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 both. Icewedge (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who do not label their sexual orientation[edit]

List of people who do not label their sexual orientation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of people who appear to fall into several similar but different categories, none of which have their own article (presumably because the label or lack of label has no bearing on defining behaviour). Included in the "list of people who do not label their own sexual orientation" is a singer who is quoted as saying "I guess you would call me bisexual". All entries seem to be celebrities who are quoted by the press, which may imply a reluctance to discuss their sexuality with the general public, rather than a some strongly held belief. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to all, esp. closing admin - After nomination and many of the votes/comments below, this article was split into two: List of people who do not label their sexual orientation and Unlabeled Sexual Orientation. Further commentors and the closing admin should be aware of this split. LadyofShalott 01:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a very strange list and the problems with sourcing are sketched clearly by the nominator. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pomosexual. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see numerous problems with this page; not to mention it could include just about anybody. It certainly doesn't belong here, though.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is an odd, and really quite crap, list. Four names, 3 I've never heard of, 1 who doesn't deserve their own page. Get rid off this. Alan16 (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with borderline article Pomosexual. Tacky listcruft really, but I can see a case for a merge here. Crafty (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Upon considered reflection and the views offered by SpacemanSpiff. Crafty (talk) 03:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia isn't the place for stupid lists like this. Alan16 (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this a list of people who are asked about their sexual orientation and defy labels? It looks more like a list of people who tell a reporter, "It's none of your damn business". Mandsford (talk) 02:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per Comment above. This is a strange list of no consequence. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the fact that the list fails WP:SALAT by virtue of including any public personality who desires some privacy. Also, the history of the article is a bit interesting with the name changes etc. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- Note that this is a second nomination. The first discussion referred to the prior name of the article and can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlabeled sexual orientation. LadyofShalott 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The implication that "doesn't talk about sexual orientation in public" means "does not label sexual orientation" is original research. --NellieBly (talk) 05:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 05:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both This was an article at Unlabeled sexual orientation before it was moved to List of people who do not label their sexual orientation yesterday. It has previously been nominated for deletion via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unlabeled sexual orientation on May 1, 2009. Additionally, this article was previously deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual in which during that Afd, Anthrosexual was moved to Undefined sexuality, which after deletion now redirects to the article subject of this Afd. Same creator of each article.- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 06:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed mine from Delete to Delete Both since, in an obvious attempt to circumvent this process, the creator of the "List" copied and pasted the content into "Unlabeled sexual orientation" and made a few minor changes to make it appear as a second article. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a consensus to Delete. My intention in moving/renaming this article was not to bring about an AfD. It was because the article was developing into a list, and that list's connection with the article title was as tenuous as the insignificant material used to substantiate the title itself. I have no problem if people wish to delete this list, because the article is almost as pointless now as it was before (although the title reflects the contents more accurately now). Mish (talk) 07:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all the good reasons already listed and that I don't need to repeat.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lists of people that don't do something seem pointless, and the defining scope seems synthetic.YobMod 09:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems like it could be a pointless, infinite, impossible to keep up list. However, should it be kept, at the risk of making a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, I'd like to use the precedent to make List of people who are not Batman. --Smashville^talk 13:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ill be bold here in my opinion. I think the article is salvagable. There is defineatly some notability to the topic. I think the article name is a poor choice and i think the article would be better served without so much emphasis of these people. That said is there another article that covers this topic? Can the article be merged or redirected? I beleive there was a previous discussion pertaining to pomosexual and merging there which fell through. Beyond that i think the information is relevant. Just my opinion (but if consensus is to delete thats the way it goes Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the grounds that i have reverted the page back to it's origional title, unlabeled sexual orientation. Someone moved the page with NO consensus .--cooljuno411 20:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You also removed the AfD tag. I have replaced it. Do not remove it again - the deletion discussion must run its course, no matter what title the article/list/whatever has. LadyofShalott 20:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And i kindly fixed your mistake. Next time readd the tag, don't be lazy and revert... it destroys the previous edits.--cooljuno411 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote as I don't think I can objectively vote on this, but I have to say, what are we, OK! Magazine? I know that "inherently unencyclopedic" is a WP:ATA, but this sure seems that way to me. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: List of people who do not label their sexual orientation was moved back to Unlabeled Sexual Orientation by its creator User:Cooljuno411 and then undid the redirect from List of people.. to Unlabeled Sexual Orientation and recreated a "different" but same article at List of people who do not label their sexual orientation whereby we now have 2 practically identical articles. So when this is deleted, they both need to be deleted. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Also, considering the article creator's tendancy to recreate it, Salt under this and the the other names. Edward321 (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the entire mess (both versions thereof - I'm not sure if we need to start a separate AfD). I have supported keeping in the past, but there has been plenty of time to provide references; I'm sorry to say this is basically original research. LadyofShalott 22:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Sorry, this really causes more problems than clarifying anything. The salient points - that must also need to be notable - can be sent to the BLPs and worked in if needed. Sexual identity can house a paragraph noting that some people, even famous ones, avoid labels. There, one sentence, problem solved. -- Banjeboi 22:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete them both, salt the earth: Seriously? Quite aside from that I don't remotely accept the creator's quite subjective definitions - which are half-neologism - the examples given conflate refusal to define one's sexual preference into some flavor of bisexuality. You know something? Stick a microphone in my face and ask me what my sexual preference is, I'm likely to respond "None of your bloody business." Does that make me a Person Who Does Not Label My Sexual Orientation? Enormously subjective, fails WP:LIST insofar as it could include a few hundred million people.  RGTraynor  10:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would like Wikipedia's BLP guidelines to limit and control such lists. They are created in good faith by people acting in a thoughtful manner. But then they get added to by others, still acting in good faith, but more spontaneously. Personally, I think the results can be more harmful than deliberate vandalism. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both -- this is just... I don't know, but I can't see a way to make either of these reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The vast majority of people do not label their sexual orientation, so this, if it was anything like complete, would be an indiscriminate list. There may possible be an argument to be made for a list of people who label their sexual orientation as "unlabelled" (or "unlabeled" if there are more of these on the single-"l" side of the Atlantic). Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Time to close per WP:SNOW? Alan16 (talk) 21:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur - on both articles. Mish (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - But not per SNOW. Let it run out and then delete it so vandal edits after the fact can be speedied. Shadowjams (talk)
• Delete both. A list of people who don't fall into any other list? A list for people who have explicitly said they don't belong on any existing lists? Sounds like publicity or voyeurism (or the symbiotic combination of the two) but not notable.  Frank  |  talk  15:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both with prejudice. Ridiculous and impractical WP:OR-ish concept at best. At worst, a POV attempt to list all the people who won't publicly bend to set social labels of sexuality. Rd232 ^talk 10:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that is unnecessarily harsh. I think the article was probably created in good faith, and not in some malicious manner. Alan16 (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say that it definitely was. Hence the formulation. And POV =! "bad faith". Rd232 ^talk 05:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV isn't bad faith. We all have a POV, some people hide it better than others. Alan16 (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, != (or =!) is geekspeak for "not equal to". Rd232 ^talk 05:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only come across != in IT, not =! (which would be equivalent), but I'd tend to go for <> myself. Mish (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was a typo if you really want to know :) Rd232 ^talk 09:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I should have said ≠ (not <> which shows my age), although not equivalent to would be !≡ rather than != not equal to

• Delete This is a bizarre topic and maintainance would impratical at best.-- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PowerMax.com[edit]

PowerMax.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy tag removed by an IP on the grounds that the company exists. No assertion of notability beyond that, except for a talk-page assertion that the store once had its storefront smashed by a car. Delete.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was just restoring your speedy tag when I saw you opened this up. I looked and could find nothing that makes this company notable. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Thanks for your $0.02, but the fact the video circulated across some of the biggest blogs on the planet makes this as credible as half the viral videos and other questionable stuff Wikipedia includes. Motobasura (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • An opinion about bringing up the fact that similar stuff exists. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how Tekserve meets notability requirements, because I'm just not seeing how their article proves any more notability than the PowerMax article. Motobasura (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, if the video of the accident is notable, then the article should be about that video, not about the business that got hit. A couple of years ago, a building blew up right before my eyes, and the aftermath was on local news. That makes the incident notable, but I don't think anyone wanted to know about the business that got hit, aside from the simple fact it was a hair salon. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe I'm just missing it, but the article doesn't even seem to assert notability, let alone prove it. (Ever notice how people who !vote Don't Delete instead of Keep are invariably users with a personal stake in the discussion and a short or sketchy edit history?) The reason given for the removal of the speedy doesn't at all address the reason the speedy was posted. The article is not nonsense - clearly, its subject exists, but that's not notability. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonnotable co., the video is not about the company itself. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No RS pieces to show notability, definitely was A7 material, an early close might not be a bad option. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 03:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even a search of the business journal for the area the place is based came up with no hits, and they cover everything, thus even after a search, fails WP:CORP. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a chain of computer repair businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the fact that this company is one of the largest resellers of used apple goods, and that apple is one of the biggest corporate supporters in the computing world for open source software development is EXTREMELY notable. It allows people to support apple through less financially straining means then having to purchase a product brand new at full retail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.13.185 (talk) 17:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC) — 173.11.13.185 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Keep. PowerMax.com has established itself as a pop culture icon for reasons stated in the article, and their loveable and quirky mascot is one of the most recognizable characters in the Northwest amongst deal-hunting Apple users ages 10 to 29. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.197.246.30 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no relevant news articles exist. Alexius08 (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Can find no evidence this is a notable company. Rnb (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't see where they pass WP:CORP. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Maybe it's a regional thing, but PowerMax/The Mac Store are really well known in the Washington/Oregon area. The association with Apple is certainly notable, and the event with the Mac Store crash thing was covered by more than 2,000 independent secondary sources: http://www.google.com/search?&q=Car+Smashes+Through+A+Mac+Store+and+Vindicates+Windows+Users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.64.54 (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC) — 97.115.64.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Reply: that event alone would not be enough. Alexius08 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 23:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia[edit]

Allegations of state terrorism by Russia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete POV title; this was a no-consensus close last time round, but this has been tagged for cleanup for soooo long and no one is bothering to clean it up, time for it to go now. Anything non-trivial here can or should be found in Human rights in Russia, so we don't need this POV-bomb lurking around what we call an encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article describes allegations of poisoning, staging terrorist acts, waging a war in a province. I think such allegations are of related yet different scope comparing to human rights violations. Note that the editorial voice of the article does not and should not allege such crimes. --ilgiz (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:Seems to WP:OR, should be merged in Human rights in Russia. On the other hand incidents such as Russian apartment bombings seems to me as act of state terrorism, but they lack one or two references. yousaf465

