< 31 May 2 June >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep, as per consensus; there are no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources found, speedy declined. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 23:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

One third party source but not enough for WP:N it seems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; subject (User:Chanpol) wrote it, in his sole edit three years ago, and it doesn't appear to have been substantively improved since then. --Golbez (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a vote. This is a sounding of the general consensus amongst editors. Maybe, just maybe, people are at work, or enjoying a sunny afternoon, or waiting to see what the general consensus is, and have not the time or inclination to rewrite an article, which, a couple of minutes with Google reveals, has obviously erroneously been proposed for deletion, right now but will get back to it as soon as possible. Lame Name (talk) 15:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn per Michael Q. Schmidt. Obviously I have horrible Google-fu. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 16:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:1S, no real notability asserted beyond directing four questionably notable documentaries, no sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Woah man, if you're gonna delete all my pages, at least give me half an hour to change things and figure out what you want. Not saying you're right in that I need more references, but let me at least breath. You're deleting a lot of hard work without letting me argue my side. sloggerbum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloggerbum (talkcontribs) 22:38, 1 June 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 What Golbez said Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied; fails WP:MUSIC. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I redirected this at first, but on second thoughts the term isn't really close enough to the name of this 'Vitaminwater' product to serve as a useful redirect, it would apply equally well to something like Berocca, so I'm just deleting. Flowerparty 01:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seems too much like an advert, difficult to imagine being able to rescue this. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others: (not counting Glaceau and it's permutations)
No reason why this should be any different.    7   talk Δ |   04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has "Vitamin Drink" ever been used as a trade name for Vitaminwater, though? I'm not opposed to redirects in principle, but a redirect from a generic term to a specific product smacks of bias. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Googling that terms shows the Glaceau website as the second link here. I am sure it's not trademarked (probably can't be) but may be used for it. Believe me, I agree about redirects. If this is deleted then great. I just suspect we'll all be back here in a few days/weeks having the same coversation.    7   talk Δ |   06:03, 2 June 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 What Golbez said Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Bones

[edit]
Jimi Bones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a hoax, not backed up by the sources. Insufficient coverage in sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied; fails WP:MUSIC. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 1 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AJ - Ace Junior

[edit]
AJ - Ace Junior (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

promotional article for an artist with only one newly released album, therefore fails WP:MUSICIAN Passportguy (talk) 21:52, 1 June 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 A7 Indeed a real band, but didn't assert notability per WP:MUSIC. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.L.X.

[edit]
A.L.X. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a little complex. I can't quite tell if just the name was made up (i.e. the band was real but the name was created) or if there might be a hoax going on here that that just looks similar to the bands linked to. Nowhere is a band called A.L.X. referred to in the sources, after all, and the names in the band do certainly beg the question of whether this is a hoax with links designed to obfuscate that fact. Tyrenon (talk) 21:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The band members list, discography and refs seem to be copied/pasted from The Fartz. That would suggest a hoax and maybe a candidate for speedy deletion TheSmuel (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry about the hoax confusion - I used the template from the Fartz so I didn't have to make the page from scratch. I should have started with a sandbox, so my bad. It's a real band, they have quite a few shows in the area - it's made up of a bunch of old rock veterans. heard them at a show, realized these are big wigs that should be in here. Hope that helps. I still want to do more cleanup. sloggerbum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloggerbum (talkcontribs) 22:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete. Alexf(talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe vaughan

[edit]
Joe vaughan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Likely hoax. Player not listed at http://www.ebbsfleetunited.co.uk/eufc/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5&Itemid=86 Passportguy (talk) 21:24, 1 June 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 Article needs expansion, not deletion. Cheers. I'mperator 17:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only You (112 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article falls short of notability for singles by a substantial margin from all appearances. Tyrenon (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there's more potential content for a "reasonably detailed article". What was the writing process? Where did they record it? How were the sessions? Did they record several versions or just one? What was the process in getting Notorious B.I.G. to perform on the track? How was he during the recordings? What were the gross sales? What charts was it on? How long did it chart on each of them? Does 112 still perform it live? How are the live performances different from the studio track?--Oakshade (talk) 18:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet as. If you can supply reliable, third-party, sources to back all of that up, I'll be more than happy to change my vote.  Esradekan Gibb  "Klat" 02:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has no deadline. I currently don't have the time nor inclination to research and write an entire in-depth article with sources just to please an impatient Wikipedia user who doesn't understand how a one-day old article of a #1 charted song can be expanded, which was my point. --Oakshade (talk) 02:33, 3 June 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 redirected to 3ABN. JamieS93 21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K38IM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the station appears to have a permit, I see no other assertion that it exists. I might be getting over-eager here, but I think this might fail WP:N. On top of this, the call letters are non-standard. Tyrenon (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. Keeper | 76 04:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Lion King 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:FILM and WP:CRYSTAL. Tyrenon (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 23:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Montjuïc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A disambig page which leads to only redlinks. Tyrenon (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep You need to give the author of the article a bit of time. One link is now blue. Passportguy (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cello Sonata (Poulenc) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This lacks sources and appears to be a non-notable classical composition. Tyrenon (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article size should be irrelevant to a deletion discussion. Even when the article was 391 bytes, the subject of the article was notable, and should not have been deleted. Rlendog (talk) 18:29, 7 June 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 (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

While there is technically an assertion of notability, I don't think it makes the cut. The article doesn't even contain a DoB, and the person was the head of a department within the institution, not the institution itself. Tyrenon (talk) 20:56, 1 June 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 per WP:OUTCOMES (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Khawina, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It seems to be former Pomo settlement day on Wikipedia. As before, I find that this falls well short of notability. Tyrenon (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is your issue with articles on former Pomo settlements? --Oakshade (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources, only non-notable people involved. Only one of the five awards is from a notable festival, and even then I don't think that's enough for it to pass muster. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 20:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mostly for winning best dramatic short at the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival, but also for this reliable source review: Praise Pictures and these two pieces on Hildebrand: Alliance.ca Christian-movie.com. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:10, 2 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 15:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melanie loades

[edit]
Melanie loades (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While some assertion of notability is hinted at, I think this is a case where the person falls a bit short. Of the two links offered, one is the person's MySpace entry. Tyrenon (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sufficient notability. Passportguy (talk) 21:00, 1 June 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 per WP:OUTCOMES (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaci-badon, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The location is a place on a map with no particular assertion of notability. Tyrenon (talk) 20:39, 1 June 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 --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Noble

[edit]
Adam Noble (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the article asserts that he played professionally, it provides no evidence of this and no indication that he played at a major league level of any sort, thereby falling short of notability. Further, the article is unsourced. Tyrenon (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment If he finished high school at 17 (late birthday), then he would only be 20. I don't think it's that there is no such player, but that it's just some non-notable person making a vanity page. — Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 23:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...And personal fantasy. Scratch Major juniors and swap in one season as a backup goaltender at Div-III NCAA Salve Regina http://www.uscho.com/stats/player.php?pid=11132&gender=m ccwaters (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James J. Greco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable - essentially zero secondary source mentions. worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nationsrestaurantnews-digital.com/nationsrestaurantnews/20090511/?pg=56, http://www.faremagazine.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%3AArticle&mid=8F3A7027421841978F18BE895F87F791&tier=4&id=52D7168A259A440ABF429933A03841C0, http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS119746+07-May-2009+BW20090507, http://www.nrn.com/article.aspx?keyword=&menu_id=-1&id=346982. There are plenty more, simply google "James J. Greco" or "James J. Greco Bruegger's" and your search will be filled with articles. He is an important man to the industry, the business world and beyond and thus it is important that he have a Wikipedia article.68.109.18.69 (talk) 02:16, 3 June 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. Notability established and nom appears withdrawn. However, the article still needs some of theose many hits incorporated as references...--Kubigula (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Country Pure Foods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable; no Google News mentions, for example. worthawholebean talkcontribs 20:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We all make mistakes. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Glad we're all on the same page now.68.109.18.69 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arctic Monkeys 2009 Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As yet unreleased album with no particular assertion of notability. Also, I believe it fails WP:CRYSTAL Tyrenon (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, their official website, which I added to the article. -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. Keep. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be a blatant hoax. The one source offers a date of death of 2038, and no other assertion of notability which can be verified is offered. Tyrenon (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged it for CSD as blatant hoax. Passportguy (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]
We may have been a bit quick on this one, as the author has now posted a source which seems to be genuine (http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/afterword/archive/2009/05/07/toronto-comic-arts-festival-2009-q-amp-a-with-chip-zdarsky.aspx). However it is still questionable if this person (whatever his real name may be) is sufficiently notable. Passportguy (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly anyone can make the claim that Chip Zdarsky, as a popular regular writer for a national newspaper, is not "notable," yet there are lengthy articles about Sectaurs: Warriors of Symbion and Manimal defies comprehension. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.247.198 (talk) 21:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 65.92.247.198 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I've had the "pleasure" of meeting Chip Zdarsky several times and I can assure everyone here that he is real but most definitely not as notable as Sectaurs. 99.233.100.79 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC) 99.233.100.79 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

hi: just wanted to let you know i've updated the article with more references to a variety of his published works, and also another article stating his popularity. hopefully this will help turn the tide when a decision has been made on this article. i plan to flush it out still more, but have to sign off for tonight. i have done some clicking around though and can assure you that the toronto comics scene is vibrant and notable and there are people who will be happy to find chip zdarsky listed here. i will also be doing an entry for j. bone, and other comics creators. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]

i also wanted to let you know that i have added a redirect but it is only because there was a lower case z in zdarsky. more and more i believe that this is the right name for the entry because this is comics persona. my example of Carrot Top seems to be a viable one. anyway, will research more secondary sources as soon as possible but i would like to note that there are several other canadian comic artists in that list that would probably demur to be on the list when chip zdarsky is not, and that there are several articles there that are not as fleshed out as this one is.. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]

i would like to note that Passport guy has warned against the use of "sockpuppeting" in this matter. in short, i let friends know i was working on an article re: chip zdarsky for wikipedia -- my first! and that it might be deleted. it is likely that these friends took it upon themselves to champion the article. as i have noted above, toronto has a well-respected and thriving comics community and they would find it hard not to see chip as notable. i however, would like to state implicitly here that i have not asked anybody to champion this article, and have been trying to comply with all suggestions that have been made for its improvement by Passport guy. the thing about chip zdarsky is he is unique and crazy and to list him as his birth name "steve murray" would be like calling harpo marx, adolph marx, his real name. chip zdarsky is chip zdarsky which is likely why he was first looked at by wikipedia as a hoax whereas he is instead an incredibly talented artist and writer. Wiki leedetailed (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Wiki leedetailed[reply]

*Delete - It's one of the many articles on wikipedia that is non notabale. DeletionMojoMan (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just Close Your Eyes

[edit]
Just Close Your Eyes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Music article with a questionable-at-best assertion of notability. Not every song which gets used by a single wrestling star meets the criteria for notability as a song, and no other assertion of notability is provided. In a sense, this feels like wrestling cruft after a fashion. Tyrenon (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I Look At You (All I Think About Is Sex) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As yet unreleased single; fails notability for music. Tyrenon (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polish American Pharmacists Association

[edit]
Polish American Pharmacists Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization with no reliable sources as to its notability. All sources are just that it exists. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of an old joke. The punchline was "He couldn't figure out how to put the pill bottle in the typewriter" Mandsford (talk) 19:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable fictional character of a soap opera that hasn't even made his first appearance yet Passportguy (talk) 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Madden's law

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Madden's law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This usage not found in the 32 non-wiki ghits. Prod contested by IP editor without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted as hoax; user blocked as hoaxer. DS (talk) 18:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghetto Dayz

[edit]
Ghetto Dayz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A recording that would be significant for the guest artists it features, if only any proof could be ascertained that there is any truth to this article. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Juhi Babbar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is a rise and a trend among entries from India that try and create SEO tricks to influence engines for proper indexing. In a way, there are advertising agencies that are creating wiki articles for not-so-established models and actors. In majority of the cases, these articles sound like a cut-paste prose form of their resume. They have no citation, notability and in most cases lack any published external link. This wiki bio fits under the trend described above. As a platform of repute and source of encyclopedic knowledge, I am on a mission to form a like-minded team of wiki admins/users to identify such biographic 'fake' wiki and mark them for Afd. In most cases they are db-spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialprof (talkcontribs) 10:22, 1 June 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. Will consider userfication for Wikimjb if they request it, so that th article may be improved and then reviewed for a return to the article space. Discuss this with me on my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration Advocates Network

