honest and is need of expanding, however Toulon Tournament mentions it's a youth tournament - which states it isn't even recognised by a governing body (i.e. UEFA, FIFA etc). --Jimbo^[online] 11:48, 23 July 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emily, Lady Peel[edit]

Does not establish notability. Patchy1Talk To Me! 17:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I cannot find any other references or sources to add to the article, and the only one given is in a foreign language. I can't see anything to establish notability--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 17:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to the article about her husband. No Wikipedia:Reliable sources and no indications of own Wikipedia:Notability locatable. The possible fact that a rose was named after her justifies not an independent article.
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In principle, an article should present information about a person if there is any likelyhood that somebody would find that person mentioned somewhere and would require additional information about that person. In this case, there is a rose which has been named after her. It may not be important, but persons who are interested in gardening might want to know who the person was after who that rose was named. Obviously people who are not interested in roses would tend to ignore the information and would consider it irrelevant. This is valid for any other subject. Wikipedia should be the place where such information is presented and make such information available. The fact that the reference is in a foreign language is not a criterion. The site is a serious one which has important information about rosarians. Her husband has nothing to do with rose growing. Afil (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I only mentioned the foreign language because looking at it, I have no clue what it is talking about. Is it talking about a flower(Which is what is on the page) or this person.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 01:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As Gordon has already said the matter is the person's notability and in this aspect the existence of the rose is irrelevant. Note also that the website or rather homepage is self-published and fails therefore as mentioned before Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If by the way an article about this specific rose would exist at Wikipedia, then the information about the rose's eponym could be merged into it.
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 19:12, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She apparently is in most of the memoirs of the period, ( about 1/4 the 500 items in a G Books search are more than trivial mentions, e.g. [30] The daughter-in-law of the PM could hardly avoid it. DGG (talk) 04:26, 11 July 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 16:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 20:23, 17 July 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Adjetey[edit]

no evidence of notability Spiderone (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Spiderone accepted that Ghana Premier League is professional and added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues : [31]. --Ilion2 (talk) 10:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N - [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37], and many more. Nfitz (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is still irrelevant as he hasn't played in a professional league. Spiderone (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can it be irrelevant? If he meets WP:N it doesn't matter if he doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. Are you suggesting that an article be deleted because you think WP:ATHLETE is more important than WP:N? Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays in a notable African league. The sources included above are not irrelevant. Eldumpo (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Is it just me or is anyone else finding these nominations a little disruptive? Surely, if the issue is whether a particlular league is professional, the discussion should be in one place rather than spread over multiple AfDs. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all of the sources are trivial name-checks in match reports, thus they do not pass WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the lack of African media on the Internet, that we are getting so many name checks suggests notability. Football is big in Ghana, and the population of the country is much bigger than nations such as Portugal, Holland, or Greece. It's systemic bias to try an eliminate the top footballers of such countries. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for a club in the Ghana Premier League, a professional league as you can read since today in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues [38]. --Ilion2 (talk) 10:58, 18 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Owusu-Bekoe[edit]

Closest he came to being notable was having a trial at SBV Excelsior Spiderone (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References in article meet WP:V and WP:N. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for a club in the Ghana Premier League, a professional league as you can read since today in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues [39], added by Spiderone himself. --Ilion2 (talk) 13:17, 18 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browser-based multiplayer online game[edit]

Recent significant contributor stated that this was part of a taxonomy to go with a category. Since this is a subset of multiplayer online game, and is a short, unreferenced article, no reason to keep it around: the text can be copied into the category if needed. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - contributor responded to WP:PROD with ((hangon)) - I assumed that was contesting the prod, and removed both.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in Multiplayer online game as stated above. We don't need an article for every category. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Wyatt Riot's argument. Seems to be a copy and paste job from multiplayer online game. Unless the author can come up with enough reliable sources to indicate it warrants it's own articles, it should go. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to multiplayer online game.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The definition is wrong in all the articles. Browser-based games can (Runescape) be persistent worlds. Multiplayer online games like Neverwinter Nights can be persistent. Runescape is Part of this is the industry's fault, for not distinguishing persistent worlds in acronyms. Runescape article has 104 citations. Perhaps some of them might be useful in this article. I really don't have time, I am running around trying to stop deletionists who know nothing about the subject of the articles they opine on from destroying everything they see. Anarchangel (talk) 11:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:44, 20 July 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Sampana[edit]

~~Hasn't played a game of professional football~~ Spiderone (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Spiderone accepted that Ghana Premier League is professional and added this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues : [40]. --Ilion2 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 16:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N - [41] [42], [43], [44]. Nfitz (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for a club in the Ghana Premier League, the highest association football league in Ghana. --Ilion2 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So? Are we going to start saying players playing at the highest level in Tanzania or Western Sahara are notable? No, the league must be professional. Spiderone (talk) 08:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is a disussion about a player in the Ghana Premier League, not of Tanzania or Western Sahara. The Ghana national football team is four times winner of the African Nations Cup and played in the FIFA World Cup. --Ilion2 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays for a team in one of the more notable leagues in Africa Eldumpo (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment what makes it more notable than any other? --Jimbo^[online] 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That TV[edit]

Alleged new Weigel Broadcasting digital subchannel network that is supposed to be coming soon as a compliment to This TV. However, the only 'source' seems to be a screenshot of a silent channel of WCIU-TV which seems to be more to decorate the screen of a silent channel featuring anything but a test pattern and an in-joke referring to "this and that". There are no other sources to be found and no press releases from Weigel or This TV partner MGM have come out about a That channel, nor have I found an equivalent subchannel on Weigel's Milwaukee stations to confirm the Chicago screens. Also, the article text is odd, descibing items such as pay cable channels coming to free TV as subchannels, which is incredibly unlikely. Nate • (chatter) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-existent channel and OR presumption that the screenshot is actually an announcement of a new channel. Completely fails WP:V, and obviously WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There really is a subchannel in Chicago called "That", and it consists solely of the screen seen in the article. However, I've yet to see any reliable sources that explain what the channel is supposed to be, so we might as well delete the article for now, and consider recreating it when we have something concrete to say. Zagalejo^^^ 04:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 16:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Nom. If more information and references can be found, the creator of the page is welcome to remake it at that time. Until then, it should be deleted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson Death Hoax[edit]

A steaming, aromatic, pile of Original Research WuhWuzDat 15:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio, tagged. Hairhorn (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G12 per Hairhorn. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We told this article "Don't you come around here, don't wanna see your face, you better disappear, a copyvio's in your eyes so our words are really clear just beat it, delete it'." - 2 ... says you, says me 16:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (per SNOW, and A7) The JPS ^{talk to me} 10:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Thankyou[edit]

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, possibly WP:MADEUP, couldn't find any sources to back up the claim that this series will be definitely coming out in the near future. - 2 ... says you, says me 15:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't know why there's not a book equivalent of CSD A9, this is the same sort of gaping loophole that entries for neologisms jump through. Hairhorn (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP. And yes, there should be a speedy for this if there isn't. Drawn Some (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unverifiable. --Farix (Talk) 16:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside of the existence of a "Carlos Javier Ossorio" on facebook there is nothing else verifiable. If it manages to pass the verifiability hurdle it would fail the notability ones as there is no evidence of notability found. --KrebMarkt 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Iowateen (talk) 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for above reasons -Broadwayfan15 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hasson Harris[edit]

non notable photographer WuhWuzDat 14:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. A mere career in photography does not make him encyclopedia-worthy. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not yet being the subject of substantive critical discussion etc etc. -- Hoary (talk)

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. With no prejudice against redirection. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim "Griz" Martin[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tim "Griz" Martin

While we should be grateful for the sacrifice Mr. Martin made for his country, there's no claim here of meeting WP:BIO (and also see WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Unfortunately, if there's any indication of notability out there, my gsearch is swamped by other Tim Martins. Prodded to avoid WP:BITE, but prod contested by creator with an edit summary of "tim griz martin war hero". Probable WP:COI issues here, as well. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate these.....We have an article about a guy who made the sacrifice he made and probably did more of value in one day of his life than Paris Hilton has done in her entire life, but she gets an article and his gets a ~~Delete~~ vote. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - Changing my position to merge and redirect per later discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO with the same lamentation as Niteshift36. youngamerican (wtf?) 14:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question- I don't suppose a Keep based in WP:IAR is a possibility here, is it? If not, then I echo the previous posters with a reluctant Delete. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to this web site (which seems to be quoting more reliable sources that should be tracked down if by some chance this is kept) he won the Silver Star, but per Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Military decorations establish notability? that's probably not enough to allow us to keep the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have cleaned up the article a bit, added some categories and a couple of citations. Although I understand that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is frowned upon in AfDs perhaps in this case it should be considered in light of the fact that there are many other articles about US soldiers portrayed in the Black Hawk Down film. Also the same goes for many soldiers portrayed in the Band of Brothers series. Many of them only have articles due to their inclusion in the film and books. Inclusion in a movie and a book may be considered notable, then again it may not and perhaps all those other articles need to be deleted too. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BIO seems like it would be the appropriate guideline here. The Arlington National Cemetery website seems more like a memorial site, with not a lot of subtiantial content. The Blackhawk Down source could definitely show notability if the depth of coverage is substantial. If it's just a mention on those two pages, WP:BIO says we need more sources.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the claim in the article that he was portrayed by one of the credited actors in a major movie holds up, then I think that (together with the purple heart and silver star) would be enough for me. But I am not entirely convinced: IMDB says the actor played someone named "Wex". How am I to know that it really is supposed to be the same person, rather than some sort of generic movie soldier not closely modeled on a real person? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David Eppstein make's a good point. I originally added in the sentence about Kim Coates playing Martin in the movie because I found that on the Black Hawk Down (film) article. However, the only sources that seem to say this are that article, and the actor's wiki page. Everywhere else seems to indicate that Coates played MSgt Chris Wexler, who strangely enough does not seem to be mentioned in Bowden's book (at least I couldn't find a mention of him). Hence Wexler might be a conglomerate character as David suggests above. Not sure. Sorry if this further confuses the situation. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This also says Kim Coates played Martin but the page is largely incomprehensible (use the CTRL+F search function with the term "Griz" and you should be able to find it). Definately not a reliable source at all. But seems to add further mud to the water...— AustralianRupert (talk) 04:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be thorough I searched that page using the term 'Wexler' and also found that the same source also seems to say that the actor also played a character called 'Wexler'. So, now I am really confused. It would be great if the users who added the information to the Kim Coates and Black Hawk Down (film) articles could provide a source where they got their information about Coates playing Martin in the movie, as that might help to clear the situation up. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally found something that partially explains the situation. This indicates that the Wexler character was fictionalised along with that of a number of other characters. However, it doesn't state specifically that Wexler was based on Martin. Given this, should I remove the line from the Martin article saying that Martin was played by Coates, or should it just be reworded? (Happy to do so if that is consensus). Additionally, should it be changed in both the Kim Coates and Black Hawk Down (film) articles? —AustralianRupert (talk) 05:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't in all fairness support a keep using WP:IAR as an excuse. First, you know it will get renominated and second, I feel like I have to be consistent. I know other articles that have been deleted similar to this and, although I don't like it, that's not justification to keep it. One currently in AfD right now is Stephen Trujillo. I am trying to guide that one to a merge and redirect. Perhaps this one could be boldly merged and redirected to Delta Force and place Martin's info under the notables section. Opinions? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could support that, or possibly a redirect to Battle of Mogadishu (1993) where there is already a mention of Martin. — AustralianRupert (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being portrayed in a movie would have turned the game (for me) but that doesn't seem to be the case here. What remains unfortunately does not establish notability, not even per IAR. --Pgallert (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A soldier who died for his country. Admirable but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Battle of Mogadishu (1993) per AustralianRupert. Redirects are cheap. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 17 July 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Bissue[edit]

~~U-17 isn't notable and nor is playing for Eleven Wise~~ Spiderone (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You pasted exact this statement in at least nine (still counting) more discussions about football players recently, whether the league is already known as professional or not. E. g. Dustin Chung & Ateya El-Belqasy. Is there any reason why you deny notability even if notability is clearly given? Did you check each article and notability carefully or are you just pasting your vote? --Ilion2 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time, all 9 articles didn't meet notability guidelines. They have since been improved, or new evidence has been found proving notability, and if any now ARE notable, then I'm changing my mind, as I have done now. I resent the implication that I'm saying "delete" on every article football put up for deletion willy-nilly. Giant Snowman 09:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete concur with above and still not sure this is "more" professional than, say, Class A ball. More evidence of WP:N needed. JJL (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played for a fully professional team or at the highest level of amateur football competition. - 2 ... says you, says me 16:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I wasn't aware the league his team played in is fully-professional. That being said, after being here a year and a half I still don't understand why all professional athletes are inherently notable. In sports like Baseball its even worse, a relief pitcher gets called up from the minor leagues (reserves) and pitches a single at-bat in a Major league game and they're automatically notable, even if there is no non-trivial coverage of that player. Why we can't just apply the criteria set forth in WP:BIO to athletes is beyond me. - 2 ... says you, says me 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because it would be grossly biased in favour of comparative nobodies who've had the good fortune to play in the era since blanket internet sports coverage began over top-level professionals who had the misfortune to play back in the "dark ages" before 1990...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, there was adequate sports coverage before ESPN in various newspapers, local television/ radio, etc... you just might need to look a little harder for it. My point is this, if a contributor (hypothetically) created an article on an actor with an uncredited extra role in a notable film (and that being his only claim to notability), the article would be deleted either for failing WP:BIO outright due to lack of significant coverage, or for running aground of WP:BLP1E. The same would go for a purely local politician or a local artist who sells her work to local patrons who haven't received the requisite non-trivial coverage. Wikipedia policy grants blanket exemptions to the general notability guideline and the requirement for non-trivial, secondary sources to athletes when it can simply be verified that they made a single professional appearance. It baffles me why the same standard that is applied to biographies of living persons in any other profession or category can't or shouldn't be applied to athletes as well. That being said, I respect the policy as it currently stands and also realize that this isn't the venue to discuss WP rules, that's for another time and place :) - 2 ... says you, says me 03:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:N - [45], [46]. etc. Nfitz (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, having a trial at Blackburn does not make him notable. There are probably many players who have trials at professional clubs and not all of them are going to be notable. Spiderone (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for a club in the Ghana Premier League, a professional league as you can read since today in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues [47], added by Spiderone himself. --Ilion2 (talk) 11:56, 18 July 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. Deville (Talk) 14:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esme Mends[edit]

The Ghanaian league isn't professional Spiderone (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 13:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Giant Snowman 09:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:N - [48] [49], [50]. Nfitz (talk) 03:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Ghanian league is a notable African league, and I note his wider references in Nifitz's post. Eldumpo (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment those links fail WP:GNG as they are only trivial name-checks. They only mention him once each in each article. --Jimbo^[online] 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that the ruling body of the Ghana Premier League is known as the Professional League Board would imply that this is a professional league. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for a club in the Ghana Premier League, a professional league as you can read since today in Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues [51]. --Ilion2 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 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. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 18:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Cassidy[edit]

He hasn't played professional football. All he's had is a friendly for Bolton, youth games for Ireland and a few games in a semi-pro league Spiderone (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Cypriot league is a notable professional, top-level European League Eldumpo (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ playing in a top-level European league doesn't make a player notable, otherwise players who've played in the Faroe Islands and Liechtenstein etc. Cypriot league is not fully-professional and thus he does not satisfy the criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Lack of verifiable references also fail WP:V and WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 20:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, V and N issue have now been addressed and sources added to prove notability.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep additional third-party sources added to article now meet GNG. Nice work. --Jimbo^[online] 11:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable football player. --Carioca (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for Enosis Neon Paralimni FC in the Cypriot First Division, the top tier football league competition in Cyprus. When the league is notable and the clubs are notable, the players are notable too. --Ilion2 (talk) 14:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally there are different criteria for club and league notability. Leagues are usually notable all the way down the pyramid; clubs are notable to a certain point on the pyramid (much lower than players), and players are notable to the point that they are fully professional. This is the consensus reached by years of AfDs. matt91486 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - has not appeared in a fully professional league. matt91486 (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cypriot league is not fully professional, Bolton players are not automatically notable and he has no other evidence of reaching wp:N Porturology (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. top league in Cyprus is more notable than 4th division in England. Add that to his International appearances and that equals notable.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The 4th tier of English is fully-professional, the Cypriot first division isn't, seems a bit POVy and irrelevant to this AfD. Youth caps do not confer notaibility. --Jimbo^[online] 06:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, I consider the WP:N outweight WP:ATHLETE - which quite frankly is a stupid guideline. This guy turned down the chance of played for teams in a "professional" league to play for his current team - that just shows what a farce this is.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only way he can stay is if he passes WP:N since he fails WP:ATHLETE. Spiderone (talk) 08:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, what would he have to do or pass to pass WP:N?--Vintagekits (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - appears to pass WP:N based on sources currently in article. Status of Cypriot league is therefore irrelevant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence Cypriot league is fully professional; sources provided on the article do not confer any notability (FAI.ie is not a third-party independent source, and all the other source only marginally refer to the subject's name, like in game reports, or do not cover the subject with the required amount of detail) --Angelo (talk) 12:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, would you say that this or even this is just a passing mention?--Vintagekits (talk) 18:46, 22 July 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. Without evidence that the Cypriot league is professional, simply doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE (or WP:N for that matter in this case). It will be noted that all the other players on his team's squad pass that bar by having played professionally elsewhere. Black Kite 12:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Felgate[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page was deleted before. It has been brought back but there is still no assertion of notability Spiderone (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - the previous AfD was for a different person by the same name. Giant Snowman 12:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right sorry Spiderone (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Cypriot league is a notable professional, top-level European League Eldumpo (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete playing in a top-level European league doesn't make a player notable, otherwise players who've played in the Faroe Islands and Liechtenstein etc. Cypriot league is not fully-professional and thus he does not satisfy the criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE. Lack of verifiable references also fail WP:V and WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 20:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plays for Enosis Neon Paralimni FC in the Cypriot First Division, the top tier football league competition in Cyprus. When the league is notable and the clubs are notable, the players are notable too. --Ilion2 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That isn't true. For example Sutton United is a notable club but none of its players are notable. Spiderone (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Sounds like : Yes, the film is notable but all the actors are not notable. Sounds silly to me. The mission is to create an encyclopedia, not to delete me. I wonder why some people who claims to be members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Football does not proof notability and expands the articles as necessary, instead they try to delete dozens of articles like this. This league if professional according to fr:Championnat de Chypre de football. --Ilion2 (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Even the Cypriot Second Division claims to be professional. --Ilion2 (talk) 06:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment The French Wikipedia is not a reliable source under any circumstances Spiderone (talk) 08:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Yes, we all should know this. Your source that this league is not professional is what? --Ilion2 (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment I haven't got a source to say it isn't professional but usually leagues don't advertise being semi-pro or amateur. Spiderone (talk) 08:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cypriot league is not fully professional and he has no other evidence of reaching wp:NPorturology (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is the source for your statement that the Cypriot league is not fully professional? --Ilion2 (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment All leagues are assumed not to be professional until someone proves they're professional Spiderone (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence Cypriot league is fully professional. The fact it is the top league in the country of Cyprus is irrelevant, even San Marino has its own top division... --Angelo (talk) 12:03, 22 July 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Aniweta[edit]