It should be pointed out that the section about Russian apartment bombings is highly biased when compared to the main article. It doesn't mention any criticism of the conspiracy theories, and uses biased wording: "The bombings had stopped after a controversial episode when a similar bomb was found..." (implying that the controversial episode was the reason why the bombings stopped, although there is no evidence to support this.) This section is clearly a POV-fork. Offliner (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator Offliner (talk) 12:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of the content is salvageable and can be merged into appropriate articles (if it's not there already), but the article itself most definitely should go, if only because of its POV title and approach. Delete—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:13, July 29, 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Per nomination and per yousaf465.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, OR. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 15:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I know there are some weak keep arguments, but there are good ones too and very little are supporting deletion - so close to a snowball here. JForget 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgom[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability outside that of the fictional universe. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: We're working on it.Fractyl (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: List of characters from a notable television series. Its inclusion in the parent article Kamen Rider BLACK would make the article way too clunky and long. Fractyl has been attempting to include more real world information in the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is not the place for these kind of lists. These kind of lists are better suited to Specialty wikis, such as Wookiepedia, or other such fiction-specific wikis. Secondly, notability is not inherited.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That is your own personal feelings on the matter. The subject would is notable for inclusion if it were a part of a larger article. Right now it is not because it has expanded beyond fitting in the original article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, it isn't. I suggest you read WP:NOT.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a list of fictional characters. I fail to see how it is not notable for inclusion because there are "no sources to establish notability outside that of the fictional universe". I've never seen that as a deletion rationale for a list of characters. And that is the last I am going to say on the matter. In March, you went on a spree listing every single page for deletion. This just seems to be an extension of those actions months later.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me clarify something. If there should be any form of eliminating this from the main space, the usable content (major characters within the list, the barebones list of monsters) should be merged into Kamen Rider BLACK as the article, as is, is too large to be flatout merged. Deletion is a ridiculous overreaction. Also, it is going to be nigh impossible to find sources in news and the like for characters from a 22 year old Japanese television series. The Japanese name shows up over 30 thousand times in Google, several examples on the first page being fansites dedicated to the fictional antagonists. These two [1] [2] are clearly about the subject, which is all that one can really find for such an old series. For those who cannot read Japanese, there are nearly 60 times as many google hits, including "Rider" as a way to get rid of false positives.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — take it to Wikia; this is not a fansite. Unsourced, non-notable, plot, cruft, yada, yada... Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: we will work in this article ASAP! --Punk 911 (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So what are you saying, that you were just going to let it sit otherwise? Working on the article means nothing unless you can find sources.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  He's saying that it can be improved. Like all articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Let this page stay. We worked so hard on this one to get the monster info. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps you should read policies/guideleines like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NOT and WP:NOTABLE before making arguments like that here. Arguments like "but we worked so hard on this" is not going to help anything. This is Wikipedia, not a fansite. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Ryulong. Edward321 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is one of those sad examples of Wikipedia deletion-bait. It's arguably notable enough for a short treatment, but the fact that it's so extensive actually works against its cause, making it far too tempting a target. However, other than its length, there's nothing compelling about deleting it. -Miskaton (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I await to hear the opinions of those not in the project.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What "project"? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 20:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This one.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you awaiting opinions from non-"project" people? Not that I object, but I'm just wondering. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 21:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because so far, everyone that has been working on these article has voted to keep, while one non-project member has voted to delete. That is what it looks like.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I am a member of that project too. Do you think the project members aren't as neutral as non-project members? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So far you're the only one who has shown otherwise.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you mean? —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Everyone that is in that project, besides you, wishes to keep a NN article, despite the fact that it doesn't even meet GNG.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have an opinion on whether the page should be kept, actually. My reply to Rtkat3 was based on the fact that the argument is invalid for any AfD, and the links I provide are used as a way to understand when pages should and shouldn't be here. For this article, I'm neutral. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems to be a very poor idea. Just because you think this article is of a non-notable subject does not mean that others do as well. Edward321 and Miskaton are both not members of WP:TOKU. And they made their own decisions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The information wouldn't fit in the main article, that's why character lists are usually a separate article. It list all the bad guys from a notable series. Dream Focus 06:22, 31 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 - but the article needs continued cleanup and watching per WP:BLP. Famous for a famous event, the subject is likely to remain in the news and he may yet have a footnote in history. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad Murray[edit]

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

A thoroughly inappropriate WP:BLP1E in the middle of an ongoing and high-profile legal case. The initial justification for this article cited Murray's having "gained more than enough name recognition and notoriety to merit his own page". However, Wikipedia is not here to perpetuate anybody's "notoriety", and WP:BLP's in particular should not be fanning flames. If Murray is confirmed (and not just anonymously suspected) to have had a role in the death of Michael Jackson, and is formally found liable (e.g., through a criminal conviction), then--maybe--he would warrant an article of his own. As it stands, however, the subject of this article needs a bodyguard due to assumptions that may or may not be ultimately verified; he is covered sufficiently (perhaps even excessively) already in Death of Michael Jackson, and he does not need to be subjected to presumptions of independent notability that could, if ultimately discredited, be construed as massive defamation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lets wait to see if he is charged with manslaughter until we make an article. Portillo (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: It's unknown if he killed MJ. Fails WP:ONEVENT. Joe Chill (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nomination, to which I have nothing to add. Fails BLP. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, BLP, and the emphasis is clearly undue. Anything that would need to be mentioned could be mentioned on one of many Michael Jackson related pages. This would be a POV content fork at very best. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirectClosing admin, please don't read this as a Keep opinion WP:BLP1E most definitely applies here. The biographical information is irrelevant to the overall notability of the man. What little information is there is already covered at Death of Michael Jackson. The only useful part of the article, "The doctor, who joined Jackson's camp in May 2009 as part of his London concert agreement with AEG Live, has been interviewed by police twice but has not been considered a suspect in the singer's death. Officials from the Drug Enforcement Administration executed a warrant at Dr Conrad Murray's offices in Houston, Texas reportedly looking for "items constituting evidence of the offense of manslaughter". [4][5][6]" is found in the Death of Michael Jackson article as "Los Angeles police said the doctor spoke to officers immediately after Jackson's death, and during an extensive interview two days later. They stressed that they found "no red flag" and do not suspect foul play.[46]" That information could (not necessarily) be incorporated into the Death of Michael Jackson article, but the rest needs to go. NW (Talk) 01:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have to chuckle at being 'bot notified of this discussion as the supposed "creator" of the article. I created a redirect. And that remains my opinion as to what should be here. You don't need deletion to solve this. Just revert back to either this version or this version of the page. Cosmic Latte, you could have just done that. Uncle G (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would have to agree and wait until the whole thing unfolds. Once his culpability is revealed one way or another, we could always simply merge. To delete it now would definitely be premature.--Hourick (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: WP:BLPSTYLE categorically denies eventualism to this type of article. As Murray's lawyer put it, ([3]), "Everyone needs to take a breath and wait" (linkage mine). Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is indeed way too early to create this article until such time as there is some other "event" in addition to being "subject to" an "investigation" that "anonymous sources" have characterized without discussing in detail. With all of the embellishment being added by reporters, this article is a BLP nightmare. The article already lists judgments which apparently have nothing to do with medical judgment or qualifications, incidents which apparently occurred at a clinic prior to the time that he joined or invested in that clinic, and on, and on. An encyclopedia should not be working to get ahead of a breaking and developing news story. Steveozone (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wonder which wiki 'super' editor came up with this AFD. I suppose you are considering AFD because he this guy is 'not-notable' right? ;-) He who dies with the most deletes wins! This is exactly the kind of case that demonstrates the lunacy of the wikipedia AFD patrol. If you guys cant agree what makes a living person notable and create a written policy, then every single article in wikipedia about a living person can be considered for AFD. Clearly in this case daily top billing on google news and almost every other daily news outlet for more than a month is still not notable? 88 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.32.192.111 (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)— 119.32.192.111 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Comment: Was the "wiki 'super' editor" supposed to dignify this sort of attitude with a response? If so, then the "written policy" that you seek is WP:BLP, and it is mentioned, in the nomination, as the reason for the nomination. Another policy, which you didn't ask for and which I shouldn't have to mention, but will mention anyway because you've made it relevant, is WP:NPA. We "wiki 'super' editors" are living people too, y'know... Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• P.S. Also see WP:BIO, which includes WP:ONEEVENT, which in turn links to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Depending on how things unfold, Murray could very well end up warranting his own article. Or, he could fade into obscurity as some other factor comes to light. But, even despite our best guesses (and I'm not pretending that I have no guesses of my own), we just don't know how things are going to unfold. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Dr. Murray has emerged as a central figure in the Michael Jackson investigation. There are thousands upon thousands of news articles about him, and that has increased dramatically in the past few days as he becomes the main suspect in Michael Jackson's death. KEEP! Michaelh2001 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And...? Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:BLP1E. Another Michael Jackson article....Don't people read WP:RECENTISM before deciding to write an article? Niteshift36 (talk) 08:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Based upon the raids/manslaughter allegation. But then I loathe the playing of WP:BLP1E Francium12 (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Death of Michael Jackson as a likely search term. If something changes that makes this person more notable, i.e. either being charged or convicted of manslaughter then it mught by worth reconsidering but at the moment it's defintely a case of one event and redirect is most appropiate. Dpmuk (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it, but keep it short. Even if the guy was not notable, he is getting there! I respect WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS, but at the same time I cannot ignore reality: constant investigations; breaking news in tv networks about him; main issue in cnn.com; central figure in a case of world-wide interest. For me this is notability!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this guy is making headlines in all the major news sources, this is obviously a keep. 128.101.35.77 (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And in 2 weeks, some other non-notable person will be making headlines in all the major news services for one event....and their article will be WP:BLP1E too. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect So much coverage makes this a WP:BLP violation by immplication, and WP:Oneevent also applies.YobMod 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Per User:Francium12. Gage (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This guy is central to the death of Michael Jackson. He's the last person Michael saw, you've got Latoya Jackson claiming he's murdered Michael, numerous news sources digging into his background, etc. With a little bit of clean-up, the article can be substantial and notable. - Enter Movie (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what being "central" to someone's death means, but if it involves numerous news sources digging and quoting Latoya Jackson's opinions about someone, it sounds like it means "in the tabloids." Steveozone (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep it until the toxicology results are revealed, The investigators suspect some Elvis-Quality drug abuse relating to the death of Michael Jackson Darbacour (talk) 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The possibility that someone might deserve an article in the future doesn't mean that they should have one now. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Notability established. Evan1975 (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying "notability established" doesn't make it so. Please explain further. NW (Talk) 02:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: no notability outside this one incident, and that's how we typically handle people who are known for one issue where the issue is more notable than they are. Auntie E. 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:I looked in the Death of Michael Jackson article after they executed the search warrant and I found nothing. I assume all the information on this man being investigated will go in that article if he is found innocent (wait, correction, this HAS been added to the article)? Funny, if I didn't participate in editing Wikipedia I probably would have forgotten the Michael Jackson story by now. Every time there's a major development I feel the need to go look at how Wikipedia is covering it. The investigation of this man sure is getting fair and balanced treatment here. My guess is you can't say the same for the news media.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I am the one who created the page this time. I did this because I wanted to know a little bit more about this person as an individual than what I was finding in the death of Michael Jackson article or what I was hearing or seeing in the news. When I started I probably should've used the word notability as opposed to notoriety. No slant or bias was intended.I am not a regular wiki editor. Just a user who wanted to know a little bit more about the person. For the same reason, I also started the Arnold Klein and Debbie Rowe articles. No one seems to have a problem with those, (Unless I just opened a big can of worms) I still believe his notability is worthy of an independent article. I also believe such article can and should be done as objectively as possible.Tlatseg (talk)contributions 10:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would agree with the others that are saying to just wait. If he is convicted, then I'd go with a strong delete. If not, then a keep. His attention has grown over the past month, and local authorities said that he was not hiding anything. Either or, for now I'll go with a Push. ConCompS (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I hope Tlatseg will forgive me for making sure his/her comment was correctly formatted. We want each side's views to be easy to identify. ConCompS, are you sure you don't mean delete if he is acquitted? He would almost certainly not be notable if he was.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Vchimpanzee, thank you for fixing the formatTlatseg (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To clear stuff up with Vchimpanzee, A: Don't delete if he is deemed not guilty and B: Strong delete IF he is guilty. I'm still at a Push. And before anyone gets at me asking me "What is a push?", a push would mean "clean the article up". ConCompS (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Seems backwards to me, but I guess you know what you're doing.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Rosendo[edit]