[edit]
Immigration Advocates Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, the prod was deleted after the long list of external links was deleted, but I think the bigger problem is lack of notability. Only 4 Google news hits, and 3 of them are press releases. 145 Google hits, but I still don't see significant, reliable, independent coverage - these are all blogs, press releases, facebook hits, etc. I don't believe the fact that the organisation's website was nominated for, but didn't win, a Webby is enough on its own to prove that the organisation itself is notable. Note that the article's author was blocked for COI for this article, and that the proposed deletion tag was removed by a brand new single purpose account user. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I reviewed the site in an attempt to find more material for this article, but most of the sections are behind a memberwall. While I support their (seeming) advocacy for immigrants issues, they don't offer enough content to evaluate the potential for future coverage of their efforts. - JeffJonez (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference between this and others in the "Legal organisations" category is reliable, independent sources offering significant coverage, per Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you have additional citations, by all means, add them to the article - this AFD can be withdrawn if notability is established. I will say that I was looking at quality more than quantity in checking for sources, though - which is why I disregard all the press releases, blogs and social networking sites. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Included objective, third party references to address sourcing issues. Also added Wikipedia links to partner organizations, nearly half of which are already on Wikipedia, to further substantiate notability. Wikimjb (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the WP:CLUB standard. This article is about a non-commercial organization that is national in scale (it has members from all 50 states in the United States) and the information about the organization and its activities are verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. Wikimjb (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I take this opportunity to point out that the only article that Wikimjb has done anything with is this one? I'm starting to suspect a WP:SPA and possibly a WP:COI Niteshift36 (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding was that I was being directly asked to make this article better, albeit in a short period of time (although, please see wp:BEFORE). I have only made edits that directly address issues raised here. Wikimjb (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then let me just ask directly: Are you affiliated with the Immigration Advocates Network in any way and if so, in what manner? Niteshift36 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's my point. The standard for a conflict of interest per WP:COI is "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." There is no evidence whatsoever of that. There is nothing non-neutral in the article and everything is sourced. The question is whether or not this article meets the WP:CLUB standard, which it clearly does. Wikimjb (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe you missied it so I will repeat my question and I would really like you to answer it directly: Are you affiliated with the Immigration Advocates Network in any way and if so, in what manner? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already said that I am affiliated, and that there is no conflict of interest based on the guidelines at WP:COI. I am concerned that your interest in deleting this article is based on your personal views, not the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, which I have consistently references and you have not addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.193.171 (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2009
  • Actually, Niteshift36, and I, and others have addressed notability guidelines - we just disagree with you that notability has been established. And, given that you are the one who is affiliated with IAN, have you considered the possibility that your interest in keeping the article is based on your personal views and not the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia? I'd never heard of them before seeing this Wikipedia article, so I have no preformed opinion, no "personal views" on the subject, which is probably the case for most of the other contributors to this AFD. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not addressed the WP:CLUB standard. You have also not established lack of notability based on the plain language of the Wikipedia guidelines: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Huffington Post qualifies, as do the other sources, to establish notability. I have referenced guidelines and policies all along for just that reason. Others have referenced "notability" only abstractly. (As for an indication of potential bias, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Niteshift36). Wikimjb (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be specific. What COI do you see on my user page? There is nothing there related to immigration, attorney's or any of the organizations that make up this network. So if you're going to make this kind of allegation, please do the ethical thing and tell us all exactly what on my user page shows a COI. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I don't like the implication that anything on Niteshift36's page indicates any sort of bias. Nothing there, or in his edits, suggests that he has anything against the Immigration Advocates Network, just that he doesn't think it meets the notability guidelines for inclusion, so I hope you aren't making the suggestion just because he seems to lean towards the right wing politically. As to my not addressing WP:CLUB, my original post covered it just fine - from WP:CLUB, "Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources" - and one HuffPo article doesn't change my mind that the standard has not been met. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every sentence of this article is sourced, including IAN's inclusion as a resource on U.S. immigration law by the Harvard Law Library (just added). A Google search for "Immigration Advocates Network" shows nearly 10,000 results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22immigration+advocates+network%22&btnG=Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=), including hundreds of links from organizations, law firms, and other independent, reputable third-party sources linking and commenting on IAN. Obviously one cannot include them all. References to potential bias are just that, highlighting what may be of concern to others reviewing this. It's difficult for me to understand why this article was subjected to such a lightening quick AfD and is being held to seemingly abstract standards. This doesn't seem aligned with the policies, guidance or spirit of Wikipedia or wp:BEFORE, which clearly anticipates that articles will mature and evolve over time. Wikimjb (talk) 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, first of all, it's good that every sentence is sourced, but nobody who has voted to delete has said they are doing it because they doubted the truth of the article. The sources have been updated slightly, but I'm still not seeing "significant coverage in reliable independent sources". As to the Google search, if you just click through to the 16th page, you'll see that there are just 154 results when Google eliminates duplicate entries. This is your search, I clicked on your link. My mind is not changed. Dawn Bard (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Longley

[edit]
Edward Longley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to currently meet WP:N as required for any WP:BLP subjects. rootology/equality 17:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I'd just as soon it not be speedied, given the factors surrounding it's creation, and request no admin close this early unless it's some monstrous deluge of policy-based deletes (which paid editing is NOT one, no matter what a handful of users here believe). The last time this sort of thing came up it was handled in as about of a clusterfrakked up manner as is realistically possible. I won't allow a repeat. rootology/equality 18:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear you. I have struggled with meeting the notability requirement myself and have found it difficult. There are mentions of Mr. Longley in The Real Deal online magazine and New York Times, but they have been archived and I haven't been able to retrieve the archives or as of yet. Petrosianii (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have contacted the editors of The Real Deal magazine and they are digging into the archives for Longley mentions. This is a reliable secondary source by Wikipedia standards. Will this satisfy your requirement? Petrosianii (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Petroiannii, there is no such requirement; I believe that was just an analogy. The requirements for notability for "living people" (WP:BLP's) are really actually simple: do they meet this notability standard, here, on their own? If so, the next question is, are they what we call a WP:BLP1E, a living person really only notable for one event? This is typically like a criminal, or victim, for example. Unless the that one event is so monumentally famous or infamous, they rarely are kept. A good example would be that confessed rapist in Germany that imprisoned his daughter (I forget his name)--only famous for that. Or someone that appeared, say on just one reality television show and then vanished. As long as you're not a borderline BLP1E and you pass WP:N, you're good to go. The WP:N is the first and major hurdle, though. If you want examples of what is is notable, go look through the past few days of WP:AFD, and read the debates about articles about living people. Those would be real-time examples. That's really the only core metric of whether an article stays or goes, pretty much regardless of what anyone else may tell you. "Paid editing" is not against any rules, and how could it be? Unless you told us, we'd have no idea, and once told... so what? Once you publish the article here, you have zero control over it more than any other editor, and neither do your clients--we get a nice free article, hopefully with sources, hopefully that passes WP:N. If not... we delete it. I hope that helps. rootology/equality 20:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is fun!
  • I totally get it now. Thank you, Rootology, for the clarification. I was always a bit confounded by that "notable for one event" clause. Now I see. So what the guidelines state is that, just because the person is in the news, doesn't necessarily make him notable. It's only if the person is the subject of an event that is important in a broader socio-cultural sense. So, in the case of a real estate investor - if Longley had written a book about real estate investing that was a bestseller, or he had sold the most expensive home ever in the guiness book of world records or something - then he'd be notable, as a real estate investor? Do I have that right? Petrosianii (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome, and pretty much yeah -- but not if he was ONLY famous for the one Guiness record, generally speaking. For the book sales, that's often a different story. JK Rowling would have certainly counted after the first Harry Potter book, for example. Or lots of little events--if your subject is the feature of various news stories, again and again over time. Like, say if over 10 years 20 different newspapers do features on him. He would be a "lock" certainly. rootology/equality 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It seems silly to me to list constituencies in an area that doesn't exist any more (Cleveland, England was abolished inthe 90s). I expect boundries have changed since the county anyway and that this is out of date. Computerjoe's talk 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland has gone through so many reincarnations. Should we have an article of List of Parliamentary constituencies in Teesside and one for Stockton-on-Tees? Computerjoe's talk 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, a merge is also an alternative, which I would also support. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computerjoe's rationale for deletion (posted on my talk page as article creator) was:


Cleveland doesn't exist; why on earth is there an article on its parliamentary composition?
The reason this area is treated separately is that the Boundary Commission for England treated it separately from North Yorkshire and County Durham in the 2004/5 boundary review. Their web site lists this review as "Cleveland", although the detailed press releases refer to "the area covered by the unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees". I do not think there would be much enthusiasm for article titles like List of Parliamentary constituencies in the area covered by the unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees. This is one of a set of short lists / articles covering the whole of England, see Category:Lists of UK Parliamentary constituencies in England, and if simply deleted would leave this area undescribed. The areas of the former counties of Avon and Humberside are treated the same way - Berkshire, Cheshire and Bedfordshire are slightly different as they are still ceremonial counties.
As to whether it should be "List of ..." or not, as mentioned by Martin Klein above, it seemed right as there is no actual information about the individual constituencies here, merely pointers to their own articles.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy deleted as A7 - page does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. TerriersFan (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kings college ten pin bowling club

[edit]
Kings college ten pin bowling club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable club. Speedy declined by single-purpose-account whose only edits have been to remove the db tag from this article (twice). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul II's speech at Israel's Holocaust Memorial

[edit]
John Paul II's speech at Israel's Holocaust Memorial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was tagged for transwiki to Wikisource; now it's tagged as a possible copyright violation, and either way, it's not encyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 17:34, 1 June 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. Roofio clearly exists. However, there is no indication of notability. Sources are all self-publsihed by the school, no indication of 3rd party coverage. And the killer sentence: Roofio is a truly King's School Sport currently played (at King's) by only the Upper Sixth Form GedUK  15:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roofio

[edit]
Roofio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school game Passportguy (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]



Give Roofio a chance, heck, maybe even play it. But deleting it from the Wikipedia system will be no way to help unknown and amateur sports become the greater successes they deserve.


Let's put Roofio on the internet map, starting with Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.81.1 (talk) 86.149.81.1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please sign your comments. The game is not comparable to Tetherball as it is far less notable due to lack of reliable sources, notice that the only sources provided are from blogs or facebook groups. the championship might have 100 people according to reference by facebook?!... this is hardly a reliable source or notable subject. wikipedia is not grounds for advertisement of new sports but an encyclopedia of notable articles. this sport is not notable yet--  Rmzadeh  ►  18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable if only played by a group of students at one school. Wikipedia is not the place to promote your new game. Beach drifter (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So to delete the article would be deleting the chance for anybody wishing to play the game the opportunity to learn how it works/the protocols etc. It is a sad, sad day that members of the Wikipedia community are willing to put down an idea that is merely being fully described here. Wikipedia is meant to be the peoples encylopedia, and a platform for groundbreaking content to be contributed to. The people have a right to learn about sports and ideas through the medium of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.81.1 (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia does not have as a purpose the publicizing of things made up in school one day. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it is big, then other people will have written about it, and we can use those sources to create a proper encyclopedia article. No one doubts that this game exists; the problem is that no one has written about it in reliable sources, so we have nothing on which to base an article. Powers T 12:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about if we had video evidence of the school championships forthcoming? Would that be evidence enough that it is a large enough sport and worthy of a page? We could even have a log book kept. unsigned comment added by DaveyWundaBoi (talk

No, please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Original research. Powers T 13:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it is not in question whether or not it exists. What we need are reliable sources about the game, and no -- those don't count as reliable sources. Powers T 22:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I may suggest, the best solution is to merge this article with the school in question. make a category under the school page whereby people interested in the sport can read all about it. In my mind this is not notable enough to be an article of its own but can make a good category under the sport section of the school article. I already have a delete vote on top so I didn't vote but I believe Merging to be the best course of action.  Rmzadeh  ►  02:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep/Merge Thank you. On this note, allow me to draw your attention to Eton Fives , a self admitted "uncommon sport", not dissimilar to although admittedly slightly more widespread than Roofio. Eton Fives has none of the references you speak of and is linked to similar pages as Roofio. Even more striking is the resemblence between Roofio and the article on the Eton Wall Game. I cannot distinguish enough of a difference in this instance to remove Roofio without removing articles on numerous other sports. King's Roofio (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by King's Roofio (talkcontribs) 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't vote twice. I might also add that all this sock- and meatpuppetry is not helping your cause. 17:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 17:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Simply because I happen to have few other contributions to Wikipedia does not mean I should be considered a puppet of 'King's Roofio', I have made real-life contributions to Roofio as a sport and feel it should be represented in some way, in this I am in agreement with 'King's Roofio'. I do feel however, it is perhaps not deserving of its own page. Also, as has already been asked, please sign your comments. B90 b91 —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Roofio is not made up. Whether or not it is relevant to the history of the school is neither here nor there. Roofio is part of the school's history and should not be discounted any more than the fact that Newton was an Old Boy. More importantly the history of the school is important to Roofio and, Roofio, far from being "made up in one day" has in fact developed over centuries. Development of the sport as we know it today has been influenced by records of a Roofio based equivalent played for years. King's Roofio (talk) 19:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I mentioned earlier, the school's website certainly had numerous references to Roofio - although I have been informed that the section on it has disappeared. I will speak to the system admin. as soon as possible and have this sorted. Other sources include the Grantham Journal. The Journal has reported the spread of Roofio and even included match reports. SJ Branson's book, "The King's School Grantham - 660 years of a Grammar School." also provides evidence to further Roofio's case. SJ Branson has been heavily involved in the school's archives for a number of years and I'm sure that if required, he would be available for comment. King's Roofio (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologies - the Brad Taylor referenced appears to be the incorrect person. I shall remove the link! However, if you read the article carefully, you will see that in fact it does not claim the sport was "made up" by him - instead that Roofio as we know it today has in fact developed over centuries. Brad Taylor was one of the people who helped "reinvent" the sport; deciding to write official rules, etc. King's Roofio (talk) 19:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Reliable sources are available although, the papers described in the article are currently held by the King's School Archives and are not available in an electronic format. However, I will attempt to determine whether any local or national archives hold copies of the information and reference them straight away. King's Roofio (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, it's a copyvio from http://roofio-sport.blogspot.com/. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Speedy delete Who then was a gentleman? thank you for your concern. Following your nomination for speedy deletion, the following has been agreed and forwarded to permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Information in the article belongs to me and also to the author of the link you posted and we are both prepared to allow re-use. Please remove speedy deletion.