~~Hasn't played professional football~~ Spiderone (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per below evidence that proves notability. Playing in a fully-pro Indian league makes him notable; playing in Cyprus or Albania (not fully-pro leagues) doesn't. Giant Snowman 09:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep has played professional football, and does meet WP:ATHLETE as he has played for Mohammedan AC one of the top clubs in the fully-professional top flight of Indian football, according to The Hindu - see [52] and also [53]. Nfitz (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the Cypriot league is a notable, professional league, and I have also visited the page referenced by Nifitz which refers to him playing in India. Eldumpo (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in the Cypriot First Division, the top tier football league competition in Cyprus and Albanian Superliga, the highest level of association football in Albania. --Ilion2 (talk) 13:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on appearances in the Indian top league. As Giant Snowman stated, the Cypriot and Albanian leagues do not satisfy WP:ATHLETE, but the Indian league does. matt91486 (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armoured Combat of the Turkish Invasion of Cyprus (1974)[edit]

Useless page. Content regarding armoured combat in that invasion is best covered in the main article. I see no need for an extraneous page, particularly one with no valuable content. Ironholds (talk) 11:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the beginnings of a page that's expecting more to be added, but it's been in this state for over a year. Since there's nothing to merge, let's delete it and keep this topic to the main article. If it needs to be split for size reasons this can be recreated, but I see no evidence that's the case now. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cyprus-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like a needless fork. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there doesn't seem to be enough content to warrant a separate article in this case. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:09, 17 July 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 10:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Downes[edit]

Delete. Other than the unusual circumstances of her death, there is no individual notability demonstrated for this person. Reference to Lady Downes is more appropriate within the context of the article about her husband. WWGB (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We know so much about her that we've forgotten to mention when she was born, her maiden name, and all the details of her early life, her schooling and her brilliant career (we go straight from the lede to "Death" !!). If those details are available, they should be inserted and it can be reassessed. If they're not, which is probably why they're not there already, then this just proves she's not notable enough for anyone to have ever written anything about her. Sorry for the sarcasm, but really, this article must be a bit of a joke. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: (Caveat: I am the creator of the page). I would love to know when and where she was born, etc., but that info doesn't seem to be out there, yet, anyway; Lord knows I looked. I came across an email address for the Downes' daughter, Boudicca Downes, but, even if it's valid, I don't think now would be a good time to email her for biodata on her mom. Lady Downes seemed, as a ballet dancer and choreographer, to fulfill WP:NOTABILITY requirements. (The facts of her life and death are most decidedly not a joke.) I am not particularly attached to the page. If it is deleted please transfer any salient info to Edward Downes' page. Thanks. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But surely the absence of any biographical material on her means that nobody has ever regarded her highly enough to bother doing any research. The mere fact that she was a dancer, choreographer and TV producer, does not mean she was a notable dancer, choreographer and TV producer. Not all people who have ever danced for the Royal Ballet are personally notable. She married a man who was knighted, so she became Lady Downes. So what? Had she married Joe Bloggs the garbage inspector, would we be remotely considering her as notable enough for her own article? And that's the test: regardless of whom a person marries, they have to be notable in their own right to warrant an article. The only exceptions to this would be First Ladies, Royal consorts etc., who are automatically Wiki-notable regardless of their actual public profile. Lady Downes was not in this category. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Comment From what I can find in a gsearch, it seems the arc of her career was pre-internet so dead tree sources will be needed to show notability. Given that she was a female television producer in the years before that was at all common, I'd be surprised if she isn't notable in her own right even if her ballet career wasn't notable. Until dead tree sources can be scared up, merge might be the way to go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She might qualify/have qualified for notability based on the circumstances of her death, i.e. being accompanied by her children for voluntary euthanasia in Switzerland due to terminal cancer, and whatever consequences and emanations result from that, which have yet to be seen. But I do agree that any of that could/can yet be covered on Edward Downes' page. (Not knowing a person (especially a woman performer)'s age does not necessarily mean non-notability. Some people fight tooth and nail to keep their age secret.) Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we do know her age.[54]--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, sorry. I meant date and place of birth. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for others to have to prove non-notability. It's for the author of the article to prove notability. That certainly hasn't happened yet. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What intrigues me, Rms125a@hotmail.com, is what led you to believe in the first place that she might be notable? And then, having searched far and wide and found nothing on her, why you still believed she might be notable? Unusual circumstances of death do not make people notable. We're hearing about the Swiss clinic because it was her husband who was involved, and he was certainly notable. But if Joe Bloggs and his wife had done the same thing, would it have been reported? And even if it had been, would we have any articles at all about the Bloggses, let alone separate articles on Mr and Mrs Bloggs? -- JackofOz (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I concede that she may be found lacking in NOTABILITY. I am not particularly attached to the article; I just felt that based on her career(s) and the circumstances of her death she merited a page of her own. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remain civil, the articles author has already said he believes that notability may lie in her career(s). Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to have been directed at me. I don't believe I've been at all incivil, I'm just arguing strongly for deletion. But I've made my point, so I'll shut up now. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. Article can be re-created if notability is established. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:38, 16 July 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 Addiction. Consensus seems clear that this doesn't merit a stand-alone article in its current state. I'll leave the history there for the curious. Flowerparty^☀ 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-holism[edit]

Pure dictionary definition with no hope of making encyclopedia article

The article name is invalid; article names in encyclopedias are supposed to be nouns or verbs (and not even adjectives), so it violates WP:MOS, whereas affixes are valid articles in wiktionary.[55]

The topic is invalid as well, the topic is supposed to be an underlying concept and not purely a word or purely lexical- that's what dictionaries do, and do it far better than we can here.

The article contains a short list of words that happen to match a particular lexical pattern- again, dictionaries do it much better, and are usually more complete as well.

This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a dictionary entry with no realistic chance of recovery. - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 13:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC) - (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 11:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. CarbonX (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Addiction as a hopeless dicdef. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, unlikely but plausible search term. Powers ^T 13:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just delete and skip the re-direct. WP:NOTADICT. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "-holism" is not in Wiktionary, and the article is more substantial (including listing the origin of the term) than some other suffix articles. And frankly, I don't see anything wrong with these articles.SPNic (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So Transwiki it......still doesn't merit a stand alone article. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is completely about the usage of a suffix, encyclopedia articles are about an abstract concept, not simply usages of words or terms or affixes. You can meaningfully translate encyclopedia articles directly into any different language, this wouldn't translate because it's purely about the English language, rather than factual knowledge. This is what English dictionaries are for.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So we should delete it because it's "purely about the English language"? I guess we should delete English language on those grounds too.SPNic (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We must be reading different articles. English language would translate fine and remain encyclopedic. -holism would end up as an English-French (or whatever) dictionary entry; it's a purely lexical article, with no possibility of being anything more.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 15:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a legitimate topic related to the English language. There have been many words that have been coined as a variation of alcoholism, some of which have caught on, others that have not. I remember the first time that I heard the word "workaholic", I thought it was silly because there is no such thing as "workahol", but the term has become standard. Essentially, this is a suffix that was invented in the 20th century. It's not much different than coining "telethon" from "marathon", or "motorcade" from "cavalcade". Mandsford (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly where is it defined as 'legitimate' in the wikipedia? I can only find WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and WP:MOS which (essentially) both forbid articles like this which are about non noun/verb words. The wikipedia is not about words/terms, that's what wiktionary is for, and it's definitely not about individual suffixes which are only subparts of words. You could merge it with other articles like Suffix if you want.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 16:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not much different than -thon or -cade, neither of which have articles. Powers ^T 17:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we do have several articles in Category:Suffixes. the wub "?!" 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but wiktionary has more than a couple of hundred. This just isn't something that the wikipedia or any encyclopedia shines at.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now created the wiktionary article at: wiktionary:-holism.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 18:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a neologism. The topic is treated at wiktionary:-holic, and Wolfkeeper seems to have created a article at wiktionary:-holism as well. Cnilep (talk) 22:34, 16 July 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. Consensus holds that all three articles are so vaguely defined that they are inherently based on personal opinion and fundamentally violate WP:SYNTH. ~ mazca ^talk 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of the 1980s[edit]

These three pages have a whole range of problems, some fixable by much editing, some IMO unfixable. The major problem I have is that the division in decades is purely artificial. There is no culture of the 1980s. There are cultural phenomona which were popular or new in 1984, and some which were popular from 1977 to 1982, and some which spanned three decades, and some which were popular in country X in 1999 and in country Y in 2000. There is not one worldwide culture. The dividsion is not only artificial, the scope ifs also way too big: all culture, from all over the world? Currently, the three articles focus almost exclusively on popular, Anglophone culture. Very little art, design, literature, ..., and very little about other cultures.

The choice of what to include and what not is totally POV based, and (certainly in the case of the 2000s) we obviously lack the distance needed to give a neutral, complete image. Art in the 2000s is: a statue of Britney and Lego Brickfilms? These articles will never be a true encyclopedic description of a clearly defined topic, but a dumping ground for all kinds of everything without much structure or coherence. Let's get rid of them. Fram (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:

Culture of the 1990s
Culture of the 2000s

Delete all. Really just WP:SYNTH. Taking links from a bunch of existing articles, adding some commentary and calling it a new article. It all reads like a VH-1 special. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all interesting read, but all fundamentally violate WP:SYNTH. - 2 ... says you, says me 15:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I also had consideration to nominate this myself. Too vague as stated by the nominator and this is more like a indiscriminate list of pointless celebration of whatever decade. Donnie Park (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Keep the Culture of the 1990s article. Much of its sources are credible, and out of all three, it is the most encyclopedic and organized. Delete the 1980s and 2000s counterparts; much of their knowledge is unsourced, POV, and in list form. (Tigerghost (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Delete all. A selective and distinctly United States-based list of both notable and non-notable trends and events, often citing the authors opinion and rarely substantiating claims of rise, peak and decline in trends. Also poisoned by horribly summarized versions of already-existing articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.243.129 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, only one significant author who has requested deletion. My opposition to global justice had nothing to do with this. Really. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobilization for Global Justice[edit]

Article I created back in 2005 that I considered borderline on notability then. The organization is apparently now defunct, and I don't see it ever truly establishing notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. G7. Author is the nominator and most of the substantial edits were made by him. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary – New Zealand relations[edit]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

another random combination that was created during a spree of stub creation. neither country has a resident embassy, a distinct lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations mainly multilateral [56], yes they have abolished visa requirements but all Eastern European EU countries now have for NZ. the two countries played against each other in a 2003 junior water polo tournament which I know at least one editor would think this advances notability, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see an article here. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for a distinct lack of notability.....although that junior water polo tourney make it tough. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual for these types of articles; handle otherwise. JJL (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the topic fails WP:NOTE. It almost appears that a vandal had created a bunch of non-notable articles by taking a list of countries and creating random intersections. Someone should look into this and see if these can be deleted all at once instead of this massive time-suck of one-by-one nominations. Drawn Some (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We tried. Inclusionists insisted on the time-suck method to save their pet articles. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No, no, no, no, no, no, no. Fails WP:GNG --BlueSquadronRaven 16:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. No direct official bilateral relationship shown. This is not the Yellow Pages.Daveosaurus (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any independent, secondary sources that address the topic directly in detail, so fails WP:GNG. 15:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete no sources, no notability. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 00:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
D2,D4 Aymatth2 (talk) 02:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 13:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greek-Malaysian relations[edit]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

another random combination that was produced in the spree of bilateral stub creation. neither country has an embassy. the Greek Foreign Ministry notes about 10 Greeks living in Malaysia and no agreements whatsoever. and a complete lack of coverage of bilateral relations [57]. not really rescuable. Malaysians competed in the 2004 Athens Olympics and I know at least 1 editor who would think including this fact advances notability, clearly not.LibStar (talk) 06:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this Afd results in a keep, the page should be moved to Greece-Malaysia relations per naming convention.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as usual for these types of articles; handle otherwise. JJL (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No embassies, no significant agreements, no notability detected. Since Malaysia didn't win any medals at the 2004 Games, I'll go ahead and call their participation non-notable to head off that predictable tangent. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the topic of the article is non-notable per WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement "The political relations of Greece and Malaysia are developing gradually on the multilateral level, while there is also scope for development in bilateral relations." (unsourced, at that) pretty much says it all as to its current level of notability. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another excellent nomination by Libstar. Quite simply, no one is writing anything about this "relationship"[58], so neither should we (per WP:N). Yilloslime ^T_C 15:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

D2,D4 Aymatth2 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Bilateral AfD arguments
Delete	D1 Just another random pairing of countries with no significant relationship D2 No independent sources are given and none show up on a Google search apart from sports results D3 None of the sources discusses the relationship itself, just random barrel-scrapings on trivial events like treaties, state visits etc. D4 These are two obscure little countries in Africa or Asia or Australia or somewhere like that. Their relations cannot possibly be notable.
Keep	K1 A Google search with the names of the two countries shows many results K2 Since being nominated the article has been expanded with several reliable independent sources K3 All bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable K4 The article has a picture of the heads of state meeting - if Wikimedia accepted the picture, it must be notable
Comment	C1 You clearly do not understand my point - please read what I said C2 Your argument is irrelevant - check WP:POLICY. C3 My argument is entirely based on WP:POLICY - read it. C4 Bandy is an important sport in several countries, and competing in the world Bandy championships is enough to establish a notable relationship.
Please cite your arguments by number in the discussion below If you do not find an appropriate argument in one of the lists above, please edit this template (click "e" at the top left) and add your argument

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

H D Moore[edit]

Appears to fail notability through sufficient reliable sources. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#H_D_Moore. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable individual. --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not establish notability (being a security researcher who is active on the internet is not a notable achievement). All sources seem to be self-published. The article lists no third-party reliable sources that are independant of the subject as required by GNG. I suspect this is nothing more than a vanity article. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG criteria, no indication he would meet any other notability criteria either. DreamGuy (talk) 14:56, 16 July 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. Only because nobody besides the nominator is arguing for deletion. No prejudice against a speedy renomination if the article isn't improved. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The National Monument to the U.S. Constitution[edit]