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

This is a first, at least for me personally - I created the original article. Looking at the edit history, I seem to have created this article to make another one easier to read. That's a terrible reason to create an article. Now, I could G7 the article, and if an admin wants to close as delete pursuant to G7 that's fine, but I'm also looking for a very lightweight unofficial forum on WP:ATHLETE as it relates to cyclists. WP:ATHLETE states individuals are notable for "compet[ing] at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis." The highest level of cycling is the UCI ProTour; even though the ProTour itself has had its status diminished, the 18 ProTeams are unquestionably the most esteemed teams in the sport. Rosendo rides for a UCI Professional Continental team, which is a step below ProTeam level. I'm not sure he necessarily satisfies notability for riding for a UCI ProContinental team, and he certainly can't be considered notable for having never won a race. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note that since there were other contributors, G7 wouldn't apply. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there have been other contributors, but I think I'm "The author of the only substantial content". Other edits have been tidying. But if G7 is inapplicable, so much the better actually, because I want this discussion to go through. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 01:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - UCI Professional Continental is fully professional and Rosendo has competed in fully professional races. Perhaps you could argue that a rider on a Professional Continental team who had never competed at the fully professional level was eligible for deletion under WP:ATHLETE but Rosendo has competed in the Vuelta a España which is fully professional and one of the biggest races in road bicycle racing. (Wouldn't an "unofficial forum" on how WP:ATHLETE relates to cyclists be better held at WT:BIO?) Severo^TC 10:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I would say that competing in the Vuelta qualifies as competing at the highest level. And leading the king of the mountains competition for five days makes him more notable than most of the other cyclists in the Vuelta. But is this request for deletion a test case to make effects of WP:ATHLETE on the notability of cyclists clear? If so, wouldn't this discussion better be held somewhere else? If not, I would say WP:ATHLETE says that this cyclist is notable because he was in the Vuelta, so this article should not be deleted. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:35, 29 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. JForget 00:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of British bingo nicknames[edit]

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

A list of a handful of single-nation Bingo-related nicknames. Could be merged into a list of worldwide nicknames (if exists), but is not WP:notable enough for inclusion on its own, or even does it include reliable sources. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep its a notable topic, and I'm very sure reliable sources could be found to complete the list. Jeni ^(talk) 00:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This could never be used as a source for the article or anything, but here is an indication of how wide this topic can be. It is notable. As the comments on the page I linked also indicate, it's unbelievably obscure to most people, but I imagine there's possibility for the article to be improved. Goodness knows we have GA's and even FA's on "unbelievably obscure" topics. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 00:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Either the author was waiting to see the reaction before going further, or British bingo has a lot fewer numbers than the American version. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just did a Google Books search for "bingo little duck" and got at least 4 books which describe and give examples of this topic. No need to delete if the "single nation" is an issue, just do a rename/move – these terms are also widely used in many Commonwealth countries such as Australia and New Zealand. --Canley (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Four professionally published books speaks to its notability and the availability of reliable sources. Notability does not mean "international notability" or "notability in the United States" or "notability in something popular with the stereotypical Wikipedia user". --NellieBly (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination makes no sense. A topic with reliable sources should be deleted because the nominator doesn't like it for no stated reason at all? Nick mallory (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expect you actually read the nomination statement, in that I highly recommend this extremely short list could be merged into a list of international nicknames (one that would be separated into by country, if needed), and not delete "for no stated reason". There's no place for inflammatory and anti-AGF commentary in AfD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. How can you merge an existing list into one which doesn't exist? Why is it not notable enough for inclusion by itself? You give no reason or evidence for this statement. Why are the independent sources, sufficient for other wikipedia articles, not sufficient here? The only inflammatory and anti-AGF comment here is not my own sir. These particular terms are peculiar to Britain where Bingo has been a major pastime for decades and played by millions of people. To dismiss it as something obscure and unknown is simply to display ignorance of another culture. Nick mallory (talk) 06:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the "ignorance of another culture" crap - you seem to be mistaking me for an American or something. The point is that the supposedly "British" terms are often used around the world. Perhaps I should have been bold in the beginning and simply moved it to "List of Bingo-calling nicknames", rather than be abused by you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is undoubtedly a place for a list of bingo nicknames in wikipedia, but maybe "Bingo calls" should be the place for it (that currently redirects to Bingo, which is a disambiguation page), or List of Bingo Calls or whatever. It doesn't need the word British in there. Also, it goes without saying that list needs to be finished! Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An obviously notable subject to anyone who spent their childhood holidays in British seaside towns. If such terms exist in other languages or cultures then the article can be renamed and expanded appropriately. My only concern is with the lack of content - where are the "two fat ladies", the "legs" (followed by a wolf-whistle), the "key of the door", the "clickety-click" and the "unlucky for some"? Please don't ask me to give sources for those - they are pure original research, but I'm sure that it would be easy enough for anyone who wants sources to find them. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.These calls are still to be heard in British seaside towns the length and breadth of the country, as well as at fund raising events, residential homes and day care centres. Again, this is pure WP:OR. The list is a useful source of reference for others who have missed out on this rich cultural experience.--Harkey (talk) 09:56, 31 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. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vid Belec[edit]

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

WP:PROD contested by an IP user with no edit summary at all. The subject is a youth team footballer with no first team experience at all, therefore failing WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. GiantSnowman 08:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence he is notable yet. If he plays a single second for Inter in a competitive match, he'll pass ATHLETE. Or if sufficient RS mention him, he can pass N or BIO. Currently neither. --Dweller (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, he played in the World Football Challenge for Inter - is that more or less notable than playing the final minute of a game in the Football League Trophy. Lunacy!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He played in a non competitive game. Some notable teams allow fans to play in non-competitive games. Does that make the fan notable? And please, it would be very nice if you could contribute strongly at AfD without being offensive. I can cope with being accused of "lunacy", but it does sour the atmosphere. --Dweller (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Harry Redknapp famously brought on a fan in a friendly game who was giving him banter from the stands; is he notable? GiantSnowman 16:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you seriously comparing Belec to a fan? The World Football Challenge is a little more than a friendly between two Mickey Mouse no mark League Two English teams. Anyway you are avoiding the question is playing in the World Football Challenge more or less notable than playing the final minute of a game in the Football League Trophy.

Well, in 2005 a reality show winner from an Eccellenza club played 12 minutes with Inter at the Trofeo Birra Moretti in a game against Juventus... --Angelo (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Friendly does not count. Matthew_hk tc 13:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:ATHLETE, has not played in a competitive football match. --Jimbo^[online] 22:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, define competitive.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Non exhibition. --Jimbo^[online] 22:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Read the first line of the link you provide. "s a sporting event in which there is no competitive value of any significant kind to any competitor (such as tournament or season rankings, or prize money) regardless of the outcome of the competition." - this was a competition.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny because you said in Talk:Vid Belec that the whole article should not be considered at all due to its lack of sources, and now you're mentioning it... Anyways, no, there is no competitive value: games like these do not affect any ranking (no league tables or something comparable to it), and do not provide any prize from one of the football confederations (FIFA, UEFA...) or national, or even subnational, entity (The FA, Italian Football Federation...). --Angelo (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a league, there was a trophy, it is therefore competative. In my book playing two games in this is more notable than playing 1 minutes as a substitute in the Football League Trophy for Torquay United - but I guess that just shows how far members of the FOOTY Project have lost sight of actually notability.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were arguing he passes WP:ATHLETE. If you're now arguing he passes WP:N, per your link, it's much easier and we don't need to bother discussing this line of argument about competitive matches. Please just show 2 reliable sources that include more than a trivial mention of Vid Belec and I'll switch to "Strong Keep" straight away, in line with WP:N. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One can never tell what Vintagekits is arguing; he views ATHLETE and N as interchangeable! GiantSnowman 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete if everyone who plays in a friendly tournament gets a page then we're all doomed Spiderone (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...doomed to what? To an encyclopedia that contains verifiable, neutral, non-original content per the five pillars? That doesn't sound like doom to me. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep multiple sources denoting notability, played in a high profile game Eldumpo (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, recreate when he actually plays a professional competitive match. That hurdle should apply with only very rare exceptions (eg Freddy Adu before he played for DC United). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 31 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} 07:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of companies of Georgia (Country)[edit]

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

Too broad in scope of a list topic to provide much value. inappropriate list RadioFan (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Tavix |  Talk  22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - given the small size of the Georgian economy there are only so many notable companies that could be included in this list. Surely less than in say Japan or even Croatia. But someone with editing rights should move the article to List of companies of Georgia (country). 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note also this draft at the Wikiproject Companies Wikipedia:WikiProject Companies/Lists of companies by country 76.117.1.254 (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SALAT. The topic of this list is too great to have an encyclopedic article written about it. When (theoretically) complete, this list would be immense and the comparison of one company to another would have little to no encyclopedic benefit. This is appropriate for a category, but not a list. ThemFromSpace 02:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why this list should be split into categories (i.e. financial institutions, transport etc), so that if the list grows too large the categories can be moved out to a new page. That is actually what WP:SALAT says. Apart from that, how many notable companies do you think there are in Georgia? I mean, its not like the Georgian economy is particularly large. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Whether a small country or not, is is simply too braod a topic for a list.YobMod 11:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is not a valid argument as per WP:Salat the list can easily be broken down into smaller lists (according to the categories) once it grows too large. Not that this will happen anytime soon, if ever, because there are just not many notable companies in Georgia. 76.117.1.254 (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The potential for being too long is simply an argument for splitting up the list when that potential is realised. There is nothing in WP:SALAT that indicates that deletion is the way to deal with potentially too potentially broad a topic. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as for other countries. We can deal perfectly well with much longer lists than this is likely to be. Not to broad--it can be broken down further if necessary. DGG (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. An appropriate list which meets all policies and guidelines. Do those arguing to delete believe that all lists of companies by country are inappropriate, or is there some reason that Georgia should be singled out as a country that shouldn't have such a list? (And please do not respond with a non-answer like citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) DHowell (talk) 07:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This also appears to be essentially a directory which is a definite no-no.--RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't. Read the footnote of this policy. Pantherskin (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. At this time, the list is small. If its broadness causes the list to become unreasonably large it can be renominated.--Pink Bull (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of commanders of the LTTE[edit]

I'll Withdraw this nomination.

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

• Delete, The LTTE article already links to the major commmanders of the LTTE; the others are insignificant and dedicating a page to them doesn't make sense. HumanFrailty (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a valid list, almost all the entries are sourced and it is definitely not possible to have the entire list on the main article. The article is in need of clean-up and restructuring, but that is an editorial problem. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is there is no need to have this list. They are only notable in relation to the LTTE. HumanFrailty (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That notion fails to offer any argument against keeping this article. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The LTTE article discusses what there is to discuss about the LTTE and specific articles handle the major commanders. Wikipedia is not a directory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wp_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory

Does that offer a suitable argument, Nishi? HumanFrailty (talk) 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The name's Nishkid64, not Nishi. By your standards, I suppose we could use the "Wikipedia is not a directory" argument for all lists. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP:

This one article consist many names, keep it as it is informative.-Iross1000 (talk) 03:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• KEEP: Useful info, and I see no reason to remove any of it.--Icemansatriani (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:LIST thsi article provides information to readers and researchers, navigation and future development of articles. All apprently backed up by WP:RS sources and written in a WP:NPOV manner. Taprobanus (talk) 13:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per WP:LIST and as per SpacemanSpiff it is well sourced.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ltte military commanders are self-named. they are not conventional standard and are not real commanders. and as all these listed terrorists are now dead why bother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.118.161 (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The LTTE was one of the most formidable militant groups in history. They were in many ways like a conventional army. The Sri Lankan Civil War was one most deadliest wars in recent history. Therefore the LTTE's commanders deserve a mention in Wikipedia. There are many lists of military commanders on Wikipedia, usually within the main article, but the LTTE article is already way too long to have a list added to it. I do however think the article can be improved. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:46, 29 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 - there are credible arguments by both sides of the discussion. Both the supporters and the detractors of the article are invited to work together in editing the text, thus ensuring WP:RS and WP:NPOV standards are maintained. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka[edit]

Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

• Delete, The title itself is NPOV first of all and carries with it a certain implication; also the article Human Rights in Sri Lanka already exists and there is no need for another article going on about how evil the government is. There is no article on the allegations of terrorism by the LTTE btw. HumanFrailty (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As to the issue over the redlink, the Tamil camp have the numbers so they can do whatever they want, including voting in Tamil Tiger websites as RS YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To the closing admin: I think the point is, an AFD isn't a vote, so please don't close this with a one word "keep", "delete" or "no concensus" just by counting votes. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowmonkey, the LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist group. There are already lists and categories basically to that effect. Also, I don't think us members of the "Tamil camp" suggest that Eelamphile sources are reliable in any way.Pectore^talk 01:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human Fraility, please create the red link article in a neutral tone using rs sources. No one is preventing you from doing it. Thanks Taprobanus (talk) 13:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, then--nominator has a good point, but the title itself might be a search term, and while I have not done a point-by-point comparison there are sections in the article not found in the Human Rights in Sri Lanka article, and so I imagine there must be sources there worth keeping. Drmies (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete allegations articles are all crap, and someone should nominate Allegations of state terrorism by Russia for the same reason. Maybe I will. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this link is legit (of course it happens to be in the other article also), but since a note-by-note comparison is a bit more than I'm willing to undertake right now I'm going to stay on the safe side. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, those are allegations. I don't know if they are legit (as in true) but they definitely are allegations. HumanFrailty (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MergeI think this is the best option. The acts described are more of HR violations, than State terrorism.yousaf465

• Strong Keep State terrorism is a type of human rights and should be identified as such. --Icemansatriani (talk) 06:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article adds nothing. "state terrorism" in this case is just a means of sensationalising grievances about government actions against secessionist wars. The author of the article has contributed to Tamil Tiger websites. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 08:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : wikipedia has a series of articles on State terrorism. All what Wikipedians have to worry about is is the article Encylopedic? does it bring information in a neutral tone ? does it use reliable sources ? I think the series ofarticles on State terrorism and this article as well meet that criteria. Personal attacks and attribution of intent is not good enough reason to delete articles. Taprobanus (talk) 12:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't a personal attack. I seemed to have accidentally left a space in the middle of your username. Sorry. You didn't respond to me when I tried to reach out to you anyway.. HumanFrailty (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have created Global Organization for People of Indian Origin some time back and know the Indian sub Continental politics better than many here. "The author of the article has contributed to Tamil Tiger websites" is a baseless allegation and should be ignored by the Closing Admin.Hillcountries (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. "Allegations of X by Y" is the standard naming practice for problematic issues. I do not like this wording, but it appears the most NPOV title possible. I would support move to another title if a better suggestion is made. If the government's actions are covered in WP:RS, then they should be included. If RS happen to express 'how evil the government is', well, then this should be included as well. There is no policy that excessive negative press should be excluded from wikipedia.Jasy jatere (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there is already an article about supposed human rights abuses in Sri Lanka where taprobanus and satriani can bash the gosl all they want sourcing articles written by the Tamil disapora thousands of miles away from Sri Lanka. No need for two such articles. HumanFrailty (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to play into your annoying debate but I resent your comments. No one's bashing the GoSL, We are putting up legitimate accusations based on facts and reliable reports. If you consider the BBC, Amnesty International, HRW, Channel 4 news, the US and british parliaments, your own opposition government, your own Cheif Justice Judge, and anyone who accuses your government of human rights violations to be bias or tamil diaspora or "ltte supporters" and not "human rights supporters" then that just speaks to your own self serving bias. the idea that the whole world is out to get the GoSL "who didn't even kill one civilian (totally not an exaggeration)" despite all the satellite images, doctor reports, reports by the red cross, is a paranoid fringe theory. And since you seem so desiring to vulgarly debate this, why don't you and I have a debate on my talk page. --Icemansatriani (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Someone can go ahead and create the allegations of terrorism by the LTTE, although I think it's already covered in the main LTTE article. A number of Western organizations have made allegations that the GoSL has engaged in state terrorism. This is undeniable fact. Simply dismissing this argument because a corresponding article doesn't exist for the LTTE is a lame argument by any standard. Human Frailty, state terrorism is a completely different topic than human rights abuses. Don't even try to equate the two concepts. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your constant veiled personal attacks (saying I fail, my arguments are lame, etc..) are not appreciated. HumanFrailty (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are full of shit btw. HRW issued a statement today whining about the Refugees being held in concentration camps while ignoring the plans already underway to resettle them (August 7) - (August 31). HumanFrailty (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Veiled personal attacks? It is a lame argument; see WP:OSE. It's been established time and time again that discussing the state of article Y is irrelevant to the AfD on article X. And I never said you failed. I told you quite clearly that state terrorism is entirely unrelated to human rights abuses. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's detention camps, not concentration camps. Second, you should have realized that it was the fighting between the government and the LTTE that led to their displacement in the first place. Since we can hardly expect the LTTE to help out here, it's the GoSL's responsibility to relocate these individuals in a timely manner, an issue which seems to be the focus (that and the treatment of these refugees) of HRW's complaint. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the refugees are going to settled soon. I should say I don't see the GOSL as spotless. It's a pretty fascist organization but their crimes are overblown when discussed in the Western media. HumanFrailty (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Human rights abuses are violations of basic human rights and freedoms, such as the right to education and work. The allegations made against the Sri Lankan state go far beyond human rights abuses. The allegations fit one of the definition of terrorism: "politically motivated violence aimed at intimidating (terrorising) the civilian population". Sri Lanka is a state. These are allegations. Therefore we arrive at Allegations of State terrorism by Sri Lanka. Wikipedia articles are meant to provide a balanced view of the subject in matter, not of everything. The fact this article doesn't mention the crimes committed by the LTTE is irrelevant, as is the fact that there may be other articles that portray the Sri Lankan state in a bad light. There is no need for the Allegations of terrorism by the LTTE article because, as we are repeatedly reminded in the introductory paragraph of dozens of articles, the LTTE is a proscribed terrorist organisation. Therefore the LTTE article itself has the allegations of terrorism by the LTTE. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you capable of having a civil discussion? Obi2canibe (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people at this AfD are only here to voice their political opinions. If you'd bother to check my background, you'd see that I really don't have a position in the matter, as I've fended off both pro-LTTE and pro-GoSL editors from pushing their POVs. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My god man. Get off the politics already. People should be here to collaborate to Wikipedia in a neutral manner, not use this website as a soapbox to express their support of the GoSL. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Sorry. I'm frustrated right now. I'm probably responding to comments I've read elsewhere. HumanFrailty (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator isn't helping this AfD by comments like this -the bottom two. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it was getting shut down anyway. HumanFrailty (talk) 22:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost all references cited in the article are primary sources, opinions pieces or interviews. While the subject may be notable as there are allegations, the neutrality is in dispute because of the sourcing and presentation of one point of view in an allegations article. A case where an article is beyond repair and will have to be completely rewritten to have any value. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 23:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - Since there are allegations published in reliable sources, the page itself is most likely justified. Taprobanus is correct in noting that Terrorism != human rights abuse. However I have reservations about the title, since the LTTE page has no such thing either. "Oppression" might be a better word instead of terrorism in this instance, perhaps.Pectore^talk 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think Ive ever given a "per x" !vote before at AfD, but, as much of the discussion seems to have drifted off into nationalist bickering, I feel compelled to declare my support for Carlossuarez46's position that we shouldn't have articles on such allegations, whether they are about the British, American, Russian, North Korean, Libyan, Swiss, Andorran or Sri Lankan governments, or indeed about any non-governmental organisations. Such a title inherently invites POV editing and we end up with articles full of "he said, she said" content. Any encyclopedic information can be incorporated in a much more encyclopedic way into articles about the respective governments and any conflicts that they are involved in. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Jasy jatere above remarks "Allegations of X by Y" is the standard naming practice for problematic issues." Well yes it is sometimes attempted - and is almost always a problem; the article gets nominated for deletion; the nationalists / separatists / partisans / unificationists / human rights advocates / far right wingers / insert as appropriate / etc pile in to the AfD discussion, add a range of keeps, an admin comes along and says 'no consensus', and on the circus goes. An article of this title should not be allowed to stand in its current form, it is blatant POV pushing. I have no problem with the content being on WP, but not by this name. WP is also not a place where we list everything we can find about something - it is an encyclopaedia, where the material is usefully summarised. This should be edited down and become sections in Sri Lankan civil war, Human rights in Sri Lanka and possibly notes in some other relevant articles. Of course, now is when someone jumps in and says "but Sri Lankan civil war is really long!" Yes, because it is in desperate need of an edit, as it is too full of detail that makes its writing style unencyclopedic.

• To Icemansatriani, who says "State terrorism is a type of human rights and should be identified as such" - yes, but that is irrelevant to this article. See State terrorism, which is not being nominated for deletion, and I believe would not be.
• To Hillcounties, who says that ""The author of the article has contributed to Tamil Tiger websites" is a baseless allegation and should be ignored by the Closing Admin" - you are correct, but so what? That is not an argument to keep the article; I would suggest that, as you put no argument based on WP policy as to why it should be kept, your 'vote' should also be ignored.
• To Nishkid, who remarks "Human Frailty, state terrorism is a completely different topic than human rights abuses. Don't even try to equate the two concepts". You may be right - on the other hand, several of the other 'keeps' make exactly the argument that state terrorism is a human rights issue and then use that as an argument to keep the article - i think Obi2canibe does this particularly well. To make both arguments as reasons to keep the present article is not a coherent position. Human rights in Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan civil war between them can cover this article's content perfectly adequately, if editors would just make the effort, instead of spending time on POV forks.
• To Human Frailty, you remark "NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are full of shit btw." While I understand your frustration with the way some people contribute to these discussions, that was one of several unhelpful contributions to this AfD. It is deliberately provoking people with a different view to your own. It suggests a love of argument more than a love of WP. I suggest you cool down the tone if you want this discussion resolved.
• In response to Pectore, you are right about reliable sources, but I don't think that is in serious question here. The allegations are not at issue; the article itself is.

There are legitimate places for much of the writing in this article: they are blogs, NGO web pages, and letters to the UN and others. But not a stand-alone article like this. I beg an admin to take a decent stand on this stuff and recognise that consensus is not a vote. There are several cool and mderate heads here arguing for a delete/merge solution - Drmies, Carlossuarez46, yousaf465, SpacemanSpiff and Phil Bridger (as well as some lightly less moderate voices, YellowMonkey :-)). I do not think any compelling arguments have been made by the 'keep's, provided everyone understands that it is not being proposed to keep this material out of WP: just that it be in the civil war and human rights articles. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Comment There is fundamental flaw in the argument that State Terrorism is only related to the Sri Lankan civil war war and that it should be covered under that article. First rebuttal is that State terrorism allegations precede the civil war and that it covers issues beyond the civil war and secondly even within civil war article itself State terrorism would be a sub section and at some point it will become its own section because of size constraints. One cannot cover all salient aspects of a civil war and issues that out side of the civil war within that article and be consistant with WP:SIZE.State terrorism is a neutral term just like massacre, murder and such which have very encylopedic articles in Wikipedia not just in blogs and NGO statements. Taprobanus (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly this is the 4th nomination of this article and not the 1st and it should have been mentioned in the AFD for normally users will be more inclined to keep if it is being renominated again and again.Nomination itself is technically wrong.

• 4th August 2008 no consensus
• 17 December 2006 Keep
• 29 May 2007 No Concensus

Secondly unlike other areas the European Union ,Ban Ki Moon along with Human rights Watch and Amnesty International are calling for a International probe into allegations of War crimes in the recent War.^[1][2][3][4] I will improve the article there are several sources and recent events are not incorprated. I agree with user Nishkid that state terrorism including War Crimes are different from human rights abuses.