This is to confirm that Roofio and the author of the article (King's Roofio (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)) have permission to use text from [1] and [2], awarded to them by the author of that site; "Luke.Johno". Other parts of [3] appear to be taken from my original article, on Wikipedia. I hereby give "Luke.Johno" rights to use this information freely. Both links contain the message "Re-use is permitted under the GFDL". King's Roofio (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

King's Roofio (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I wish to refer participants to the Eton Field Game article. This particle article has fewer citations than the Roofio page and yet is considered to be sufficiently relevant for publication. This begs the question, why is the Roofio page being targetted? While Roofio has rich history at the school, it is evidently a fledging nation sport and as of yet lacks reference in the wider press, yet this makes the information on the page no less credible. The Eton Football Variant articles rely upon their historical relevance to sport at Eton College, yet Roofio holds the same relevance to the sport at the King's School.Thelliwell (talk) 20:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC) — Thelliwell (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

STOP creating usernames to defend your position! this is getting out of hand here.. an article for deletion is no place to counjour up users, compare with other articles or any of the nonsense going on here... it is a place for editors to come to a consensus as to the merits of the article in question using the guidelines provided. This article is simply not notable enough! I am sure many more like this have escaped the editors and I'm sure that Wikipedia has many article in worst shape then this one but that is no excuse. if you find one, please report it to be csd'd, proded or afd'd... now back to this article... the consensus is to delete the article. there are some who believe that some the some material used could be transferred to the school wiki but other then that almost no one has voted to keep the article other then the article's authors. a game played amongst a few high-school kids is hardly a notable subject for Wikipedia. --  Rmzadeh  ►  21:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You are sorely mistaken in the assumption that the original author is simply creating usernames to defend the article. I certainly am no puppet of the author, and although known to him, I like many others have contributed to this discussion of my own volition. Furthermore, I would ask you to consider the viewpoint that face of the media is changing. While in the past newspapers etc. have been regarded as the bastions of information and credibility, recent developments in personal media, such as blogs, have meant that personal information sharing has gained massively in terms of authority to the point that they are in regular use with esteemed writers and media agencies. Wikipedia itself is a child of the internet age, yet some members seem to refuse that the internet has completely changed information sharing and scoff at the use of blogs and social networking sites as citations, when these are possibly some of the most information rich resources available today. Thelliwell (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My speedy delete tag for copyvio has been removed, despite the total lack of a legitimate GFDL claim. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the blog that it was copied from has released the text to GFDL. That wasn't there at the time of my copyvio tag. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that anything user-edited or self-published is suspect, including, as you suggest, large parts of Wikipedia. However, references to appropriate sources of this nature cannot be considered any more "suspect" than information published in say, a national newspaper or a thesis. There are many instances of respectable authors conveying misleading information to readers and so I do not believe that the use of user-edited material is an issue as long as there is consensus of its reliability - so far you have disagreed. As I have said, please direct me towards any problem links, I will attempt to solve problems as soon as possible in order to make the article more verifiable. I have also offered to obtain e-copies of paperwork citing Roofio as an traditional past time and developing sport. King's Roofio (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In reply to previous comments regarding the inconsistency in the application of Wikipedia protocol, I would wish to assert that if the rules are not applied uniformly, then there is no grounds to apply them at all. Effectively, what is happening is that members are targetting articles of their choice rather than acting as moderators. The call for deletion has become a matter of personal prerogative and therefore offers no valid grounds for deletion, hence rendering the call void. Furthermore, the notability of the topic is subjective and I do not think it is the place of any member to dictate what is notable to any particular individual. The Wikipedia guidelines governing notability are vague and seem to be open to interpretation by individual members. Thelliwell (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long have you been reading and editing at Wikipedia, that you are so much more well-versed in the rules than those who have been editing here for so long? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly, I am no seasoned editor of Wikipedia. However, I think the viewpoint of a new-comer offers a refreshing insight into a system that is fundamentally biased. My point is no less valid despite my lack of experience and I note that you have not directly addressed the issue I have raised, notably the flaws in this system of policing. No-one would stand for national laws which were randomly applied, so why should such intermittent rules be accepted here? The Wikipedia guidlines are the core of the deletion claim, yet I do not see how they can be regarded with any value if they are not applied uniformly. Again, on the notability issue, Roofio holds substantial notability amongst others, though admittedly not yourselves. Why do your opinions count above those who have interest in this sport? I've done all my homework thank you. Thelliwell (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeatedly explained above, all that is required is for someone, anyone to provide reliable sources, as per Wikipedia's long-standing, evenly-applied, WP:N requirements. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to the point, the long-standing, evenly-applied verifiability requirements. Article creator repeatedly claims sources exist to verify the statements in the article, but apparently hasn't added them to the article. As I understand WP:RS, a source doesn't have to be on the Internet, it just has to be reliable. I'm going to check the article's current state, and if sources have been duly added and they check out, I'll strikethrough much of this comment. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up: The main references are a Blogspot site (blogs are not reliable, last I checked); the Asda site (which is a supermarket), the Roofball site (which doesn't list Roofio), and the school -- where I was unable to find the sport listed anywhere. I raise a strong question about verifiability. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If only they spent half this time and effort on their homework. <sigh> Accounting4Taste:talk 22:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Anyone who wishes to change Wikipedia's policies about how it assesses articles that are undergoing an AfD process -- or any other policy -- is welcome, like everyone else, to make a case in the appropriate venue. That venue is not this discussion. The individual who will decide on whether or not to delete the article in question can only use the established guidelines and policies in making that decision; if s/he decides to abandon them, then it is very nearly guaranteed that the decision will be overturned in the Deletion Review process. If you'd care to spend a great deal of time working for the betterment of the encyclopedia, like everyone here has who has spent weeks, months and years learning Wikipedia's policies and how they are properly applied on a volunteer basis, you'd be welcome; learning those policies is an essential part of trying to change them, should you care to do that. But there is no point in trying to change policy in this venue; it isn't going to happen, period, full stop. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment Accounting4Taste, neither Thelliwell nor King's Roofio have claimed to be seasoned Wikipedia editors, and the rules and regulations that surround the deletion policy were merely mentioned and in no way deserving of a patronising response from yourself. Such a comment was unneccessary and unhelpful to this article's discussion. The question is not of "learning the policies" in an attempt to change them, but of Roofio, the article which we find ourselves discussing. Articles have been found just today that display a map of the School dating back to around the 1800's, possibly earlier (needs confirming), that clearly display an area designated to the playing of a ball game at free periods (break/lunch), the name of the game is stated on the map but it is rather unclear on first glance, and we have endeavoured to take the document to our local library for a closer inspection. Once we have this document returned, we shall look to photograph/scan the map and place it upon the internet, citing it as an article which comfortably holds enough evidence to be used as a significant reference that "Roofio" was not in fact made up "in one day". Twbanks (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC) Twbanks (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That will, unfortunately, probably not count as third party reliable evidence. It will be self-published and contribute to the feeling that at best this is Original Research. If the game does in fact have a history, independent evidence (not blogs or self-published stuff) will be needed. You might not like this, but this is how it is. There are many games played at one school (at mine it was nurdling) that do not deserve articles. The Eton game referred to above is well documented and established. I personally do not regard Eton with the respect that many give it, but the documented notability is there. In the case of Roofio, it isn't. If there is a reference to it in the school website - not in a freely edited area - it might increase the chances of survival. Published on the web by students of the school - same value as a blog. Peridon (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The problem with 'papers' is that they are not usually 'published'. That is, made public. Books are usually published, but the self-published ones are normally discounted - with some rare exceptions caused by the notability (otherwise established) of the author. You might think we are ba=eing hard on you. You probably haven't seen some of the unutterable (and often only semi-literate) junk that lands here (and normally is disposed of fairly quickly...). Peridon (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As mentioned before, the notability of Roofio in comparison with many of the other "sports" articles available on Wikipedia appears quite positive. Roofio's popularity and peoples' awareness of it is growing. It is well documented and efforts are being made to continue this and to develop its existance. 81.159.169.229 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted as a blatant advertisement. JamieS93 18:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logic Voice

[edit]
Logic Voice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advert. The author, who is the company's chairman, could not even be bothered to write an encyclopedia article. Instead he submits an OTRS ticket to allow him to copy his own website. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:16, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World Heritage Memory Net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn website plans. Google only 39 hits.[38] EWJNK (talk) 17:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JamieS93 17:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheharyar Electronics

[edit]
Sheharyar Electronics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Claims to be a huge company ("The monthly expenses of the Sheharyar Electronics is $4.88 billion but the total income is $5.11 billion till January 2008") however Google gives zero relevant hits for "Sheharyar Electronics". I Afd-ed instead of tagging it as a hoax just in case there is a misspelling in the company name. Passportguy (talk) 16:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lu Gui Yao

[edit]
Lu Gui Yao (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't assert notability, no sources, sounds (to a Westerner) to be nonsensical. mynameincOttoman project Review me 16:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This confirms the impression I had! Thanks! Cazort (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Scott (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I tried redirecting this to Lady Antebellum, but it was declined by the author, who said that her winning an award from SESAC (verified here) and writing the majority of Lady Antebellum's material was enough for a standalone article. Besides the fact that she recorded a non-notable, self-released album with her mother (Linda Davis, who is irrefutably notable), I see absolutely nothing that makes her sufficiently notable for a standalone article. (Keep in mind that all of the band's material was co-written by the other two members as well.) This article, as it stands, repeats material from Lady Antebellum's article in a desperate attempt to not be a stub, but I think she still fails to meet the criterion for individual member of a band, as she has not "demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Award + Songwriter with songs that have charted + Significant Coverage = Keep. Article is thin now, but it can definitely be improved. Corpx (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Andrew Gonzalez

[edit]
A. Andrew Gonzalez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Artist is not culturally significant; page originally created by artist's girlfriend Aletheia82 (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that without any credible sources, the article Cannot be called notable right? Notability means significance coverage which means sources, the motives of the person electing the article is irrelevant. we are to assume good faith, the only matter is the quality of the article  Rmzadeh  ►  16:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote that the artist is notable, which I based on the number of publications in which the artist has contributed. The article may not yet represent that notability in the opinion of some, but I believe that it is merely formatted poorly, contains some content that is currently unsourced, and in general needs a little TLC... not deletion - JeffJonez (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff, the majority of the publications linked to no longer exist (three out of five lead to dead areas). Additionally, the quality of the publication should matter as well, no? A small newsletter and a self-published magazine probably don't qualify for the Wikipedia notability standards, from what I understand of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talkcontribs) 16:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made it quite clear in my initial response to Kuyabribri that I created this account in order to provide a reason for the nomination (for what it's worth, I don't personally know either the artist/his girlfriend). I find it a little curious that you don't perceive a conflict of interest in the article's creator re: the artist's significance, but you seem to see one in my account having nominated the article for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aletheia82 (talkcontribs) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If your claim is true, it's not automatically a conflict of interest if the article is notable and reflects a neutral point of view. What I find suspicious is that you either have chosen not to stake your reputation as a wikipedian on this effort, or that you have no previous experience editing here. - JeffJonez (talk) 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The claim on the website you linked proves nothing. That blog post was added in July 2006. I cannot find any indication that an article on this individual existed on Wikipedia until September 2006. Regardless, we can't prove Puroprana (talk · contribs) is Heidi Allen without using CheckUser, and I don't believe we can justify using CU in this case. Frankly, the original author's identity is irrelevant and should be disregarded, as COI on its own is not grounds for deletion. Notability, on the other hand, is grounds for deletion, and this discussion should focus on that. I will not make a judgment on notability until I can check the sources with NSFW content. KuyaBriBriTalk 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've validated the links in the "other media" section, which do speak to notability. Many of them were suffering from link rot, and simply needed to reflect target site redesigns. - JeffJonez (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is Heidi Allen (Puroprana). A couple of points:
1) I am A. Andrew Gonzalez's girlfriend. However, I did not create this Wikipedia entry.
2) A. Andrew Gonzalez is definitely culturally significant within the visionary art movement. If you follow the movement, you've heard of him and are probably familiar with his work.
A little elaboration:
When I originally came across this entry, it was a stub, and there was a request for an editor to work on it. I was already a Wikipedia editor, and had access to the necessary information, so it seemed like a natural fit.
That was some time ago. I hadn't worked on the entry since then, although other editors have. I've just now finished an update to include more recent publications and to delete the section that listed some of his art shows.
The updated Publications and Other Media sections should provide ample evidence of Mr. Gonzalez's significance as a visionary artist. My relationship to him has no bearing on the information that's presented there.
On a side note, I've left the Children of God information as it is, other than correcting some spelling errors. I'm not familiar with the Children of God, and the editor who created that portion of the entry clearly is. Puroprana (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your questions. I've created a new 'Shows, Exhibitions, Collections, Prizes' section. I've also added two links to analyses of Gonzalez's work in the 'Paintings' section. (I'll change the title of that section to 'Technique & Influences' once I'm done writing this, to better reflect the section's focus.) I do want to note that, although Gonzalez has won top prize at juried exhibitions at the past, artists tend to stop entering juried exhibitions once their careers reach a certain level. Just the same, I did include the references in my update. In hindsight, I'm glad this entry was challenged, because it's now much stronger, more focused and readable. :) Puroprana (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Free Art Friday