The article has many issues in it's current form: a serious conflict of interest, copyright infringement, and I'm not sure if it satisfies the notability criteria. The author and I have gone back and forth, but I believe that the article in it's current form should be deleted. See article page and talk page for more references. [mad pierrot][t c] 06:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. [mad pierrot][t c] 06:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - This needs a re-write, and it needs to be renamed but I have found sources that I belive are on these monuments that carry good information, and confer notability; [59], [60],[61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. With that being said I also assume good faith I find no reason to believe that this articles creator made this stuff up. I am willing to help re-write this article if need be. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep an eye on it. it seems like this meets our notability requirements, however other editors are needed to keep an eye on any possible COI. in the spirit of good-faith and not biting the newbies i think we should give this 10-day old article a bit more time. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 14:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable monument, but I concur with the nominator and the other "keep"s that it needs some serious revision & cleanup. youngamerican (wtf?) 15:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COI and copyright issues can be resolved easily enough with rewrites. The real question is whether it meets the requirements for notability, and I think it will turn out to. There's a Business Wire article [71] (full text without having a pay is here [72]) which talks about the creator, Brett-Livingstone Strong - "The Constitution Bicentennial Monument dedicated by President Reagan at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1987, and the United States Presidency Monument, commissioned by Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1993 are two awe inspiring works which were recently appraised for $21 million." I am a bit confused about exactly what is being described though. There's "The National Monument to the United States Constitution", "The Spirit of Freedom Monument" and "The Constitution Bicentennial Monument" (and also talk of "The United States Presidency Monument" on the article creator's web site [73]). My confusion isn't cleared up by the links Marcusmax provided, which (amongst other things from that fairly loose search phrase) refer to a fountain rather than the eagle shown in the picture in the article and web site. Ha! (talk) 15:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I have been assuming good faith, I know that the contributor is just passionate about the subject. I've tried hard to make the Larry feel welcome (see here) and I don't believe he made it up anymore, just at first. I think that the article should be submitted to the articles for creation now so that Larry has some help in cleaning it up and any conflicts of interest are addressed while it is being written. [mad pierrot][t c] 20:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is criticizing you or thinks that you haven't assumed good faith, as it's obvious from the talk page that you have. I'm not sure that deleting the article and then recreating it will be any different from rewriting it though, and an experienced editor above has offered to help with the rewrite so it shouldn't be too hard to deal with the issues the article currently has. Ha! (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Does anyone have anything else to add? Otherwise I think we can close this discussion with Keep and have a more experienced editor assist with writing the article. [mad pierrot][t c] 16:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: just wanted to note that the appraisal seems to be in a press release by the Marketing firm hired to handle the artist and hence should probably be regarded as a primary source. It may or may not be true, but I don't think it offers much help on determining notability, my weak "Keep" below notwithstanding. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I came to this article in response to the third party request raised. As notability has been sufficiently addressed here (which I would agree with) and the potential COI is not sufficiently problematic to raise on wp:COIN, I shall remove the request for the time being.—Teahot (talk) 19:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'd like to see the re-write accomplished before this AFD is closed, otherwise delete. — Athaenara ✉ 19:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that I can comment on the discussion: I appreciate the support and will provide any information I can to assist with the re-write. I understand the confusion about the name of the monument. It was titled "The Spirit of Freedom Monument" by the artist, but was commissioned as the "The Constitution Bicentennial Monument". Once dedicated it became the "National Monument to the U.S. Constitution". --Lawrence Creeger (talk) 05:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lacking reliable sources to verify, these alternate names are not usable. I've done a google search and only come up with two hits connecting "The Spirit of Freedom Monument" to this particular statue. Since I cannot verify, I've removed that title. Please see Wikipedia:Original Research for more information on what should and should not be included. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but without a lot of passion). Note that I've extensively rewritten this. This monument doesn't quite make it under the general notability guidelines, I think, but the artist is certainly notable and it seems to me that any monument unveiled and dedicated by a president ought to be notable in itself. I've rewritten quite a lot of it, incorporating some of the sources listed above that were connected to this sculpture and not others created for the occasion. (The one with all the rocks, for those who've followed those links). I've searched for any other source I can find and included every reliable source I could access. I've eliminated some of the unsourced claims I could not verify under "Display". These, of course, can be restored with reliable sourcing. I also removed the video, since there is nothing to indicate it is not hosted in violation of copyright and it is a promotional snippet that was not necessary to verify the information in the article. (If it is displayed at a primary source, I think it would be very appropriate to include as an external link.) I also have to admit that I found it kind of interesting. I didn't know that a "national monument" could be privately owned, much less used as collateral for a loan. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rewrite was very well done; however the American Spirit Foundation was only involved with the monument from about 1989-1992 and never owned the monument. Global EventMakers, Inc. was awarded ownership in October of 2007 by a Federal Court in Nevada. I am merely interested in getting the facts about this monument out and have other links that I will post here later today.--Lawrence Creeger (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: The article did not say that the American Spirit Foundation owned the monument, but the American Spirit Corporation. (See [74]) The New York Times indicates quite clearly that it at least was owned by the American Spirit Corporation (not the Foundation, which is a separate entity), which used it as collateral for a loan. See [75]. I have no reason at all to doubt it has different ownership now, but do you have a source to verify this? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: Sorry, you are correct. For a short period of time the American Spirit Corporation owned the Constitutional monument; however when the corporation failed the ownership became private again and remained so until ultimately Global EventMakers acquired them in 2004. As far as verification on the internet, the Federal Court decision is public record and is accesable on the internet. I'll ask how to find it and let you know. The court order is of course available from the company as well as the validation from the Federal Appeals court in San Francisco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Creeger (talk • contribs) 17:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should the article be renamed to "National Monument to the U.S. Constitution"? Or "National monument to the United States constitution"? I'm not sure what the policy is on including the word "the" in article titles. [mad pierrot][t c] 16:17, 22 July 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. Consensus here seems to be that the article meets WP:N which trumps WP:ATHLETE –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David O'Connor (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 July 9. Neutral. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to play in a fully professional league, and there's a lack of third-party sources to establish him as a notable player. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N as there are no verifiable secondary source. More to the point, he fails the notability criteria for sportspeople at WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional league/competition. --Jimbo^[online] 08:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 08:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The team O'Connor plays for is Drogheda United which is in the top league of Irish football. Ireland is not as strong a football nation as England, and the level of professionalism doesn't go as far down as in the English system, but it is still a league which receives as much coverage in the Irish media as if it had been fully professional. If we are to follow the "must be a fully professional league" to the extreme, the coverage of football players in Ireland would be zero, and I don't think that is the proper balance. I think the person passes general notability criteria; his actions on the football field, which includes scoring goals, are frequently covered in Irish sports press, and there is this profile for him which makes a short bio on him verifiable, and thus sustainable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to User:Sjakkalle: The Zero assertion is not correct - having no professional league does not consign notable Irish players to nil. Players who represent the national team, those that take them to the Olympic games etc are all encyclopaedic enough for inclusion, as are those that achieve significance that gets enough subject of article coverage for general notability.--ClubOranje^T 10:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article now significantly improved and multiple references added.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, again all just trivial name-checks in match reports and stats/profile pages. Nothing about him personally. --Jimbo^[online] 12:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - thats your opinion but like so often recently with regards this issue you have been wrong!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, how is it opinion - which of those new references clearly satify WP:N? Saying I've been wrong is clearly clutching at straws and doesn't belong in this AfD. --Jimbo^[online] 14:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment, Ssssshhh!! and double ssssssshhh! regards--Vintagekits (talk) 12:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: This old chestnut again. The League of Ireland moves in and out of professionalism like the pedants here move in and out of sanity. Are you going to delete 1,290 player pages? Get a life please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.198.140.206 (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as stated by several users above, fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE (none of the available source cover the subject in detail, and several of them are not reliable at all, such as ones from Soccerway, Eufo.de, Walk the Chalk and ElevenASide.com). --Angelo (talk) 15:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, well now we have pretty much all the members of the Footy Project that usually !vote en block and incorrectly endorsed the deletion of the first AfD closed by "one of their cronies".
Thankfully there were enough neutral outsiders to ~~make~~ forced them to see common sense. These editors are so blinded by the deeply flawed WP:ATHLETE that they have forgotten about it's superior parents WP:BIO and WP:N!! These are the editors that consider this footballer is 100% notable but the captain of an Irish league winning side that has 200 games and 50 goals under his belt as well as under age international experience is not notable! They are blinded by WP:ATHLETE and WP:OWNERSHIP - they really cant see the wood from the trees.
There are multiple sources from the highest of levels of nationwide media which provide the information outlined about this player and his exploits of the football field - that passes WP:BIO and WP:V.
He has been part of two teams which have won the FAI First Division title. He has played in the FAI Premier Division which is the top flight of national football and a predominantly professional league from which the top four qualify for European football. He has now scored in that league, details of that goal are explained within the article - that passes WP:N.
There is a strong precident that Those who play in the premier division are notable. See recent AfD's here, here and here which have shown no concensus to delete.
The multitude of sources for veribable sources and playing top flight football in Ireland trumps WP:ATHLETE - which is a crude, deeply flawed and inferior policy to BIO and N.--Vintagekits (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Weak Keep. The player doesn't meet the WP:ATHLETE guideline~~and the sources provided do not satisfy the conditions of WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)~~, but the sources provided do now meet the conditions of WP:N. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, let common sense prevail, the WP:ATHLETE guideline is quite obviously flawed. Fionnsci (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article passes WP:N, WP:BIO and WP:V which trumps the flawed and rigid WP:ATHLETE.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A profile on a trivial site such as Soccerway is no where near close enough for him to pass WP:N. Articles must specifically be about his exploits as a footballer (not including trivial stats sites, name-checks in match reports and such). Articles on players in the LoI wouldn't be "zero" as quite a few would pass general notability on the extensive coverage you mention, the LoI and it's players get. --Jimbo^[online] 10:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that was the only source that was in the article then you would have a point. However, its not - have you a problem with RTÉ, Setanta Sports, Irish Independent, League of Ireland or Drogheda Independent?? So you have a problem with Soccerways!? Funny that its used as a source on over 500 artciles!.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're all just trivial name-checks though in transfer round-ups and match reports. None of them are about his exploits as a footballer thus failing WP:N. I'm not questioning Soccerway's validity, as it's used to back up stats - in this case it just proves he's played LoI which means he fails WP:ATHLETE.--Jimbo^[online] 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the man is from Tallaght I think he would say trivial name checks me bollix! - and I would find it hard to disagree with him. The are detailed descritions of his goal in a variety of national media outlets.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing notable about scoring a goal in a semi-professional goal. We need sources specifically about him, not one liners here and there in a match report. --Jimbo^[online] 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said. Ssssshhh!! and double ssssssshhh!

Keep a player in a country's highest football-league, professionaly or not, may not pass WP:Athlete, however WP:Notability in every case. While some of the references given in the article may indeed come under WP Selfpublished sources, others pass as WP:Reliable Sources of course.
~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If they were specifically about him they would, they fail WP:GNG as they're trivial name mentions. --Jimbo^[online] 23:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is starting to stink of hyprocrisy! Are you saying that you wont support an article unless the football has a substantial article about them in a recognised reliable source? Funny because most of the football bio's on wiki dont have that and just use the bio page from their club website and a link to Soccerbase!!! I really think the guys on the FOOTY project need to wake up and smell the coffee - to show how stupid the use of WP:ATHLETE is in this issue. Jimbo just removed a prod from the article for Steve Hutchings - now this is a guy that play one game as a substitute in the fourth level of English football and the only sources in the article are a link to his club bio and a link to Soccerstats page! Now compare that to the article we are discussing here and it will show you how far this flaw policy has been warped!--Vintagekits (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing hypocritical about it. He passes WP:ATHLETE as he has played in a fully-professional league. The article is a stub, which invites users to expand it. Articles aren't deleted on lack of content, but the criteria set. --Jimbo^[online] 23:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Is WP:ATHLETE the only policy that you take into consideration. For God sake - it about notability man - note-a-bill-ity! WP:ATHLETE is a sub section of WP:N - this sets out the following
A. A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material - check
B. which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject - check
C. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability - check

--Vintagekits (talk) 23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." --Jimbo^[online] 23:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it clearly states that if the depth of coverage is not substantial then a "multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability" - so even if you dont consider the detailed description of his goal "substantial" the you cannot deny there are multiple reliable sources.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read my arguements, the trivial sources fail WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well lets see if anyone outside the usually "lock step" voters from the FOOTY Project agree with this ridiculous interpretation of the policy.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: ( He is a notable player, with reliable sources and plays in a notable league) 80SRFC80 (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Retaining this information adds to the notability of the league. Centre mid (talk) 08:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the grounds of common sense. Numerous reliable sources that are not limited to the stats sites quoted above. Personally think the players in top leagues in all countries should be ok, and then any fully professional leagues below them. It's an internet encyclopedia after all. 8lgm (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so you believe footballers who've played in the highest league in Montserrat and Faroe Islands etc should be deemed notable? --Jimbo^[online] 09:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —--Jimbo^[online] 09:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More deletionism. If this site is to continue as a reputable source for journalists covering notable topics topics such as the football league of Ireland, these kinds of articles should be maintained. Jhealy (talk) 10:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This site has never been a reputable source for journalists. This site only regurgitates previously published information. Journalists should actually do what they are paid to do.--ClubOranje^T 01:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per numerous editors above and numerouse reliable sources provided. BigDunc 10:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE why is vintage tits hating on burton albion articles just because this nobody should be deleted. He fails all the policys mentioned upbove and a load of inferior mentions in 2 bob articles arent notable. Bbc is full off articles like this. Burtonboi_9t1

Keep - As per Liam Patton, the LOI is as professional a league as you're ever going to get in a country like Ireland. The OP is obviously a pedant with too much time on their hands, or simply a crank with a bee in their bonnet. Dahamsta (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment New Zealand Football Championship is as professional a league as you're ever going to get in a country like New Zealand.... Football Federation American Samoa is as professional a league as you're ever going to get in a country like Samoa... Where exactly would you suggest the line be drawn?--ClubOranje^T 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Why would you delete an article that clearly there is a large support base behind keeping? The wikipedia articles on the LOI are expanding all the time, it is the top division in Ireland and in a service like Wikipeida I don't understand why you would be so intent on deleting the article? Besides the heavily-disputed rule which you are ustilising, do you have any other reason? Are your actions vindictive and bringing into question whether the LOI is really in your jurisdiction? Should all players who don't qualify as playing in a "fully professional" league be deleted? Does this cover players who played in the the earlier part of the previous century? Using this yardstick could be opening a can of worms-if this policy of targeting LOI players, who in our view firmly deserve a place on wikipedia, where will it end? Could you see attempts to distrupt and delete articles on football greats who didn't play in a "fully professional" league begin? Joseph McSweeney (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the player and league are clearly notable, and professional as all clubs pay their players. I don't understand why people wish to see all these articles of Irish top-level players deleted. There's too much reference in these debates to ATH, which is not a policy, and not enough use of common-sense and reasonableness. Eldumpo (talk) 20:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to meet WP:N with references in article. Meets WP:FOOTYN having played for fully professional teams at the top national level of the sport. Nfitz (talk) 02:02, 19 July 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. Deville (Talk) 14:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Budhanilkantha School/Cultural traits and quirks[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Budhanilkantha School/Cultural traits and quirks

Seems to be a list of NN school slang. Falcon8765 (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Half these are commonly used slangs in most British era public schools in the subcontinent. The other half is relevant only to this particular school; school article exists, no need for this. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day (cue groans and trombone). Badger Drink (talk) 06:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like trivia to me, and trivia that has it's own page. [mad pierrot][t c] 06:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day was made for this. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear case of Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I cut/pasted the passage from the School page! Figured it was trivia and couldn't decide if I should delete the content or maintain a separate subpage. I knew new pages are watched closely rather than changes in an existing page, so chose the latter. I would request that the parent page Budhanilkantha School be locked. Some entries on the notable alumni section too could be considered trivia or based on personal research. my two cents.

I notified of the changes in the article's talk page !Utsav₈₀|Blabber 06:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By 'locked' do you mean protected? That's only done for serious ongoing problems like vandalism or edit-warring. If someone adds the material back we can just explain why it was deleted. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep. AfD is not for merger/redirect suggestions, or for making 'final decisions' on edit wars (even if this were an edit war, which I don't see it is). Non-admin closure. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this page should be merged into Middle Ages (disambiguation). Patchy1Talk To Me! 04:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page was a redirect until two hours ago. I don't see why we don't just put it back there. We don't necessarily need a 5 day AFD to do so. In fact, I just did so. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 04:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is clear that an edit war has taken place and will continue until a final decision is made. It has been changed to a redirect several times I see. Patchy1Talk To Me! 04:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- What edit war are you talking about? This article has been edited 7 times since August, 2006. That's 7 edits in 3 years, and three of them were you adding "mergeto" and "afd" templates to the article. Two other edits are a misplaced bot edit, and a revert thereof. The remaining two are the change of the redirect to the dicdef you note, and my reversion thereof back to a redirect. Seriously, this is not an edit war, just a misguided newb. Its been undone, and there's not much else to do. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 05:00, 16 July 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. Deville (Talk) 15:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oljei[edit]

Fails WP:CORP. Falcon8765 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you chose not to use WP:CSD#A7? Dekimasuよ! 13:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - No assertion of notability. --DAJF (talk) 14:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found on Google News or Books for Oljei or オルジェイ, except [76] which is rather trivial. No article on Japanese Wikipedia. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy (A7 does not cover anything other than people, organizations, and web content). Not notable. No sources can be found on google news. Malinaccier (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reuben Wilmarth Hills III[edit]

Non-notable, fails WP:NOTE/ WP:BIO. Drawn Some (talk) 03:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

III strikes and you're out. His obituary shows no notable achievement, with the possible exception of being president and CEO of the family firm. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable on any level. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:22, 16 July 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. Upon reading through the discussion, it seems there are 19 editors, including the nominator, explicitly pushing for deletion, with 11 others arguing to keep the article. As AfD is not a vote, these numbers mean little. The nominator's main concerns, as well as those of subsequent participants, stem from WP:POV and WP:COATRACK. On the other hand, many, though not by any means all of the keep "votes" fail to address the aforementioned concerns. In closing the discussion, I give these opinions little weight. POV is a serious issue; however, the article covers a seemingly notable topic, and can be made more neutral and encyclopedic through editing. Deletion should, in general, be the last resort. Indeed, the article has apparently changed quite substantially since it was nominated. Taking all this into consideration, I feel "no consensus" is the only practical outcome, with no prejudice towards either a merge discussion or a renomination if the article isn't cleaned up within the next few months. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Israel lobby in the United States[edit]