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Pharaoh. Thank you for including those previous noms. Yes, it would have been helpful if they had been previously noted. In my case, however, it does not change my arguments or my my conclusion. Second, once again, the question of content (what the EU, Ban Ki Moon etc are doing) is not relevant to the question of whether this should be deleted or merged. It is not an issue of content (at least as far as I, and others like Snowolf below, are concerned). It is an issue of where that content should sit, and of ensuring it is encyclopedic in nature. I urge you not to improve this article: please improve Sri Lankan civil war and Human rights in Sri Lanka. If I get back here, I certainly will be seeking to do so by moving content out of this and into those, and if an admin will sanction delete or merge, I volunteer to help the transition. I am yet to see an argument about why state terorism allegations cannot be covered in the aforesaid two articles. To the 'keep' supporters, you need to address why this article is not POV in its title and scope, and I am not seeing that. Saying 'you can always create another article' is not an argument to keep this one. It is not an argument that this is NPOV. It is a wierd application of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and does not advance this debate. Regards hamiltonstone (talk) 00:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment First I'd like to say your earlier reply to me was a misunderstanding of what I was getting at, I probably should have said the "State Terrorism situation in sri lanka is quite different from the human rights situation" as you seem to have thought I wasnt speaking with context to Sri Lanka. Replying to your recent comment State Terrorism is quite different the other two articles. Firstly, like Traprobanus said, it goes beyond the sri lanka conflict between the LTTE and the GoSL. Second it also different from Human Rights in Sri lanka since this article is specific to many acts of terrorism by the state, where as the Human rights in Sri Lanka article summarizes human rights violations by all groups. Even if you were to combine the articles, the resulting article would be too long. Similar articles exist for United states and other countries as well, and no issues have popped up there. The fact is, state terrorism is a different from human rights issues. And the title is not POV, if anything its the opposite. If it were "State Terrorism in Sri lanka" that would suggest that state terrorism was a fact, but the word allegations points out that these are criticisms and not something that wouldn't be disputed. Enough groups have accused SL of state terrorism that it merits the title. I'm surprised that you've suggested its POV in its scope, as I see no reason why the GoSL rebuttal (if they exist) to any claims of terrorism cannot be included. Am I missing something here??? --Icemansatriani (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is fundamentally flawed in that it allows only one POV to be expressed. To balance out the POV, we would need an article titled Denials of allegations of state terrorim in Sri Lanka, but that would be a little ridiculous, wouldn't it? The content of this article is also not suitably encyclopedic. It mirrors the Human Rights in Sri Lanka and Sri Lankan Civil War article, and all it does is to provide quotes from various people calling the events mentioned in the above articles "state terrorism". That would be similar to having a Allegations that Barack Obama wasn't born in the US article containing quotes only, in addidion to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article.

Ultimately, everything in this article that is deemed worthwhile should be merged with other existing articles, and this inherently POV article be deleted. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 14:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment That is not true at all, WP:NPOV demands that within the article itself one can balance out the statement of allegations with denials by the GOSL itself.Taprobanus (talk) 13:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The fact that Sri Lanka is accused of state terrorism is undeniable. This issue is not even Tamil-Sinhala. Tens of thousands of innocent Sinhala kids were bumped off in the JVP crackdown. Thousands more innocent Tamil kids have been killed recently. Amnesty, HRW, Asian Human Rights Council have all noted the gross abuse of human rights. We have a number of paid government apologists here whose only job is protect government acts of cruelty and crime. Sinhala freedom (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - I don't know how many times I have to say this, the issue is not whether these allegations should be covered in wikipedia, but whether this article is POV and duplicating what should be in other locations. You are not assuming good faith, and your allegation, if it is directed at me is false. I suggest you check out my user page and my history of contributions, and consider how ridiculous an idea it is that I would be a "paid government apologist". I agree that the allegations should be covered in wikipedia, but your own post to this page indicates your own POV: "Tens of thousands of innocent Sinhala kids were bumped off in the JVP crackdown." Well maybe, maybe not, the issue can be covered using reliable sources and a neutral point of view, but that bears no relationship to your uncivil remarks here. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - Tamil genocide, and state terrorism by ceylon is well documented. To deny this would be hide many crimes against humanity, and scum to the state's propaganda. This will totally hide the suffering of minorities at the hands of the Sri Lankan governments. --Natkeeran (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See my previous post - your very comments here strengthen the case against the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename "Sri Lanka and state terrorism" as per United States and state terrorism, Pakistan and state terrorism, Russia and state terrorism and Iran and state terrorism. Dodge rambler (talk) 01:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That could be an option. However it may simply be shifting the obvious POV problem from the title to the text. But I'm still not seeing a clear case against merging material into existing articles. Some want to argue that state terrorism is different to human rights breaches. Maybe - but does it really warrant an article because it would not be coherently addressed under the HR article and the civil war article, or indeed Government of Sri Lanka - which may be the best place for some of this. I may as well add that, Dodge rambler aside, i'm feeling pretty disappointed that everyone participating seems to have a view about the conflict in SR. I don't have a view about it, I'm not well informed about, I am just trying to see an application of WP policies and aims that will result in good articles and a strong reputation for reliability and objectivity. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have now looked at those three articles. I think it is of concern that all but the Russian one are tagged as having multiple issues, with both the Pakistani and Iranian ones tagged as having neutrality issues. I'm not sure it solves the problem, but am happy to hear views of the other editors participating here. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Wikipedia manages to keep controversal articles such as Armenian genocide from getting out of control. It is a question of dedication and time. This particular article has gone through number of versions to take care of the tags. Before this AFD, it did not have any tags at all. Taprobanus (talk) 11:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Wikipedia:Words to avoid: "Alleged (along with allegedly) can also be misused to cast doubt on statement and should not be used as a routine qualifier: consider alternatives such as apparent, ostensible or reputed" - I believe the same would apply with "allegations", it's a weasel word which shouldn't be used except in its strict legal sense. Dodge rambler (talk) 16:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I just wanna point out to hamilton, I've already tried to respond to your arguements above, did you read them or not? was there something in my arguement you felt didn't satisfy your conditions. Also changing the name to Sri Lanka and State Terrorism, sounds like a good idea, but I recall reading many pro government editors dissaproved of that titled because they felt the fact the the charges were all allegations needed to be in the title. Also, this is too much to include in the Government of Sri lanka page, but summarizing a bit of it somewhere on that page and linking it to this page is fine. --Icemansatriani (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and Rename as "Sri Lanka and the state terrorism". Sri Lanka's State terroism is well known and documented.--Kanags (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Goodwin[edit]

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE as he never played in a fully professional league. During his games at Dagenham they were not fully professional including their school teacher top goalscorer and more notably fails WP:N having only played in the English Fourth tier.

• Delete, as nominator.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - played in the Football League [4] ArtVandelay13 (talk) 08:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - played in the league when there was a part time player on the team - therefore fails WP:ATHLETE.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it doesn't matter, it's the Football League - a few exceptions don't change a league that's been overwhelmingly professional for over 100 years. This is an absurd technicality. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, yes WP:ATHLETE is adsurd, I agree - and it needs a complete overhaul. Without it this article would be deleted in a shot. Bring it on. Also it looks like Jamie Forrester is also part time and possibly a few at Burton Albion!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure about whether Burton Albion are full-time or part-time (the newsstory you linked to confirms that some players are full time, and I'd imagine they'd be going fully pro now they've made it to the league), but Jamie Forrester has played for a shedload of pro teams in his time. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 06:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah but Forrester was part time for much of it. Thereby making the league part time.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at his infobox, all I see are fully professional teams, including Leeds who were in the top flight at the time. Out of all those teams listed, which of them do you consider part-time? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 08:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Look further towards the bottom darling. Since 2006 he has been part time. Making the leagues he played in part time!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Lincoln and Notts County are fully professional teams, and have been for decades. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How can they by "fully professional" if they play a part time player.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that? The coaching school? Having additional interests in addition to a professional contract doesn't make you part-time. In any case, the FL has had occasional amateurs in professional teams since its foundation, it doesn't change the fundamental fact that it's a professional competition. This Dave Rainford thing is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on WP:FOOTY, and that's saying something ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"outside interests" is one thing but this is a full time job outside of the club he is playing for - its hardly turning up for an hour at the opening of a shop.--Vintagekits (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should tell him that. On his school's website, Jamie states "I am currently a professional footballer for Notts County." And even if he was semi-professional now (which he clearly isn't), his pro career would still see him pass WP:ATHLETE with flying colours. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's still paid a full-time wage, and he still attends the same amount of training sessions as all the other full-time players, so he's full-time. All footballers have a lot of free-time, it doesn't change their professionalism. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 09:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If he is working another regular job then they are part time - simple as. I am not saying he isnt personally notable - he is for playing at his previous clubs - but it just further emphasises that the league is not fully pro. Here are some more examples - Dave McKearney at Morcambe kept his job when Morcambe went into the League, John Askey was an insurance saleman when he played for Macclesfield, Darren Tinson was an anaesthetist, Liam Dickinson was a graphic designer when he was playing for Stockport County, Neil Howarth was a journalist when he was playing for Macclesfield, Paul O'Connor worked in the Wilkinson Sword factory near Hartlepool whilsts playing for them and famously had to missed a reply in the FA Cup against York because his boss wouldnt let him change his shift!--Vintagekits (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I heard about the Paul O'Connor story. As far Darren Tinson goes, according to this report in The Sun, he left his job before joining Macclesfield. Anyway, this AfD is going wildly off-topic now - if we want to continue down this line, may I suggest taking this to WP:FOOTY? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not going "wildly off topic" at all. It's showing that the league isnt "fully professional" - I actually dont consider the league at all notable but members of the FOOTY Project seem to have orcastrated a position wherby if you play 1 single minute of 1 single game then that makes you automatically notable. You choose not to use any commonsense with regards actual notability and say you are sticking rigidly to the rules - well if we are to stick rigidly to the rules then he fails WP:ATH because the league aint fully professional. --Vintagekits (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:ATHLETE wan't drafted by the FOOTY project at all, it was a consensus arrived at by the Wikipedia community as a whole. If you don't like the way it's worded, you need to go WT:BIO. As far as Burton are concerned, their chairman has confirmed they are going full time now they have been promoted.[5] Jamie Forrester isn't working full-time at his football academy and is on a full-time professional contract, John Askey left his job when signing full-time for Macclesfield ([6]), Liam Dickinson only worked part-time when he was playing for non-league clubs,([7]) and Howarth's journalism job consists of a weekly column in local newspapers.([8]) I can't find anything to confirm that Dave McKearney was working part-time while playing in the league. The only Football League part-timer you've got on your list there is Paul O'Connor - together with Dave Rainford you've got two very rare exceptions, and its highly unlikely that'd be enough to convince anyone (let alone WP:FOOTY or the Wikipedia community as a whole) that League 2 isn't fully professional. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Burton - the chairman might say they are going full time - but that is not the case - chairmen and truth eh! Jamie Forrester does run his academy and doesnt train every day wit the the squad. John Askey did continue with his insurance job for the majority of his career. Howarth not only wrote for the Macclesfield express he also attended university in Bolton doing a degree in journalism whilst also playing for Macc. Darren Tinson still works in the medical field - and was at university whilst playing and working another job! And you admit to O'Connor and Rainford - now i know you are a stickler for complying with the rules so if we apply them here like you like to apply them elsewhere then they fail WP:ATH.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide sources for all your facts please? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:ATHLETE by having played in a fully-pro league. GiantSnowman 11:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, its been proven that not alone is their part times in the league but there is part timers in his team. Looks like the FOOTY Project members arnt happy about that little factoid!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Proven" where exactly? GiantSnowman 11:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Above!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But Bettia has provided links which go against your point...GiantSnowman 12:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What he provided links to say Rainford and O'Connor didnt have full time jobs as well as play in the mickey mouse league? no, he didnt! And if you actually read the links that he provided what he is saying isnt actually true - as pointed out in my previous post.--Vintagekits (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't agree with Vintagekits assertion that one part-timer is enough to drag the entire league down to semi-professional level, and this player does pass WP:ATHLETE thanks to his one game in the Football League (confirmed by Soccerbase). However, one game isn't enough for me (I have opposed similar articles in the past) and in addition there aren't enough third-party sources to satify WP:N - apart from match reports, so far all I've found is one story about him breaking his leg in 2006. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Subject clearly meets the WP:ATHLETE guideline. WP:POINT. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, how does he meet WP:ATHLETE?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Because he's played in the Football League, for goodness' sake. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 07:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes he played in the 4th Division - but only at a time when when it wasnt "fully professional" - therefore failing WP:ATH.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:GAME comes to mind. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Passes ATHLETE because he played in League Two BigDom 11:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think having an article that merely passes WP:BIO and completely fails WP:N is enough for inclusion; especially when that article doesn't include a single reference. However, I've tried expanding the article and feel it now meets WP:N aptly. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes ATHLETE despite what the nominee asserts; nomination seems to be made on grounds of WP:POINT. matt91486 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marlon Patersson[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Fails WP:ATHLETE as he never played in a fully professional league. During his 5 games at Dagenham they were not fully professional including their school teacher top goalscorer and more notably fails WP:N having only played in the English Fourth tier.