[edit]
Free Art Friday (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about an art movement that was described as new when the article was created in 2006. There does not appear to be any coverage in reliable sources to establish the notability of this movement. The only Google News results are for something behind a pay wall in the Yakima Herald and a short mention in the Irish Times. The Yakima Herlad article appears to be an event announcement based on the excerpt text provided. The Irish Times article] is a very short piece that reads like an event announcement and is insubstatial. Whpq (talk) 14:26, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia–Pakistan relations

[edit]
Mongolia–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non resident embassies, these bilateral articles are about relations between the nation states, so the historical context before either of these nations actually existed should be covered in Mughal Empire and Mongol Empire. the section of trade is really becoming a WP:NOT#NEWS section and actually a copy and paste from 1 article which violates WP:COPYVIO. there is a real lack of coverage of actual bilateral relations, their relations seem often in a multilateral regional context [43] . there's this article but it's the usual "we would like to cooperate". also the Pakistan foreign ministry says nothing of specific bilateral relations [44]. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Musicotainment Unlimited

[edit]
Musicotainment Unlimited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No third-party coverage whatsoever. A possible COI looking at the creator's contributions. LeaveSleaves 13:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With All My Love

[edit]
With All My Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declining WP:CSD#A9 speedy deletion and taking to AfD; there are some technical points about A9 and allmusic.com I'd like to discuss. The page University of North Florida Jazz Department exists; so does that mean, for the purposes of A9, that we should speedy or not, when the band is the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I"? Also, I see "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble" on allmusic.com, but the entry is very short; does that suggest we should have a page on the Jazz Ensemble in addition to the department? And finally, if I'm trying to make a call on A9, and there's no page on the band but I have reason to think we might want a page on the band, what do I do? Inquiring minds want to know. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The band is listed as the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because it is a specific group of musicians who are a part of the larger University of North Florida Jazz Department. There is a Jazz Ensemble II and III, as well as other groups like the UNF Guitar ensemble and UNF Wind Ensemble. The album "With All My Love" is listed as being by the "University of North Florida Jazz Ensemble I" because they are the specific group on the recording. I have included a link to the UNF Jazz Ensemble I's page on the UNF website. I hope this clears up any problems at that this article is not deleted because it is an important accomplishment by the music department of the University of North Florida.
-The222


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'mperator 13:32, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago_reggae

[edit]
Chicago_reggae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notability; almost every major city contains proponents of several popular genre's of music. Aside from a single appearance by Bob Marley in the late 70's (which is apparently not notable enough to garner it's own article) no effort is made to indicate why Reggae music in or from Chicago is noteworthy. Jesse (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there does seem to be plenty of WP:OR. Vicenarian (T · C) 14:26, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic shot

[edit]
Magic shot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_for_things_made_up_one_day Gigs (talk) 13:15, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.R.Harikumar

[edit]
P.R.Harikumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article was previously deleted at CSD. It has since been recreated by a different author. Article has multiple issues, not much improved upon by the first version. Not eligible for CSD because of notability issues. No articles link to it, and it is a dead-end. Neutralle 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete of this self-promotion. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:09, 2 June 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 redirected to Illinois-Indiana League. Non-admin closure. KuyaBriBriTalk 14:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two-I League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is exact duplicate of Illinois-Indiana League and doesn't give any additional information. dashiellx (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge to Gun fu. No consensus to delete. The arguments for merging are slightly stronger then the arguments for keeping. Otherwise this is a tossup (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Trivial OR (also unreferenced of course) that only recounts plot details from the film Equilibrium, totally redundant to Gun Fu. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not basing my keep on interest. I'm basing it on usage. It has been done in enough films and has gained a following. Third party sources are probably out there, but it involves people looking hard enough. Sometimes primary sources are the best sources to use. Primary sources didn't stop me from getting this to FL. Now yes, third party sources help establish notability, but there is always another step. Something can get major interest from people, but is so insignificant that it doesn't really needs its own article. But there is enough sorces out there. Thinking plainly on sources the entire time, really isn't correct.--WillC 19:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious, outside "Equilibrium" what other films has this, by name, actually been used in? The article has been around for years and has only mentioned Equilibrium and for a brief time had references to it being used in Ultraviolet that have since been removed from the article. Ultraviolet supposedly uses Gun Kata, but it's not mentioned on screen, and I'm unsure if they even refer to it in behind the scenes. No other films to my knowledge use this fictional technique. If you can provide examples, great - do so. If you can't - I'm not sure how much weight the argument that it's notable outside Equilibrium really holds. Radagast83 (talk) 05:36, 5 June 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. ONEEVENT cannot apply here, and Banjeboi's presentation of sources is unquestioned - cannot accord consensus in either direction Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notable? Stars in one movie, the sequel appearances seem to be bit more of just a trivial mention. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stars in two films, but still not notable. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, if memory serves they're just "walk-on" parts/cameos. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I just came to this page to improve it with information from the Journal of Bisexuality aricle "The Pleasure and Pain of Chasing Amy" which comments on the multiple interpretations of the characters as understood by viewers of different sexualities. The character is a minor figure of interest in queer studies, although this information has been heterowashed out by editors.~ZytheTalk to me! 00:34, 2 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aurum Ventures

[edit]
Aurum Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has been Speedied a few times before. Still no indication of notability. Take it here to resolve remaining issue over notability. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shnarbles

[edit]
Shnarbles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Card game with no indication of notability. No google hits that appear related. Shadowjams (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, it seems to be an unlikely search term. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 17:35, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agyaan

[edit]
Agyaan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dictionary definition at best, although not even an english word. Shadowjams (talk) 10:32, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article reads like an advertisement, and relies primarily on its own website for sources. Further, it seems all the external links are to Softbrands websites (seems like spam) and the already-existing orphan tags are a sign that this article was added for advertising purposes only. I do not see anything encyclopedic or particularly noteworthy about this topic. Also, as the primary editor of this article is a Softbrands employee, one can clearly see how this violates WP:COI. How can there be any doubt this is being used solely for advertising? Timneu22 (talk) 10:14, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald Montgomerie, 16th Earl of Eglinton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any references to back any of this up, or to confer any notability. A Google search reveals many mirrors of this article, and a couple of other Earls of Eglinton with the same name, but basically nothing on this guy. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 09:11, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former SL Benfica famous footballers

[edit]
Former SL Benfica famous footballers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

By its own admission, the article is based on a "reputation factor": i.e. it is POV and OR Kevin McE (talk) 08:44, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sibyll kalff

[edit]
Sibyll kalff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod deleted with no improvements so AFD made: the document looks like a resume, number of irrelevant links with no relevant sourcing. notability highly in question and the quality is very much lacking. decide for your self  Rmzadeh  ►  08:00, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austria–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

noting that Austria has no resident embassy in Uruguay. only 2 minor agreements including 1 for the abolition of visas (which is something most western countries are doing). almost all coverage is in multilateral not bilateral context or about...football, English search, German search. LibStar (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it may be subjective, but we are here to reach consensus on if the article meets WP:N. if you have significant independent coverage to prove this. LibStar (talk) 15:38, 2 June 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. MBisanz talk 11:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art of Memory (company)

[edit]
Art of Memory (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Organization fails to meet notability requirements as per WP:COMPANY. Details provided here. Picatrix (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*delete Seems to me from the article that it's "The Story of Glass" (which doesn't seem to have an article) which is notable, not the company that made it. And I'm not sure they were 'pioneering' in the use of CD-ROM and kiosks. Someone has collected a huge archive of references to kiosk development (unfortunately it's on a blacklisted server, but is not itself spam. Maybe a list of old spams. Can I post it not as a link or will I still get pulled up for spam?) and these guys don't seem to figure on it--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC) *Keep: article seems fine now.[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement for Wikipedia sources to be online. To quote Wikipedia's policy on verifiablity: "The most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers.". Many such sources are not available online either because they are subscription journals, professional books or because they were published before the web became a mainstream publication media. And with respect, Art of Memory is mentioned in both the sources that you quote - just not in the abstracts available online. Cantingle (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to agree with Cantingle here. If he/she has found non-online sources, then they are still good - and good on Cantingle for looking them up. If you don't believe the sources, go check it out at a library.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with both of you. Sources don't need to be online, but in this case, they are. As I said above, the two I found didn't even mention this company. Even though those sources were abstracts, this poses serious problems with verifiability and causes me to question the validity of the other sources. These sources likely mention Art of Memory in passing, since the company name isn't used in the first 500 words. Cantingle, please cite which sources you believe that allow this company to pass the notability guidelines; then quote the information that is hidden behind the pay walls, so that I can see the depth of coverage of this company. Cunard (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By only seeing the abstracts, I cannot verify whether or not the sources even mention the subject. The lack of online sources is indicative that this company is non-notable. The article isn't about an obscure topic, such as a politician in Somalia; it is about a company in the UK, where there is great Internet presence. Verifiability is a core policy on Wikipedia. Again, I request that Cantingle choose four of the sources that s/he has cited in the article and quote the paragraph(s) that mention the Art of Memory Company. Without knowing the context of those articles, for all I know, Art of Memory may be mentioned only once in an article about a different topic. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 24 May 2009 (UTC
If you want to know how much coverage they've actually received, turn off your computer, get off your ass and find out. Where did this ridiculous idea come from that that verifiable means "hyperlinked"? There's a lot of information on the Internets, but it turns out that before the Internet, people still published information, except that it was on paper! Weird, I know. Anyway, there are these places called libraries, and if you go there, you can verify all sorts of things you can't verify from your computer. — Bdb484 (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your sarcasm amuses me and your point is taken, but I don't have the time to research all those sources at the library. In fact, my local library is so small that it doesn't have any of those journals.