WP:POVFORK largely consisting of a WP:COATRACK of opinion pieces criticizing a number of organizations and living persons of being "anti-Israel". What relevant material that is in here can go in Arab lobby in the United States and articles on the individual organizations and people named nableezy 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom, also left out of nom that the pages very purpose is in violation of WP:NPOV, as it is not neutral to label any of the organizations or people mentioned as anti-Israel as that is not how they are usually classified. A few people, mostly those who see these organizations and people as political adverseries, have used the term to describe them. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee article shows how this is dealt with in a NPOV manner, with due weight given to the criticism. This article is being used to search high and low for somebody calling some organization "anti-Israel" and throw them all together into one big sinister bogeyman. nableezy - 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy - 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy - 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy - 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy - 03:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy - 03:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy - 03:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Nableezy - 03:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Basically a WP:attack page and not really encyclopedic. Because this article wasd created at the same time Israel lobby in the United States was changed (temporarily) to Pro-Israel lobby in the United States this looks like a partisan, POV attempt to use wikipedia to help create a false divide of either you are Pro or Anti Israel, with nothing in between. Wikipedia should not be used in this fashion. This is very much against the resolutions of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles.CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anti-Israel lobby is not necessarily "Arab lobby" as nominator suggests. This is essentially an Anti-Zionist movement. If we have Israel lobby in the United States, why can not we have "anti-Israel lobby"? Notable and sourced.Biophys (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an article called Anti-Zionism which, while not perfect, does at least use a phrase that many groups use to describe themselves. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm torn on this one. It's unquestionable that there is a cluster of people, ideologies, and organizations in America that oppose Israel as a state and a people in a broad sense rather than being incidentally or casually critical. So the phenomenon itself is real. Further, there is a concept among many American supporters of Israel that this opposition is some form of prejudice with motivations that go beyond the issues at hand. So the concept is a real concept, whether or not it is true. There are many, many sources for this. So a reasonably good, informative article could be written about this, just as there is a decent article about Anti-Americanism. The article as it now stands needs a lot of work, as many will no doubt say. But weak articles are improved, not deleted. And difficult subjects are dealt with through good editing, not avoidance. The question here shouldn't be whether the article is inherently non-notable, redundant, or a coatrack. It is not inherently so. The question is whether the article as it now stands is salvageable or whether it is better to delete the whole thing and try again (or not). Wikidemon (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Part of me agrees, and in fact there are good reasons (including libertarian/anarchist ones) for being "anti-Israel" as well as "anti-Zionist." However, WP:RS demands that WP:RS or groups/individuals describe themselves as "anti-Israel" and the WP:RS that do are mostly extremely pro-Israel. And few groups/individuals describe themselves thusly. So there are major POV/BLP issues because of the nature of the sources. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ see below There has been a recognized anti-Israel lobby movement that goes beyond the scape of the Arab lobbyists. I think it is a bit premature to delete an article that has a lot of potential. These sorts of articles tend to solicit strong emotions that might not reflect a genuine concern for the article's unique content. Remember, pro-Israel lobbies in the United States do not describe themselves as PRO-ISRAEL SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP (caps are on purpose) but rather "concerned citizens for the welfare of Israel and its security blah blah..." Yet the articles on Israel lobbies have taken the shape of how its enemies portray them. This is perfectly acceptable (as long as it meets policy) and I don't see why it should be limited to articles that are critical of the state. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't keep "Israel lobby" is OK as a title because it has been used by mainstream scholarship and the people and organizations themselves. ("Pro-Israel" is worth discussing). Aipac very prominently calls itself "America's Pro-Israel Lobby". Anti-Israel has not been so used and is intrinsically offensive and unsuitable as a title. Reverse things. Should wikipedia have an article on the Anti-Arab lobby airing accusations, made non-neutrally and with heavy helpings of OR, that mainstream Jewish or pro-Israel organizations form an anti-Arab lobby whose purpose is not really to support the state of Israel, but to victimize Arabs or Palestinians (just for the hell of it, I guess)? Should there be an article covering the NAACP, CORE, SNCC as an anti-white lobby, even if one finds sources? Merging whatever is worthwhile to Anti-Zionism or Arab lobby in the United States, would be one way, followed by a redirect to one of these. Deleting would be another. Keeping, as is, is unacceptable and conflicts with neutrality and naming policy.John Z (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete. coatrack, pointy, not neutral. john z put it best. untwirl(talk) 05:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Radical suggestion: Let's merge this with Israel lobby in the United States and call the article Middle East lobbying in the United States. The truth is that there is a lot of interesting material here, there is a small but growing lobby sitting on the other side of the political fence from AIPAC, and it deserves to be covered in the wikipedia. I think we could put together a fine article covering the political forces affecting US Middle East policy. --Ravpapa (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What little in the article not sourced to opinion pieces could be salvaged into an article like that. But as it currently stands just classifying a bunch of people and organizations, some of who cannot rightly be described as lobbies much less anti-Israel, and part of an "anti-Israel" lobby on the basis of the opinion of a political opponent is not exactly abiding by WP:NPOV, or more importantly, for the living people in the article, by WP:BLP. That is like making an article socialist movement in America and including the Democratic Party on the basis of the opinion of some Republican strategist. But that suggestion seems fine to me, ideal even. nableezy - 05:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Israel lobby in the United States article already is watered down enough, not even citing history of its actions over time. And Arab lobby in the United States already exists. And of course there is Anti-Zionism. Not to mention Category:Non-governmental_organizations_involved_in_the_Israeli-Palestinian_peace_process and Category:Foreign policy political advocacy groups in the United States. (Sources for this attack article probably would consider all those groups "anti-Israel.") What few pieces of NPOV useful info there are in this article could be integrated into those articles. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Now I've noticed there already is a Anti-Israel movements article (which also needs an AfD). And it has a Category:Anti-Israel which was deleted! CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Israel lobby in the United States per Ravpapa's suggestion. --GHcool (talk) 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Pending (things have changed, see below) per my panic post here. Thanks for the assistance from more knowledgeable editors. I will also positively consider some form of Ravpapa's intriguing suggestion, not as a solution, but on its own, with 'history'. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge per Ravpapa's and GHcool. I like the idea, but it would be dependent on an article move and I'm not sure if that is possible. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the info is accurate you may keep or merge. I didn't check the contents. Also note generally, claiming an organisation is pro ... like pro Palestine or pro Israel is easier, less offensive and requires less proof and RS than calling an organisation is anti ... like anti-Arab or anti-semitic which requires vast RS. Kasaalan (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-israel is somewhere in the middle so consensus might be needed. Also don't delete the content if the entries are accurate and merge, don't waste editing time. Kasaalan (talk) 11:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - The term is not used by mainstream scholarship, and whatever currency this term happens to have does not require its own article. Wikipedia is not a place to develop neologisms to push a certain point of view. The current article instead gives us the term as a POV fork, which is deletable under current policy. PasswordUsername (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:POVFORK. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article lists more than a dozen references using the term. I wonder if those alleging that 'The term is not used by mainstream scholarship' have bothered to look at the article or its references, which include Jewish polity and American civil society, a book edited by 3 academics, one of them a Yale professor, published by academic press Rowman & Littlefield, which includes an entire chapter devoted to "anti-israel lobby". LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 14:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the essay in that book is just written by one Martin J. Raffel, a pro-Israel activist. The other "reputable sources" used as cover for the subject, such as the 1985 New York Times article, do not even use the term. Oh, and there's an opinion column written in the Wall Street Journal - "Antisemitism and the Anti-Israel Lobby". Still a POV fork. PasswordUsername (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - 3 notable academics found the article worthy of inclusion in their work of mainstream scholarship, and an academic publisher found it worthy of publication by its press. Think what you will of the author's activism, it is simply false to assert that 'The term is not used by mainstream scholarship'. If this is a POV fork, what has it been forked off from? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Arab lobby in the United States, Anti-Zionism and the various articles of the groups named as part of this supposed "anti-Israel lobby". nableezy - 15:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Really? which reliable source has described American Friends Service Committee as part of the Arab lobby in the United Sates? The explicit premise of this article is that anti-Israel is not the same as pro-Arab. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Did you notice where I said 'and the various articles of the groups named as part of this supposed "anti-Israel lobby".'? nableezy - 15:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        yes I saw that. An article can't be a fork from multiple articles. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, you can create POV forks by shoving various claims to promote a certain POV from various articles into one POV-loaded one... That's how it's done here. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That would be a violation of WP:SYNTH, but not a POV fork. It's a moot point, tough, since we have numerous references which explicitly refer to an 'anti-Israel lobby'. That's not any more POV than having an article about a Pro-Israel lobby. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
        Yes, as a loaded article it's certainly full of WP:SYNTH, which advances its arguments by jumping to position C from claim A and claim B. It would still be a POV fork in its own right even without the jumps because it takes one-sided content from various other articles where things are not given as one-sidedly, and presents pieces of that content for its own purposes. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        If there are WP:SYNTH violations in the article, we can fix them, but that is not a reason for deletion. The article was not forked off of any article that I am aware of, and lists numerous references which make the case that an anti-Israel lobby exists, distinct from an Pro-Arab lobby. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Attack page, with little in the way of real substantive evidence that this concept is treated seriously in reliable sources. It is occasionally mentioned by some (usually on the far right) but there is no scholarly treatment of it the way there is of an Israel lobby. At best, merge with similar pages (e.g. the Arab lobby one). Or make it a footnote or section on the Israel lobby page. But as it is this is a POV fork. csloat (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - 3 notable academics found the article worthy of inclusion in their work of mainstream scholarship, and an academic publisher found it worthy of publication by its press. It is simply false to assert that 'there is no scholarly treatment of it '. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one book and it's not at all clear that it's considered "mainstream scholarship." If that was all there was to the "Israel Lobby" I would feel the same way -- not a notable concept. The more I think about it the more this belongs as a footnote to "Israel lobby" since it seems to be a reaction to people who have written about that. csloat (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Yale professor published by an academic press is not mainstream scholarship? That is certainly an interesting view. I wonder what would qualify as mainstream, if this does not. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some Yale professors published in some presses are mainstream, sure. But it's not at all clear whether the one you're referencing is. Please don't ever distort my words again, it's very disconcerting. Again, even if we do decide this is mainstream, this is one book. If all you've got on this is one book, the case is pretty much closed - this doesn't merit an article. csloat (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I've distorted your words at all. You questioned whether this book, by a Yale professor published by an academic press counts as "mainstream scholarship". That view seems bizarre to me, but perhaps you can explain what would make it 'non-mainstream', when it prima facie is. Of course, this book is not all we have - the article lists some 2 dozen references, and counting. This book was presented as a single example disproving your false claim that "there is no scholarly treatment" of the subject. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to establish the case that this is "mainstream" you need to provide evidence, not assert it as prima facie. Again, even if it is, one scholarly source isn't enough - sorry, this doesn't cut it for me, even given your "2 dozen" non-scholarly references mostly from members of the same right wing clique. We're not gonna change each other's minds; no offense, but it's probably best to drop it. csloat (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a "pro-Israel" lobby, and an "anti-Israel" lobby, as we can clearly see even in these discussion pages. It seems to me that the "anti-Israel lobby" is working hard to get this page deleted. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claims by POV parties in the article stated as facts I am in favor of keep or merge, however whole article needs to be neutralised per its claims of POV or COI parties' accusations in the article which are presented as facts. It should be applied as argued by ... for claims. Kasaalan (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good point, it repeats claims by POV parties as fact. It also misquotes sources.

For example, calling the American Friends Service Committee "anti-Israel" is absurd propaganda. But more important, it's not supported by the verifiable link.

It's propaganda. The propaganda message is, "There's a pro-Israel lobby article, so let's answer it with an anti-Israel lobby article. They haven't supported the premise that there is an anti-Israel lobby in the U.S.

I would delete any article, whether I agreed with it or not, if it had propaganda motives and problems of bias and factual verification as bad as this one. --Nbauman (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting claims as facts without attributing is not a valid reason to delete - and has a very simple solution - go ahead and attribute the claims, per the suggestion by Kasaalan, above. I hope you realize that by making this argument (i.e: that these are verifiable claims, which are reported as fact instead of being attributed) you are implicitly conceding the notability of the subject, and the fact that the term has been used, as such, by multiple sources. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such implication, whether or not the term has been used is not the point here. Is it a neutral point of view to call any of the organizations listed in the article "anti-Israel"? Is that how they are usually classified? A few opinion columns saying they are "anti-Israel" is not sufficient to label them as such. nableezy - 17:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, several of the "delete" voter have made an issue of the usage of the term - see sloat or paswordusername, above. The references provided, which include academic publications, do explicitly refer to an "anti-Israel Lobby", and do name several individuals and organizations as belonging to such a lobby. You may think they are incorrect, or that their opinion is not neutral - but that is not a reason for deletion. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting claims as facts, while attributing them to a source that doesn't support those claims -- as this article did for the American Friends Service Committee -- is a reason to delete the article.

We can't attribute the claims, because there are no WP:RS to support the claim that the AFSC is an anti-Israel organization. --Nbauman (talk) 04:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Instead vastly discussing and wasting time, if all parties work together we may improve the article to correct the NPOV issues and claims.