• Delete, as nominator.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:ATHLETE as he played for Dagenham in the fully-professional Football League Trophy last season against Barnet when Rainford wasn't at Dagenham. --Jimbo^[online] 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the Football League Trophy isnt a league game. Something you were at pains to point out during the AfD for Niall Walsh.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Walsh still hadn't played in a fully-professional level as WP:ATHLETE states - Cup and/or League. Come on, it was hardly "at pains" either :-) --Jimbo^[online] 22:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He played a League Cup game and underage international games. This player hasnt.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The Irish league cup? If the LoI isn't fully-pro, their league cup isn't going to be. Youth tournaments aren't deemed noteworthy for players. Anyway, I don't see what this has to do with Marlon Patersson anyway? --Jimbo^[online] 22:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Players in the FAI Premier Division are considered notable which has been proven in recent AfD's - according to the closing admin Walsh's AfD failed because he only played in the League Cup - not the League. This player also hasnt played in the League.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• He has played in the Football League though. --Jimbo^[online] 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in a fully pro team and not in a notable league. simples.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At the end of the day criteria for sportspeople is "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport". Irish league cup isn't fully-pro. You might want to take that AfD up with the closing admin, rather than me here as there's nowt I can do. --Jimbo^[online] 22:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is the Football League Trophy fully pro?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I'm aware it is, as teams from League One and League Two compete, and there are no known part-time players in those leagues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Notg only is there part timers in the league there was a part timer in this guys team. Please see link provided in the nomination above. regards--Vintagekits (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If you read the source it says Rainford was the only part-timer in the FL. Patersson played in the FL Trophy when Rainford was at Chelmsford. --Jimbo^[online] 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Its not a league game and therefore not considered notable - just like you said in the Niall Walsh AfD.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)*Latching on to a previous AfD doesn't mean it's policy. If we're going to go on previous AfDs, players have kept for appearances in FL Trophy. I've backed up my point with inclusion criteria, do you have any criteria to back up what you're saying or just going to keep repeating the same point? --Jimbo^[online] 22:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my point pretty clear. Has only played in part time teams and has never played a game in a fully professional league. simples.--Vintagekits (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's splitting hairs to say that the presence of one part-timer (and the BBC confirm he was the only one) in a league with over 500 registered players makes it a semi-pro league -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Patterson's (Patersson is a misspelling) League career consists of six games. Some people interpret this as sufficient for a keep due to WP:ATHLETE, some do not. In an exhaustive hunt for sources about these league matches ([9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]), there is not a single report which mentions Patterson by name in anything other than a list of lineups. Given this lack of significant sources for the most notable part of his career, he fails WP:N since the only verifiable information available is trivial. Oldelpaso (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A quick search on the BBC site brings up this one [27]. --Jimbo^[online] 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Soccerbase confirms appearances in a fully-pro league, meaning he passes WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 08:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, please explain how it is can be fully pro if there is a full time teacher on the very team he plays for?--Vintagekits (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur with Oldelpaso's post above. The guy popped his head up at the lowest notable tier for six games and is gone again. The article contains no info a stats database doesn't. I see no merit in keeping it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhealy (talk • contribs) 10:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An article needing improvement is no reason for deletion. And because he has appeared in a fully-pro league, he meets WP:ATHLETE, and is therefore deemed notable by current standards. GiantSnowman 10:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah but the thing is it wasnt fully pro was it!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As pointed out above, though, he continued to play for Dagenham after Rainford, the only part-time player on the team, left -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in the league he didnt!--Vintagekits (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Here and here are news stories solely about him (and here is one predominantly about him) from the nationally published newspaper Non-League Today. He therefore passes the GNG, which supercedes WP:ATHLETE and the professional status (or otherwise) of League Two is therefore irrelevant -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As far as football is concerned, WP:ATHLETE requires that players must compete at a fully professioanl level. A competition such as the Football League Trophy (which is contested solely by fully professional teams) satisfies that requirement. The sources provided by Chris above would probably also satisfy WP:N. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 13:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, which of the sources provided do you consider provides "significant coverage"?--Vintagekits (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if the subject meets WP:ATHLETE (which is debatable), he does not meet WP:N, which has to be met by all subjects covered into the Wikipedia project. Hence, he is simply not notable. I wouldn't consider all of these Non-League papers, since they cover solely subjects from amateur and semi-pro tiers. Also, a website that asks for direct feedback from its users[28] does not look particularly reliable. --Angelo (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-League Daily is a nationally-distributed newspaper (not just a website) and is regarded as very reliable by the football community in the UK. As far as WP:ATHLETE is concerned, this AfD was raised because during the time he was playing in the football league, Dagenham had a part-time schoolteacher on their books - he was only part-timer in the entire league and the nominator has taken this to mean this is enough to make the whole league semi-professional. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 06:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But thats where you are wrong darling! Jamie Forrester runs a football school away from his work at the club, Dave McKearney at Morcambe kept his job when Morcambe went into the League, John Askey was an insurance saleman when he played for Macclesfield, Darren Tinson was an anaesthetist, Liam Dickinson was a graphic designer when he was playing for Stockport County, Neil Howarth was a journalist when he was playing for Macclesfield, Paul O'Connor worked in the Wilkinson Sword factory near Hartlepool whilsts playing for them and famously had to missed a reply in the FA Cup against York because his boss wouldnt let him change his shift! and this season it looks like there will be more part time players!--Vintagekits (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as Burton are concerned, their chairman has confirmed they are going full time now they have bene promoted.[29] Jamie Forrester isn't working full-time at his football academy and is on a full-time professional contract, John Askey left his job when signing full-time for Macclesfield ([30]), Liam Dickingson only worked part-time when he was playing for non-league clubs, ([31]) Howarth's journalism job consists of a weekly column in local newspapers.([32]) I can't find anything to confirm that Dave McKearney was working part-time while playing in the league. The only Football League part-timer you've got there is Paul O'Connor - together with Dave Rainford you've got two very rare exceptions, and its highly unlikely that'd be enough to convince anyone (let alone WP:FOOTY or the Wikipedia community as a whole) that League 2 isn't fully professional. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Burton - the chairman might say they are going full time - but that is not the case - chairmen and truth eh! Jamie Forrester does run his academy and doesnt train every day wit the the squad. John Askey did continue with his insurance job for the majority of his career. Howarth not only wrote for the Macclesfield express he also attended university in Bolton doing a degree in journalism whilst also playing for Macc. Darren Tinson still works in the medical field - and was at university whilst playing and working another job! And you admit to O'Connor and Rainford - now i know you are a stickler for complying with the rules so if we apply them here like you like to apply them elsewhere then they fail WP:ATH.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you provide sources for all your facts please? Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 10:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed - at what point do we stop considering coverage in nationally-distributed newspapers and magazines as sufficient to establish notability just because they "only" cover a "niche" subject? Would we not consider coverage in Kerrang! magazine sufficient to establish notability for a band just because it "only" covers heavy metal music? Would we not consider coverage in SFX sufficient to establish notability for a film just because it "only" covers science fiction subjects? Surely publications which employ professional journalistic staff and are available in every newsagent, supermarket, petrol station and kiosk throughout the country are indisputably reliable sources, regardless of their subject matter? Also, the BBC website accepts direct feedback from its readers (I know this because I once e-mailed them pointing out an error in a news story and they changed it) but that doesn't make it unreliable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allowing to use these references from a paper that exclusively and deliberately focuses on amateur and semi-pro teams and players is a huge contradiction to what WP:ATHLETE says. Am I the only one who can realize this? I don't think so. And the comparison with Kerrang! or other magazines you propose just makes no sense: I don't really think such magazines solely focus on amateur musicians... Also, the Non-League Daily feedback page looks more like allowing its users to provide actual content (articles, game reports, pictures, etc...) rather than simply commenting articles and asking for error fixes. --Angelo (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not as if it goes striaght on their site. Obviously they have to check and verify such items if they are submitted, much like any media outlet - they hear news, investigate, publish a story if relevant. Most news from major outlets, come through associations such as the Press Association, news about major footballers is almost always second hand, news on non-League footballers isn't going to get a greater coverage than Premier League footballers as the coverage isn't as wide, thus asking people to send in any items that may be deemed noteworthy. I don't see any evidence that such "submissions" have ever occured either on any news item, i.e. submitted by Joe Bloggs, Random F.C. fan - forum/blog-esque. --Jimbo^[online] 11:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:BIO and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, how? why?--Vintagekits (talk) 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The same as how I explained at the Richard Graham (Northern Ireland footballer) nomimation; WP:BIO due to his having played in a fully professional league with Dagenham & Redbridge, and WP:N due to the subject having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", courtesy of the Non-League Daily and BBC reports. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 12:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A. it isnt a "fully professional league" as D&R had a full time school teacher in their team. Not to mention the other part timers I outlined. B. "significant coverage" - I dont think so. Marlon joined this club, Marlon left this club to join that club and play along side a school teacher. Hardly significant coverage!--Vintagekits (talk) 12:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:ATHLETE BigDom 17:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, clearly meets WP:ATHLETE, sources provide verification and arguably satisfies WP:N. Nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT - what is the real argument for deletion here? Is it because League Two isn't professional (an absurdity) or is it because this player has received insufficient media coverage? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for having played in a fully professional competition. Perhaps some WP:POINT going on because of lasting debate over Irish players. matt91486 (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Shum Jr.[edit]

Harry Shum Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notable roles, no independent reliable sources. SummerPhD (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he will have a recurring role in a television series, (8 episodes), and also appeared in three episodes of a series, which I think will be notable. And his role in iCarly: iGo to Japan was supporting, and he's had guest spots in multiple TV series. I also think that will also make him very notable. His is also a demo of his work. [33] GreenBayPackersfan09 (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:ENT. Minor roles don't get him past it, not do future roles. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:CRYSTAL Plutonium27 (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "will have" followed by [citation needed] looks really bad. WP:ENTERTAINER doesn't address guest roles on TV shows, and I think it should - take for example an actor like Donnie Keshawarz who has appeared in many multi-episode arcs on primetime US TV series, but has no notable leading role. I think that establishes notability. However, I don't see any particularly notable roles on the filmography present in the Shum article. A cursory search for sources reveals YouTube fan videos, a dating/gossip site, and Shum's own Twitter account. Nothing suggests he's notable currently. Of course, he can become notable, but until he does, delete. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 23:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not-notable kid's show guest star. A regular role (and Glee needs to actually have those five episodes air to begin with) is needed before notability is established. Nate • (chatter) 04:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, having a future recurring role does not make him notable and his past work does not make him notable. If the recurring role comes about and he gets significant coverage then recreate the article. A new name 2008 (talk) 20:32, 29 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 Cheers, I'^mperator 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Veins[edit]