    My only request is for Cantingle (talk · contribs) to quote the relevant information in the sources. That isn't an unreasonable request, is it? Once Cantingle has done that, I will be able to evaluate whether or not the company has received enough coverage to pass WP:CORP and hopefully change my vote to keep. Cunard (talk) 01:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an unreasonable request; it just frustrates me when editors !vote to delete an article as unverifiable because they haven't personally verified the article. I appreciate you taking my sarcasm lightly, because I really don't mean to be a dick, but I don't understand why you're so heavily involved in this discussion when you don't have the time or resources or gumption to actually find out whether this article actually should be deleted. — Bdb484 (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that folks can become annoyed when editors vote to delete an article when they haven't first personally attempted to confirm the sources that are associated with it. However, I nominated the article for deletion after checking the available references (see the talk page for the article). I discussed why at length on the talk page (and received no response). I have already addressed the previous citations. As for the new ones, If Cantingle has access to the sources (and presumably he or she does, else how did these latest references materialize?) then why not simply indicate to us what they say? I'm all for assuming good faith, but why assume it when unquestionably establishing it (and, happily, any putative notability) is as easy as posting excerpts and summaries from the citations mentioned? As a matter of fact, when I post citations I provide excerpts for purposes of discussion. Is there some particular reason why bald citations without excerpts are being provided in this case? At any rate, when it comes to "getting off one's ass" one can quite reasonably ask people with access to citations to provide excerpts. When all the sources I can verify mention the company or one of its products in passing, it seems sensible to dig deeper when new ones are provided. If Cantingle really is interested in keeping the article why not post appropriate excerpts from the citations together with the publication information in the notes? Simply sticking citations on an article means nothing in itself; the citations provided should establish notability. How are these citations relevant to establishing notability? According to WP:COMPANY "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." None of these articles appear to be about "Art of Memory (company)". As best I am able to tell the new sources are no less anemic (as far as establishing notability goes) than the previously provided ones. Finally, I don't want to waste my time or anyone else's. If those citations establish notability then we can keep the article and go back to working on more important things. Hence, I ask Cantingle: please post illustrative excerpts. If Cantingle is unwilling to do so, can somebody else? If not, can we extend this review so that I have time to dig them all out one by one and to address them? --Picatrix (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brief version: the new citations provided by Cantingle might be from reliable, independent sources. But the rest of the sentence that mandates the use of reliable, independent sources also specifies that the organization should have been the subject of significant coverage. It also specifies that trivial or incidental coverage is not sufficient. The interested editor will, I hope, note that "Art of Memory (company)" is not the subject of a single one of these articles. Of all the ones that I have been able to verify the 'coverage' is decidedly incidental at a best. Significant coverage, by any reasonable standard, would appear to involve at least one headline or article entirely devoted to the subject... Cantingle's edit summary specifies thing like "Reference to a review of their first CD-ROM" and "Add Reference to Chinese Ceramics". These summaries indicate that these references are to the products the company is responsible for. Again, these are in fact trivial or incidental references to the company's products, not the company itself. --Picatrix (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you researching all those sources. My suspicions about the validity of the sources are confirmed, so my delete vote remains. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:NOTABILITY "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail" The subject of this article is "Art of Memory (company)".
Each of the sources indicated are used to reference the fact that the company has produced products. None of the sources are about the company. These are citations which support statements about products the company has produced NOT about the company. They do not establish notability as per WP:COMPANY or WP:NOTABILITY. This is apparent if they are reviewed one by one:
Kahn, David (May 1994). "Shakespeare's Twelfth Night or What You Will. (E-book Review)". Theatre Journal (Johns Hopkins University Press).
From the information available online this appears to be a review of a CD ROM 'directed' by Graham Howard, one of the individuals associated with "Art of Memory (Company)". This is clearly a reference to a product produced by the company. This press is not 'about' the company, and hence does not constitute non-trivial, non-incidental coverage of the company.
Nonnecke, Blair; Jacques Richard; McKerlie Diane and Preece Jenny (1995). "Video-based hypermedia: guiding design with users' questions". New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia (Taylor & Francis) 1 (1): 185-187.
As I have already pointed out, this article is about "Video-based hypermedia" and therefore is not an article about the company in question. Again we have here an incidental reference (if that, as I cannot verify the content beyond the summary provided).
Dexter Lord, Gail (1997). "Visible storage at the Glass Gallery of the Victoria and Albert Museum, London". The manual of museum management (Rowman Altamira): 137. ISBN 075910249X.
This title is available through Google books, but the page on which the content appears is restricted for preview viewing. But it is clear that this is a book about contemporary strategies in museum management. Here we see that incidental reference is made in the manual to the company, and it is overwhelmingly likely that this reference is made in the context of brief mention of a product for which they are responsible (if the company, rather than the product, is mentioned at all...).
Watson, Oliver (1997). "The Story of Glass". Computers and the history of art (Routledge) 7. ISBN 9789057550447
As I have already pointed out, this article, is not about "Art of Memory" (the company) either. It is again about the product, "The Story of Glass". Furthermore, this article was written by "Oliver Watson, the curator of Ceramics & Glass" at the V&A, under whose supervision the "interactive media product" was created. This would appear to call into question the independence of this secondary source.
Bernier, Roxane (2003). USABILITY OF INTERACTIVE COMPUTERS IN EXHIBITIONS: DESIGNING KNOWLEDGEABLE INFORMATION FOR VISITORS. 28. p. 245 - 272.
Given the title and abstract it seems that this article is also not about the company, nor is it about one of its products (though it seems likely a product is mentioned briefly). This is a particularly misleading citation because it shows the page numbers for the entire article which appears in a journal (pp 245-272), yet the entire article is not about the company. Here again an incidental mention in a highly-specialized journal.
Beecham, Sarah; Howard, Graham (2006). "The Story Of Glass: Still Really Working 10 Years On" in Museums and the web 2006. Museums and the Web 2006: Proceedings.
As I have already mentioned, this source is not acceptable as a way of establishing notability. This material was produced by two of the people working in the company: Graham Howard and Sarah Beecham (the former noted in this article as a founder, the latter indicated here [[49]] as the Director of "Art of Memory" (the company)). As specified at WP:COMPANY "Press releases; autobiographies; advertising for the company, corporation, organization, or group; and other works where the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself—whether published by the company, corporation, organization, or group itself, or re-printed by other people." are not acceptable as secondary sources. Also, as stated "Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." [emphasis added]
Crawford, Alan (January 2006). "A new Arts and Crafts Museum". Apollo Magazine.
The full paragraph that includes mention of the company in this source is as follows:
"Most museum displays consist of objects from their own collections. But the Trust cannot furnish this exhibition from its own collections and hope to do justice to the story. So the permanent exhibition at Court Barn will consist, probably for some years, partly of objects owned by the Trust and partly of loans from other museums and private owners (Fig. 7). In this connection, and in many other ways, Cheltenham Art Gallery and Museum, with its fine Arts and Crafts collections, has been unfailingly helpful. The exhibition is being designed by Gareth Hoskins Architects, a young, award-winning, Glasgow firm who were responsible for the new Architecture Gallery at the V&A, and have recently been appointed to carry out a multi-million-pound scheme at the Royal Scottish Museum in Chambers Street, Edinburgh. Court Barn may seem like small beer for this team, but they like the feel of the project. Digital collections-management is being designed by System Simulation, and the interactives and website will be by Art of Memory, based in Campden."
The last sentence of this paragraph is an exemplary instance of incidental mention.
"Chinese ceramics". Design Week. 15 November 2001
This source is only available to online subscribers. I do not have access to it, but given the title of the article it seems likely that it will include a mention of the fact that the company produced a kiosk system for the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art.
There is no doubt that this company exists, and that it has produced interactive materials in a niche market, and that passing or incidental mention of the work they have produced has made it into specialized publications. It seems entirely clear to me that this company does not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Once again, from WP:NOTABILITY ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". And yet here NOT ONE of the sources mentioned address the subject directly or in detail. Instead we have a (small) collection of incidental references to products or projects the company has worked on. These citations support statements about products or projects. Many editors working here could produce dozens of similar incidental references to work they have done that have appeared in trade-specific publications (I know I can), but that would not establish their notability, nor would it justify their creation of a Wikipedia article about themselves. How is this any different? --Picatrix (talk) 15:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Posting citations in support of individual sentences such as "Art of Memory has produced work for System Simulation Ltd including the gallery kiosk system at the Percival David Foundation of Chinese Art." is not the same thing as posting citations that establish notability.

Wikipedia's notability guidelines are particularly important in the case of articles about business entities providing commercial services, especially when the articles associated with these companies are basically a list of products they have created together with a link to the company website, as is the case here.

According to WP:SPAM "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website." and "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." [emphasis added] ' --Picatrix (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! What do you do when something really pisses you off? Don't you think this is getting a little needlessly messianic?Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pissed off at all, but if I were, and if I had chosen the name of a (Welsh) saint as my username I wouldn't be calling other people "messianic" for making constructive suggestions. Chipping Campden, where the company is located, is quite close to Wales isn't it? In any case we have here an instance of what I call a "suckerfish" (i.e. Remora) scam. The suckerfish ploy is a common branding strategy whereby a company chooses the name of a known entity or phenomenon and takes over the name in order to have access to immediate "brand equity" (e.g. Fort Knox gun safes, named after Ft. Knox and hence associated with security). It's what happened here with the article "Art of Memory (company)" which used to be the "Art of memory" article (a genuine and notable historical phenomenon). Now whenever a Wikipedia reader goes looking for "Art of Memory" they are likely to pull up this little shill article, which has fastened itself to the underbelly of a real encyclopedic topic. Assuming good faith is not the same thing as ignoring bad faith. I dislike spending time on AfD (a first for me, by the way). I prefer to work on articles and avoid this administrative drag. But I dislike seeing the blatant suckerfish hanging there even more. If you want to discuss this further, I suggest you address any future personal comments similar to the one above to my talk page. Thanks.--Picatrix (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting the comment: I don't participate in AfD's frequently, either, but I do it often enough to remember that analogies are typically not the best way to argue here, and neither are arguments ad hominem. I see no point in outlining why the article has been created or by whom. Having said that, I found my logic quite standard - The policy says the product should be covered under the company. The installation is a product of the company. Therefore, the installation should be covered under the company. That's a syllogism, and I'm afraid I cannot make it clearer than that. Your claim that the company is the producer of the installation only as much as a copy shop is the producer of literature would of course invalidate my argument - but can you back that up with facts? As for the merging options: your verdict was "delete", that means "nothing salvageable in this article". If it can be merged, go ahead. --Pgallert (talk) 10:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ad hominem arguments are generally considered to be those made against a person. In this case I have not attacked a person rather than addressing the substance of the main line of argument. Instead, I have used the attested actions and relationships of the editor responsible for creating the article as an illustration intended to show that this non-notable content is more likely than not spam. As you appear to favor a reasoned approach with structure I provide you with the following:

1. We are discussing a Wikipedia article about a multimedia company for which secondary sources establishing notability are wanting. You yourself have indicated that you feel the company itself is non-notable ("policy does not cover the possibility of a non-notable company producing a notable product").
2. An article for a non-notable company which includes a link to the company's commercial website and a few non-informative PR factoids is likely to be spam. Spam is unwelcome here.
3. Notability determines whether or not the article stays, goes or is modified. The spam issue determines how it stays, goes or is modified.

The discussion here is foremost about notability, and secondarily about spam. In many cases where spam is present, it is simple enough to remove the particular spam content. In this case we are dealing with an entire article which serves as search engine ranking spam, and as a "suckerfish". In such a case the notability and the spam issue become intertwined. Spam of whatever variety is advertising. And Wiki policy regarding advertising is as follows: "Advertising is prohibited as an official Wikipedia policy."
I would submit to you that Wikipedia policy does not explicitly cover non-notable companies creating notable content because the solution is refreshingly simple: move the information about the notable product to an appropriate article or section, such as the ones dealing with exhibitions and installations I mentioned above. Precisely the same section about products and services being included in the articles about the company itself that you enjoy leaning so heavily upon notes: "If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services." You will note, I trust, that here there is no mandate that the content go into an article about the company, only that it be included in an article that deals with "all the company's products and services". Articles about museum installations, interactive exhibitions or multimedia in general would seem to conform to this guideline.
To be precise I claimed that a company producing installations is analogous to a publisher producing books or a production company producing films. I said nothing about a copy shop my friend, and I suspect that any reasonable reader would find my analogy to be useful and accurate. Analogies can be quite useful, and I stand by the one I have presented in this case. Multimedia projects, like films, go through planning, production and post-production phases, often involve identical stages (e.g. storyboards, VO, animation, green screen, compression, etc.) and are in the end distributed as digital media.
You, on the other hand, based on a selective and partial interpretation of one guideline, suggest that one of this company's particular products (the only one with multiple citations is "The Story of Glass") is sufficient to establish the article about the company as worthwhile content that should be included in Wikipedia, problems with notability and spam notwithstanding. This sounds rather circular, and an argument for a kind of 'statutory notability' ex nihilo is as amusing as it is surprising coming from someone who favors terms like "syllogism" and "ad hominem".
As for merging content vs. deletion I stand by the vote for deletion. I'm not going to go to the trouble of taking these citations and using them to generate encyclopedic content, followed by the work involved in incorporating it into an existing article or creating an appropriate one. It is important to note that there is currently no content that would be worth incorporating into any other article. The material currently on the page reads like a PR bullet list. I have simply stated that if there are editors who feel strongly that removing a spam article with a couple of short sentences about museum installations will lead to a gaping hole appearing in the edifice of human knowledge, they can address this potential problem by adding mention of these installations in an appropriate article or section. However, at the moment we have only citations that would support the creation of such content. It's not there on the page now.--Picatrix (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before I finally walk away from this conversation - I trust we both have made our points clear at this time - let me mention that
  • The paragraph you quote from the policy directly follows the paragraph I quote. This indicates to me that my quote describes the general rule whereas your quote describes cases where the general rule does not apply. For if that wasn't so, the policy would be contradictory which someone else would have spotted before we do.
  • A remark like "Cantingle (talk · contribs) appeared out of nowhere when I first nominated [...]" (author's emphasis) is a fine example of an ad hominem argument, even if your implicit accusation of puppetry was true.
  • The producer/creator/maker of a book is its author, and not its publisher, because in the case of a book it touches intellectual achievement more than material one. An arts installation likewise is an intellectual product rather than a material one. That's why I claim your analogies are lame, and that's why I put another lame analogy (the copy shop) to illustrate my point.
  • And finally, deletion discussions like this one cover whether the article asserts notability, and whether or not the sources back this assertion, common viewpoints like "Subject not notable" notwithstanding. Now this article asserts notability via one of the company products, and that is why we should discuss the notability of the product rather than that of the company - But this might well be my minority view of how to interpret the WP:N policy.
--Pgallert (talk) 11:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC), inviting further philosophical discussions on my talk page.[reply]
Thanks for sharing these details. As you address points pertinent to the AfD discussion I'll respond here, rather than on your talk page.
The paragraph I quote does immediately follow the one you quoted. If you here have recourse to the argument that generalities trump particulars, I direct your attention to the over-arching Wikipedia policy regarding notability, which would certainly trump the specific instructions you believe apply in this case. The guiding general notability policy would seem to be of more importance than the particular guideline that products should, if possible, be discussed within the articles relating to the companies that produced them. My own opinion is that a notable product (if indeed it is notable) deserves its own article, in which case the main notability guidelines are adhered to (i.e. non-notable content does not creep in under cover of notable content). If instead, in this specific instance, we follow the guideline that products should be discussed in articles related to companies that produced them, and attempt to 'transfer' notability in this fashion, we still end up with an article devoted to a non-notable company. In one case we don't have a problem with non-notable content in the encyclopedia. In the other, we do.
The remark about Cantingle was not intended as an argument for deleting the article, and hence is not an ad hominem argument. I simply observed that this fortuitous and unexpected arrival was perhaps a sign from the heavens that the time had come to create an article that usefully addresses interactive museum installations, in which "The Story of Glass" could perhaps receive mention. I believe that this is clear from the sentence immediately following the one you reference. While there is an implicit suggestion that something might be odd about this sudden appearance and defense of a non-notable article, the point was not to make an ad hominem attack, but rather to suggest that someone with a spontaneous impulse to defend (what I feel is) a crass PR piece must care about interactive museum installations quite a bit, and so might instead devote their attention to writing an article that could be useful and informative, and which could contain the potentially notable content. Then we could actually say "good on Cantingle" without it sounding like a shill quip. In the end the products in question could be mentioned in a context that means something, and, more importantly, the article would not be a waste of the general reader's time. Cheers! --Picatrix (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to me that the only credible assertions of notability come from the single software product. Common sense dictates then that company information would be mentioned on a product article, not rather than transfer the notability to the company when there is not really much else to write an article about. Dominic·t 11:16, 4 June 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. Here the arguments to retain ranged from there being little information because the realtionship is young (which suggests supporting the postion of those seeking the article's deletion), WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and "it's just notable" with some spurious and unspecified notability standard that is apparently below WP:N. These are not valid arguments for retention. I must comment, however, and say that I share DGG's apparent frustration that these things are still coming to AfD at all whilst there are ongoing efforts to merge the material to more suitable locations. What we end up with is inconsistency, where some of these are kept and some deleted - in this case, consensus favours deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 09:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Spain relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