My solution is per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Quarterly#Criticism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Report_on_Middle_East_Affairs#Criticism keeping the criticism however adressing the critical parties political stance. Kasaalan (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why improve an unacceptably titled article instead of using it to improve superior, already existing articles that it is a pov fork of? (Wikipedia is all about vastly discussing and wasting time. ;) ). Cheers,John Z (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV titles, assuming this is one, are dealt with by de-POVing the title, not by deleting the article.LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV-forks are dealt with by deleting the article. nableezy - 22:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But I don't agree that this is a POV fork - the references in the article explicitly reject the notion that the anti-Israel lobby is the same as the Pro-Arab lobby. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the explicit rejection? This ref I put on the talk page supports the identification. Of course the pov-forking is not perfect, but that combined with an offensive title strongly indicates redirection at best. De-poving the title would give it a title like Arab lobby or Anti-Zionism, which already exist.John Z (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is here: "We use the term "Israel detractor" rather than pro-Arab because injuring the Jewish state, not aiding Arabs, defines the core agenda of most of these individuals and groups" [77] - this is from the most heavily cited reference used in the article, and appears in the lead - don't tell me you haven't even bothered to read the article before arguing so vociferously for its deletion? LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are talking about the same organizations but they are choosing to use a pejorative way of referring to them. And why are we basing the classification of these groups on an opinion piece by an AIPAC director, an organization that clearly sees these groups as political adversaries. Most informed people do not refer to these organizations as anti-Israel, and to insist that we do so based on the opinions of their opponents is mind-numingly retarded. nableezy - 23:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is true that they are talking about the same organizations and individuals. I don't think that Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer , for example, are considered by anyone to be part of an "Arab Lobby", and I am quite sure they would reject such classification. Similarly, I don't think the American Friends Service Committee is reasonably part of the "Arab Lobby". There is certainly a large overlap between the groups, but they are not one and the same, and this is a point explicitly made by the references given in the article. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been said that calling the American Friends Service Committee as part of an anti-Israel lobby is ridiculous. And how about the National Association of Arab Americans, Arab American Institute, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, Palestine Center, CAIR, American Muslim Council, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Palestinian American Congress, Palestine Solidarity Movement? Almost the entire article is Arab and Muslim organizations that AIPAC feels are not pro-Israel. nableezy - 00:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's certainly been said by some wikipedia editors , but the standard we use for articles is verifiability and notability, not veracity of the claims. You may think it is ridiculous to consider the American Friends Service Committee as part of an anti-Israel lobby , but frankly, your personal opinion does not figure in this. Those claiming an anti-Israel lobby exists separately from a pro-Arab lobby are making that claim - we can verify that claim and see it made in notable sources - that's the end of that discussion. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You didnt respond to the fact that the overwhelming majority of this article is labeling Arab and Muslim groups as anti-Israel when they are not usually labeled as such. nableezy - 01:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should we have an anti-White lobby page about the NAACP, the SPLC and other organizations based on the writings of David Duke? Should we have an anti-Arab lobby page filled with AIPAC, Daniel Pipes and every other organization that has been called such based on the writings of an Arab lobbyist? nableezy - 23:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we have a body of literature that describes the NAACP and the SPLC as an anti-White lobby, which includes chapters in academic books and numerous articles in the press, I don't see why we wouldn't have such articles. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not consider that a good reference for the existence of "Those claiming an anti-Israel lobby exists separately from a pro-Arab lobby", unlike the one I gave, which explicitly identifies the two. As I pointed out on the talk page, "Israel detractor" is not the same as "anti-Israel Lobby", a phrase which Lewis never uses, and which brings up OR problems. Lewis emphasizes the lack of cohesiveness of the "Israel detractors", and is more listing them than characterizing them the way the article does, as a lobby. If you don't like arab lobby, anti-zionism is an acceptable, non offensive redirect target. The reason not to have such articles is because titles should be neutral, not attack the subject matter and not in themselves propound fringe viewpoints on material well covered in other articles. Does anyone really think that calling these pro-arab organizations, the AFSC, etc primarily devoted to injuring Israel rather than their stated purposes is not a fringe view, similar to calling the NAACP anti-white? John Z (talk) 00:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the top: The reference you gave does not say the two are the same, it uses an "or" to differentiate between them. There are other reference in the article which to explicitly use the term "anti-Israel lobby" AND say that what identifies that lobby is hurting Israel, not promoting Arab interests, such as the Caroline Glick JPost article. This is not about what I "like" or "dislike" - it is about referring to things as reliable sources refer to them. You can continue to believe that a chapter in an academic book by a Yale professor is a "fringe view", but I don't find that assertion very convincing, and neither did Rowman & Littlefield. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:LoverOfTheRussianQueen seems to forget that WP:RS is only one of tenants of WIkipedia. WP:Neutral Point of View, WP:No Original Research andWP:Biographies_of_living_persons are equaly important and can be used to question whether "WP:RS" sources can be used and how they can be used. See: Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Content. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have not forgotten those policies - it's just that these excuses were not brought up before. In fact, this constant moving of the goal-posts makes it seems as if some people are intent on getting this deleted no matter what - and are throwing any and all WP policies in the hope that something, anything, might stick. When this was nominated for deletion, the reason was WP:FORK. When it transpired that there is no article this was forked from (indeed, the various "delete" voters can't seem to even agree what this was forked from, mentioning alternatively Anti-Zionism, Arab lobby in the United States or even Israel lobby in the United States ), it was alleged this is an attack page. When that didn't stick, claims about notability were raised ('not a notable concept', 'no scholarly treatment of it') , and when they were easily shown to be false, you are now trying WP:Neutral Point of View, WP:No Original Research and WP:Biographies_of_living_persons. If there are BLP violations, remove them from the article. If you think a particular passage violates WP:Neutral Point of View or WP:No Original Research - discuss it on the talk page and find consensus for an improved version. Just throwing out an alphabet soup of polices in the hope something sticks won't cut it. LoverOfTheRussianQueen (talk) 02:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not brought up before? The nomination brings up using opinion pieces for derogatory claims directed against living people, and my first comment after bings up WP:NPOV in using a term to describe these groups that is not at all in keeping with the mainstream description of them. nableezy - 02:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP This is an article about a large, well-established, powerful, and well-documented single-issue lobby, similar to the many other articles about single-issue lobbies in the United States. There is a rapidly-growing body of academic work on the subject. Growing, that is, to catch up with the dynamic nature and rapid growth of this lobby in recent years. The material in this article cannot be folded into Arab lobby in the United States since important groups such as the political arms of several very active Protestant churches and the Council for the National Interest are not Arab. And, while Anti-Zionism exists, it covers a great deal of terrain while this is an article about a coalition of political lobbying organizations in the U.S., and about the political lobbying activities of a number of organizations that also conduct other activities. It does not seem to me very different from articles on the Energy lobby, the China Lobby, the Cuban-American lobby, or the Pro-Israel lobby in the United States, although it is better sourced than some single-issue lobby articles. On the other hand, I can see some logic in merging this and Pro-Israel lobby in the United States into a single article entitled Middle East lobbying in the United States as proposed above.Historicist (talk) 01:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering how many nations there are in the Middle East, with how many factions, with how many lobbies, definitely an overly large article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:34, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete Merge any NPOV part into relevant existing articles and delete rest as per WP:POVFORK--LexCorp (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)'[reply]
Delete. The idea that these organizations have the sole motivation of opposing Israel is a very biased point-of-view, which one can see from the sources chosen to support this article. If someone created a Pro-Palestinian lobby article, that might be worth keeping. Factsontheground (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The whole article is made up and is attacking several Arab and Muslim organizations. The term "Anti-Israel lobby in the United States" does not exist.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Almost every word on the page is merely a pronouncement of some pro-Israeli source. It is clear that that is the actual purpose of the page. Any notable quotes (of which there are very few) should be added to the article on the pro-Israel lobby as examples of their work. If Israel lobby in the United States was barely more than a bulletin board for anti-Isael opinion, it wouldn't last 48 hours. This one shouldn't either. Zero^talk 12:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve: Although the article is, as it stands, not sufficiently neutral I feel deletion would be overstepping what is necessary. Furthermore the Arab lobby and the Anti-Israel lobby are not necessarily exactly the same and so I think a merge is inappropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has been significantly lengthened since many of the votes were cast. Assertions that this is a neologism, or that that the phenomenon of an anti-Israel lobby does not exist do not reflect the sourcing in the article, which includes a substantial number of scholarly books and scholarly articles. There will be more materail, as I or others have time, since the anti-Israel lobby is a well-documented topic.Historicist (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Biophys and Historicist. Article is well-sourced and a legitimate topic, and is not a POV fork. Most of the "delete" arguments really amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. 6SJ7 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is some useful content here, which could be merged to Israel lobby in the United States. But mostly this is an attack page, violates WP:SYNTH, a quite extraordinary collection of garbage (American Friends Service Committee - and Quakers in geneneral - have a long history of opposing antisemitism) with an unacceptable POV title. I agree with Zero that it is a WP:COATRACK for so-called "pro-Israel" claims. NSH001 (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP and Improve - Article is about a strong and influential single-issue lobby; Wikipedia has many similar articles about single-issue lobbies. AND, we should keep in mind that there is an article on the Israel lobby in the United States so I do not see why there shouldn't be an article on this lobby. Afterall it lobbies for many positions that the Israel lobby is against. --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have rewritten the first half of the article, in a (probably vain) attempt to stick to the facts and put the opinions in quotes. Perhaps this rewrite will convince some of you that there is material here worth saving. Whatever you do, don't read past "Prestatehood era". --Ravpapa (talk) 08:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a flagrant attack page and violation (even in the title) of WP:NPOV; it's one of the worst WP:NPOV violations I've seen in a long time. Some of the content may be salvageable for other article(s), but I'm not immediately sure where. One thing is clear: we cannot allow groups who self-define "pro-Israel" to label a bunch of other organisations as "anti-Israel" as if that was their stated objective. And that's effectively what this article is doing. Rd232 ^talk 08:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's ok to say "pro-Israel" but not ok to say "anti-Israel"? 6SJ7 (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organisations that self-define as pro/anti-Israel should be described as that. But "anti-Israel" is obviously a negative in a way that "pro-Israel" isn't, and a lot mroe care needs to be taken in applying it to people and organisations who reject the label. But I guess it was a really a rhetorical question. Rd232 ^talk 20:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As should any article be if the only reason is PoV. An article title can be changed to remove PoV, the content can be changed to replace or remove PoV. If nothing consequential remains of the article, it can be deleted under WP:N, which along with WP:OR are the only major -content- rules that the drafters of WP:DELETION saw fit to include as reasons for deleting -articles-. Stop the madness. Anarchangel (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to put an organization on the page, unless that organization self-describes as anti-Israel (which I think none of them do), is obviously OR. Most of them are opposed to some aspect of Israeli policy or practice; describing that as "anti-Israel" is just a standard propaganada stunt. Zero^talk 02:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The term is widely used and well sourced. There is no reason to delete except WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Rlendog (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and neutralize so the article will be beyond accusations of bias and of existing only for the sake of being critical. It is off to a good start, well-cited and with cleanup underway. With proper care taken not to use pov language in WP's own voice, this is a legitimate article and topic. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Merge and redirect to Israel lobby in the United States; some material may be merged into Arab lobby in the United States, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Anti-Zionism, and/or elsewhere where appropriate (see commentary below for thought process of revised position) - I usually avoid this topic like the plague because of the zealotry it evokes. For the record, I don't have a dog in this fight, so to speak, so I consider myself an impartial observer. However, there is no sound argument for deletion of this and keeping of Pro-Israel lobby in the United States. I think both are important topics and require discussion. While the article itself may or may not be biased (and AFD is not the place for that discussion), the topic itself is clearly notable. The term "anti-Israel lobby" is used verbatim in respectable sources cited in the article such as the Wall Street Journal and the Boston Globe. Other mentions not cited have occured in The Washington Post, The New York Times, and The Guardian.^[78] The suggestion to merge the two is also flawed. Communism and anti-communism are both ideologies diametrically opposed (or communism/fascism or fascism/anti-fascism), but that doesn't mean they should be merged into one discussion. The delete votes, however, for the most part boil down to either "I don't like it" or POV, which isn't a criteria for deletion. Strikehold (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both of the links provided are opinion pieces and the google news result is mostly filled with op-eds as well. nableezy - 03:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would counter, respectfully, so what? While it is certainly not our place to editorialize, it is indeed our place to report opinions, as long as it is clearly attributed as such. Even in editorials, respectable news sources generally don't print disreputable opinions, even though they clearly are opinions. The term "anti-American", for instance, is not likely to be used by a news source without qualification as it can be a charged term. However, that doesn't (and shouldn't) preclude an article on anti-Americanism. To be clear, I wouldn't object to merging this to Anti-Zionism and merging Israel lobby in the United States to Zionism, as both are fairly reasonable places to put that information. But if that is the option, then it would probably require discussion on an RFC or something. For that reason, I think this AFD should be closed as "keep". Strikehold (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is we are using these editorials to label groups and people as anti-Israel when they are not labeled that by most commentators. Why should we use the term "anti-Israel" which is primarily used by self-described pro-Israel groups to label a group that is usually described as pro-Arab or pro-Palestinian? Why not have anti-Arab lobby in the United States or anti-Palestinian lobby in the United States or anti-Muslim lobby in the United States and include AIPAC or other organizations based on the opinions of Juan Cole, or CAIR directors? nableezy - 04:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is a reasonable one and those examples provide a better analog than others (although anti-Palestine, not -Palestinian, would be the best parallel, as this article is not after all called the anti-Israeli or anti-Jew lobby). The op-eds may be a bit tenuous as sources for a standalone article, but the fact that this lobby is purported to exist merits mention somewhere else, certainly at Anti-Zionism, maybe elsewhere. I'm revising my position to that of merge with Israel lobby in the United States, and as necessary, other articles. ~~I know that is not an option you personally favor, but~~ It seems rational as even the article itself says the "anti-Israel lobby" arose as a counterweight to pro-Israeli interests. Strikehold (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That actually is my position (see nom ;)), that they have been called this should be mentioned in the respective articles but compiling a list of organizations called "anti-Israel" by some editorials is what I take issue with. nableezy - 04:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread the original "radical suggestion" merge vote and your response to it. Pieces of this article could be merged into Arab lobby and Israel lobby. Don't think any single article is best for a wholescale merger. Best to break it up piecemeal and put where appropriate. Strikehold (talk) 04:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well-written and thoroughly documented with dozens of sources, and the term is used as is in multiple reliable and verifiable sources which establish independent notability of the term. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's kept with that sort of logic (rather than merged, as argued by a number of people), then it needs to be radically stubbed to merely document the general term, and avoid the obvious WP:NPOV problem of labelling people "anti-X" on the basis of views coming from people self-avowedly "pro-X". Rd232 ^talk 06:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidently notable. I might support a move to the more general Anti-Israel lobby, but that's a different disscussion for a differnet day. What's clear at this point is that there's no legitimate basis for removing the artilce since WP:IDONTLIKEIT has yet to be accepted as a valid deletion argument. Any specific POV concerns should be rectified by this cool thing called editing, not wholesale deletion.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment: most groups don't self-identify as 'anti-'israel, they are classified by what they support: pro gun control, not anti-gun, pro abstinence, not anti-sex. even anti-abortion redirects to pro life. untwirl(talk) 07:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I voted merge, I don't think your examples are comparable. Those are all the result of politically motivated framing. That presupposes that just because a group self-identifies one way that it makes such an identification useful or accurate. A case in point is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, a state which a reasonable person can see is none of those three things. Strikehold (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the same type of framing; one "side" is determining how to frame the issue, it is pro vs anti-Israel instead of pro vs anti-Palestine. It is the same idea behind "pro-life" or "anti-choice" (or even more subtly "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion"). but I have made way too many comments in this AfD, so I think it is time for me to check out nableezy - 07:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is the same type of framing. Doubtlessly, some individuals/groups which are pro-Palestine are indeed anti-Israel, insofar as they are against the very existence of the state of Israel (i.e. Anti-Zionism). I think very few people could accurately be described as "anti-choice" or "anti-life" (and that is the reason for framing in that way). That means that the term "anti-Israel" can be factual, whereas something like "pro-life" is intentionally emotional—but the term anti-Zionism is probably better used in this case anyway. Now, whether a particular person/group is anti-Israel is a matter of debate unto itself, but I think the material can best be put forth in an evenhanded manner in the separate Israel and Arab lobby articles. On that point we agree, and as you said, probably best to end this line of discussion and stop wasting bandwidth. Strikehold (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, NSH001 and Rd232. If someone wants to have the page userfied to retrieve some of the information for inclusion in existing articles such as Arab lobby in the United States, Israel lobby in the United States and articles on individual organizations, they are welcome to. Those articles are named correctly. This one is named so as to reflect the POV of the Israel lobby. Most of the groups named reject the label "anti-Israel" and grouping them under such a label violated WP:NCON as they do not self-identify as such. If article is to be kept, prepare to see articles on the Anti-Palestine lobby in the US, the Anti-Arab lobby in the US, the Anti-Armenian lobby in the US, etc, etc., which use op-eds from the Palestinian, Arab and Armenian communities to label their opponents anti-them and which rely heavily on SYNTH to do so. In other words, keeping the article would set a very bad precedent out of line with Wiki policies and guidelines. Tiamut^talk 08:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment first of all pro-Israel lobby in US renamed to Israel lobby in US. anti-Israel lobby is kind of confusing name. Do anti-Israel lobby is anti Israel by states' existence. Or do anti-Israel lobby is anti pro-Israel lobby in US as its lead. Or in general terms anti-Israel lobby means anti Israel right-wing politics. So somehow that should be cleared. Also self-statedly "Israel defender and advocate" groups like Anti-Defamation League or obviously POV and unacademic journals like Middle East Quarterly should also be noted in the text as underlining their political stance, and not to be misinterpreted as 3rd party organizations, views or as scholar parties. Kasaalan (talk) 11:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the notion that any form of criticism of Israeli state policy or human rights abuses committed by the State of Israel would be 'anti-Israeli' (or motivated by anti-Semitism...) is a political pov discourse. The article itself does not support the notion that there is a real life feature that can be called 'anti-Israeli lobby'. It's a bit like rebranding the Free Tibet movement as 'anti-China lobby', using Xinhua or the CPC international department as references. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the delete votes lately seem to object more to the title, than to the actual content. The article (now almost entirely rewritten) covers a group of organizations that form a lobby for the pro-Palestinian or pro-Arab position in the Middle East conflict. But the term "anti-Israel lobby" is - quite understandably - objectionable.

The difficulty here, as I have pointed out before, is that that is how the lobby is referred to in the press. If we were to call the article, for example, "Palestinian lobby in the United States", it is unlikely that anyone would find it. What's more, many of the organizations don't seem to view themselves as pro-Palestinian, but rather advocate "balance" in American policy. So even this name change doesn't solve the problem.

It seems to me that a bad name is not enough of a reason to throw the article out, especially since it covers what I believe to be an important phenomenon in US politics today. What's more, leaders of this group - James Zogby, for example - have agreed with me (see his quote in the article). So here is the challenge: come up with a better name. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There should be 3 separate articles or 3 categories (under 1-2 article). Anti-semitism which is racially motivated hate against Jews and a crime, anti-Israel political or any other objections against existence of Israel, and anti-Israel (right-wing) politics, anti-Israel government lobby or anti pro-Israel lobby (including jewish and Israel community by Israeli-left and some orthodox torah jews) for lobbyists and activists against Israel politics or human rights abuse. For example anti-semitism is a serious argument that should be taken with care, tough anti-Israel may also cover anti-Israel existence (which is a rare case) while it should generally refer to anti-Israel (war or lobby) politics. Kasaalan (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasaalan, that is an interesting analysis, but I don't quite see the relevance to this article. None of the organizations mentioned are characterized as antisemitic. Nor are they dealing directly with Middle East politics, but rather with US support for Israeli policies - a subtle difference, I admit, but an important one.

BTW, Kasaalan, I must say that after going head to head with you on so many articles, it's good to be on the same side (almost) for once. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One way or another there are organizations against existence of Israel, or against Israel's (not much peace friendly) politics, so an article with proper notes and categorizations might help

My policies doesn't change much, if the title, reference and claim issues will be fixed, I am in favor of keeping info (as a merge or as separate article) as my progressive voting approach. That won't change according to my political stance or personal thoughts on the issue. Yet as I noted earlier the issues should be fixed, after this debate over I may edit for accuracy, yet I will wait for a consensus first. Kasaalan (talk) 18:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Kasaalan's definition of 'anti-Israel' ('political or any other objections against existence of Israel') is covered by anti-Zionism. --Soman (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a very poorly sourced articles. The majority of citations do not say "anti-Israel" in any way, rather it is the creator of this article who has decided that certain statements are evidence of "anti-Israel" sentiment. Thus a lot of this is original research unfortunately. --John Bahrain (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has many footnotes. They document sundry topics, including the date of establishment, history, rhetoric and self-described positions of these lobbying organizations. However, a careful reader will find a great may uses in the article of the phrase "anti-Israel lobby," including a number of cases in which one careless editor/reader or another above or on the talk page, or when making deletion comments has incorrectly asserted that this phrase "does not appear."Historicist (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States" —Ashley Y 18:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Israel lobby. The difficulty with Ashley's suggestion is that these organizations do not merely oppose the Pro-Israel lobby. Several openly oppose the existence of the state of Israel altogether. I might wish that they would only oppose the lobby, rather than supporting the elimination of a nation of 6 million people. However, since that is what several of them do propose and lobby for, it is a trifle, er... reductionist, to call this an article on an an anti-lobby, lobby. And while we are on the topic. At the article Israel lobby in the United States, there is an active discussion about moving the name to Pro-Israel lobby in the United States, in conformity with, among other things, the current usage style of the Washington Post and the New York Times.Historicist (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Ashley's Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States idea is perfect since there are lots of groups against it who have a variety of views on the final states. Only a small number of organized groups want there to be no Israel at all and they should have their own article Organizations calling for abolition of Israel or something. Of course those groups might have 500 million supporters, but they are not necessarily the leading groups. And there all ready is One-state solution and that state is not usually called Israel - yet none of those groups are mentioned, including various Muslim/Arab groups representing millions. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we shall have to delete all sections about any organisation that does not explicitly call for the elimination of the State of Israel. Right now you're trying to have it both ways, by including organisations that merely oppose the excessive degree of influence that the Israel lobby has, but also calling them "anti-Israel". —Ashley Y 09:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Revise significantly or Delete. This is the second time I have come across these debates, of which i am normally not a part. I find the way these articles are put together unacceptable for an encyclopedia. This article appears editorialised and biased, despite the efforts of some editors to improve it. For example, the history begins with "Opponents of unqualified US support of Israel started political lobbying..." Why on earth would we equate opposition to unqualified support of Israel with being "anti-Israel"? Later on there is a list of "organizations and individuals involved in US lobbying for pro-Arab and pro-Palestinian issues in the Middle East". This should be deleted, as these are not anti-Israel groups. People can be supporters of Israel's existence but condemn the Gaza incursion etc etc etc. Here's another bit, from the history section again: "Among the leaders of pro-Palestinian action groups in Washington are the members of..." Again, not relevant, and POV-pushing. One can be pro-Palestinian without being anti-Israel. Making such connections in an article with such an inflamatory title is surely blatant POV-pushing - as it would be in an article of the opposite arrangement.