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

Non notable band that has literally done nothing so far, Band created yesterday (see article talk page). Epic fail of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND. WuhWuzDat 21:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As it was already said, the band has done nothing remarkable so far. Information can be included in the artist's articles. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, I think two members leaving and starting a new band would be a relevant information in the Panic at the Disco article. Guest9999 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This article should be kept. The Young Veins are formerly of a highly successful band. In time they will release material- they are nearing completion of their debut album. Why delete the article for it to be recreated later? Egg_Creations (talk) 13:41, 29 July 2009

In short, violates WP:CRYSTAL...it hasn't happened yet, and there is no guarantee that it will. WuhWuzDat 14:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Ryan Ross, as he's the only notable member. The band is far from notable. It was just formed weeks, if not days ago, is unsigned, and has not released any material. Timmeh 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • That article currently redirects to Panic at the Disco —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.129.200 (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm. It seems there was no explanation given when the redirect was recently created. Ross looks notable to me. I'll revert the action for now, as no valid reason was given and it's not uncontroversial. Timmeh 02:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, nevermind. There was a deletion discussion a while back that ended with a merge. I still think he's marginally notable, but I'll let the redirect stand. Timmeh 02:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know this is only tangent to this discussion, but I'd say that the article should be restored. Now that he is not a member of PATD but is still making music in another project, it doesn't make sense to have it redirect that way. Also, Spencer Smith, a less notable member of PATD has his own article. That doesn't really seem balanced. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've restored the article. If someone wants it deleted, they can start a new AfD. Timmeh 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Mentioned nontrivially by name by Rolling Stone and MTV. That seems like enough for WP:BAND #1 despite the small amount of actual musical activity so far (not literally nothing, but as far as I know only one song). —David Eppstein (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add NME to the list: [34]. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Either they will have this album released, in which case they will have more than enough to be kept, or it falls through and it's still at least somewhat notable like something like Tapeworm. Also, see user David Eppstein's argument. Dfsghjkgfhdg (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I hate to come back after all this time for a relatively obscure afd, but I agree with the previous two reasons given. — Ilyanep (Talk) 14:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the band is a split-off from Panic at the disco, who are notable. Let's wait and see. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 23:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - Has some notablility.. no need to rush into deleting the article -JE (Let's talk) (My contribs) 06:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Very weak keep (switched from redirect) I had known the sources brought up existed before making my first comment. However, after thinking about it some more, although the band really hasn't done anything at all to achieve independent notability, they have been covered nonetheless. The article won't be able to be expanded past a stub or start class for at least several months, but the subject does seem just barely worthy of a separate article. There's nothing particularly insulting or POV in the article, so it won't hurt to keep it. If, within the next several months, especially after it has released actual musical material, the band is not covered adequately, the article can be deleted or made into a redirect then (I'll be watching it). This is a rare case where just the fact that the band has spun off from a notable band has resulted in a relatively huge amount of coverage for the band, even though it is unsigned, has only released one song, and was just formed days ago. Timmeh 14:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Timmeh - new band created from notable members of a former, notable band, thus barely meets WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correspondence poker[edit]

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

No sources to verify. No real claim of notability. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:15, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An interesting idea, but it sounds WP:MADEUP. Perhaps madeup here ? No indication of notability. Nosleep ^{break my slumber} 20:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is a site that offers it, with a grand total of 48 players playing right now in its "open beta test". Non-notable and very likely to stay that way. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Could not find any suitable sources on Google (majority of hits seemed to be "does anyone offer CP"), and as none have been supplied in the article, it's not verifiable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:47, 30 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} 07:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Sport[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:corp.Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Anton Sport. Has a few links but they are press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines..

A part of wider spam campaign of Anton Sport spam articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DesignAShirt.com
Designashirt
DesignAShirt.com
Self-promotion and product placement are WP:NOT the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 20:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an excellent attempt at WP:SPAM – all the required ingredients of an article appear to be present, but when you read the content and the linked references, you soon realize that there is no assertion of notability and that the subject fails WP:CORP. The refs are the normal kind of trade puffery that is used to fill space; subject has no encyclopedic value. Johnuniq (talk) 05:33, 31 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal commuting vehicle[edit]

Personal commuting vehicle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The term is a non-notable one in the motor industry. Google returns 430 hits [35]. The article creator has a conflict of interest insomuch as it was originally a copy/paste of their own website: personalcommutingvehicle.com – it was speedy deleted by myself as a copyvio. Then a discussion ensued on my talk page (still there as this was only yesterday) in which they virtually admitted that it was a "new" term [36] and that they wanted to "spark public discussion". I also found out that the creator works for a company called TTW which specialises in... personal commuting vehicles. Compare username to name (autore) at bottom of page. The article is pretty much original research and veiled spam. Even after I advised them this after the first creation, they still went ahead and recreated it, albeit with different words. For comparison, using the example of "how did SUV start?", also on my talk – 7.37m

• Delete as nom. – B.hotep •talk• 20:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spamtastic. Jujutacular ^talk_contribs 21:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam, OR. Ray^Talk 21:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - for odd reason. This term has four Google scholar hits. Let's use those to build an article. Anything else that goes in must meet Wikipedia's stringent criteria for reliable sources. TTW think they can invent language and subvert Wikipedia? Let's show them what number one search in Google means. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I like odd reasons. But can you bring those sources into the article and make something out of it? I'll start--by removing what is obviously fluff and would not be verified by any reliable source. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL – OK, let's examine these sources. Don't get me wrong, I applaud your efforts, and your stance is not without merit. However, the idea is that Wikipedia covers topics that are already "out there", not to incubate, define or promote new terms. So, scholar sources:

1. [37] Granted, a passable reference in context

2. [38] Can't find an actual reference to the term in that link, please point me in the right direction if I'm wrong

3. [39] Refers to personal commuting vehicle in the context of motorcycles and scooters, i.e. two-wheelers

4. [40] from GooglePatents – a patent for a bicycle trailer (for children, the carrying of)

• So, all in all, one good reference – still not making a well-known term, and even less so a good article. And, by the way, news sources shows zero hits; books shows three: two are the same (impossible to determine context), and the other is irrelevant. – B.hotep •talk• 08:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi all, I am the author of this entry. My intentions are to document a concept of transportation that is exhaustively being discussed in the media at the moment. The terms "Personal", "Urban", "Mobility", "Green" are used in any variation (Persu Mobility, Segway PUMA, Toyota PM concept, also TTW), and Personal Commuting Vehicle is one that has been documented already in newspaper articles (including Sole24Ore, Italy's leading Financial Newspaper). My intentions are not commercial, we are a spin-off of the Politecnico di Torino, Turin's Technical University, working on this vehicle concept. I believe we started the page incorrectly and biased and I apologize (was my first entry here). I would welcome the suggestion of NotAnIP83:149:66:11 to start the page on the base of the cited sources. Thanks for reading my comment. SGruender (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all newspapers calling them "personal commuting vehicles"? If not, what, so I can carry out another source test. The gist of my comments about the four sources NotAnIP found is that they would not suffice as references to build an article on. I'm not making it all up. It's there in this and this policy. – B.hotep •talk• 15:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The term "personal commuter" generates google search results very close to the article definition. However, the term is interpreted variously, also used are e.g. "commuter cars/vehices" by Tango and Volvo, "Electric commuter vehicle" by Myers Motors, "Personal urban commuter" by Robert Q. Riley, "Urban Life vehicle" by Persu Mobility, or "Personal Urban Mobility" by Segway for the PUMA.SGruender (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete spam. JBsupreme (talk) 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficiently informative, though needs a little rewriting to reduce advocacy. DGG (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As noted above, the term is notable. However, the article needs substantial editing to remove the unsourced and the advocacy. --Pink Bull (talk) 00:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justincase[edit]

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

Band fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No major chart success, no major tours, no real media coverage turns up in a google search. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable band. Triplestop x3 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non-notable. Hell, even their label dropped them when they couldn't sell records despite "heavy promotion". Niteshift36 (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm finding some sources, plenty of coverage in the Charlotte Observer and some national media coverage such as this article too. This article notes coverage on MTV. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:04, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm frankly surprised that others in this AfD discussion did not notice all the available sources. None were cited in the article at the time of nomination, but Google News archives have quite a lot, and there was a quote from Billboard already in the article. I've started expanding the article; more to come. There's easily enough for the general notability guideline, or WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there's a bit of (local) media coverage. As per WP:MUSIC, passing any one of the criteria only means that the band may be notable enough to warrant an article. The fact that the band failed to make any impact on the music scene, and was dropped by the record label as a consequence suggests to me that sufficient notability is not really achieved. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band "failed to make any impact on the music scene" is not a reason for deletion per deletion policy. It appears to be your own personal assessment of the band's significance. The point of WP:N is to make a neutral assessment, and the neutral way we assess a band's notability is to see whether multiple independent sources have covered the subject in a non-trivial way, as long as other policies such as WP:NOT are not violated. With multiple articles in many newspapers in the U.S. and Canada, as well as commentary from critics in Newsday and Billboard, that's sufficient for Wikipedia. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:MUSIC: "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis added). From WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." I'm not convinced that coverage in what seems to be local media only (what is actually said about the band in the Newsday article - it seems to be about Nick Carter, thus Justincase is not the "subject of this media coverage", but seemingly just mentioned in passing). Similarly, for the Billboard article, what is specifically stated about the band? It seems to be just a general article from the title. Could you provide links to these or summarise what is actually said if they are not online? If Justincase is not the sole subject of these two pieces, then they do not contribute to the "significant media coverage", which would then leave the media coverage standing at just 3 local papers. The fact that the band failed to make any impact means that they also failed to satisfy any of the other criteria at WP:MUSIC, and only marginally meet C1, which with only 3 local papers bothering with them doesn't seem to overwhelmingly support the notion that they are a "notable" act. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a marginal case, as it is not just "3 local papers". There are entire articles in the Charlottetown Guardian (which is from Canada, really nowhere near North Carolina) and on the Knight Ridder news wire. The Knoxville News Sentinel (from Tennessee) reviewed their album, and a national kids' magazine did a fun feature on them. Billboard wrote about the band's history with Michelle Branch, their signing with Maverick Records, the video being in rotation on MTV, and had a bit of an interview with the band's lead singer—in all, it's about one-quarter of a long article about North Carolina's music scene. The Newsday review is of Nick Carter's concert, at which this band opened, and one of the eight paragraphs is about Justincase. And that's just what I've found so far. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:39, 28 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 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Update – I've now also cited a feature article in the Phoenix New Times, and an Allmusic review. If anyone has access to The Charlotte Observer through a database, more could be added from those articles. [41]. Thanks, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, easily passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Nice work PE.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Klat" 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Paul Eric. The sources establish notability.--Pink Bull (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian exodus[edit]

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

Term is non-existant in the literature and appears completely made up by the article creator. The article is nothing more than a collection of disparate events that are completely unconnected and appears to exist solely for national POV purposes. --Athenean (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: It is obvious that this term has nothing to do with what is written inside the article, for example in google books if we search: "Albanian exodus"+Chams [[42]] or "Albanian exodus"+Chameria [[43]], the results are zero.Alexikoua (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – even if the term could be sourced as having been used occasionally for each of the half dozen unrelated historical situations treated in this article, combining them into a single article would still constitute illegitimate OR – a classical WP:SYNTH case. The act of spinning these historical episodes into a single historical "thread" is precisely the kind of "novel narrative" that our WP:OR policy is meant to prevent. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:30, 29 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} 07:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Miller (Politician)[edit]

Gary Miller (Politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apart from the article title problems does this person meet the notability guidelines? This article is such a mess it's very hard to tell. Polly (Parrot) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I doubt very much he is the first gay school board member. Maybe the first "openly" gay one. But being "the first openly gay" anything does not confer inherent notability. The article does not appear to satisfy WP:BIO. The title is highly inappropriate, just like Mark ------, Philandering Governor, or Larry ------, Gay Senator. If the article somehow survives AFD, it should be moved to a neutral title such as Gary Miller (school board member) or some other encyclopedic title. See Gary Miller (disambiguation) for examples. Edison (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I searched for sources online (more difficult when there are lots of Gary Millers) but I didn't find anything to establish notability. ReverendWayne (talk) 22:29, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How could the article's most central claim to notability even be proved? Drmies (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the wonderful reasons provided above. Also, this is likely an autobiography per the user name of the creator; also the user page of the page creator is a redirect to the article, probably needs to be undone? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 22:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like a great guy, very politically active, very sincere, very much the type of stand-up-and-do-the-right-thing person that the world needs more of. However, being elected at the school-board level is not, by itself, an assertion of notability - not even if he's the first openly-gay man to be elected to that position. Sorry, Mr Miller. DS (talk) 01:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Also noting copyvio issues if the article is kept [44]. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gay or straight, he still fails WP:POLITICIAN. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment In the process of assessing a page called I want to talk to a live person for speedy deletion, I followed a link and came across this material, which I believe has been contributed by the subject of the article; I thought it was responsible to reproduce it here. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is copied from Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Gary Miller (Politician). Accounting4Taste:talk 22:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read all the comments. Here is my response

1. I admit I am a newbie and perhaps I didn’t follow proper procedures. I find the instructions on Wikipedia written for computer nerds, but not for the average person like me. So I am doing my best to understand and anyone who has valid concerns, I am willing to read and respond accordingly.

2. That said. Let me make some preliminary remarks first. I do not know any of the people who are making these concerns. I don’t know if you are gay or straight. Whether you are a leader in gay rights movement or whether you were a large contributor to the Prop 8 campaign. I don’t know whether you are saying “nay” because you honestly do not feel my achievements are not worthy or whether you have a bias against gays and don’t want Wikipedia to show anything which would put gays in positive light.

One of the people who responded was a minister (I don’t see his comments now for some reason). Now I know that there are many denominations which are supportive of the gay community such as Quakers, Unitarians, United Church of Christ, Metropolitan Community Churches and Reform Jews. But there are many denominations which have cause a lot of pain to the gay community such as Mormons, Southern Baptists, and Assembly of God. So I don’t know where you are coming from.

I do not mind making some editing changes, but I do not want to be removed because of homophobes who has a bias against gays.

So let’s take a look at some of the concerns.

1. Polly said that I said I was the first gay school board member and she didn’t think that was correct. She is right. It isn’t correct, because that is not what I said. I am the first gay person in the country to win a seat on an elementary school board. I was also the very first gay person to be elected to a school board below college level in California.

Someone said where is the verification. I am not sure what verification you need, however you can verify what I said from a book called Out for Office which was published by the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund.

If there other things that you need to be verified let me know and I will provide that.

Someone said that being the first gay school board member, why is that so significant? Please refer to the Wikipedia page for Harvey Milk. He served in office less than a year before he was killed by a homophobe. He was elected to the city council of that city. As the Wikipedia page says he was elected as the first gay man in California. I have served on a school board for over 20 years. Are you saying that a gay person who served less than a year is more important than a gay person who has served for over 20?

So how can I appeal the decision to have me removed? Please respond to rosevillegarymiller@yahoo.com

• I'd say, that given that he is the first gay man elected to the position, he just might be notable, so keep. I've contacted him and asked him if he would like some assistance with Wikipedia, perhaps with some better writing sense he'll form the page better. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, I am willing to take any legit suggestions for change. I dont want page deleted because of homophobia. If it is legit, fine. But the process...one has to have a doctorate to figure all this out. Not written for average Joes like me. I probably wont be able to do anything about this until Mon. So if it gets deleted, I will probably give up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmillerkc (talk • contribs) 11:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it has nothing to do with being worthy. It has to do with being appropriate for an Encyclopedia. Milk was mayor of SF, and all the mayors of SF have articles here. DGG (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Milk was only on the Board of Supervisors, but he was generally known as the "Mayor of Castro Street", so I can understand how you got that idea. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm actually fairly offended that Miller implies that people who vote delete are doing so out of bias. I voted delete and I don't care if he is gay or not. However, his whole appeal is based on his sexual orientation. If he were straight (or his sexual orientation were a private matter), he'd be just as non-notable to me as he is now. This niche carving about "first gay this or that" doesn't help anyone. It just serves to divide everything further. First below college level? Why do we have to sub-divide further. And only in CA? Another sub-division to try to shoehorn this in. Do we need an article for every gay man or woman that gets to be first in every political sub-division and each office in it? That whole appaeal and the reasoning of some editors here makes me think that the idea of trying to keep someone based on sexual orientation, not based on their accomplishments, is every bit as present as the bias against it he alleges. Why is sexual orientation a factor in determining notability? If this man were not gay, would we even have a single keep vote on this? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gary, I hope this helps - The editorial community here has criteria to decide broadly, what should be included and what should not. In most cases it's not that hard to decide, and we follow those criteria. Some of them are that we need certain kinds of sources to write from - users will assess and form a judgement if they feel we have appropriate sources. We also have a whole host of inclusion criteria, which you can read here. These roughly say that we want articles on things that are inherently notable, and have proved it by attracting significant amounts of actual purposeful notice from unconnected people. Being "the first" of something isn't necessarily meaningful - someone might be the first black councillor in Smallville OR, someone might be first person to do 50 pressups in 30 seconds. We look for a genuine level of notability. That's a judgment collectively formed. In your case, where are the major newspapers not connected with your town or local region who have written editorials and profiles on you specifically? Where are the evidences that people with credibility (well known journalists, authors or analysts) who have no special reason to care about you and aren't themselves closely connected to you or your activities, have found your life and career important to write about? Where are the evidences of interest that you didn't and couldn't have influenced to be written, but got written anyway because some unconnected writer with few or no common interests felt that a paying public would wish to read about you in preference to 100,000 other local politicians or gay activists? That's what this discussion is about, and that is the sort of thing people here are assessing and looking for. Not just "first person of <group X> to be in <group Y>", however important that is to you. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate facts - we are selective, like any encyclopedia, and that means only a small proportion of minor politicians etc are ever likely to meet those criteria. Apologies, but so far we're not seeing a strong case for considering your life an exception, however much it may have done good locally and for your chosen causes (which nobody here is discussing or opposing). FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (1) There are no sources for the statements in the article, meaning it is not a wiki article. (2) The statement that he is the first homosexual school board member is not true, although he may be the first to publicise it. (3) Being a school board member, homosexual, communist or jihadist is not notable, nor is it being a politician. (4) Wiki has NEVER, in my experience, been anything other than ultra-liberal, politically speaking. The idea of it being homophobic - and the author's accusations that that may be the reason for going against this article - are both laughable and rather indecorously 'playing a card.'--Fiskeharrison (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as G7 by User:WereSpielChequers. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"membership probabilities"[edit]

"membership probabilities" (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article prodded, and endorsed, however this looks like nonsenses, and possibly WP:OR. probably should be speedied.
I am also nominating the following related pages because the same:

Membership probabilities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hu12 (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my initial impression was that it was OR. I would be suspicious that the creator was one of the references mentioned at the bottom of the article (M. Gebel would be my best guess).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomsteve (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 July 2009

I've deleted "membership probabilities" per G7, so please focus discussion on Membership probabilities. ϢereSpielChequers 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per my last comment, and nom. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 16:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per my nom--Hu12 (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Merging can be dealt with on the talk page. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copernic Desktop Search[edit]

Copernic Desktop Search (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No third party reliable sources, no evidence of notability. WP:PRODUCT says "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy". That is clearly not the case here. B (talk) 19:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 20:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - advertising! Jeni ^(talk) 00:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It describes what it is, what it can and what it cannot do. Isn't that what a Wikipedia article is about? Paul-Michel (talk) 12:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While those may be three components of a Wikipedia article, not every topic is appropriate for inclusion. Wikipedia only includes topics for which there are reliable sources of information, external to the subject. In other words, does someone out there other than the company that made the product care enough to write an article about it? We also don't normally have articles about individual products unless there is so much to say that including them in the article about the company itself would make that article unreasonably large. For example, there is a lot to say about Microsoft and its various products that if we tried to cram it all into one article, there would be too much. But in this case, the company's article — Copernic — is not all that large and anything that really needs to be said about this product can be said there. --B (talk) 13:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, I was planning on making descriptions of most of Copernic's products, it may not be enough for it's own page for now, but it'll probably be. For the sources, I thought the company's site was reliable enough, but there a millions of articles on this products all over the web, I'll include other sources if it's only that. Cheers Paul-Michel (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP - Competing products from Google and Microsoft are extensively covered in wikipedia, so is also the open source beagle product. Wikipedia should have space for products form smaller companies when they receive good reviews. --Fredrik Orderud (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google and Microsoft are large companies with large articles and a whole slew of major products. Category:Google has 112 articles and Category:Microsoft has 97 articles, as well as 24 sub-categories and their articles. If we were to attempt to cover all of their products in the main articles, they would be a gigabyte in size. WP:PRODUCT says "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy". Google and Microsoft meet that test. Copernic does not. --B (talk) 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles on Google and Microsoft were not written in the form of advertising by, respectively, Larry Page or Sergei Brin and Bill Gates. The issue isn't whether software of a given type deserves to have an article about it. The issue is whether the article was written as an objective article on a notable product based on third-party reliable sources. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion requested. The article is unquestionably advertising, and was evidently written by the company's web marketing agent. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not written this article, Speed deletion request was removed by Largo Plazo Paul-Michel (talk) 19:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's correct. That was my mistake. I've removed my speedy request, and I'm striking out my Delete vote and my other comment above. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of authorship, the point of G11 is that we are going to speedy delete press releases, advertisements, and resumes. This article is none of those. --B (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copernic Agent --B (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this article into the company's article, this doesn't seem like it needs it's own article. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I wonder if I'm the first person in this deletion discussion to try to find sources? But this software has a staggering 542 Google News hits. 542! Out of those 542 hits there is more than enough to show notability. A good number of them are going to be press releases, but you have PC World, CNET News, CNNMoney, PC Magazine, FOXBusiness, CBS News, InfoWorld, Washington Post, InformationWeek... How could you consider the software not notable for a lack of sources? -- Atama^chat 22:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Most of those 542 are software comparisons and plain advertising. -- RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 22:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a WP:LOTSOFSOURCES!--Otterathome (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - True, true, now that I read more into them they are. Hmm, I'm rethinking my suggestion here now that I get into these. I thought there had to be something of value in there, but really I haven't found a single source of in-depth coverage out of those hundreds of hits. Looks like Copernic has some incredibly busy marketers (Paul-Michel among them I guess). I think I'll change my vote to merge after more consideration. -- Atama^chat 22:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, merge seems a better choice. -- RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 23:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are multiple articles and reviews about this desktop search software. I believe this is in Czech but with machine translation, it's very clear this is an article solely about the product and is a product test and review. There is this PC World review which includes a download link, but the review is editorial content from PC World staff and not a user review or press release copy. There is this VUnet review specifically about this software. Small Business Computing has written an article about it. So has the Bangkok Post. As has ZDNet. And this is just a the first few results from a Google News search. Yes, there are press releases and other stuff in the results, but these examples are sufficient to establish notability, and based on this sample, there are very likely more articles about the software if a more concerted effort is undertaken. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - The PC World and VUnet "reviews" aren't reviews; they are brief blurbs about the software, the same kinds of blurbs written about any piece of software available for download. It's the same coverage that you'd see for every non-notable piece of shareware or freeware you'd download at a place like that (Cnet/Download.com has those same kinds of "reviews"). The ZDNet review is a bit better, but marginally so. The Small Business Computing article is fishy, I'm not sure if that's a legitimate news source or not. The Bangkok Post article I admit is pretty thorough and reliable, and it didn't show up for me when I did my search. I'm not convinced it should be kept but this definitely strengthens the argument that it should be. -- Atama^chat 21:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply But is it a long enough topic to deserve an article of it's own? Can it be sourced enough? --> RUL3R^{*flaming | *vandalism} 22:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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