significant lack of coverage of these 2 nations relations except on the football and hockey field. [50]. A search of the Azerbaijan foreign ministry reveals close to nothing on Spain. Existence of embassy is already covered in List of diplomatic missions of Azerbaijan. LibStar (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that's a primary source. all nice "we will cooperate" type statements but how about some decent trade or perhaps trade agreements? LibStar (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"--not in anything cited in the article or used as an WP:EL, nor in my own searches of the wider internet--therefore WP should not have on article on the topic of Azerbaijan–Spain relations. (Note: If someone can dig up sources that establish notability as defined above I'd not hesitate to change my !vote to !keep). The actual facts discussed in this article could be covered in WP--perhaps at Foreign relations of Spain and/or Foreign relations of Azerbaijan--just not in a standalone article. And primary/non-independent sources are fine for verifying those facts, just not for establishing notability. Yilloslime TC 03:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia but an almanac and a gazetteer. Almanac and gazetteer entries don't have the same standard for notability as, say, a biography. While my grandmom wouldn't meet the notability standards for inclusion in the encyclopedia portion, every township is included in the gazetteer portion. All almanac entries should be included too. Almanac entries and gazetteer entries are Wikipedia Pillars. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments should be avoided. the above argument does not address in anyway how WP:N is met. LibStar (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article under discussion has had new information added that addresses concerns raised in this AFD at this point in the discussion.
There is no restriction against using autobiographies or other dependent media for verifiability. A self published biography may not make you notable, but it is verifiable. The Obama article uses his autobiography extensively. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have done likewise and concur. In fact, these misguided "rescue" attempts lead to a worse article than the one originally nomed, since it amounts to a group of disparate "citations" that don't address the topic of the article, but are dressed up as if they address the topic of the article (or, in other cases, are primary etc...)Bali ultimate (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree with the above 2 comments, edits like this [52], reflect desperate attempts to put anything in the article as long as it mentions the 2 countries. LibStar (talk) 08:41, 8 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory McMillion

[edit]
Gregory McMillion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
There should be articles on the general topic of wartime looting and on that which took place in Iraq. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:42, 2 June 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. GNG requires coverage in multiple RS - consensus favours deletion given the wekaness of arguments for retention Fritzpoll (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azerbaijan–Serbia relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination with non resident embassies. Serbian foreign ministry lists bilateral relations for about 80 countries but not Azerbaijan. Only relations seem on the football field [53]. would oppose redirect as there appears to be no relationship. not really rescuable. LibStar (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that is ridiculous, you can't stop a nomination because of that, you better post that same comment on the 100s of articles that go up for deletion everyday, in almost all cases the creator is never notified. LibStar (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Keep is based on the substance of Stepopen's source. My comment that you haven't notified the creator of this article is based on wikipedia's WP:CIVIL policy as we have discussed on our talk pages. If you want to earn some brownie points in my book, you still have time to notify User:Turkish Flame of this discussion per my suggestion based on the above mentioned policy.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Human rights in Estonia. Many conflicting arguments of varying merit in this discussion. The key deletion argument is WP:POVFORK, which hinges on both the title of the article and its contents. The arguments for retention don't focus on this, although they address it occasionally - instead there are arguments that it is verifiable from sources, that other articles like this exist (which is not a satisfactory argument for retention) ot that all the issues are cleanup issues. There appears to evidence of canvassing the debate as well, which muddies the waters somewhat. Ultimately, the balance of the arguments indicates a consensus that this article not exist in its current form on Wikipedia. That leaves me two options: merge/redirect or outright deletion. Deletion policy indicates that I should merge/redirect in order to preserve content - this close is therefore merge and redirect to bulk out the small amount of content at Human rights in Estonia#Allegations of discrimination. A redirect must be left for GFDL attribution preservation. I know this close will not please some of you - feel free to discuss this with me civilly at my talk page. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a pure content fork of History_of_Russians_in_Estonia#Allegations_of_discrimination and Anti-Russian_sentiment#Baltic_states, containing identical content as those mentioned sections. It is a POV fork created and supported by a number of Russian nationalist editors, as the title asserts discrimination as a fact when it is at most an allegation, and cherry picking of sources and text from the two articles mentioned to support that POV. As can be seen in the following search, this is the only article within Wikipedia prefixed with "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in ....". Martintg (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Estonia is such an egalitarian society that it discriminates everybody equally. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 05:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. You perfectly know what did PasswordUsername mean. There is discrimination not against Russians only, but against other Russophone ethnic minorities, too. FeelSunny (talk) 09:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far the only reference to a cited report based on institutional findings without a hyperlink is for the statement that "The European Commission conducted close monitoring of Estonia in 2000 and concluded that there is no evidence that these minorities are subject to discrimination." PasswordUsername (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow it does not surprise me. FeelSunny (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your last post with "needs to be reprimanded" towards me looks much more like intimidation than my "continuing games perfectly deserve some attention from the administrators". I would advise you to practice what you preach. On your "strangely enough, the article does not mention the discrimination of Setos, Jews, Tatars, Finns, Latvians" - feel free to add this information, if you find a source describing it. As to the other accusations of your post - would you please provide examples? FeelSunny (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure more than a few of Setos would happily claim that the fact that Estonia signed a new border treaty with Russia without insisting that Petseri/Pechora be returned to Estonia under the Tartu Peace Treaty is a case of anti-Seto discrimination. After all, the current border does split the historical Seto lands into a Russian side and an Estonian side. And Dajan Ahmet has himself said repeatedly that he wouldn't be allowed to play Vargamäe Andres because of the way he looks -- a clear case of ethnicity-based employment discrimination. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we're on the subject, a Seto reader was published today, after a 80-year pause (source). ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The end of your post reads to me "if you vote delete, you will be banned from Wikipedia". Therefore, it is really hard to fail to see it as a not even thinly veiled attempt to intimidate your content opponents. As for "feel free to add" - kinda hard to do, as I don't seem to have any materials about it. So, I must admit they don't seem to be discriminated against.
Also, speaking of materials - if we create and edit controversial articles such as this, would it please be possible to use both modern materials (not 2005 with studies done in 2001..2002) and also include further comments on sources - for example, the article by James Hughes should not be mentioned without Rejoinder to James Hughes, Amnesty International study was extensively commented by The Economist, UN observations has also Positive aspects with progress made and so forth - excluding those sources and comments makes the article seem to be a classical POVFORK, created to further one's beliefs, which may or may not have anything to do with reality.
And just completely my personal opinion - in articles such as this, we should avoid citing journals and magazines from countries that are not in top 100 of Worldwide Press Freedom Index as a primary source - ie. these should be only as secondary sources, supporting a primary source. -- Sander Säde 14:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply On your "FeelSunny needs to be reprimanded" - would you please explain this first before asking for any answers from me? On your claims about the article: we cite UN, I beleive it's somewhere over any top 100 Freedom Index composed by anyone. We use 2006, 2007 and 2008 sources, from any other state but Estonia and Russia, I dare to mention. Which are perfectly neutral, I dare to add. Again, if you feel the article lacks the opposite POV, feel free to add this. Lack of your favorite POV is absolutely not a reason for deletion, check the WP policy you are citing here and there. Accusations of WP:Forking are wrong, as your own previous post shows how much there is material which is not there in small sections of other articles. Overall, all these flaws in your position and positions of other users of your type show to me just how much does your position towards the matter of the article influences your behaviour towards the article of WP itself. This is definitely beyond any good will borders. PS. Please see Estonian_Jews#The_Holocaust to get something new about the history on discrimination of ethnic minorities in your country. Expanded, this info could also be included in the article. FeelSunny (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article was recently started, it's a day old, it has validly cited sources and is rather well written. The only valid counter-argument I see for deleting it, is that the other side isn't being provided. However those that want it deleted aren't even trying to provide the other side. This article, that has great potential, is trying to be shot down right away, for nothing except POV reasons. It's 1 day old. Give it a month. Provide the other side's viewpoints. And then talk about deleting it. Also, it's similar to this fine article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States. All the arguments used for the deletion of this article, can apply to the US article; but that article was given a chance to thrive, and it turned into a damn good article. Why not give this article a chance? If you can point me to any wikipedia article that was written in a day or in a week, I will bow to that article. So please, give it a chance! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It tells:"The myth of occupation is a form of hate speech against the Russian population in Estonia. The only purpose of this myth is to accuse Russians of being criminals and murderers. This is racist propaganda against the Russian minority.". Nothing POV? Is not this article represents a racist propaganda?Biophys (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. (Igny (talk) 03:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Please note, that the article is still under construction. It was a valid content fork before the material did not really fit into the History of Russians in Estonia and Anti-Russian sentiment as I've explained. And now it has much more material than those two already, so it is a new article and not a fork. If you think it's unbalanced, you are welcome to fix it. It's impossible to get everything right so quickly. The article was taken to AfD a mere hour after it was created. Allow it time to develop, and fix any problems you notice instead of deleting everything. Offliner (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is the equivalent of "Do you still beat your wife", the whole structure of the article is irredeemably biased to a particular view point which is impossible to balance. It is a classic WP:POVFORK. As Biophys said above, an article about Human rights in Estonia would be a more balanced way to cover this topic. --Martintg (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the whole structure of the article is irredeemably biased to a particular view point which is impossible to balance - have you even tried? The structure can be changed. Why not launch a discussion on the talk page instead of just deleting everything? Offliner (talk) 04:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then shouldn't you guys be arguing about changing the title's topic, rather then deleting it? Also, a loaded question is, and must always be, a question. I thought that was implied in the title, loaded question. This article isn't a question. Nothing has been said in the article's discussion page. And yet everyone wants to delete it, without even giving it a chance. Also, how is it a POV fork? Can someone explain that to me? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 04:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When an encyclopædia has an article titled "X", the article's title is the question, and the article's body is the answer. The question is, "What about X?" So, what about you not having stopped beating your wife? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case the UN, Amnesty, and miriad of researchers from Europe and the US tell you that you beat your wife, you'd really better stop beating her. So - no loaded questions, and this discussion all goes to gaming the system again. FeelSunny (talk) 09:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked how it's a POV fork, and you responded with something that's very different! HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly laconic:) FeelSunny (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, not like me at all, I know :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:05, June 3, 2009 (UTC)
The article was created as a rehash of all the same allegations, prominently featuring the Amnesty International report which has been pilloried in the press and a German journalist known to support the Kremlin line. Both without the balancing present in the original article where they also appear, hence POV, hence fork. PetersV       TALK 22:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no. "The Council of Europe has noted that "the Roma community in Estonia is still disproportionately affected by unemployment and discrimination in the field of education."[13] The European Commission conducted close monitoring of Estonia in 2000 and concluded that there is no evidence that these minorities are subject to discrimination.[14]" I haven't seen that allegation anywhere on Wikipedia. In addition to Amnesty International and a certain German Journalist, the article cites UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the UNDP, the Euro-Center for minority issues, the European Center for minority issues, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Dutch Ambassador to Estonia, even the pro-Estonian US Dept. of State. And that's not including the Russian sources, such as Moscow News, Levada Center, Russia Today and RIA News. For instance, not only does this article document the discrimination against Roma, but also the marital violence against women in Estonia and points out that Estonia didn't criminalize marital rape. The article that you are arguing its "forking" from, doesn't contain any of the above mentioned fact. Also, the article is extremely well cited, and if you think the article is POV, put up a neutrality dispute.
Also POV forking requires, and here I qoute Wikipedia: "Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" except in extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing. Instead, apply Wikipedia's policy that requires a neutral point of view: regardless the reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in a neutral point of view. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance, or that its creators mistakenly claimed ownership over it." There have been no extreme cases of persistent disruptive editing here. Nor in the original article by Offliner and FeelSunny. Hence it's not a POV fork according to Wikipedia's very own defenition. Furthermore: "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article; in some cases, editors have even converted existing redirects into content forks. However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as patent nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory." There is no concensus dodging here. In fact the people editing the article are asking for your opinion to come to a concensus. Withholding your side of the story while crying "POV" won't get you anywhere on Wikipedia. We're not Fox News. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like wiki-lawyering to me. People have already mentioned creating an article Human rights in Estonia would be the neutral approach, but this is being ignored. I'm certainly not going to waste my time editing this content fork which basically cherry picks sources to suit the POV being presented. --Martintg (talk) 01:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So when someone else says something logical that you don't agree with, and you cannot offer a rebuttal, you complain about wiki-lawyering? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re "The most blatant POV forks are those which insert consensus-dodging content under a title that should clearly be made a redirect to an existing article" would exactly describe the Anti-Russian sentiment portions and allegations, as I indicated, reproduced sans counterpoint. Anything else is built on a house of POV intentions regardless of whether individual points may have merit. The only thing being withheld the last time I looked is the Baltic side of the story. And I see no point to "un-POV'ing" this by reproducing here what's already needed to be added to Anti-Russian sentiment, one of the sorrier concoctions of WP:SYNTH to be found. PetersV       TALK 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the article, there are sources that talk about discriminating against women and discriminating against the technologically inept "Roma" ethnic group. How's this related to racism in Russia? HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "Racism in Russia since 2000" article. Curious how many people here want to keep that one, but delete this one. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, there is a Racism in Russia during the 2000s article – and, curiously enough, Biophys – 1, Ostap – 2, Διγουρεν (all in favor of deleting Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia) have contributed to it without any deletion nominations. Anyway, I'm personally for changing Racism in Russia during the 2000s to Racism in Russia (it's now just a redirect to the former) – let's expand that one as well. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a title like Racism in Russia is not a judgmental title as there may or may not be racism in Russia, unlike the alleged discrimination in Estonia. After all, what this is all about, some Russian chauvinists still think that the only language in the region that everybody should speak should be Russian. And the requirement to learn Estonian in case you want to have a job in the public sector is considered discriminating. The irony is, most of the Russians in Estonia speak Estonian fluently already. But the Kremlin crowd keeps playing the old and outdated record at the time when the EU has not found any pattern of discrimination in Estonia.--Termer (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, "allegations of.." anything should simply be a section in a "History of X in Y" article, e.g., History of Russians in Estonia, History of Roma peoples in Estonia, History of women's rights in Estonia, et al. That the article title is the only such article I am aware of that does not start with "Allegations of" screams POV. PetersV       TALK 14:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why simply rename if the topic is notable? Discrimination is the key point here: the phenomenon may or may not fit into the human rights-related articles, depending on the criteria – just as Wikipedia already has separate articles for Racism in the United States and Racism in Russia during the 2000s. (I can understand that Estonian editors might have reservations about the topic, but the solution is to help work on the material in order to fix its perceived flaws, rather than go into pretending that racism or discrimination in Estonia do not exist.) However, I agree that Estonia needs its own human rights article. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand feelings every Estonian editor on this page. I myself feel ashamed because of those neofashist groups acting in my country. However, the difference is: in Russia you will never see an institutionalized discrimination. This is the point of this article: there is a discrimination on the linguistical level in Estonia. Because if you are born in the country, and live there for 40 years, and then one day you become a non-citizen because you speak the wrong language - this is discrimination. You do not need to speak English to be a US citizen, neither Russian to be a Russian one, but it's not the case with Estonia. Be born in France, and live there for 6 years, and you get a citizenship. Even if your father came from Mozambique illegaly. But in Estonia, if your grand-grand father wasn't there in 1939, and you have lived in Estonia for 25 in 2001, you still need to prove you deserve the privelege (not a right) of getting a citizenship. And you definitely do not, if you do not speak Estonian. Does that sound at least a little bit disturbing to all those Estonian citizens on board? FeelSunny (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DEL#REASON, content forking is a valid reason for deletion regardless of notability and verifiability. That aside, discrimination against foreign citizens and non-citizens is a normal thingTM and exists in every single country (otherwise the notion of citizenship doesn't make sense), discrimination against foreign languages is also widespread, though it is not universal. How many secondary schools in Russia provide state-funded education in Estonian? How many bureaucrats in Russia will handle requests in English, let alone Estonian? Are foreigners able to take part in the government in Russia? I guess, unlike in Estonia, in Russia they are unable even to vote in local elections. And discrimination against the Romani community may not be a good thing, but is certainly much more pronounced elsewhere. There is nothing notable here except for the dangerous size of the alien community, thanks to the Soviet policies of the past (and, as many sources confirm, this - rather than some perceived racism - is precisely the reason why Latvia and Estonia, unlike Lithuania, haven't granted them citizenship automatically, although their naturalization laws are still fairly liberal for a European nation). But (1) this is already covered elsewhere (2) it is not clear whether it has much to do with ethnicity. But this is not a forum. Ethnic minorities in Estonia would be almost ok (unlike the current loaded title), but many sources say about language minorities and foreign citizens/non-citizens rather than ethnic minorities, so Human rights in Estonia, properly balanced, is the best solution. And I am not an Estonian editor, as you know perfectly well. Sincerely, Traitor of the Motherland, a.k.a. Colchicum (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"because of those neofashist groups acting in my country" - sorry, what country are you talking about exactly? Estonia has a handful of skinheads and some imported fascists (Johann Bäckman's friend and a translator of his books, Risto Teinonen, for example). However, we have a neighbouring country that can is a proud home of more than half neonazis in the world. So... sorry, Estonia really does not have nazis. Never had and I seriously doubt we ever will, as nazis are as disliked as communists here. -- Sander Säde 20:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colchicum - didn't you really understand the main point of my last message? Discrimination is when you in 25 get a non citizen status when half of your school class get the citizen status automatically at the same day. Can you give me another example of such a country?
Sander Säde, don't get started, I was talking about Russia, not Estonia. FeelSunny (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, sorry, my bad - was too sleepy. Where is Suva with the coffee when you need him? -- Sander Säde 21:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE:FeelSunnyDiscrimination is when you in 25 get a non citizen status when half of your school class get the citizen status automatically at the same day. Can you give me another example of such a country? Any country in the world. If you're foreigner/immigrant you need to apply for the residence permit/citizenship of the country you'd like to live in. And all Soviet time immigrants in Estonia were eligible for the Russian citizenship as well. So it has always been up to everybody themselves, either apply for the Estonian or Russian citizenship. Just that why to bring such personal dilemmas to wikipedia and why to call this "discrimination", that everybody needs to choose their citizenship according to their free will, I have no idea.--Termer (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are some Third World countries that don't find immigration much of a problem. Unfortunately, these are generally countries that very few people would want to immigrate into in the first place. And even if you can vote in such a place, you can bet that the vote doesn't count for much. I sincerely hope FeelSunny wasn't saying that Estonia is such a Third World country. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope you do not think 8 % of Estonian non-citizen population are immigrants? FeelSunny (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not about what I think. The 8 % of the "Estonian non-citizen" = citizen of the former Soviet Union who moved to Estonia during the Soviet occupation and their descendants are immigrants according to the Estonian nationality law that is based on the principle of jus sanguinis that's common in Europe. Since the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, those ex-Soviet citizens would need to choose a citizenship of any existing country including Estonia, Russia etc. and apply for it according to the relevant existing citizenship laws. Again, why are such personal dilemmas like choosing a citizenship brought to Wikipedia remains an unanswered question.--Termer (talk) 12:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The text you linked includes "the point-of-view subject is presented neutrally". This article is anything but neutral. Please see WP:POVFORK. -- Sander Säde 21:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please give one example of a non-neutral presentation of a source. FeelSunny (talk) 09:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the sources given above. Even in this discussion there are at least four sources presenting opposite POV/criticism to the sources that article uses. And no, before you tell me to add those, this is not my duty. It is the duty of the editors of the article to make sure the topic is covered according to the NPOV principle. Right now all the sources in the article are cherry-picked to represent a certain POV. -- Sander Säde 09:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you de-POV a POV fork then ... you get back the original, in which case there is no reason for the ex-POV-fork to exist. Which is why POV forks are to be deleted.radek (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much sums it up, which is why I suggest deletion of this and creation of an appropriate article (suggested by others as well). PetersV       TALK 15:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks FeelSunny for taking the time and making it so clear that "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" needs to be redirected to Human Rights in Estonia, exactly like the examples given by you all redirect to appropriate articles.--Termer (talk) 13:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, examples provided clearly demonstrate that such article titles aren't used in wikipedia.--Staberinde (talk) 13:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think I'll continue then. Category:Discrimination in the United States, Category:Racism in the United States, Stereotypes of East Asians in the United States, Stereotypes of Arabs and Muslims, Stereotypes of Native Americans, Sexism in India, Ethnic issues in Japan, Anti-Bihari sentiment in India, Fascism in New Zealand, Radical nationalism in Russia (eh, a clone of the Racism in Russia during the 2000s?? - well, big country, two articles, huh?), Fascism in Canada, Racism and discrimination in Ukraine, Male–female income disparity in the United States, etc. So, we can imply there exists gender and ethnic discrimination in India, fascism in New Zealand, Canada, Russia, rascism in Ukraine, rascism, discrimination and gender inequality in the US - but we may not tell there exists a discrimination in Estonia, when EU says the Estonian law on citizenship is unprecedented (excluding Latvia's). How come Estonia is so different from all other nations? FeelSunny (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(discussion moved to the talk page)