My second concern is that this and some other similar articles are put together by finding people who express relevant views and then by citing them claiming that the article has reliable sources. For example, the article includes this: "Caroline Glick, managing editor of the Jerusalem Post, writes in an opinion column that recent years have seen "the emergence of a very committed and powerful anti-Israel lobby in Washington."" Well, if I can be provocative here for a moment, who cares? This is a subject on which every opinion writer in the world has to have a view, and no-one is backward in coming forward, sometimes with evidence, mostly without it, and really their opinions, whether pro-Israeli, pro-Arab or whatever are not, in and of themselves, of any consequence. This is an encyclopedia, its entries should be based on facts and, particularly in such an emotionally charged environment, scholarly research and through the selection of sources that are as NPOV as possible. It is not helped by quoting as many people of a particular view as possible, regardless what they edit, who they write for etc. Even though the above quote is from a section called "Response of Israeli supporters", it appears to be functioning as a way of bringing those opinions into the article. An encyclopedia article needs to do more than catalogue the views that anyone can find in the opinion pages of just about every news outlet in the world. And to preempt one of the type of responses that I've seen on the talk pages - "So I guess you would have the same view about [insert name of anti-Arab lobby WP entry here]?" - yes I would and I do. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good summary of the issues. Zero^talk 01:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fine example of Mertensian mimicry (editorial synthesis posing as an encyclopedia article). Óðinn (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Ashley's ingenious suggestion. Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States - why didn't I think of that? And also...
a Comment: Do those who support deleting the article believe that there is no organized attempt by some lobby groups to change US policy toward the Middle East, in a way that is less supportive of Israel and more supportive of the Palestinians and Arab countries? Because if you think that, you are wrong, and not only myself, but the people cited in the article - James Zogby, Rashid Khalidi, Ziad Asali, and others - think this. Zogby is quoted as saying this.

There was, when this article was first written, a serious problem that it was attributed almost entirely to sources associated with the Israeli lobby. Whether the information was true or not, the source was, quite rightly, dubious. That is no longer the case. Almost all the information about the organizations themselves, as well as much of the information on the history and activities of the lobby, comes from sources affiliated with the lobby - the organization websites, or publications of the organizations. This lends a great deal more credibility and impartiality to the article.

And, while I'm on a roll here, I have to disagree with Historicist: All references to the desire of these organizations to see the destruction of Israel has been deleted. None of the organizations have this as their stated purpose, and I have not seen any evidence that they are working toward that goal. If you have such evidence, please share it with us. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absoultely such a lobby exists, it is widely known as the Arab lobby in the United States. nableezy - 17:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but this article includes not only Arab groups. And it doesn't deal with any of the other issues which interest Arab American lobbyists - civil rights, the war in Iraq, and so on. --Ravpapa (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the problem -- this article puts a bunch of groups in a category based on one aspect of their lobbying. If these organizations are exclusively devoted to self-described "Anti-Israel" lobbying then there may be something here, but as far as I can tell these are generally organizations with a number of interests and goals, one or a few of which some outside party has determined to be "anti-Israel." Calling these organizations part of an "anti-Israel lobby" -- particularly when most of them would not even describe their goals as "anti-Israel" -- is the essence of original research. csloat (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article is a legitimate topic. Well sourced. There is pro-Israeli lobbying in the United States, along with anti-Israeli lobbying, and this article describes it and is sourced. - Epson291 (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just so everyone knows, this is an AFD and not a survey for moving. If this article is kept we should probably have another discussion about the title, but mixing the two is really going to clutter things up. Wikifan12345 (talk) 09:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete - One of two settlements can be reached here which don't result in this being nothing more than an attack page (which it is currently). The first option is to combine it with the Israel Lobby page and title it something along the lines of Israel-Palestine Conflict in the United States, or something to that effect. If that is not done, then it remains little more than an attack page, with the personal attacks and remarks to thoroughly worked into the text to warrant anything other than deletion. Cam ^(Chat) 13:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is certainly based in fact, and there is some material worth salvaging. Unfortunately, I don't see much possibility that it could ever meet BLP standards, and maintenance would be an utter nightmare. In my opinion the scales are tipped against this one. Doc Tropics 15:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UltraKeep2000™ or Merge with the other article to "Israel related lobbies in the United States". Can't have one propaganda group without the other and both have similar notability (aleigt the "Jewish Lobby" is more of a smear campaign than an actual policy changing group). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am changing my vote from keep to delete, in light of recent developments in the article. I need to explain myself. So this will be a long post. Fasten your seatbelts.

This article started out attempting to raise an important development in American politics. Unfortunately, it came out reading like a diatribe against what the authors viewed as a band of cuthroats masquerading in gray suits, who wanted to fill the Mediterranean with Jewish blood.

Because I felt that the topic was an important one, I took it upon myself to rewrite this article from top to toe. The rewritten article, I felt, was about the development of a new lobbying power in Washington, a power that opposed unqualified support by the US government for Israel, and endorsed a US position that favored other forces in the Middle East.

Make no mistake: this is a tectonic change in American politics. Opposition to Israeli lobbying power has moved from the fringes to the mainstream. Lobby groups that are among the oldest and most respected in Washington - the AFSC, for example - have been joined by a recently empowered ethnic Arab-American community, to protest what they see as human rights violations by Israel, and to urge support for an alternate, and more aggressive, peace program for Israel and the Palestinians. Many of these organizations (like MPAC) have, at least formally, renounced older, extremist positions to support a more centrist view which still opposes US support for Israeli policies.

But it seems that this version of the article was not to be. Because in the last day, the article has again been heavily revised, so that it is no longer about the growth of an alternate lobbying view in Washington. Now the article is focused almost entirely on the use of the term "anti_Israeli" by right-wing Israelis and their supporters. Lobbying groups that were among the most important leaders of this shift in American politics were deleted, because these new editors could not find explicit cases where pro-Israeli spokesmen referred to the organizations as "anti-Israeli". On the other hand, they added cases which had nothing to do with American political lobbying - for example, they added a paragraph about the Wikipedia (not a lobbyist) because a Jerusalem Post (also not a lobbyist) editorial called it anti-Israeli.

Many of the complaints of this group of editors, I must admit, were mysterious to me. They put "citation needed" tags on sentences immediately following the footnote. Claiming BLP violations, they deleted paragraphs where no living persons were mentioned.

Never mind. The article is no longer about a new lobbying power arising in US politics, but about the presumably derogatory use of a term by a group of people with a very limited political viewpoint. Why this topic should be of interest to anyone is beyond me. But there you have it. That is apparently what these editors want to write about.

It is obviously not a topic worthy of coverage by Wikipedia.

Incidentally, if anyone should ever be of like opinion to me, and want to write about this new political force, I have saved a version of the article prior to the lastest round of revisions in my userspace, at [[79]].

Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically why I voted delete. An article on this "new political force" would be useful, definitely, but it cannot live under this name, as the experience you've related above illustrates, besides the obvious NPOV issues. Rd232 ^talk 10:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the by, an article on that "new political force" would obviously need to refer to J Street, a key player not mentioned in the article. Rd232 ^talk 10:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is consensus now?[edit]

Outdent Comment, There is no apparent consensus on the original AfD, and it isn't my call, but I have changed my vote above from ‘Delete’ to Pending. This is despite the fact that I first raised the red flag. My change is based on: a) positive content changes, which have moved away from the original ‘Attack Page’ that its author wrote; b) the simple fact that these groups/people absolutely do exist, and more; and c) many good expressions of thought by contributors and on-lookers, particularly one by Kasaalan; he makes some very valid points pointing to some missing content. I view some future articles similarly.

My current tendency is to Rename, per Ashley Y’s Opposition to the Israel lobby in the United States". It complies with policy in a neutral nutshell, while removing most implied anti- or pro-specifics and maintaining the lobbying subject. I too find it ironic that I am tending to agree with traditional opponents. The question is currently not a real consensus question of ‘if’ editors delete it or keep it; it is now a valid consensus question of just exactly ‘what’ we keep. Really, everyone should read it again, while they consider both what is stated poorly from their pov, and what is RS'd ‘out there’ versus what is on the page. It is hard to build consensus if any specific modifier is used within the title; those specifics are the sections themselves, with many valid pre-existing links. Frankly, merging the two is a bigger bite than Wiki can happily chew; I doubt it would result in any real benefit for the readers either. Sincerely, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC) N.B. between the time I make the note of a change in my vote and made this comment, my ISP crashed...for hours. In that time major changes were made in the article, which caused Ravpapa sufficient consternation to change his vote. My suggestion now looks less-than-workable, but it still may be. I was seeing possibilities and could revert Carol, but I am unsure if I should; she shoots pretty srtaight. I do however wonder if using that ex-editors aim is the best way to approach things in current times.[reply]

Hi CasualObserver48. Just a quick comment. Israel lobby in the United States can cover the Israel lobby, and its supporters and detractors. Another article would just be a POV fork. Tiamut^talk 13:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Tiamut. The important stuff here can be a footnote to the Israel lobby article. csloat (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP But write a better article. Obviously the phenomenon, of a large, well-funded anti-Israel lobby , exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.96.4 (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A total non-subject; no nontrivial coverage of the "Anti-Israel lobby" exists in any reliable published sources. Article has obviously been cobbled together by scraping trivial references from Google results. Typical case of internecine Wikipedian conflict (to put it crudely, Jewish editors who don't like the existence of an article about the Israeli lobby) being expressed by creation of nonsense in mainspace, à la the "Allegations of <country> Apartheid" series from way back. 69.159.87.158 (talk) 00:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Let me explain - my contribution above said merge or rewrite or delete, so I'm a real fence-sitter. And I note Wikifan's remark above, but I think this discussion has to happen here nevertheless. I have noted the contributions, many of them useful. To the unsigned comment immediately above, actually, no, as far as I can see "a large, well-funded anti-Israel lobby" does not exist. A significant lobby exists that is critical of US policy toward Israel, and critical of some Israeli domestic and international policy in the region. Almost no anti-Israel lobby appears to exist in the US. However the "important stuff here" (Commodore Sloat) can hardly be merely a footnote to the Israel lobby article. It is significant material. I think the best solution is to merge two articles into a single article. This is essentially Ravpapa's early suggestion in this AfD discussion, which had support from several other editors at that stage. The two to be merged are Israel lobby in the United States and Anti-Israel lobby in the United States (I realise there may be other articles tangentially involved, but these two are the key). The new article would be defined as being about "groups and individuals who influence United States foreign policy regarding Israel and its policies" (modification of a lead sentence in current 'Israel lobby in the United States'). The remaining question would be the title of the article. Ravpapa's suggestion was 'Middle East lobbying in the United States', however while I see his point, i wondered whether that title is too broad - there are plenty of countries and a few other issues in the Middle East than Israel alone. I think a case could be made for using the title 'Israel lobby in the United States' for all the material, since all of the lobbying we are discussing relates to Israel, and none of it (or almost none) is actually anti-Israel (by which I mean explicitly opposing the existence of Israel). However, I recognise that this might be seen as inconsistent with everyday usage of terms. If that is an insurmountable issue amongst editors, then I would probably lean toward Ravpapa's early suggestion. For what it's worth, I was sympathetic to some of Ravpapa's attempts to improve the article but, bottom line, the current article's title is an inherent problem. The groups Ravpapa was talking about just aren't anti Israel, and the title currently (and in future) will consistently provoke edit wars and be seen as in itself POV-pushing (which in my view it is, since the groups, I think I'm repeating myself here, are not anti-Israel). hamiltonstone (talk) 01:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nbauman and Zero. Paul kuiper NL (talk) 01:54, 23 July 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. Insufficient substantial, independent coverage to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca ^talk 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith McDuffee[edit]

Non-notable blogger per WP:NOTE/WP:BIO. I can't find any non-trivial coverage. Has been tagged as needing independent reliable sources for about 5 weeks but none have been forthcoming and I can't find any non-trivial treatment of him. Drawn Some (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable career. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lots of hits, but mostly authored by the subject or trivial mentions. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:54, 16 July 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:42, 24 July 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)).

Simon Addis[edit]

Non-notable person. Only references are genealogical directory entries. Fails both WP:NOTE and WP:NOTDIR: Wikipedia articles are not.....genealogical entries. Drawn Some (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Take it to WhichDeadPatriotIsThat.com. Crafty (talk) 02:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He was a soldier in the American Revolution, and was a family man. Neither makes him notable. Wikipdeia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 02:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would be a great entry in wikigeneology if such a project existed. Apteva (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who would not be happy to find him as an ancestor at www.ancestry.com. (which is not Wikipedia)?Edison (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm quite disappointed at the continued wikihounding of nom against the creator of this article, this is what brought this to my attention. Having done a quick search it didn't take long to find [80] quite a few hits suggesting there are sources to help fill in this stuby article to defend its inclusion. Historical figures by definition means that sourcing takes longer to find and interpret but even a basic google book search shows they indeed exist. It would be nice to have a better article explaining more the notability of this person but we have to also not push into original research and instead find the sourcing that explains the notability for us. If nom isn't willing to do that legwork then it may be best for them to focus on building articles of their own rather than attempting to remove the work of someone they apparently are at odds with.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjiboi (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, as I said in the nomination, the only available references are genealogical directory entries, as your search discovered. Since these were people from New Jersey, the references would be most likely to be found in NJ and NY libraries and Google was allowed to scan their books. I am surprised, Benjiboi, that you don't seem to understand WP:NOTDIR or else willfully choose to ignore the consensus that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. Please clarify which is the case because I am trying to AGF here about your comments. I am also concerned that you are dealing with deletion discussions on the basis of emotion rather than actually analyzing the articles and topics. Drawn Some (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources demonstrate that indeed this person is notable enough to be listed even though they died over 200 years ago. You incorrectly state "only available references", these are actually the only available references as of the moment on Google Books. My point is that if these sources are readily available it follows that others exist as well. I'm hardly basing my opinion on emotion but thanks for the allegation of such, AGF indeed. I didn't state you didn't do any searching but that you're working to delete an article that seemingly your main interest is the creator of it rather than the content; and that you seem unwilling to do the legwork of finding and adding the needed sourcing so it may be wisest to let those who are do so. Feel free to to find any personal attack, I'm pretty sure I avoided doing any such thing. -- Banjeboi 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You might take a minute to read WP:RS before throwing out accusations of bad faith. The problem with these sources is that they don't show notability; every one I looked at was either a paragraph or so in a genealogy (and I can tell you from personal experience that not all genealogies are reliable sources), or a passing mention in a book of will abstracts. These types of things have long consensus on Wikipedia as being trivial coverage, which WP:BIO specifically says does not establish the notability of the subject. I assure you I have no dog in this fight (I came across the AfD while doing AfD sorting), and a good faith search on my part isn't turning up reliable sources showing notability. If you think those sources are out there, by all means add them, but please be civil to the people who couldn't find them. (Closing admin - please take this as a delete !vote).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Drawn Some has a string of deletions against RAN and gives every impression of wikistalking them. Sorry, I just see this as yet another bad faith nom. The bio subject is long-dead so sourcing will have to be unearthed and likely will take time and patience which doesn't lend itself to a 7-day AfD skuffle. In these cases it takes nay but one source to show viola they are indeed notable. Yes it would be nice if that source majicly popped up to end this exercise but I have more trust in the article creator in this case than the nom. If someone rolled up who is an authority in American Revolutionary War and helped establish that indeed this person simply couldn't be notable for thier pre-war, war and post-war career then I could be swayed. I'd rather err conservatively that there is some notability here that needs to be spelled out and documented which is regular editing but certainly may take time. -- Banjeboi 14:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the purposes of this discussion, the nominator's motivations are not relevant. The article is clearly not eligible for inclusion and should be deleted. If you have concerns about Drawn Some's conduct towards the article creator you should raise that in the appropriate forum. Crafty (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm sorry, but his chief claim to notability is being a captain and fighting in a war. Well if that isn't notable enough to save Stephen Trujillo, who was also decorated for saving other soldiers and recognized by the President during the next State of the Union speech, then it isn't notable enough to keep Simon Addis. As for the wiki-stalking accusation, I can't see why this applies here and raising it looks like a diversionary smokescreen. The subject gives every appearence of being non-notable and should be nominated, regardless of who the author or nominator are. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Jersey military officers in the American Revolution, which seems to contain pretty much the same information about him anyway (whether that is a suitable page is another question not currently up for discussion). There is no point in duplicating the information when the list article isn't that long to start with and the likelihood of any dramatic expansion seems low considering the apparent lack of available sourcing. Guest9999 (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:RS and User:Niteshift36. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Jersey military officers in the American Revolution, no indication in the article that the subject did anything noteworthy Kernel Saunters (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, WP:RS or *Redirect to List of New Jersey military officers in the American Revolution. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant essay would be WP:MILMOS#NOTE which says "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is probably not notable." Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proposed redirect is to a list which also has no good reason for being in the encyclopedia. What is encyclopedic about being an officer (of any rank) including militia in a given war? Do not redirect. Consider for separate AFD List of New Jersey military officers in the American Revolution. Edison (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither this, nor the proposed redirect-to article demonstrate notability. Simply serving in the Revolutionary War is not enough. ThuranX (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer with, as far as I can see, nothing particularly notable about him. One of many thousands of similar rank and achievements. --
Delete -- A NN junior officer, unless there is evidence of some notable achievement (and there is none yet*. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 18 July 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) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phinditt[edit]

Declined speedy. Website with questionable notability, Alexa ranking of 2,165,583. Only third-party reference is a Facebook user comment. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The problem with "Phinditt" is the fact that I can't find any info about it. Maybe if a couple news sites picked up on it than I would change my mind, but right now the closest thing to that is a Facebook page that doesn't meet the cut. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The website appears to have active content, but I can't escape the feeling that it is mostly or completely manufactured, and does not lead anywhere. Bigboss1789 (talk · contribs) appears to be a WP:SPA. —EncMstr (talk) 06:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you can find many articles in google search for phinditt, it has notable sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigboss1789 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A google news search shows zero hits. That the site exists is not in question. That it is not currently notable is also not, in my view, in question, and it's still WP:SPAM regardless. (Disclosure: I speedied this article yesterday as a G11, which it still is; it was also then (and remains) an A7.) Frank | talk 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:WEB. Iowateen (talk) 07:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:59, 17 July 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Gage[edit]