And why all of the sudden do we move the conversation away from the AfD? I think it's quite clear based on this latest exchange that "Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia" is both POV in scope and an invitation to WP:COATRACK, while the appropriate article is "Human Rights in Estonia" which starts out with a history of human rights in Estonia (I think we can agree to limit this from independence on), then can include a section on current alleged misdeeds and current suggestions for perceived needs for improvement (both point and counterpoint as appropriate). I would consider this issue settled. I would NOT rename this article to Human Rights in Estonia. I suggest this article be deleted per original nom and the appropriate article be created from scratch. I am sure those wishing to contribute to allegations of inappropriate acts by the Estonian authorities or Estonian society will recreate their content, hopefully this time with the appropriate reputable opposing viewpoints as well. PetersV       TALK 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your logic - just delete the article you do not like. Delete, not merge, and then start from scratch. Guess what? WP saves all the changes, so no "from scratch" is really possible. FeelSunny (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights in Estonia created. Peltimikko (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Human rights.." indeed covers much wider ground and would include also alternative opinions on the subject like for example according to Country Report on Human Rights Practices in Estonia: "The government generally respected the human rights of citizens and the large ethnic Russian noncitizen community". "Human rights.." would also cover for example Russification of Estonia [56], [57], Discrimination of Estonians [58], Soviet deportations from Estonia not to mention European Court of Human Rights cases on Occupation of Baltic States etc. So perhaps should we keep it simple and have just 2-3 analogue NPOV articles on wikipedia, Discrimination of ethnic minorities in Estonia, Protection of ethnic minorities in Estonia and how about Discrimination of ethnic majority in Estonia etc? Is that going to solve this complex and controversial subject? All suggestions welcome!--Termer (talk) 06:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would indeed welcome median decision: every article which has considerable amount of sources should be here, as a distinct object of consideration. I am quite sure that all this fuzz above is not caused by the wish to clear up WP, and they show it periodically mentioning twin articles on fascism in Russia, etc. FeelSunny (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I got lot of sources saying that Estonia is a fascist country. So, shall we make an article? Please people, the number of sources does not mean that the issue is real. Human rights in Estonia is enough. Peltimikko (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are they sources from Amnesty International, Peltimikko? Human rights organizations and scholars? PasswordUsername (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First of all Amnesty International is a political organization, not a WP:RS by itself, meaning Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources. Since Amnesty International simply currently repeats the statements coming out from Kremlin, it remains to be seen what kind of political agenda is behind it. Goming back to third-party, published sources, there are enough available at google scholar [59] and books [60] that speak about the alleged discrimination in Estonia. So once it's cited as "allaged discrimination" by such sources, how exactly is this article getting even close to WP:NPOV?--Termer (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS.Here are some citations giving an an alternative perspective Immigration and emigration in historical perspective By Ann Katherine Isaacs, p 188 :

The question of alleged discrimination of the Russian-speaking population in the newly independent Baltic countries has served as a pretext to try to lock the region within a Russian sphere of influence...Russian hopes of maintaining direct control over the baltic states proved ineffective. At the same time Moscow's atemts to take political advantage of the issue of the Russophone minority were successful. Russia used virtually every international forum to present its claims of the violations of human rights in Estonia and Latvia etc.