Article is about a jewlery designer, but I find no evidence that this person passes the standard notability test, either the general notability guideline or the biography specific one. The article has only one reference, which is to the person's own self-made website, and the relevent google search: [81] turns up squadoosh as well. I find evidence that her stuff is on sale in places, but there does not appear to be the sort of in-depth & independent writing about her out there to use to build this article around. Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See New York Magazine, Oct 2, 1989 which said she was "Britain's best known jeweler". That was 20 years ago. Notability does not expire. See also [82] which calls her "one of the most influential jewelers of the late 20th century." See also [83]. Satisfies WP:BIO and WP:N. Edison (talk) 03:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw nom Thanks Edison. I couldn't find anything recent in either Google or Google news. Thanks for finding those sources. My concerns have been allayed. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - More recently, in 2007, the Sunday Sun calls her "one of the world's top jewellery designers", and "one of the world's most sought after designers".[84] Apteva (talk) 03:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, OK. I am an idiot. Duly noted... ;) Seriously, thanks for finding those sources. The article could really use them. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ooh! Shiny baubles! Edison (talk) 03:48, 16 July 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 Animal Farm. There are a lot of Delete !votes here, but since the AfD was started there are probably now enough sources for a section in the parent article. Merges can always be reversed. Black Kite 12:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm)[edit]

This page on its face violates Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It is only plot summary, and cites no out-of-universe sources. It has been tagged with merge for over a year, but the plot summary in that article is already adequate. Savidan 02:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No independent, outside sources about this specific plot element means it can adequately be covered in the main article. --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unencyclopedic. I am sure that the scholarly analysis of Animal Farm has touched on this section of the plot. But carving it out of the book and putting it on display is just not right. Abductive (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary with no encyclopedic value. Hypothetically, Critical Analysis of the Battle of the Windmill could (with appropriate sourcing of course) merit an article - but Battle of the Windmill (Animal Farm) is as crufty as it gets. A good scene from a good book does not automatically make a good - or even acceptable - article on an encyclopedia. Badger Drink (talk) 06:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say redirect to Animal Farm as a vaguely likely search term. Also the material is then available in the history in case anyone does get around to merging it. Granted they may not think to look there, but I don't see that we've anything to lose by keeping the redirect. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to merge or keep or whatever per A Nobody's work on the article. As DGG says, whether to merge is a separate and less permanent question than AfD's purpose. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Battle of the Windmill has a hatnote to Animal Farm, so a redirect is unnecessary. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to people looking at this nom, please note that there are two more Animal Farm articles nominated for deletion in a group nomination with several non-Animal Farm articles as well, on this day's AfDs. 76.66.192.91 (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With parenthetical dab text, an unlikely search term. No content worth merging (it's plot rehash that looks like a lame Sparknotes entry). --EEMIV (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article is no longer only plot summary and contains multiple secondary source analysis of this important aspect of a work studied in schools, i.e. per ongoing improvements, which means that in unequivocally meets both WP:V and WP:RS and moreover cannot be said to fail the heavily disputed WP:NOT#PLOT. At worst, article now contains mergeable content per WP:PRESERVE. In any event, is undeniably notable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added about the allegory can be merged into the Animal Farm article. There are many allegorical interpretations of AF; it would make more sense to talk about them as a whole rather than to write an article about each plot element of the work and say what various people think it represents. Savidan 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to a merge, as many of these sources discuss this battle alongside the Battle of the Cowshed in terms of their parallels, although a few actually do devote a solid paragraph to just this specific battle, but per the GFDL, we cannot delete this article's edit history in such a case. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of this original research will solve the GFDL "problem". Abductive (talk) 00:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Original research"?! Please be honest when commenting in AfDs. The article has multiple citations to published books. And any Google Book search demonstrates that even more such sources exist. Out of universe analytical commentary found in secondary sources that were published is unoriginal research. Deletion would in such a case would be anti-wikipedic. Sant Singh Bal describes the battle as one "of the important episodes which constitute the essence of the plot of the novel."^[1] Scholars have offered two interpretations of what the fictional battle represents, one seeing the book's events as a parallel to the French Revolution and the other as a parallel of the Russian Revolution. Harold Bloom writes that the "Battle of the Windmill rings a special bell: the repulse of the Duke of Brunswick in 1792, following the Prussian bombardment that made the windmill of Valmy famous."^[2] By contrast, Peter Edgerly Firchow and Peter Hobley Davison consider that in real life, with events in Animal Farm mirroring those in the Soviet Union, this fictional battle represents the Great Patriotic War (World War II^[3]), especially the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of Moscow.^[4] All of the above constitutes out of universe commentary by authors other than Orwell. Citing them represents tertiary research, as these authors were the ones who conducted original research in their published books. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research to extract a fictional battle from a book and analyse it alone. Show that this is done by scholars, and I will take back the OR claim. Abductive (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just cited THREE different scholars among many more who analyzed the battle and compared it to other real world occurences or who noted why this battle is an important aspect of a literary classic studied in numerous schools for decades. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BUT they analyzed it in context. Note that I predicted this response in my first comment here, and ended it with "But carving it out of the book and putting it on display is just not right." Abductive (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They analyzed the battle's real world comparisons as well as significance within this remarkably important work of fiction that students and scholars alike would indeed expect to find in such a comprehensive reference guide as Wikipedia, hence why editors have created and worked on this article and why readers have come here to read it. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why we treat it within the article on the book. The battles are, like real battles, not important without a context. Without a doubt, this is not the right way to arrange an encyclopedia; it is as dishonest as the least publishable unit. Abductive (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would mean at worst a merge and redirect with edit history intact and to suggest that even real battles are not important as stand alone articles runs counter to encyclopedic tradition as look at Britannica and you will indeed find battles as individual articles that are not just part of the articles on the wars. "The battles are, like real battles, not important without a context," you write. I am for once actually astonished and hope you are not serious, because to in effect suggest that we should not have Battle of Waterloo, because we already have Napoleonic Wars, as if Battle of Waterloo does not have sufficient context on it its own is not only downright absurd for even a paper encyclopedia like Britannica, but even more so for us. In any event, this article under discussion here provides the context, i.e. it is part of one of the maybe thousand or so most influential and significant novels of all time, is organized coherently into sections that detail the plot, explain its importance within the novel, and then how scholars have compared the battle to various real world battles either in the French Revolution or World War II. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many battles have been analysized in books, journal articles and newpapers. The Battle of Waterloo has a context, and to properly treat it it needs its own article. You have not demonstrated that this fictional battle is anaylized independently of the work in which it occurs, nor that it needs to be treated outside it main article. What I do know of your behavior is that you will argue for the saving of any fictional topic, without regard to the rules of this encyclopedia, length, context, usefulness, page views or any other reason other than saving fictional articles. Abductive (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources have you looked for and where? What efforts have you made to improve this article? What efforts have you tried at merging the content? This battle of the Windmill has a clear context and to treat it properly, it should have its own article. You have not demonstrated any valid reason why at worst we would not merge and redirect this article, but are being consistent with your indiscriminate approach to fiction related Afds that reflect neither familiarity with the topics under discussion or any efforts of following WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE as a contrast to the rest of us in these discussions who are discriminate and argue to keep ones like this that are obviously worth including in some capacity and to delete ones that are not such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Nog or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), which do not merit inclusion. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Nobody has expressed willingness to accept a merge and Abductive's comments about context seem to suggest (forgive me if I'm wrong) that they would also accept one. Can I therefore suggest that this argument, which is getting rather unpleasant and in any case is not really a matter for AfD, be put to rest? Olaf Davis (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its too big to roll back into the main article, it is no different than a character summary of a Simpson character. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or one could say it is no different than the Battle of Hogwarts which has been redirected to another article. Abductive (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

or we could say that this also was wrong. Fortunately a merge can be reversed, and after showing what the consensus is here, we should get back to that one. DGG (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep and discuss whether to merge or a keep. We do not delete articles because they violate the MOS, or there would be essentially zero content in Wikipedia--and that--incredibly-- seems to be the basis of this nomination. In general I think the plot of a fiction should be kept together and is more understandable that way. Even when there are conventional sources for notability, that is still an editorial decision. But it's an editorial decision. Its not a question for AfD. And no reason is given why there should not be a redirect--for there is no plausible reason. I am not altogether sure of the wisdom of this group of nominations. First, because they involved too many elements of too many different works. Second, because the items nominated together in the combination nominations are not in general of the same notability. Third, because they focus on major fiction where there is so much less important oversplit junk to deal with. fourth, because they make no attempt to follow BEFORE and look for sources, and worst, because they do not consider the possibilities of merging or redirecting. I was about to say that this crusade disrupts ongoing efforts to achieve a compromise, but, rather, perhaps the appearance of these AfDs might illustrate the urgent need for a stable compromise. DGG (talk) 04:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Notable element of notable work.

“

some articles are more equal than others

”

nb: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Cowshed running simultaneously. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having taken the time to actually read the article, I say keep. The writer of the book says in another novel of his, that it was one "of the important episodes which constitute the essence of the plot of the novel." Dream Focus 13:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge any relevant information into the main article. The main article is currently in very poor condition, and it certainly would benefit from more real world focus. If the main article becomes extremely long, and there is too much real world focus on this one element, it can be split again. TTN (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - undue weight on the topic as it stands now... and the main article could use the good parts of this article to repair it, as it has too much original character synthetic analysis and not enough scholarly (i.e. cited) analysis. ++Lar: t/c 23:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Animal Farm - good material that should not be lost. Artw (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that the only material worth merging was added after this article was nominated. Would be more efficient to just improve the main article but if a "rescue" is what it takes then so be it. Savidan 18:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep merger can be discussed separately, but there's plenty for a standalone article now. Jclemens (talk) 01:35, 21 July 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) 04:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ace (volleyball)[edit]

I PRODded this yesterday and the creator dePRODded and left me a note about the legitiacy of the game. As I explained to him there, it does not appear the game meets notability guidelines. A search is a bit of a challenge because there appears to be a play in voleyball called an "ace", but I find no evidence of reliable sourcing for this game and have brought it here for discussion as I'll be offline. StarM 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 02:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creating an article about drinking game and including no references is a party foul. Gigs (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like something made up at a wet school. Nyttend (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more appropriate for Everything2 than for Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Badger Drink (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:MADEUP. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Volleyball. It is a term used in this sport in the exact same way used in tennis. MuZemike 16:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone. Page creator here. The game is separate from the definition of an "ace serve", which is what MuZeMike is referring to. As StarM noted, due to the term doubling as a volleyball stat, it is hard to collect internet evidence. I just finished speaking with several players in the AVP Manhattan event going on today, and the director of South Bay and Santa Monica CBVA events (both prominent beach volleyball tours) in order to document the legitimacy of this variation of volleyball. Hopefully, several US national team players will be blogging about their history with the game of Ace, and alos the editor of Volleyball magazine has promised to document Ace in an upcoming issue.

Online reference links we've found so far by googling: http://www.club840.com/events.php?action=search_by_tag&tagKey=ACE Reference to college athletes playing in their spare time: http://www.dailynexus.com/article.php?a=9508 Reference to AVP pros playing: http://www.clubmedinsider.com/stories/view/165:volleyball-vacations/

If the article needs to be deleted for the time being due to lack of internet documentation, that's fine, we will wait until offline pubs are gathered and we'll repost at that point.

Thanks everyone! I hope you all get the chance to visit southern california at some point - if so, try to make it to your nearest beach to watch the game being played! Brianrodine (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)brianrodine[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) 04:52, 23 July 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)).

Peter Pumyea II[edit]

Non-notable person. Unreferenced article. Tagged as not meeting WP:NOTE since December 2007. Not only does it fail WP:NOTE, it fails WP:NOTDIR: Wikipedia articles are not.....genealogical entries. Drawn Some (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am adding Peter Pommieeje to this discussion as it is a redirect to this article. Drawn Some (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the nominator is correct. This minor patriot is not notable and Wikipedia is not a compendium of genealogical thingies. Crafty (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I've quite disappointed at the continued wikihounding of nom against the creator of this article, this is what brought this to my attention. Having done a quick search it didn't take long to find [85] quite a few hits suggesting there are sources to help fill in this stuby article to defend its inclusion. Historical figures by definition means that sourcing takes longer to find and interpret but even a basic google book search shows they indeed exist. It would be nice to have a better article explaining more the notability of this person but we have to also not push into original research and instead find the sourcing that explains the notability for us. If nom isn't willing to do that legwork then it may be best for them to focus on building articles of their own rather than attempting to remove the work of someone they apparently are at odds with. -- Banjeboi 12:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as your Google book search shows, the only available references are genealogical directory entries. Since these were people from New Jersey, the references would be most likely to be found in NJ and NY libraries and Google was allowed to scan their books. I am surprised, Benjiboi, that you don't seem to understand WP:NOTDIR or else willfully choose to ignore that consensus that Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. Please clarify which is the case because I am trying to AGF here about your comments. I am also concerned that you are dealing with deletion discussions on the basis of emotion rather than actually analyzing the articles and topics. Also please do not make comments that aren't true that I didn't do legwork. Please AGF. Your comments are a personal attack and will NOT be tolerated here on Wikipedia. Drawn Some (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These sources demonstrate that indeed this person is notable enough to be listed even though they died over 200 years ago. You incorrectly state "only available references", these are actually the only available references as of the moment on Google Books. My point is that if these sources are readily available it follows that others exist as well. I'm hardly basing my opinion on emotion but thanks for the allegation of such, AGF indeed. I didn't state you didn't do any searching but that you're working to delete an article that seemingly your main interest is the creator of it rather than the content; and that you seem unwilling to do the legwork of finding and adding the needed sourcing so it may be wisest to let those who are do so. Feel free to to find any personal attack, I'm pretty sure I avoided doing any such thing. -- Banjeboi 14:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As said in another AfD: I'm sorry, but his chief claim to notability is being a captain and fighting in a war. Well if that isn't notable enough to save Stephen Trujillo, who was also decorated for saving other soldiers and recognized by the President during the next State of the Union speech and much more in the way of sources, then it isn't notable enough to keep Peter Pumyea II. As for the wiki-stalking accusation, I can't see why this applies here and raising it looks like a diversionary smokescreen. The subject gives every appearence of being non-notable and should be nominated, regardless of who the author or nominator are. Even if there was the stalking you claim (and I'm not saying there is by any means), that should not invalidate the legitimacy of this nomination. If I'd seen it, I'd probably have nominated it myself. As for your sources.....they prove the person existed, which I don't think is being questioned. Nothing in them looks notable, which is the actual issue here, not allegations of wiki-stalking. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:BIO. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another relevant essay would be WP:MILMOS#NOTE which says "any person who is only mentioned in genealogical records or family histories, or is traceable only through primary documents, is probably not notable." Niteshift36 (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO and Wikipedia is not a directory of everyone mentioned somewhere in the "big directory of all soldiers who fought in a war." Ancestry.com is a more suitable venue for information which might be of genealogical interest. Edison (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other nom'd revolutionary war soldier. Serving is not enough, articles are genealogical in nature, no notability is established, and inclusion in a book which lists soldiers doesn't show notability. Those books are easily compiled by copying public documents, and aren't written for a purpose of being a particular biography of any one subject, but a directory, which isn't enough for notability, otherwise, anyone in the phone book would be eligible. ThuranX (talk) 16:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Junior officer with, as far as I can see, nothing particularly notable about him. One of many thousands of similar rank and achievements. -- Necrothesp (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A NN junior officer, unless there is evidence of some notable achievement (and there is none yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TOTSO[edit]

I was researching this because it seemed likely that it could be de-prodded. Unfortunately, my research led to quite the opposite conclusion. This appears to be one man's idea, and not actually a recognized form of junction. The recognized forms of junction don't have as odd-ball a name, but are the properly recognized ones. Several of the junctions listed as TOTSOs are what are actually called, in highway engineering, free-flow interchanges. To quote one of the many sources on just one of the junctions listed here as supposedly TOTSOs:

"Junction 3a is a free flow motorway-to-motorway interchange linking the M42 and the M40" (Mott MacDonald (December 2004). "M42 Active Traffic Management Traffic Conditions on the M42 J3a-J7 Nov 2002 to Oct 2003" (PDF). Highways Agency: 3–2. ((cite journal)): Cite journal requires |journal= (help))

The one man whose idea this is is one Chris Marshall, who runs the WWW site cited as the first source. There's no evidence that anyone else apart from him has documented this idea. Even Marshall himself doesn't document it to the extent that this article does. He only deals in U.K. roads. Needless to say, there's no evidence that Darmstädter Kreuz or the East Los Angeles Interchange are categorized in this fashion, even by Marshall himself let alone by anyone else. (The sourced cited for the East Los Angeles Interchange does not say anything to support this article.)

So not only is this one man's idea that hasn't been peer reviewed and incorporated into the general corpus of human knowledge, it's an original extension by Wikipedia editors of that idea — an extension made by Wikipedia editors on several language Wikipedias, no less. (So have a care when searching for sources to exclude information that has been taken from the Dutch and German Wikipedias.) There's no evidence that it's even used as an alternative name for a free-flow interchange. This is just double original research: Wikipedia editors' novel expansion of an idea that has yet to even escape its inventor. Uncle G (talk) 02:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the topic is not what throws me off, but the style it is written. It seems more like a definition entry with example lines to me. Moreover, inclusion of examples creates ambiguous topics, thus Wikitionary is a more appropriate place. Zoo Fari 03:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the dePRODer, but if Uncle G is making such a detailed case for deletion I am probably wrong. :) My thinking was that 1) a type of road system is almost inherently notable; 2) Two other Wikipedias already had info on this term, so it wasn't likely to be just something just made up; and 3) a couple editors were already talking about it on the talk page so it couldn't be too obscure. An internet search seemed to reveal usage of the term, but perhaps this info is coming primarily from Wikipedia as the term is used in 5 other Wikipedia articles currently. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to be somewhat of neologism combined with original research that decides whether an interchange fits the description. Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - neologism for a common but not too interesting characteristic of highway junctions. "Turn off to stay on" is just another way of saying, well, that the highway designation makes a turn. There is an issue of how to sign these on freeways, where the straight movement is really a left (or right) exit, and there have probably been government studies that have influenced the guidance in the MUTCD ([86]), but this would be better placed in an article about median-side exits if anywhere. --NE2 03:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some WP:OR that gave birth to a WP:NEO. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:06, 16 July 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. WP:SNOW. Closing per unanimous consensus. — Aitias // discussion 13:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Aircraft and Airports[edit]

This article is a content fork, a duplication of List of aircraft and List of Airports, which are well organized and continually updated by WikiProject:AVIATION. This article is not linked to by any other articles and not comprehensive. Canglesea (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of aircraft, uh, no, List of Airports, ah, heck, just Delete. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly a content fork. As per WP:CFORK Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia. Lantrix (talk) 01:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a duplicate and possible duplicate of another; nothing to merge and undesirable redirect. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 02:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful as adequately covered elsewhere. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Probably a good-faith attempt by a new user to contribute - might be worth it for someone with diplomtic skills to talk to them, if they'll listen. - BilCat (talk) 06:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I've added a note on the authors page. - Canglesea (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For above reasons Broadwayfan15 (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are List of Airports and List of aircraft, there is no link between them, so this article here is totally redundant. Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 14:47, 20 July 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/Snowball keep per changes made while this discussion was open. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Bread[edit]

This article was pointed to me in a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS contestation of a prod. Apparently, it fell through the cracks. Non-notable short movie. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a comedic short that itself has received recognition for nearly 20 years [87]. With respects to the nom and his good faith nomination, I am now involved in cleaning up and sourcing the article, as its former lack is not a reason to delete. What fell through the cracks was someone actually doing this cleanup. Thanks for bringing it forward so it can be done. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to good work by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs), there are sufficient sources already to demonstrate notability. — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep TY Q, a real editor. QQ some more, Deletionists. Note that the proper forum for bringing the attention of the community to an article is RFC. Anarchangel (talk) 11:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Schmidt. Joe Chill (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP Extensively referenced article on a short film distributed by a major cpmpany. Aliveatoms (talk) 00:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night of the Living Dead Reanimated[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable movie remake. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, movie has not even been released yet. Article is excessively hype-y, reeks of a COI somewhere. The sources in the article are all either first-party, self-published, or non-notable fourth-tier fan-blogs. Applaud the project for being CC-SA, though. Badger Drink (talk) 06:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice and userfy to author until the film's notability can be established in reliable sources. Also, suggest he visit WP:MOS and WP:RS so as to create a more encyclopedic for when it returns. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep Non-admin close. Speedy keep per WP:Speedy keep, nom withdrawn, no other "Delete" !votes.. ukexpat (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Zinkhan[edit]

This page does not meet criteria for notability. The Wikipedia notability page states: "It takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability - particularly for individuals known for one event (WP:BLP1E)." The Wikipedia notability (criminal acts) page lists three criteria for perpetrators:

1. The person is "notable for something beyond the crime itself." 2. "The victim is a renowned world figure." 3. "The motivation for the crime or execution of the crime is unusual or... is a well-documented historic event.

This page does not meet these criteria. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.161.208 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am completing this nomination procedurally for the IP. 67.x posted the given rationale at Talk:George Zinkhan. Ladyof Shalott 01:08, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there was a previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George M. Zinkhan. I was the nominator in that case, and it was closed as speedy keep after all votes were keep and I withdrew my nomination. Ladyof Shalott 01:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Rationale from first Afd still applies - easily passes WP:PROF. Involvement in murders is additive, not the sole reason for notability. ukexpat (talk) 01:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - even though I am completing the nomination for the IP, I think notability has been well established. Notability is not solely dependant on the final events of Zinkhan's life, but is rooted in his academic career. Ladyof Shalott 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Ladyof Shalott 01:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: His award makes Zinkhan meet criteria 2 of the notability guideline for academics. Not sure if his extensive writing record/bibliography does with that guideline though. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he likely would have survived an AfD just based on being the Coca-Cola Chair of Marketing at his major university and having an h-index over 30, plus he killed three people and was all over the news, including his bizarre attempt to ditch his car and bury himself so he would never be found. Abductive (talk) 03:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LadyofShallot, thank you for finalizing the deletion process. I originally placed the nomination. I did not see the previous AfD on this issue and would like to withdraw my nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.161.208 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 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 Consumer organization. This should probably have just been BOLDly redirected in the first place as it is a useful redirect. Black Kite 12:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consumer forum[edit]

Article was originally about a specific "Consumer Forum" website in India. After the notability of that site was challenged, the article seems to have morphed into one about consumer forums websites in general. Consumer forum websites may well be a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article, but what we have here appears to be completely original research. If someone wants to write an article on consumer forum websites, they would pretty much need to start from scratch. Kubigula (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Consumer organization. Despite the additional edits, the current article is still a vehicle promote a site in India. The concept that is generally encompassed is that of a consumer organisation, and so the redirect is helpful as an alternate name. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 15 July 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 00:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Hassle[edit]

Seems to fail notability guidelines generally, though the subject was at one time appointed to a Board by the Swedish government. A lack of independent reliable sources is an indication subject lacks true encyclopedic notability. Also note some coatracking of information about his writings and projects.

Delete as nominator. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC) /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 01:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 9 July 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 00:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per WP:NOTE/WP:BIO. Plantagon appears to be notable but I didn't investigate that in-depth because that isn't the purpose of this discussion. Trivial mentions of his name can be found as a spokesperson for this company but I don't see anything focusing on him. Drawn Some (talk) 00:46, 16 July 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. Closing despite outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Chisholm (police chief)[edit]

Failes to pass WP:N Irunongames • play 00:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - first police chief of the largest police force in Canada. How is that not notable? Dodge rambler (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Chief Constables of Toronto inherently pass WP:BIO IMO. youngamerican (wtf?) 00:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For a police chief in a city as big as Toronto, I would expect non-trivial mentions in major newspapers at least once a month. And the article already provides five such mentions. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High-profile job, notable, plenty of media coverage. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very Notable. Pretty much the comments above cover that, I'm just putting in my vote. KMFDM FAN ^(talk!) 01:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
snowball keep clearly notable. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs appear to be obituaries, which fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS and do not satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They appear to be obituaries, to be sure, but news obituaries count as long as the newspaper is reliable, which I'm sure this is. The presence of a source nearly fifty years newer than the rest means that he doesn't fail BLP1E, or even BDP1E since he's dead rather than living. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Irunongames. Article does not fail WP:N. –blurpeace ^(talk) 13:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When I nominated the article, the article was much smaller and only have one source. Sorry for any inconviance to the editer Irunongames • play 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Utris[edit]

Non-notable band with minimal writeup in reliable third-party sources. No evidence of notability provided in the article. Fails WP:BAND. Astronaut (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I could find is trivial mentions. Fails WP:MUSIC. Iowateen (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a couple of mentions on band playlists but nothing that establishes notability. [88]. LibStar (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate evidence of meeting WP:N. JJL (talk) 14:11, 16 July 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. I'd be happy to fetch the deleted content if anyone wants to preform a merge. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Ore Rally[edit]

Tagged as unreferenced and non-notable since October 2008. Tagged as orphaned since February 2009. No attempt has been made to address these issues so the article should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 22:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete because although it seems notable in biker forum, none of the sources I can find through google seem to be reliable. This site [89], published by "Egremont and District Labour Party" looks to be as close to reliable as they get. There are no relevant news archive results. There might be something in motorcycling magazines - I don't have any so can't look myself. WP:V is the key policy here, as if what is said can be verified I'd say the even was notable enough. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Egremont, Cumbria. Half of the article is about the town itself, and some of what's left is more promotional than informative. I can't see any potential for this to grow beyond a stud, so the few bits of information worth keeping would best be mentioned as a town event. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Because of WP:N.. South Bay (talk) 04:34, 16 July 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 Userfy. Moved to User:Mlmartens/Export strategy (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Export strategy[edit]

Borderline WP:OR, it's not about what it says at the top of the article, it's an essay about the disadvantages of exporting, not about export strategies. role^player 23:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page is being edited by students who are working on a project for class. Please give them some time to fill out the page and complete the project. I'm the instructor for the class on International Business at Fairleigh Dickinson University. - Dr. Martin L Martens mlmartens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlmartens (talk • contribs) 20:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a free wiki hosting service for class projects. It is an encyclopaedia. Things that are not encyclopaedia articles do not belong here, and the WMF's servers are not provided for general purpose use. Please read Wikipedia:School and university projects. Uncle G (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sounds like more than borderline OR to me. Looks like nothing other than a "Disadvantages of Exporting" essay, not encyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any problem with the students taking a stab at writing a real article, but it has been a week and there has only been one edit done. I would suggest listing the project at WP:School and university projects, and stubbing the article rather than deleting it. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with the students learning a real world example of an article being deleted. I think, to give the benefit of the doubt, the goal is to create a useful article, not to use the servers for a school project. Apteva (talk) 03:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. Move to User:Mlmartens/Export strategy. It's not clear what the article is about. Writing an article from a real book is to be encouraged. Unfortunately, is currently reads like a poorly sourced essay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:34, 16 July 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. No arguments have been presented to counter the deletion rationales after two weeks, so I think closing this as delete is appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Zanidean[edit]

In spite of the care that went into making this article seem to comply with Wikipedia's notability requirements, it does not. Here is the only mention in a reliable source. Deprodded. Abductive (talk) 02:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm going to have to look at WP:ATHLETE as the category and he fails that. Could almost argue that he falls under WP:ENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 16 July 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. No arguments have been presented to counter the deletion rationales after two weeks, so I think closing this as delete is appropriate. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Barker (editor)[edit]

Of the 13 references provided 2 are about Barker (Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal), the rest are either about the blog he writes or are primary sources from the blog itself and dont do much to establish the notability of this biography. One reference doesn't even mention Barker at all. Perhaps an article about the blog would be more appropriate. RadioFan (talk) 02:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Delete and potentially create an article about the blog. Gosox5555 (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily Deleted per G12 of this by SarekOfVulcan. NAC -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 06:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mount Players[edit]

Non-notable amateur theatre company. No reliable, independent sources asserting notability provided. This is a contested PROD, details of contesting can be found at User talk:Trlovejoy#The Mount Players and on the article talk page. Mattinbgn\^talk 04:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that this company, which has been going for 37 years, has not been noticed, but a quick search finds nothing independent. Someone must have noted it. The original author does not understand that "notability" on wikipdia, simply means being noted by others. This could be a useful article if notability can be established. I remain neutral for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 05:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I spent some time attempting to locate evidence of notability but was unable to do so beyond a few references in the local media as to various performances. The bulk of the article is a direct lift from the company's website. florrie 06:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowlark Health and Shopping Centre[edit]

I see nothing notable about this one-storey mall. Abductive (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 10:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found, not even under the old name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any reliable sources talking about this shopping center. A small one-story mall is additionally unlikely to garner coverage unless one or more important events took place there and/or it is a very popular, widely known mall. In this case, neither condition is satisfied. Tim meh 23:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another non notable mall. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 22 July 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gotham Chopra[edit]

This article is about a living person with no extraordinary accomplishments. The article seems to be self-promotional in nature. For example, it is claimed that Gotham Chopra has written two books. One of the books listed is an animation film and the second has no reference. The credibility of these claims cannot be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalobay (talk • contribs) 2009/07/09 06:03:07

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he was the leading force behind Virgin Comics and created a number of the titles, wrote one (The Sadhu) and edited most of them. If the Newsweek quote can be sourced I think that is enough to be going on with. A better approach might have been that before AfDing this article flag your concerns by adding tags to it as he is an important figure, it is just that this article needs improving and rewriting. (Emperor (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Emperor makes a good point. Chopra was one of the founders of a notable comic book company. This alone would give the guy a good chance at notability. Furthermore, a quick check of recent Google News articles proves Chopra has sufficient notability for his own article. Tim meh 00:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Gotham is certainly notable in his own right, being the cofounder of a noted comic book company. His notability increased greatly after the death of Michael Jackson. Michaelh2001 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Aitias // discussion 13:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew M. Potts[edit]

This article is about a living person with no extraordinary accomplishments. The article seems to be self-promotional in nature. There is little, if any evidence of NPOV and other appropriate language. The references are, in almost all cases, to self-authored articles on external websites A7914371 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 18:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a very good article, but appears that substantial improvement is possible. "No extraordinary accomplishments" is not grounds for deletion. Nominator is an SPA who appears only to be interested in deleting this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - see also the edits of 124.168.120.60 (talk · contribs) who left the exact same text as the nominator (A7914371) on the article talk page. Astronaut (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No effort to establish notability might be a better description, and regular inclusion of potentially defamatory information. Also, in the first section alone there are eight non-existent links. Established Australian journalists have much more succinct entries. If you can clean it up, please clean it up. The point of deletion was that it didn't seem to merit a proper going-over (A new account is not automatically an SPA) A7914371 (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the article has many references, they're all things written by Potts as part of his work as a journalist or in response to his work. There are no sources about him, so WP:BIO isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless more secondary sources are found. He seems notable, but it fails requirements of WP:BLP. Gosox5555 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see where he passes notability. He writes articles, that isn't in dispute. But absent awards or other third part recognition or coverage, he is simply a guy doing his job. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 22 July 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Child Trends[edit]

Article appears to be self-promotion, subject is not notable Dr.enh (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources = nonnotable. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Child Trends claims to be "the nation’s only independent research and policy center focused exclusively on improving outcomes for children." [90] And a Google search will show that they are just what they say they are. Child Trends is extensively and authortatively cited in newspaper articles, academic journals and government publications. Here are some of the papers which cited Child Trends research just in the last 7 months: USA Today, Reuters, Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Record, Slate, The New York Times, The New York Times Magazine.[91] Child Trends not only makes the news when one of it's reports is cited, merely releasing a new research report is newsworthy. [92][93] The database which Child Trends maintains is comprehensive and impressive [94]. One of their researchers, Jennifer Manlove, when Googled with Child Trends generates 1950 hits. WP may not think Child Trends is notable, but anyone doing research on children knows who they are. Lionelt (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the current stub is a mess, but there are lots of WP:RS, see [95], available. Rescue and fix. Bearian (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: provided that more reliable sources are added. South Bay (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Lionelt. Iowateen (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article still has no reliable sources, and using Bearian's sources, the article would have to be pruned back drastically. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So prune it back. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you really want me to. The article now contains one sourced line: "Child Trends nonprofit organization.[1]" --Dr.enh (talk) 03:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Without the unsourced material, the article consists of a single line: "Child Trends nonprofit organization.[1]" --Dr.enh (talk) 03:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above have more info than that one sentence. The official site can be used for info also, but not towards notability. You shouldn't have done anything to the article. We all know that you want the article deleted because you are the one that nominated it. Iowateen (talk) 04:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have undid your edits. Iowateen (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user:Dr.enh edit [96] is an amazing and wanton act of vandalism.

I don't know if this is relevant, but I am engaged in an edit war with Dr.enh at the Traditional marriage movement article. The subject of the conflict is the reliability of Child Trends as a source. He's deleting the Child Trends cite, I'm restoring it. I reported him on WP:AN3. Lionelt (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iowateen, what info do the sources above beyond the fact that Child Trends is a nonprofit? --Dr.enh (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr.enh, on 7/9/09 you nom. this article for deletion. When the consensus started to go against you, you blanked the article on 7/16. [97] You may claim you were only taking Bearnian's suggestion to "prune it back," but it was obviously an act of intentional vandalism. Considering you have no intention of improving the article, you should withdraw your nom. forthwith. At the very least, you should recuse yourself from this discussion. Lionelt (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article still has no reliable sources. I added the only reliable source to the article, and it was immediately removed. The person who removed it restored unsourced material, in violation of WP:BURDEN --Dr.enh (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm tired of you twisting the guidelines, vandalizing the article, and lying about the amount of reliable sources and info. Note:I am Iowateen. I had a username change. Joe Chill (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no need for your WP:CIVIL uncivil language, but there is a need for you to back up your aguments. Can you find a WP:RS reliable secondary source for anything in the article, beyond the fact that Child Trends is a nonprofit? If so, why have you not cited it? --Dr.enh (talk) 05:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not uncivil because it is the truth (your edits relating to Child Trends proves it). I'm not the only person that said that also. The sources above like this have info about their reports. The reports can be added to the article and summarized because info about the reports appeared in many reliable sources. I didn't need to give you evidence because Lionelt already did. Joe Chill (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems very widely used as an authoritative source. See the entire GNewsArchive search [98] I agree that's not a secondary source, but it seems convincing. If this needs IAR,then IAR. DGG (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having a lack of reliable sources. A nonnotable organization is a nonnotable organization, whether it promotes a noble cause or not. Them From Space 05:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maine 4 President[edit]

Non-notable album with little context. Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 23:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 09:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. — Aitias // discussion 13:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gypsy tour[edit]

Unreferenced since December 2007 and only linked to by a single article. Adds no value to Wikipedia and should be deleted. Biker Biker (talk) 22:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are other references available in newspapers and books in addition to the one that was in the article. I added another. Notable topic per WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe that Laconia is the most recent stop on the tour, but that there are basically four stops on the tour, one being Sturgis, I think. It should be easy to find references. Apteva (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are relevant references, and the subject is enough notable in my opinion.Rirunmot (talk) 16:28, 16 July 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.