--Termer (talk) 20:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
[reply]
As of the creation of Human rights in Estonia this is now a double fork (and POV on top). I've suggested quick delete to get this over with. As for Russophobia, it inappropriately redirects to Anti-Russian sentiment--I've already discussed there the need to separate Russophobia and Allegations of anti-Russian sentiment into their own articles to eliminate the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH conflating two distinct subjects. PetersV       TALK 21:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time for quick delete

[edit]

As Human rights in Estonia has already been created, an appropriate subject (and with the same allegations included as part of content critical of Estonia), I move this AfD go to quick delete. PetersV       TALK 18:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO!! Why are we still arguing about whether or not to keep the article? PetersV       TALK 21:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess not matter how loud you scream, it is time for another quick no consensus. (Igny (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
This discussion hasn't even gone on for a week. People are coming up with ideas on how to save and/or merge the article, on how to improve it, on how to have it served Wikipedia's community better. We don't move at the speed of light, we're not paid. I remember a discussion lasting a whole month. And you want this done in a week. It's not Stalin's five year plan to be completed in four years. A month of discussion is more than reasonable. HistoricWarrior007 (talk) 08:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may be a hard decision for an admin. I would keep the article to keep the edit history. And you can have your way by building a consensus to make it a redirect to whatever you want. (Igny (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Sure it's sourced, but all POVFORKS are. The problem is that the central notion defined by the title is not a widely held viewpoint, but viewpoint that is contested in the literature. This article cherry picks only those sources that support the claim of discrimination while ignoring other sources that provide a rebuttal. --Martintg (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You just suggested a way how to improve it. Just add your sources with rebuttals. (Igny (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
why do you doubt it? Again, there are conflicting verifiable perspectives on the subject as evidenced by reliable sources. Please see the sources cited above, lets say the publication by European Network of Excellence, the cliohres.net -a Sixth Framework Programme Network of Excellence organized by a group of 45 universities. [61].--Termer (talk) 12:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the United Nations said it exists? The United Nations Human Rights Council 48th Session Documents on Estonia: Report on the situation of human rights in Estonia and Latvia: Although the members of the Mission found no evidence of discrimination along ethnic or religious grounds, it confirmed the impression of prior observers that there is, on the part of the Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian communities, considerable anxiety about the future...--Termer (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also both the OSCE mission in Estonia and the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities have have declared that they cannot find a pattern of human rights violations or abuses in Estonia. This is also the view of European Centre for Minority Issues. But you wouldn't know it by reading this article. That's how POVFORKS work. --Martintg (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also adding all the relevant opinions, rebuttals and alternative views is how improving WP articles works. You would not improve this article by deleting it. (Igny (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
It is a waste of time attempting to NPOV a POVFORK, as can it never achieve the required level of balance, that is why POVFORKS are deleted. --Martintg (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come I provide sources from 2004-2006 where they say discrimination exists, and you provide 1 link for both UN, AI and others, and then it's from 1993 anyway? Is it the way you understand verifiability? Then you're wrong. FeelSunny (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The latest 17/03/2008 United Nations Human Rights Council Report of the Special Rapporteu says under the "Views of the Russian-speaking community" (The POV of the Estonian Russians) that the most important form of discrimination in Estonia is not ethnic, but rather language-based.
ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT OF THE SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR says: (the POV of the United Nations Human Rights Council report) that The Special Rapporteur noted the existence of political will by State authorities to fight the expressions of racism and discrimination in Estonia. Estonia, particularly through historical interactions with its neighbours, also developed a tradition of tolerance, multiculturalism and openness that still permeates Estonian society. Despite the existence of scars from the more recent historical experience of the Second World War, this tradition of tolerance and multiculturalism needs to be strengthened in the deployment of efforts to eradicate racism and discrimination.
And regarding the Rome people Despite its small size, the Roma community in Estonia, as in most European countries, suffers from stigmatization and structural discrimination that manifests specifically in the realms of education, employment and cultural stereotypes.--Termer (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) MacMedtalkstalk 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails both WP:PROF and the mention of swine flu is only one event. MacMedtalkstalk 03:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is embarrassing to have this listed here. I hope a tabloid or blogger doesn't pick up on it as evidence of how the encyclopedia functions. Drawn Some (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunzoo studios inc

[edit]
Sunzoo studios inc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company (only 600 ghits [62] (mostly self-promotion and corp linklists) and 2 gnews [63]). Smells like advertising (original poster name matched company name). Has been cleaned up and inappropriate EL have been removed, but still not notable.    7   talk Δ |   02:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It sure looks unnecessary and self-serving to me. -- Aatrek / TALK 15:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Power Pad . Fritzpoll (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT, non-notable software from a non-notable company. Gigs (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self-referencing movie

[edit]
Self-referencing movie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This one appears to be veering too much into WP:DICDEF territory, compounded by not meeting WP:RS standards. The list itself seems extremely incomplete, too. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only is it like a definition, it almost seems to be a made up term. It's a movie that has a character say the title. Aren't 2/3s of movies named after a quote from it anyway? Yeah, in Forrest Gump someone says the title character's name. This is nothing unique whatsoever. Reywas92Talk 02:23, 1 June 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. If people think a merge is best, let that be an editorial decision outside of AfD - there is no consensus for anything here Fritzpoll (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article doesn't make any sense, and is completely original research. It doesn't even meet with criteria that would make a Wikipedia article decent. Below are reasons--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3:

A article that respects the fact that Wikipedia is a high-quality online encyclopedia should meet what criteria is above. It only meets one out of six major reasons. Therefore, it shouldn't be an article.--Jonah Ray Cobbs 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)JRC3

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

The result was merge to Pantheism. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Naturalistic was trying to nominate this but wasn't completing the process properly. I have let this user know. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 01:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not only devoid of all sources, but is completely misleading and inaccurate. Naturalistic (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The 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. Firstly, the article isn't advertising. Other delete !votes are generally around whether this article has room to grow. I think the added article in the bibliography indicates that it is very likely that there are many sources about this topic; academics love to study themselves and governments like to study other countries' systems. GedUK  13:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic job market (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-notable list of external websites. Feels like advertising, but I can't tell for which EL.    7   talk Δ |   00:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of 'The Dave Dameshek Show' and 'Dave Dameshek On Demand' Podcasts

[edit]
List of 'The Dave Dameshek Show' and 'Dave Dameshek On Demand' Podcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A list of podcasts recorded by some random local radio personalities, along with links to each episode, would seem to be outside our remit, no? Biruitorul Talk 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of 'Eye of the Sports Guy' and 'B.S. Report' Podcasts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
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. Discoutned multple !votes by one editor, and the arguments for retention are weak - sourcing does not automatically equate to notability, and there is a failure to address the WP:NOT#NEWS issue, which is is actually incorporated into the general notability guideline. The weight of argument thus lends itself to deletion Fritzpoll (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes)

[edit]
Cyprus v Turkey (Attila Olgac Testimony of Alledged 1974 War Crimes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

this is WP:NOTNEWS and has WP:BLP issues; it would be an obvious merge into Attila Olgac but I can't find any info about the person. I've mentioned the episode in a sentence at Civilian casualties and displacements during the Cyprus conflict#Legal challenges, which seems quite sufficient. Rd232 talk 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, assume good faith. Second, the article doesn't explain which Cyprus v Turkey case it relates to, or how. Third, if Olgac had made this statement without retracting it that would be different in terms of notability. The article (from the title on, and the links to it from other articles) does its best to ignore the retraction. Fourth, if Olgac merited his own page (maybe he does, but there don't seem to be English sources) then much of this could be merged to his page (but it would still need to be treated as a retracted statement by an actor on a talk show, not as unretracted "testimony").Rd232 talk 23:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepAt worst, the article requires some attention to correct so-called problems. Objections to this article appear to have no basis, other than to spare Turkish military blushes with regards to a well-sourced and upcoming movement to the EU courts over Attila Olgacs claims. Perhaps, the article would be best fit into a more general article about war crimes in Cyprus committed by all sides, and associated court judgements and international measures. Copperhead331 (talk) 16:22, 3 June 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. Ignored Greenman's non-commented vote. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FrameBuffer UI

[edit]
FrameBuffer UI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom for IP editor: rationale from talk page: i nominated this article for deletion, there is very little information on this software on the web, and no relevant references. all of the references point to pages created by the developer of the software, and therefore it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability criteria, and is probably just self promotion. No opinion myself, due to my lack of knowledge of this subject area. ascidian | talk-to-me 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Greenman (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete the rationale for deleting is this, there are no links to reputable sources, just a freshmeat and a sourceforge page, both of which are assumed to be user created. If there was some writeup on it in a linux magazine or the like, then sweet as, keep. Another point to make is that this article seems to have been around for a while, and had plenty of edits, yet no references at all.119.224.40.127 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 1 June 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. لennavecia 16:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Subject does not meet notability standards for musicians. Article claims RIAA gold record status for a recording, but the only sources that mention this are from his own web site, the web site for his latest recording, or other sites that are word-for-word copies of the same material, or a press release (not reliable). Given that the gold-record statord status is dubious at best, I argue that he does not meet musician notability standards. If someone can find independent verification od the gold-record claims, I'll gladly reconsider. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 19:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:26, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Lights Parade and Festival

[edit]
Christmas_Lights_Parade_and_Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[((subst:FULLPAGENAME))|View AfD]])

This article has absolutely no claims to notability. Its substance should be included in the Beloit, Wisconsin article. --Sift&Winnow 19:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMBY

[edit]
IMBY (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unpopular mapping tool with article based on a very close paraphrase of this blog post. Attempting to search for references would mean too many false positives. Alexius08 (talk) 09:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Art Institute of Charlotte. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Business & Fashion Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page clearly states that this was an earlier name and provides a link to the page with the current name of this institute!! SpacemanSpiff (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noel McCullagh

[edit]
Noel McCullagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable candidate for an election Passportguy (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what exactly does non-notable mean? Barentsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Since it is a person, the implication is that sufficient in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources doesn't exist to satisfy WP:BIO but there are some other ways of meeting notability requirements. Drawn Some (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a selection of the EU-wide articles on this chap and also one from Russia. Does this qualify as notable and how/when does the notice above the page be permitted to take down (or is that something adm do themselves?) not quite sure: love to learn! Barentsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

See here for more info: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. Generally articles stay up for a week to allow time for discussion unless there is obvious consensus on the outcome. During that time the article may be edited and improved. The outcome is based on the merit of the arguments, not by a vote. At the end of the week the discussion will be reviewed and the case closed or re-listed for more discussion. I'll add links at your talk page to important information if it isn't there already. Drawn Some (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone: drawn some and Passportguy. Hey> could you help me out? I'm searching for the function to organise the external links and the references. References: how do I link the text to the references below (like footnoting for a term paper)... ? I can see that there is a function as someone wrote the French version and they have done it on that version. where can I locate the instructions for that? Thanks very much ! Barentsz (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Kane's Water Taxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN corporation, fails WP:CORP Hipocrite (talk) 00:14, 1 June 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. Whilst it is confusing, WP:CREATIVE is an extension of, not a substitute for WP:N. If it meets the latter, the former is irrelevant. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fail WP:Bio/WP:Creative Only one minor independent film to credit, without release. Minor appearance at convention. Only one project project foreshadowed, with no indication will ever be completed. Not evidence of cult following, or interest extending much beyond immediate family. Notability fails. Guidelines see WP:CREATIVE Rotovia (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yerramilli

[edit]
Yerramilli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not clear what this article is actually about. About a surname, about a place, about the temple? Also, no references and no assertion of notability. Prod was removed, so I list it here. Tone 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to have anything useful, this would need a complete rewrite. Keeping it as such is a bad idea. --Tone 12:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 1 June 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. Clear consensus not to have a separate article, but proposed merge target seems to already have sufficient coverage without merging material from here. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starshine Roshell

[edit]
Starshine Roshell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Clear COI-violating BLP fails WP:AUTHOR -- only source given mentions this person in a passing way (mentioned she wore an evening gown at a union function in a gossip column that quickly moved onto other things). Keep Your Skirt On is only in three libraries as far as I can tell from WorldCat, failing standalone book notability guidelines. Real-Life Royalty is in some libraries, but certainly not an important body of work to give author a Wikipedia article, etc. per our standards. Slight argument to be made that the latter book might barely meet standards for an article on its own -- it at least meets some of the initial criteria instead of immediately failing, like the former book, but it looks like it'd be an uphill battle for even that. DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC) DreamGuy (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doce tirada

[edit]
Doce tirada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be notable. Since it's apparently one of several forms of some martial art I would've just merged it but there isn't an article on that and even if there were, is it notable? Sable232 (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

See Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Sysomos. - Dank (push to talk) 17:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some notability, independent coverage. May also increase in notability as sites such as Facebook increasing turn to similar tools in search of profitability Rotovia (talk) 00:44, 1 June 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pi Story

[edit]
Pi Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Short-lived, defunct MMORPG. The article is unclear as to whether it ever even made it out of beta. All references seem to be primary sources (official site, publishers' site, developers' site); there doesn't seem to be much in the way of substantive third-party sources about it. — Gwalla | Talk 22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again that's just a press release entry, even the embedded video is of the closed beta. --WebHamster 12:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article do not appear to adhere to neither Wikipedia:Verifiability nor WP:WEB Nsaa (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dissent. There is somehow around 100 news sources available for the website (add quotes, many of them appear to be unrelated, most in Norwegian), such as this article (English version, now added). Notability is not established by incoming links or the top 100 on Alexa, it is done through published, reliable sources. American Eagle (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: How did you get " quotes " to format in the URL link? I have never been able to get my links to work if they have quotes in it at all, but your's did... American Eagle (talk) 20:59, 1 June 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.
  1. ^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.
  2. ^ Self-promotion, autobiography, and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works should be someone else writing independently about the topic. The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it. Otherwise, someone could give their own topic as much notability as they want by simply expounding on it outside of Wikipedia, which would defeat the purpose of the concept. Also, neutral sources should exist in order to guarantee a neutral article can be written — self-promotion is not neutral (obviously), and self-published sources often are biased if even unintentionally: see Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for discussion of neutrality concerns of such sources. Even non-promotional self-published sources, in the rare cases they may exist, are still not evidence of notability as they do not measure the attention a subject has received by the world at large.
  3. ^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, scientific journals, etc. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
  4. ^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Specifically, several journals publishing the same article within the same geographic region from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works.
  5. ^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations.
  6. ^ Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example, directories and databases, advertisements, announcements columns, and minor news stories are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources.